•
Pop-up
window: Click here for archive of development coverage --
news, maps, photos and more
See
what your neighbors think in Community
Views
Published
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
The
Rancho Murieta Association board of directors voted unanimously
Tuesday night to use the Mutual Benefit Agreement as the
settlement of a lawsuit that goes back a decade.
It's
not clear if the board’s action -- blessing plans
for the final development of Murieta North -- will finally
conclude years of litigation or if it will create more.
The
board characterized its action as a legal necessity. President
Mike Schieberl said little but maintained grim-faced control
over the proceedings, limiting each speaker to five minutes.
Seven
of the eight speakers opposed the MBA in comments that lasted
a half-hour. MBA opponents were applauded by the crowd of
about 60.
In recent
weeks, some community residents have gathered 1,300 signatures
on a petition opposing the build-out plans, principally
opposing hundreds of production homes. The petitioners have
promised to take the fight to the county, which is processing
the first phases of the planned development. There have
been rumblings among some opponents about legal action and
a recall of the board.
At Tuesday's
session, resident Ted Hart criticized the "overwhelming
rush" to sign the MBA and asked why the board had ignored
questions he submitted in a letter. “It’s a
giveaway," he said. "The total control goes to
the Pension Trust Fund to do whatever they want to do.”
Dorothy
Nordeen, a former president of the RMA, said the MBA will
destroy the pastoral beauty of Rancho Murieta. She called
the Letter Agreement a "bad agreement."
The
MBA is the result of almost three years of negotiation among
the RMA, developer Murieta Holdings and the Pension Trust
Fund of the Operating Engineers, owners of the property
in Murieta North that is to be developed.
The MBA started out as a development agreement presented
to the community in outline form over two years ago. Only
recently was it characterized to the community as the way
to settle a lawsuit among the RMA, PTF and other parties.
The
board vote makes the MBA the final settlement of lawsuits
from the 1990s. Until recently, the decade-old lawsuits
settlement, called the Letter Agreement, was only explained
publicly as the “three-way land swap” that would
provide the RMA with ownership of community parks, land
for a community center and other things.
The
Letter Agreement was signed by the RMA in 1997. When it
was made public last month, it became clear the agreement
allows future developers, whether they annex to RMA or not,
to use the community's parks if they contribute to parks
funding.
Rancho
Murieta’s community parks are built with developer
contributions made on a per-lot basis at the time of annexation.
Smaller, matching contributions are paid by RMA members
in their dues.
Director
Elliot Sevier told Tuesday night’s audience the board
has been negotiating to get the same things the petitioners
seek. "We don't want tract housing. ... I don't want
to lose oak trees. ... I don't want to lose open space.
... I don't want to lose wildlife," he said.
He called
the development agreement "the best we can get out
of this” and concluded, “It’s the right
agreement, it’s the right time to do it.”
Director
Pamela Haines characterized the agreement as "a bitter
pill," a sentiment echoed by other directors, and said
she had attempted to get more time before the vote. "I'm
just as disappointed as you are," she said, "but
from everything I've been told it's binding."
On Wednesday,
Candy Chand, one of those working against the MBA, commented
that the organizers of the petition drive expected that
the vote would turn out as it did.
“It
wasn’t a surprise. We all knew that’s exactly
what they were going to do,” she said. “I think
if they had given us two more weeks, we would have drafted
a petition that said specifically, ‘Do not vote for
the MBA.’ That’s what they needed, but, unfortunately,
we didn’t word it that way.” She said taking
the petition to the county was the group’s next goal
and “that was always the plan.”
Murieta
Holdings developers Gerry N. Kamilos and Robert J. Cassano
were heartened by the unanimous vote.
“I
think it’s good that they voted and I think it’s
even better that it was unanimous,” Cassano said Wednesday.
“I think it shows that board has spent 2 ½
years -- not every member of that board but most people
on that board -- looking at this and working with us to
make sure that this plan and what it brings is a benefit
to everybody. It benefits us, it benefits the community.
"I’m
very pleased that we’re able to move forward somewhat
united. Obviously, not everybody in the community wants
the development plan to go forward -- and that’s obvious
from the petitions and what’s going on -- but I think
the majority of the community and the board unanimously
want this to happen.”
