|
•
Pop-up
window: Click here for archive of development coverage --
news, maps, photos and more
See what your neighbors think in Community
Views
Published
Sunday, November 10, 2002
The
Murieta Holdings developers told residents at Thursday’s
“town hall” meeting that their development plans
do not trigger the need for a third entrance to the community
-- a gate at Stonehouse Road and Escuela Drive -- nor are
they obligated to provide a river crossing to connect North
and South Murieta.
Once
again emphasizing the reduction in density their development
plans represent, Robert J. Cassano and Gerry N. Kamilos
told the audience of two dozen that the Escuela gate “isn’t
required” by their developments.
Nevertheless,
the developers have agreed to contribute $75,000 toward
the construction of a gate at Escuela Drive under the pending
Mutual Benefit Agreement. The agreement was negotiated by
Murieta Holdings, the Rancho Murieta Association and the
Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers, owner of
the property to be developed.
The
Rancho Murieta Association would be responsible for building
the gate at Escuela Drive and Stonehouse Road.
Unlike
the developers, the association would not be required to
improve Stonehouse Road if it opens Escuela to Stonehouse
Road because the entrance is part of the original development
plan for the community approved by the county.
A traffic
study commissioned by the Community Services District and
the Rancho Murieta Association indicates there will be major
traffic problems at the North Gate at build-out unless the
Escuela gate is installed.
Murieta
Holdings proposes to add between 1,093 and 1,141 housing
units to Murieta North, essentially doubling the size of
the North.
Kamilos
was asked why there is no provision for a river crossing
in the MBA and repeated the developers’ oft-stated
position.
"It's
our opinion that we don't have an obligation to construct
a bridge crossing,” he said. The condition placed
on South subdivision maps requires a river crossing to be
provided by the South developer by the time a building permit
is issued for the 601st home. That will occur next year.
The South developer, Reynen & Bardis, is well aware
of that obligation, he said.
The
condition on the South maps refers specifically to the Yellow
Bridge and a route defined by Exhibit T for the crossing,
Kamilos said. A plan for this route was rejected by the
Country Club in July. The club leases the bridge and the
golf course property from the PTF.
“Technically
there can be other solutions out there,” Kamilos said.
“If there was a solution in which the entire community
participated, both existing residents and future residents,
that could be a solution that we could participate with.
But to place the sole obligation upon us, and 1,100 lots
that we're proceeding with out of the ultimate 4,100 lots
that will be built in this community is onerous. ... To
place that kind of burden on us isn't fair."
Kamilos
referred to a list of 18 benefits he said the MBA agreement
offers to existing residents. “The essence of this
document was presented in November 2000 at the RMA annual
meeting,” he said, adding, "We're pleased to
report that all the topics that were laid out in that outline
... have been addressed in the mutual benefit agreement.
... nothing has fallen through the cracks."
That
outline provided for a new North Gate and accelerated funding
for a community center and aquatic complex, as well as payment
of RMA dues by the new subdivisions, which will not be annexed
to the RMA.
According
to Kamilos, residents of the new developments would realize
about $60 or $70 of real services for the $95 or so they
would pay in dues to the RMA. "There's a gap ... that
will be going to the RMA to do with as it pleases,”
he said. In addition, those residents will pay dues to their
own association, separate from the RMA, for services related
specifically to their subdivisions.
Kamilos
summed up the Mutual Benefit Agreement by noting, "Certainly
there are elements that will benefit this community today.
There are elements of this agreement that will set the stage
for the community’s future. … People have lived
here and called this home for almost 25 years. This community's
going to be here a hundred years from now or more. ...When
you look at the context of these facilities and these programs,
we have to set the stage for the future as well as the present.
.... Hopefully this agreement will allow a good foundation
for that future."
|
|
Schedule
for development phases
At Thursday’s “town hall” meeting,
Murieta Holdings developer Gerry N. Kamilos gave a
brief description of the projects and the order in
which they will be constructed.
There's
an overall map of the development plans here.
First,
he said, will be Murieta Hills and the Retreat properties.
The tentative maps for these are now at the planning
department. First construction is expected in 2003,
with substantial home construction to follow in 2004,
he said.
The
Terrace properties along Murieta Parkway are expected
to be developed next.
The
Vineyard Estates of Lake Calero -- “a custom
home enclave” -- would be developed at the same
time as the Terrace.
The
Highlands, with half-acre lots, would follow. The
Estates at Lake Clementia would have one-acre lots,
the River Canyon project would be one-third to one-half
acre lots. Kamilos said the total number of units
would be 1,124.
The
developers came up with the concept of a vineyard
amenity for the Lake Calero project after meeting
privately with homeowners on Puerto Drive in December
2000. The homeowners were concerned about losing their
backyard view of Lake Calero. The vineyards were proposed
to preserve the view.
The
map on display at the RMA shows 75 lots for Calero.
According to Exhibit H, that number’s been increased
more than 30 percent, to 102, and could go to 150
if the vineyard is not approved.
When
asked what this would mean to the Puerto homeowners,
developer Robert J. Cassano said after the “town
hall” meeting that their view would be preserved.
The vineyard area would become open space, he said,
and the additional homes would be placed where housing
is already planned.
RMA
releases exhibits for development document
When
the Rancho Murieta Association released the draft
version of the Mutual Benefit Agreement in October,
some exhibits were missing without explanation. All
the exhibits are now available at the RMA.
Most
consist of surveyor’s descriptions of property
and maps that depict easements. Some are labeled differently
from the draft version originally provided by the
RMA.
For
instance, Exhibit G is titled “Description of
Tree Mitigation” and it’s blank in the
draft version that was given out last month. In the
version now available, Exhibit G is “Description
of Improved Roads in Golf Course Property (section
13.01(d) of Mutual Benefit Agreement) and it consists
of descriptions and drawings of road easements.
Exhibit
H, “Rancho North Development Plan” lists
the developments proposed by Murieta Holdings. That
exhibit is reproduced here
Exhibit
H (Development Plan)
PROPOSED
DWELLING UNITS
Subdivision
Phase(s)
The Residences of Murieta Hills 238
Vineyard Estates at Lake Calero 102
The Estates at Lakes Chesbro and Clementia
118
The Highlands 93
The Terrace 329
River Canyon Estates 118
The Retreats, West, North and East
95
Total Units 1,093
Note
1: Community Plan for Rancho Murieta allows for 2326
dwelling units to be built on the Rancho North Property.
(Description of Clementia Community Park)
Note 2: In the event that the 35-acre vineyard amenity
being proposed by Rancho North Properties, LLC is
not supported or approved by Rancho Murieta Association
or Rancho Murieta Community Services District or any
other governmental agency, the proposed dwelling unit
count for the Vineyard Estates at Lake Calero shall
increase by 48 lots to 150 units; thus increasing
the total to 1,141 total units.
Note 3: The above proposed dwelling unit counts may
be adjusted if the County of Sacramento places development
conditions not contemplated in the Rancho Murieta
Special Planning Area Ordinance on the Property that
make said densities uneconomical.
Note 4: Up to 10% of the units within each subdivision
can be transferred to another subdivision as long
as the dwelling unit cap as described above is not
exceed.
|
|
