From the archives of

::: COMMUNITY NEWS

The crowd of 40 socialized before the meeting began but was down to fewer than 10 by the time the meeting concluded two hours later.

RMA hears community comments on development report

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

Correction made on Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Published Saturday, May 28, 2005

Increased traffic and extensive grading emerged as major issues in a discussion of the environmental impact report for the first two subdivisions of development proposed for Murieta North.

About 40 people turned out for the special session of the Rancho Murieta Association board of directors Thursday evening, although fewer than 10 made it through the meeting, which ran more than two hours.

“Tonight is your meeting. … We’re here to listen to you,” RMA President Paul Gumbinger told the group. As he went through the 600-plus-page document and asked for comments on the individual sections, Gumbinger shared some of his own observations and often agreed with members of the audience who spoke.

The other four directors present said little during the course of the meeting. Gumbinger said the directors had prepared their own written comments and these would be incorporated into the RMA’s letter to the county. Director Dick Cox resigned from the board before the start of the meeting and Director Elliot Sevier was not present.

A dozen people stepped up to the microphone, often more than once.

Many of the speakers were familiar to anyone who attends or watches meetings that are broadcast on Channel 5. Members of the Rancho Murieta Development Concerned Citizens Committee spoke, as well as people who have spoken at the recent county-facilitated development talks and at RMA meetings.

There were also some new voices heard. Several residents who said their work involved environmental review brought their professional expertise to bear.

The following issues were among those discussed:

---

Traffic was described as “the fatal flaw” of the EIR by RMDCCC member Candy Chand, who said the 1983 environmental impact report says the community should not be built out until Highway 16 is widened to four lanes. RMDCCC member Ted Hart said, “We’ll all be dead and buried” before the state Department of Transportation widens the road.

Gumbinger and others pointed out that the traffic study produced for the present EIR was not incorporated into the body of the document and the mitigation measures proposed in the study do not appear there.

The EIR seems to say that the traffic impacts are significant and unavoidable, remarked Don Sams.

Several said a broader traffic study was needed to take into account the cumulative effects of development within and outside of Rancho Murieta.

Resident Julie Sams said the traffic plan proposed by the developers would violate the federal Clean Air Act.

---

The grading proposed for the Residences of Murieta Hills project, in the northwest part of Murieta North, and the three parcels near the Country Club that comprise the Retreat project brought out concerns about asbestos, expansive soil conditions, aesthetics, air quality and noise.

Paul Miller, who said he writes EIRs for a living, described the Residences as “an incredible infill project” occurring within 50 to 100 feet of existing homes, and criticized the draft EIR’s mitigation provisions for dust, noise, and for monitoring asbestos. “Mass grading sets up for more environmental impacts,” he explained.

He observed that the EIR doesn’t include tests for naturally occurring asbestos. Instead, they are deferred.

Brad Sample, who reviews risk evaluations of contaminated sites in his job, said he thinks it is possible asbestos is present in Rancho Murieta since a geological formation containing asbestos extends from El Dorado Hills into this area. For that reason, he said, extensive grading should be avoided and air monitoring for asbestos should be required in areas where the ground is disturbed.

Sample said asbestos would show up here in the soil, not in rock outcroppings.

Julie Sams, associate project manager for the UC Davis Architecture and Engineering Department, said the sloping land of the Residences was unsuitable for mass housing production, agreeing with the RMDCCC that custom homes were a better response to the rolling topography and to varying soil conditions.

RMDCCC member Janis Eckard said testing done as part of the draft EIR showed the presence of expansive soil on both the Retreat and Residences properties. Quoting the report, she said that expansive soil in its natural state has a low potential for expansion, but when disturbed by the type of grading proposed for the projects, it can display “moderate to highly expansive characteristics” of the kind that have resulted in problems in a subdivision on the South currently being addressed by the South developer.

RMDCCC member Ted Hart read from the draft EIR to make the point that the cut and fill grading techniques used to create level building pads to accommodate production housing would destroy the natural topography. “There is no reason for level building pads other than … to build production homes,” he said.

There were also comments about affordable housing that’s proposed to fulfill the requirements of a new county ordinance and the development’s effect on wildlife, oak trees and open space.

---

The draft document was prepared by the county Department of Environmental Review and Assessment over a period of several years to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The document is available at the DERA web site. The deadline for comments to the county on the draft EIR is June 20.