Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calimesa council approves rephased Summerwind Trails plan, development agreement and entitlements
Summary
Council approved six entitlements for Summerwind Trails phases 2–5, accepting a rephasing that reduces upfront infrastructure burdens, preserves a 10‑year development agreement option, and requires a fire station and planned recreational amenities; vote was 5–0.
The Calimesa City Council on July 21 voted 5–0 to approve a package of entitlements and a development agreement amendment for Summerwind Trails phases 2 through 5, a residential portion of the Summerwind Ranch at Oak Valley specific plan. The approvals included a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, environmental assessment, an amended tentative tract map and a restated development agreement.
City senior planner Celine Seville told the council the project area covers roughly 853 gross acres in the northwest part of the city and that the amendment primarily reconfigures phasing, shifts about 70 acres of land use, removes a previously proposed water‑reclamation facility, and adjusts circulation and multiuse trail alignments. Seville said the household unit total would be 3,129 if no school sites are built, and 3,050 if planned school sites are constructed.
Applicant Paul Onaker said the rephasing was driven by infrastructure logic: it reduces the initial requirement for multiple lift stations and large reservoirs by aligning early phases with the town‑center infrastructure already under way. He also said the developer met the school district’s request to relocate a school site so it fronts two roads and meets a minimum 12‑acre site requirement.
The authorized tract map and phasing in staff materials list per‑phase acreages and unit counts the council reviewed: phase 2 (about 240 acres, 1,818 units), phase 3 (about 210 acres, 584 units plus 28 acres of parks/open space), phase 4 (about 217 acres, 374 units and roughly 108 acres of parks/open space), and phase 5 (about 185 acres, 431 units and 82 acres of parks/open space). The developer will also file a finance/conveyance parcel map for phase 2.
Under the approved development agreement, the term is 10 years with one optional extension; the developer will pay a development‑agreement fee (listed in the staff report as $250,000 with an optional extension fee of $125,000) and is responsible for public improvements including Roberts Road bridge work and completion of the Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange. The agreement requires construction of a fire station in the town center area and a community recreation facility to be built by the developer for the project (the council and staff explained the facility will be owned and operated by the homeowners association, with option access for adjacent phases). The project must also meet an affordable‑housing obligation (120 units) either by constructing units or by paying an in‑lieu fee; the developer said the affordable units are planned as rental housing.
During council questions, developers and staff described the proposed recreation center as similar in program to recent regional HOA rec centers (indoor meeting space, restrooms, pools, courts) and confirmed it would be built by the developer and operated/maintained by the HOA. Councilmembers asked for additional details on affordable‑housing management and potential communitywide facilities; staff said those fiscal and operating questions could be studied separately at council direction.
Neighboring developer Russell Pierce (RDP Development) spoke in support, saying coordinated infrastructure benefits multiple nearby projects. Two public speakers urged the council to consider sensitive‑receptor impacts and long‑range community needs such as medical facilities and civic recreation beyond project‑level HOA amenities.
Mayor Pro Tem Cervantes moved to approve staff recommendations (items 1–6) and the council seconded and voted 5–0 to adopt the resolutions and entitlements recorded in the staff packet. The council’s action amends the specific plan and approves the map and development agreement as presented.
The approvals incorporate an addendum to the previously certified EIR (2005) and supplemental technical studies prepared by the applicant; staff concluded no new environmental review was required for the changes proposed in the amendments.
Councilmembers and staff emphasized that the approvals reconfigure timing and responsibilities to reduce early infrastructure burdens on the project while preserving developer obligations for a fire station, community amenities and affordable housing.
