Ted
Hart, a member of the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned
Citizens Committee, offered comments that apparently swayed
the board.
RMA
won't take part in county talks on Murieta development
Published
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
The
Rancho Murieta Association board of directors on Tuesday
night rejected the county's invitation to participate
in a series of talks about Murieta development issues.
After
almost an hour of discussion at the monthly board
meeting, the directors decided on a 5-2 vote not to
send a representative to next month's sessions.
|
|
According
to the county's plan, a facilitator will lead the talks
in an effort to resolve some of the conflicts about development.
Participants include two county supervisors, North and South
developers, community groups and some individuals.
The
talks were proposed by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
at a land use workshop in November after the supervisors
didn't act on a request made by development opponents
for a moratorium on development and a new master plan.
After
several directors said the RMA couldn't participate
in the talks because of the Mutual Benefit Agreement it
signed with the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers,
owners of the undeveloped land, Director Pamela Haines read
the "consent to development" clause in the document
-- "Rancho Murieta Association endorses and will support
development of the Rancho North Property in a manner that
is consistent with Exhibit H." She then read the section
of Exhibit H that limits development to 1,093 to 1,141 units.
The master plan calls for 2,326 units.
"The
benefit of that deal really was to cut the total number
of build-out units, to allow for more open space (through)
less density," said Director Elliot Sevier. "There
are some of us who think that's a real neat thing.
But our hands are not tied as far as being able to argue
about what the layout of a development plan might be. …
I think we've got some flexibility. …"
"There
are a lot of things involved in the development of Rancho
Murieta that this board cannot stand up and talk about because
of the signed contract with the MBA," argued Director
Dick Cox.
Since
the board is not in agreement about development, some directors
were leaning towards having RMA General Manager Greg Vorster
represent the association at the talks and allowing directors
to attend as part of the public.
It was
Ted Hart, a member of the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned
Citizens Committee, a group that opposes current development
plans, who addressed the board and seemingly turned the
tide.
Hart
said he wanted to clear up for the benefit of new board
members Donni Quinlan and Jack Cooper "misconceptions
about what happened and how (the RMDCCC) came to be."
Hart said previous boards "failed to go out and get
the pulse of the community" while the RMDCCC did through
petitions it circulated.
He explained
that the RMDCCC was formed because its members believe the
RMA was "handcuffed and put in an absolute muzzle"
by the Mutual Benefit Agreement. "We're not
against development," he said. The RMDCCC thought
it would save "everybody a lot of grief and a lot
of time, it would be a wonderful thing" if their group,
the county, and the developers "sat down and talked."
The
plan the county has come up with is not acceptable, Hart
said, because there are too many development entities included
and "we're not going to that meeting with a
stacked deck." The RMDCCC told the county it will
not participate unless it can have six representatives instead
of the two the county proposes for the participating entities.
He added that the facilitator wanted no more than 20 at
the table.
The
RMDCCC doesn't want the RMA, the Community Services
District or the Country Club to participate, although all
three were invited.
Hart
spoke for about 10 minutes. When he finished, Cooper retracted
his earlier comment in favor of having the RMA represented
at the meeting.
Sevier
said the RMA has a fiduciary responsibility to attend. "I
think we have a role to play there." He and Haines
voted against the resolution.
Fiber
system is majority choice in cable survey
Slightly
more than 50 percent of the 813 households that responded
to the recent cable survey want to see the present cable
system replaced with fiber to the home, said Elliot Sevier,
chairman of the Communications Committee. The survey response
represents about 38 percent of the membership, he said.
The
next choice was to sell the system, which came in at 31.5
percent, and the third choice was to do nothing with the
present system, something 9.3 percent opted for.
Five
percent wanted to shut the system down, 2 percent would
rebuild with fiber and coaxial cable, and less than 1 percent
would replace the cable system with wireless.
Sevier
said the Communications Committee viewed the results as
a consensus for the fiber solution. Fiber-to-the-home was
recommended by the RMA's consultant, The Broadband
Group, as "future-proof," since it offers the
most bandwidth and is capable of supporting any applications.
The
direction from the board was to proceed. The next step involves
finalizing the bidding process and putting it to a vote.
Director
Mike Martel was the skeptic of the group, saying he wanted
proof "that's what people want." He proposed
waiting to see how effective the new broadband pricing is
at bringing in customers. But Sevier said there's
no doubt the community is connected to the Internet, based
on a survey the RMA did in 2003.
Off
that survey, Sevier said he thinks the number of DSL users
is probably equal to the number of RMA broadband users,
about 450. In addition, there are dial-up users. Sevier
said it tells him people want services, they have money
to spend, and they want to spend it on home entertainment.
Martel
pointed out the Country Club had two surveys in which the
membership said it would vote to purchase the club, but
the vote failed "when it got down to money."
