Latest development developments

[Big G]

Originally Posted by dreamliner

Big G: "From the Letter Agreement 1997. The Declaration of CC&Rs contains provisions that permit annexation, but those provisions currently require that all annexations be approved by RMA's current membership. PTF acknowledges its awareness of these limitations on rights to annex to the existing Rancho Murieta common interest development. "


Not quite, Big G. That is the ruse the developers used to circumvent annexation into RMA, stating they would be unable to get the majority of the membership's approval. The current CC&Rs do not require all annexations be approved by RMA's current membership. The 1998 First Amendment to the Second Restated Declaration of CC&Rs granted annexation approval solely to the RMA Board of Directors. That provision is still in effect. Also, the access to RMA common areas and facilities was "negotiated" and granted by a past Board in the infamous Developer Agreement/Mutual Benefit Agreement (MBA), without any membership approval; in fact, over the great objection of a huge number of the members.

Yes you are correct. Subsequent to the sighing of the Letter Agreement, the Board corrected the inadvertent chance that was put in the original Second Restated CC&R’s and reestablished the Board’s approval powers. That was done a year after the letter agreement was signed. My reason for citing the Letter Agreement was to show the legal basis that all residence of the PUD have access to the parks and lakes. The new families however will be required to pay, as we do, for the use of the parks and lakes as spelled out in the MBA.

[Wilbur]

Gate access rights of PTF owned properties within the PUD boundary predate the MBA. Some predate the 1997 Letter Agreement, being rooted in easements dating back to the beginning of time (Rancho Murieta time anyway).

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Big G

Yes you are correct. Subsequent to the sighing of the Letter Agreement, the Board corrected the inadvertent chance that was put in the original Second Restated CC&R’s and reestablished the Board’s approval powers. That was done a year after the letter agreement was signed. My reason for citing the Letter Agreement was to show the legal basis that all residence of the PUD have access to the parks and lakes.

Big G, thanks for the clarification. Please allow me another clarification and question.
The Letter Agreement and subsequent Settlement Agreement and Developer Agreement/MBA do not show the legal basis that all residents of the PUD have access to the parks and lakes. Rather those documents agree that residents of the North Murieta properties have access to those parks and lakes as delineated in the Parks Agreement in effect at that time. And only after those North Murieta properties commence development and pay assessment per unit into the Parks Fund. The PUD encompasses many properties beyond North Murieta's holdings, which would exclude such entities as those South of Jackson Hwy, as the Anderson holdings/airport, and arguably the Murieta Gardens/commercial enterprises of Foothill Properties and Regency Center. Also excluded is the Vail/Escuela property and the privately held acreage adjacent to the North Gate. Certainly the Village is grandfathered into usage of the Common Areas/Facilities.
Question related to MBA: One of the MBA conditions stipulates the 20-acre Clementia Community Park site is reserved as a tree mitigation site as other Murieta North (PTF) properties are developed and Oak trees removed from those developed properties. Further it stipulates that Park site will be conveyed to RMA Common Area ownership upon commencement of those developments and tree mitigation. This MBA and its conditions was appended to the County BoS recent approval of the first North Murieta (PTF) Subdivision Maps. Yet now PTF is engaged in a $1.4 million+ project to build sewage water holding basins for their owned Country Club in that very same 20-acre Clementia Community Park site. Since that property is owned in futurity by RMA and its members, and conditioned as a tree mitigated planting site/Community Park, what agreement does PTF hold with RMA membership to use that Common Property for use other than MBA intended, and conditioned on County Maps approval?
Thanks for bearing with these issues.

[Wilbur]

As of a few years ago, I believe RMA's only agreement re: Bass Lake was with CSD, not the Club, not PTF. But I believe a new round of agreements was signed in conjunction with this improvement project which I and the public haven't seen. I expressed concern a couple-three years ago when this process started about RMA signing away its future rights regarding those properties and the possible need to convert Bass Lake to a swimming hole if we get kicked out of Clementia, and was basically regarded a Grinch.

[dreamliner]

Wilbur, we may be talking two seperate parks. I don't believe we can be kicked out of the 10+ acre Clementia Swim Park (other than a ban on body water contact), since it was deeded to RMA and we own it. The seperate 20+ acre Clementia Community Park, below the dam, is owned by RMA in futurity per the MBA, and conditioned for specific use. Perhaps RMA collectively is not even aware of this. Staff I've talked to at RMA are not aware of any agreements with CSD and/or PTF allowing diversion of that intended use, nor can I find the County has approved diversion of its use as intended and conditioned on approval of the Subdivision Maps per the MBA. Since you recently exercised members' rights regarding Boards' unilateral disposition of Common Areas, could the Board even make "secret" agreements with CSD and/or PTF, which strayed from intended use of those properties without members approval? And if RMA is unaware of activity on our Common Area by CSD/PTF, is that grounds for breach of contract/MBA? Again, am not a lawyer, and defer to the experts.

[Wilbur]

I agree re the swim park; can't be kicked out of the park, but can be kicked out of the water.

we don't own the other parcel yet so I suspect we have no real say over what is done to it between now and then. But ostensibly did have some leverage when being asked to sign documents re: Bass Lake.

I haven't been out there to look. What are they doing, designing it to route the runoff down into that basin? Isn't that where is used to end up before, after scouring through Bass lake? I haven't really kept up on this one.

[dreamliner]

Believe the earlier runoff was from Bass Lake to the Clementia Channel and then into the Cosumnes, which among other things prompted the cease and desist. The latest $1.4 M+ extensive dig looks like creation of one or more large holding basins, connected from Bass Lake by large concrete aquaducts, all on the future RMA Clementia Community Park 20-acre site. It looks like an irreversible permanent installation, which would preclude use as a tree mitigation/Park site. Since the MBA and the latest County Subdivision Maps approval were conditioned on use as RMA owned tree mitigation/Park site, isn't this possibly unauthorized use of RMA members' contracted Common Area, and thus breach of contract, MBA and County Maps approval?

[Yogi]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding from what I've read and studied this is a stand alone project. Their compliance with the Quimby Act is being mitigated by the park they're proposing within the development with the legal requirements being 3-5 acres open space/parkland per 1000 residents. I believe they meet that so there is no need for them to gain access within the gates of OZ in order to comply with the Quimby Act.

[Wilbur]

all over my head but worthy of inquiry. Are you suggesting this is an entire abandonment of that site as a park/mitigation site? Or is it possible that this just means infrequent flooding after a downpour? I always figured that due its natural "catch basin" aspect and its use for trees that site wouldn't be good for much of an "improved" park but could be enclosed and used as a dog park, not much else.

[dreamliner]

Yet MBA contract says it will be RMA Community Park/tree mitigation site. The large permanent holding basin(s) being dug for contaminated drainage/sewer water and evaporation likely will preclude use for anything else (excepting maybe rice paddies and mitigating mangroves). With the MBA apparently being a binding contract, who and what authorized deviation from that contract regarding dedicated future Common Property use of that site, deeded with futurity to RMA and its members?