From the archives of

::: COMMUNITY NEWS

About 250 people crowded into the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors' meeting Wednesday night and cheered development opponents who spoke.

County hears Murieta opposition to development plans

• Pop-up window: Click for a six-year archive of development coverage -- news, maps, photos and more

Published Friday, January 12, 2007

Bob Ling, a long-time Murietan and former president of the Rancho Murieta Association, called Wednesday night's 3½ -hour session at the county Board of Supervisors "almost like going to a prayer meeting."

It was indeed a gathering of the faithful as about 250 crowded into the supervisors' board room and listened to passionate supporters speak of annexation, custom homes, an updated master plan and preservation of the community as they know it.

Ling, a member of the Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council, was one of 15 who spoke. Others included Country Club President Vince Lepera, retired Sacramento County Sheriff Glen Craig and current RMA President Mike Martel.

After listening to the speakers' comments, the board continued the matter to April 11 at 6 p.m.

Supervisor Don Nottoli, chairman of the board, directed staff to compile a list of the issues that were raised and report back to the board. Many of the issues have been examined at workshops and meetings and in documents produced during the six years it has taken to reach this point.

The three projects under consideration are the Residences of Murieta Hills East and The Residences of Murieta Hills West, and the Retreat project, a total of 282 single-family homes.

The two Residences projects were originally one. They were separated to enable developers Warmington Homes and Woodside Homes to meet the requirements of the county's low-income housing ordinance by paying a $10,000-per-unit fee rather than build on-site affordable housing.

The Residences are located on 68 acres bounded by Guadalupe, Escuela and Puerto drives. The projects preserve almost half the property as open space and retain 95 percent of the oak trees.

The planning staff report recommends approval for the Residences, although the initial report recommended denial. This was reversed after grading and other issues were addressed. There are half a dozen lots with grading issues that are still being discussed by county staff and developers.

The Retreat project is planned for 84 single-family homes on three parcels located on the North Course near the Country Club. The plan has been revised to create more open space, reduce grading, and preserve trees. It now retains about 70 percent of the oak canopy. One parcel was reconfigured to address Country Club issues related to golf play.

The planning staff report recommends denial of the Retreat project because it doesn't include higher-density, multi-family housing, which developers Robert J. Cassano and Gerry N. Kamilos of Cassano Kamilos Homes have argued is not appropriate for the community or the site.

Past RMA President Paul Gumbinger and current President Mike Martel took the podium for Martel's comments.

The county Policy Planning Commission and the Subdivision Review Committee recommended approval for all three projects in proceedings held last year, although the five planning commissioners expressed concerns about the viability of the 1984 master plan for the community and one commissioner voted to deny approval.

The letter the county received late last week from the attorney general's office questioning the adequacy of the environmental impact reports for the three projects was addressed early in Wednesday's meeting by Antonia Barry, principal environmental analyst for the county's Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. DERA is responsible for preparing environmental documents to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Barry disputed the letter's claims that the EIRs for the projects rely on an outdated master plan and fail to consider current conditions and cumulative impacts.

Candy Chand, a member of the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee, was the speaker who most vigorously pursued the development opposition group's charges that the EIRs for the three projects are inadequate and demonstrate "piecemealing," rather than a cumulative consideration of the impacts of projects, a serious violation of CEQA.

Chand said the attorney general's letter and other letters from state and federal agencies support the group's contention that "there's something wrong … There's piecemealing going on in Rancho Murieta."

Highlights of the meeting included signs that development opponents are seeing the Pension Trust Fund for the Operating Engineers in a kinder light these days.

PTF lawyer Deborah E. Quick received enthusiastic applause after criticizing the Community Services District and stating that it was "advisable to send a message saying these players will all come to the table figuring out the most efficient, effective, environmentally appropriate way to accept, process, transmit and dispose of the wastewater generated by these homes" and advocating developers "pay their fair share of the necessary infrastructure costs."

Quick has written letters to the county on the PTF's behalf opposing approval of the three projects, for which the PTF sold the land, and she appeared at planning commission hearings last year to deliver the same message.

Quick also opposed an amended use permit for the wastewater treatment plant, which the supervisors approved earlier in the day as a separate action. The amended permit ties sewer hook-ups to wastewater plant inflow volume, replacing a sewer hook-up limit of 2,500. Although the plant has treatment capacity for full build-out, storage and disposal capacity will need to be expanded for future development.

According to the CSD, the PTF walked away last April from negotiations with the district and developers to create a "global solution" for the cease and desist order issues related to wastewater and infrastructure needs for development.

