From: Craig Cristina
To: Rommel Pabalinas
Cc: Mikaela Noble; Nita Wracker; Gene Endicott; Kyle Masters; Brian Foster Subject: RE: FINALIZED - City Council Meeting of July 28th, 2026 - CLOSED SESSION at 5:00pm/GENERAL SESSION at 6:00pm
Date: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:27:27 AM
Hi Mel,
Thanks for providing the meeting material for the hearing. The primary concern with the Windsor Cove approvals is that is may establish a precedent for subdivision Conditions of Approval, mitigation requirements, and infrastructure construction obligations throughout Village 5.
However, it is fair to say that our picture on Windsor Cove is incomplete, since we have not seen the Draft Development Agreement that may clarify some of the issues noted below.
Please review and share these issues with City staff and let us know if our understanding and precedent-setting assumptions are correct. Richland is not opposed to the Windsor Cove project, but we recommend changes to the Conditions, Staff Report and/or DA to address these items.
Transportation Improvements
Nelson Lane: Half of the right-of-way for this new street is located within the Windsor Cove project boundaries. That project is currently conditioned only to dedicate the future right-of- way and provide a deposit for future landscape improvements to be constructed by others. It currently is
not conditioned to actually construct any of the road improvements.
The staff report does not explain the City's strategy for Nelson Lane, including how the roadway will ultimately be constructed and who will be responsible for that work. If the City's intent is to obtain right-of-way dedications and landscape deposits from adjacent developments while the City constructs Nelson Lane in the future, the report should clearly state that. Alternatively, if the intent is for the development across the street (Richland's property) to construct Nelson Lane at its expense, or at the City's expense, that should also be clearly identified.
Either way, the current explanation regarding Nelson Lane is incomplete, and the lack of clarity is a concern for Richland. The same issue applies to the underground utilities within Nelson Lane, including responsibility for funding and construction.
Offsite Intersections: Regarding off-site traffic improvements, the mitigation measures included in the package appear to incorporate the full Village 5 EIR mitigation requirements.
This suggests that the project must comply with all applicable mitigation measures and fair- share contribution obligations.
Was a project-specific traffic study prepared that identifies the fair-share contribution Item 14.A
amounts for off-site traffic improvements beyond those established in the original EIR for Village 5?
Water Improvements
COAs #14 and #15 describe the off-site water improvements as a pipeline in Moore Avenue connecting to the City's existing system, along with a general requirement to comply with a water study. However, there is no reference to a reservoir (storage) or booster pumps, which are required under the Richland Village 5 DA prior to the first residential units.
Richland is concerned that a different standard may be applied to Windsor Cove's infrastructure obligations. If a reservoir is required for Richland's initial residential development, the same requirement should apply to Windsor Cove. Alternatively, if a reservoir is determined to be unnecessary during the initial phases of development, the Richland DA should be amended so that reservoir construction is tied to actual system needs rather than a predetermined schedule.
Sewer Improvements
The sewer system improvements have a general reference to “future improvement per Village 5 Specific Plan”. Since the COA is general, please confirm the details or assumptions for completion of a downstream sewer connections.
Drainage
The detention and water quality basins are located within the flood zone and within a City- owned lot. Will the City or HOA be maintained basin? Are smaller, subdivision-specific basins allowed, such as Windsor Cove, as opposed to the semi-regional basin approach?
Parks & Open Space
Confirm how the proposed park meets the parks requirements for active park facilities.
Thanks,
Craig Cristina
Senior Vice President
Richland
1920 Main Street, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Direct: 949.383.4124
Office: 949.261.7010
Mobile: 949.439.0525
[email protected]
***WE HAVE MOVED – Please note our new address above***