The
cost of installing a fiber-to-the-home system is estimated
at $5.5 million. The vote would be to assess the membership
$25 a month for 10 years to pay for it. Sevier said 50 percent
of the community's households plus one would need
to approve the measure.
School
site developer open to substantial changes
Wider
streets? A 25-foot setback? Larger lots? "We're
open to that," Brett Hogge, land use manager for River
West Investments, told the board. "Our direction has
changed pretty drastically," he said.
Hogge was talking
about the 14-acre school site on Escuela Drive. In 2003,
River West donated the site to a nonprofit charitable organization
to receive a tax break after deciding the school district
was never going to build a school there. The school district
now plans to build on a property located outside Rancho
Murieta on Stonehouse Road. River West is still involved
in shepherding Escuela project through the county approval
process and will market the property once the map is approved
by the Planning Commission and the county Board of Supervisors.
After discussions
last year with President Paul Gumbinger and General Manager
Greg Vorster, River West made numerous changes to plans
for the site. The goal was to make it "as palatable
as possible" to the RMA to expedite the county approval
process. The number of single-family, detached houses was
reduced from 64 to 39 and custom homes replaced tract houses.
A four-acre park was reinstated. The project would annex
and abide by the CC&Rs.
Hogge attributed
the flexibility in the plan to the fact that River West
no longer owns the property. "We're not looking
at it so much as a developer anymore. … Our obligation
is to get map approval," he said.
While the previous
plan called for access from Stonehouse Road, the revised
plan uses Escuela Drive, within the community.
Even so, Hogge
said the developer for the property will be responsible
for an estimated $800,000 in improvements to Stonehouse
Road where it borders the development. The county would
have imposed a wider scope of repairs if access were off
Stonehouse, instead of Escuela.
The homes would
be subject to RMA architectural control. The developer would
sign the Parks Agreement and pay parks fees for the development
of the community's park facilities.
These commitments
would become conditions on the map for the property's
developer to fulfill.
Nevertheless,
the board viewed the plan warily when it was discussed in
December. In a letter, Hogge asked the board for preliminary
plan approval from the RMA board so the nonprofit organization
could release funds for land planning and engineering in
order to proceed with the revised map and an application
to the RMA for annexation.
The board declined,
and Hogge was asked to appear at this month's meeting
to answer directors' questions.
Director Jack
Cooper asked if the lot size could be increased to a quarter-acre
to conform with neighboring properties. Hogge said that
would cut the number of dwellings in half and suggested
incorporating the park into the lots and reducing the number
of lots to 36. He said the park functions as a buffer between
the development and neighboring homes. If the two were more
compatible, the buffer may not be necessary. He said this
was a solution suggested by Terry Hanson and Tom Brierton,
two Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee
members with whom he had discussed the project.
The directors
reacted favorably to the idea. General Manager Greg Vorster
said the Parks Committee would have to agree to eliminate
the park.
Hogge also agreed
to make the streets in the development wider and establish
a minimum home size of 1,800 square feet at the directors'
request.
Gate
policy released for comment
The
board released the revised gate
policy for public comment at Tuesday's meeting.
The policy calls for different color bar-code tags to identify
non-RMA members. That includes Villas and Murieta Village
residents and Country Club members who don't live
in the community.
The
board would leave the issuing of bar codes to CSD Security.
Director Dick Cox suggested having people fill out an application
for a bar code with the RMA. The CSD would then issue the
bar code.
Director
Mike Martel talked about issuing bar codes to non-resident
contractors and others who would pay a deposit for the bar
code. He said it would help address speeding problems because
the deposit would be forfeited if there were a violation.
Director
Jack Cooper, the head of the Compliance Committee, said
the committee is looking at other ways to control speeding.
Gate/school
access ad hoc committee formed
At the
suggestion of Director Mike Martel, the board combined the
two ad hoc committees it decided to form at last month's
meeting. One committee will consider access issues for the
proposed school on Stonehouse Road and the other committee
will recommend a design for the lane configuration and location
of the new North Gate.
Martel,
Director Dick Cox, and board President Paul Gumbinger are
the three members of the board who will serve on the committee.
Betty Warner, a resident, was also selected. Another member
is expected to be added later.
Martel,
the chairman of the committee, said interim Security Chief
Greg Remson will sit in on the committee to contribute on
operational issues, but won't have a vote. "I
think it's an RMA issue," Martel said.
Cox,
Martel and Warner are on record opposing the closing of
Lago Drive to left turns from the Parkway. Martel also opposes
moving the gate from its present location. All four designs
considered by the previous joint RMA/CSD ad hoc committee
called for the guard structure to be moved up the parkway
to prevent traffic back-ups. The previous committee recommended
the alternative that eliminated the left on Lago.
Cox
remarked that retired Security chief Jim Noller had "a
mega-hang-up" about back-ups at the gate.
The
current RMA board tends to regard backups onto Highway 16
as a CHP problem.
Contracts