Also last year, the PTF ended six years of official representation of its development interests in Rancho Murieta by developers Kamilos and Cassano.

The PTF has gone on record with the county as having no development role in Rancho Murieta at present or any responsibility for "wastewater facilities." Letters and comments from Quick to the county challenge the adequacy of CSD wastewater operations and oppose the wastewater mitigation measures proposed for new development.

But even if the PTF isn't a developer, the CSD argues the PTF has obligations as a property owner under the 1987 Agreement for Availability and Use of Reclaimed Wastewater. The obligations include providing no-spill facilities for the recycled water the club uses to irrigate the two golf courses, and disposing of excess wastewater the club doesn't use.

Brad Sample, a critic of CSD wastewater operations since 2004, told the board, "CSD does not have adequate capacity," and quoted from Quick's letter to the county opposing the CSD's application for the amended use permit.

Sample stated the CSD received a notice of violation for exceeding total annual flows to the wastewater treatment plant by more than a million gallons. The plant received 199.2 million gallons of wastewater during the one-year period between July 2005 and June 30, 2006. And a maximum of 198 million gallons was mandated under the cease and desist order issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board a year ago.

At Wednesday's session, Rancho Murieta Association Director Paul Gumbinger, who served three terms as RMA president, accompanied current President Mike Martel to the podium and stood by while Martel read a statement and also spoke off the cuff to the board.

"These new projects pose many questions and concerns about the environment impact, the aesthetics, traffic, and other issues," Martel read. "Why are the rules of incorporated cities respected while the rules of our community, the CC&Rs, are not respected? … We have been self-contained for 30 years."

Martel said the RMA spends "hundreds of thousands of dollars to build parks and maintain them," and wants annexation and architectural control over new development. "More than one association would be very, very harmful" and master plans for the community never allowed for multiple homeowners associations, he said.

When Supervisor Roger Dickinson asked why issues like CC&R compatibility weren't considered in the Mutual Benefit Agreement negotiated between the RMA and the PTF, Martel said the agreement didn't anticipate that the development would differ from what's already here.

The Mutual Benefit Agreement provides for one master association for the new development with CC&Rs modeled after the RMA's. The CC&Rs for the new association were provided to the RMA and they were also made available to participants in the facilitated talks between the RMDCCC, developers and the county in 2005.

Also in 2005, the RMA board made a unanimous decision to seek a legal opinion on the legality of the MBA after members of the RMDCCC requested it. The opinion cost the association more than $80,000. The association's lawyers presented it to the board and then to the membership at a videotaped meeting. The opinion upheld the MBA and other development documents as well as previous boards' actions. The opinion also addressed questions about annexation and access to the community.

RMDCCC member Janis Eckard commented on the effects of grading and retaining walls proposed for the Retreat properties, and illustrated her remarks by extending a retractable pole used for changing light bulbs to demonstrate towering heights.

"My concerns are legitimate," she said. "These projects will have a very negative impact on the Rancho Murieta Country Club and on this community."

RMDCCC member Ted Hart used the 200-year drought event described in the CSD Integrated Water Master Plan to depict future water use in the community.

"You're going to have three mud holes out there," he told the supervisors. "A disaster's going to occur … On the other hand, what DERA's trying to tell you and everyone else is the conditions are, quote, less than significant."

The water plan was adopted by the CSD board in November as a planning tool. It describes the community's water system and water needs for three levels of build-out -- low, medium and high. The CSD has a water rights permit -- recently extended to 2020 -- that allows it to divert water from the Cosumnes River between Nov. 1 and May 31 during periods of high flow. Water is stored in the community's three drinking water lakes – Calero, Chesbro and Clementia – for the dry months.

At present, in normal years, Calero is drawn down a maximum of 14.8 feet by October or November, according to the water master plan. (Calero's maximum depth is estimated to be 50 feet.) Chesbro is kept filled by Calero and has no drawdown, and Clementia loses about five feet each year due to naturally occurring evaporation and seepage. Clementia will only be used as a drinking water lake during times of drought.

In the medium build-out scenario, in which the community grows from its present 2,500 homes to 4,354, Calero's drawdown doubles to 31 feet, the lake's "dead storage" level, and Chesbro is drawn down four feet in a normal year.

The CSD's drought planning is based on the 200-year drought event instead of the standard planning unit of a 100-year drought. The 1990 CSD board adopted this approach in recognition of the 200-year drought that occurred in 1977.

The master plan evaluates ways to meet the 200-year drought deficit and to reduce lake drawdown. Solutions include the use of recycled water for watering landscape. The plan shows that more than half the water used in the community now goes to lawns and landscaping.