See what your neighbors say about this in Community Views

Published Friday, May 30, 2003

A developer’s plan for relief from a requirement for a river crossing between Murieta North and South hit a stumbling block Wednesday night when a citizens’ advisory council to county planning rejected the proposal.

Scores of Rancho Murieta residents applauded the decision, as well as the Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council’s promise to follow and support the issue through the planning approval process. Eventually, the proposal will go before the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for approval.

About 75 residents, the overwhelming majority of whom came from Rancho Murieta, attended the monthly CCPAC meeting, held at the Wilton firehouse.

The plan proposed by South developer Reynen & Bardis specified a payment of $800 per housing unit in the South to fund a river crossing. In exchange, the developer would be able to keep on building. The money would be deposited in a fund.

Two new subdivisions, the Crest and the Greens, are now under way in the South. The county has stopped issuing permits since the 600 figure was reached several weeks ago, according to planner Sheryl Lenzie. This is about the halfway point in the development of the South.

Todd Chambers, who represented developer Reynen & Bardis at the CCPAC meeting, said the developer was requesting relief from the 601st unit cap so it could keep on building. It is not asking for relief from the river crossing obligation, Chambers said.

“We have no control over how the Country Club decides to use that bridge,” he said. The Yellow Bridge is the only internal crossing now available. It is leased by the Rancho Murieta Country Club for the use of its members and owned by the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers. The developer’s efforts to share the use of the bridge with the club and to have access to it from golf course property have been rejected by the Country Club board.

Comments from those in attendance at the CCPAC meeting emphasized the developer’s long-standing responsibility to provide a crossing. Some dated it back to the late 1980s, when South development was started, while others said there was an agreement between the county and the Pension Trust Fund of the Operating Engineers at the time the PTF took possession of the Yellow Bridge from the county. The 1979 deed stipulates that the bridge should be used as access to the South course and also as a connector between the North and South development.

Resident Mark Valen said he opposed having the county grant the developer’s request because “It’s clear that there’s a known condition. People in business with big bucks should not able to change the rules as they go along.” He described it as an “ethical and moral obligation” on the part of the developer.

Valen was one of several speakers the crowd applauded.

CCPAC member John Kershaw, a resident of Rancho Murieta, noted that the county should have been monitoring the South developer’s compliance with the condition.

Kershaw and Kevin Slagle, the other Rancho Murieta resident on the nine-member council, participated in the council’s vote to reject Reynen & Bardis’ proposal to amend the condition in the zoning ordinance covering Rancho Murieta South.

At the April meeting of the Rancho Murieta Association, residents were urged to show the county that this issue mattered to them. They made a strong showing at Wednesday’s CCPAC meeting, the first step in the public process for the developer’s proposal. The council functions in an advisory capacity for the planning department.

A contingent from the Rancho Murieta Association attended the meeting. RMA President Mike Schieberl and Vice-President Paul Gumbinger both spoke.

Gumbinger prefaced his remarks by saying he was not appearing in an official capacity, but as a South resident. RMA General Manager Greg Vorster brought along charts illustrating the RMA’s proposal for a new, $1.4 million bridge across the Cosumnes River it wants the developers to fund. But the crowd’s attention was centered more on the developer’s obligation for
a river crossing than it was on particular crossing proposals, so the plans weren’t presented.

It was something of a trial by fire for the residents who came out to the meeting. The packed room was stiflingly hot, cooled only by a few fans and one wall air conditioner. There were no microphones for participants, so they were often told to speak up.

People fanned themselves with the meeting agenda as they leaned forward in an effort to hear the speakers. Periodically, radio scanner broadcasts broke into the proceedings.

Nevertheless, a large percentage of the crowd hung in until the council finished its deliberations on the developer’s request for relief from the 601st building permit requirement.

The council declined to vote on second item on the agenda that involved Reynen & Bardis. That was the Rancho Murieta South Transportation System Management Plan, which is required by the county to reduce car trips. It included ride-share programs and internal community circulation. The plan assumed community access to a river crossing.

Chambers agreed to the council’s suggestions for modifying the plan, but the group decided not to accept the document with so many conditions pending.

Suggestions included removing references to the North development from the document, refining the size and location of park-and-ride parking lots, and specifying access between the North and South. The council decided to form a subcommittee made up of CCPAC members and residents to work with Chambers to incorporate the suggestions into the document.

© RanchoMurieta.com