“It
really had to be a community decision as we’ve acknowledged
for some time,” Kamilos said. “We would be able
to proceed with or without the MBA in place. It’s
a decision the community has to make … if it wants
the additional benefits and financial commitment that the
MBA has. Certainly the vote from the RMA board has confirmed
that this is the direction the community wants to take.
… It’s encouraging to have this vote behind
us.”
|
|
Who's
who, what's what and a timeline
Here
are the major players and issues in the long-running
development story as well as a timeline of developments:
Pension
Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers Local 3 (PTF):
This pension fund for a union of heavy-equipment
operators began the development of Rancho Murieta
in the late 1960s. It still owns the remaining open
land, including the golf courses. (The Country Club
operates under a long-term lease with the PTF.) McMorgan
& Company of San Francisco, a multi-billion-dollar
investment management company, directs the PTF's investment.
Murieta Holdings: Robert J. Cassano and Gerry
N. Kamilos, acting as development agents for the Pension
Trust Fund.
Mutual Benefit Agreement (MBA): Another name
for the development agreement for the final build-out
of Murieta North. The RMA board negotiated this agreement
for 2 1/2 years before it was made public in October
2002.
Letter Agreement: A 1997 RMA legal settlement
to address debts in the financial collapse of developer
Jack Anderson. The tentative agreement was not made
fully public until December 2002. The board's action
Tuesday night made the MBA's terms the final settlement
of the Letter Agreement.
Timeline
1990-91:
The Parks Committee is created, with representation
from the Rancho Murieta Association, developers and
the Community Services District. Developers pay into
a parks fund (with smaller contributions from the
RMA), and the money is spent according to a master
parks plan. See 2001 story and master plan chart here.
May 1997: A split RMA board privately signs
a tentative agreement with PTF and other parties to
settle litigation around parks and other money owed
in the financial collapse of developer Jack Anderson.
As part of the settlement, the RMA gets title to community
parks properties but agrees to allow developers, whether
annexed to RMA or not, to use community parks if they
pay into the parks fund. This aspect of the agreement
will not be made public for more than five years.
See the agreement here.
March 2000: The RMA board begins meeting
with developer Robert J. Cassano (joined later by
partner Gerry N. Kamilos) about the possibility of
developing the remainder of Rancho Murieta. The board
keeps the talks in executive session and won't publicly
identify the developers, even after their identities
become an open secret in the community.
November 2000: After six months of private
negotiations with the RMA, but still lacking a final
agreement on development, Cassano and Kamilos unveil
their development plans before a standing-room-only
crowd at the Country Club. Their plans call for fewer
homes than allowed by the county's master plan, to
be built over the next decade. See story here.
November 2000: The RMA and developers release
an outline of a development agreement. See outline
here.
December 2000: The developers hold their
first monthly "town hall" meeting, drawing
an overflow crowd to the 2 1/2-hour session. See story
here.
February 2001: The developers give the county
plans for the first two phases of development, Murieta
Hills and the Retreats.
April 2001: Development opponents say they
have gathered signatures of opposition from almost
90 percent of residents near the proposed Murieta
Hills development. See story here.
September 2002: Participants are now calling
the long-negotiated development agreement by a new
name -- Mutual Benefit Agreement. The developers say
it appears construction won't begin in earnest until
2004. See story here.
October 2002: After 2 1/2 years of negotiation,
the RMA releases a 60-page draft of the Mutual Benefit
Agreement. It's not clear whether the RMA plans to
vote on the measure before or after the new board
takes office in about six weeks. See story and full
text here.
November 2002: The RMA says it won't act
immediately on the Mutual Benefit Agreement, at least
partially because the CSD has some questions about
the document. Residents encourage the board to wait
at least 60 to 90 days. See story here.
December 2002: The RMA releases the Letter
Agreement, the 1997 tentative settlement that still
isn't finalized, and says it's the reason the board
worked hard to reach the Mutual Benefit Agreement.
Board President Mike Schieberl says if the board doesn't
sign the MBA, it will have to settle for the lesser
terms of the Letter Agreement. Opponents of the MBA
meet privately with three RMA board members and say
they've got a petition with 1,200 or 1,300 signatures
of residents who oppose the MBA. See story here.
January 2003: RMA board votes to use Mutual
Benefit Agreement as the final settlement of the Letter
Agreement.
|
|
