Past coverage

• South developer offers to pay $800 per lot if bridge requirement is lifted (April 13, 2003)

• South developer asks to be freed of responsibility for bridge over Cosumnes (February 3, 2003)

• County gets RMA proposal for Murieta bridge over Cosumnes River (December 20, 2002)

• Country Club rejects proposal to use bridge and land for a North-South link (July 27, 2002)

• Board gets petition on Yellow Bridge and path between North and South (April 17, 2002)

• Community survey: Use the bridge and club property to link North and South (November 7, 2001)

South developer pledges $1.5 million for new bridge

Published Friday, June 27, 2003

The meeting was supposed to be about financing proposals, but to the surprise of the Rancho Murieta Association, it turned out to be a proposal to fund a $1.5 million bridge across the Cosumnes River to connect North and South.

South developer Reynen & Bardis made the offer at a meeting Thursday with Rancho Murieta Association representatives and county officials.

Rancho Murieta Association President Michael Schieberl announced the proposal later that day.

The meeting was held as a result of the developer's request for relief from an ordinance requiring a river crossing to be in place by the time the 601st building permit is issued for construction on the South.

The county stopped issuing permits to Reynen & Bardis last month, when the 600th permit was reached, and has held firm on issuing any more.

An advisory group to the planning department, the Cosumnes Community Planning Advisory Council, rejected the developer's request for relief from the 601st condition at its May meeting, attended by about 75 residents.

So why did developer Reynen & Bardis offer to front the entire cost of a new bridge after first proposing payment of a fee that would have provided about $450,000 or $500,000 for a crossing using the Yellow Bridge?

"(Reynen & Bardis) started out by saying the financing package (for the proposed fee) looked very difficult to achieve," said Paul Gumbinger, vice president of the Rancho Murieta Association board of directors. He was one of three directors who attended Thursday's session.

"They offered to enter into an agreement with the RMA to fund the entire project," Gumbinger continued. The cost of building a new bridge is now estimated at $1.5 million. Payment "would be by a letter of credit or bond," he said.

"That was quite amazing. I don't think any of us were expecting that," he said.

The RMA board has scheduled an executive session Monday to review the proposal. If the RMA board approves it, Reynen & Bardis would then take the proposal to the county Board of Supervisors for approval at the end of July. "That's their hope, at least," said Gumbinger.

Gary Parker, Reynen & Bardis' representative, put Thursday's meeting proposal into writing in a letter delivered to the association on Friday.

"If this were initiated in July, that would start the engineering process that has to be done," Gumbinger said of the crossing. "If all went well, we would have a bridge by the middle of 2005."

As to the developer's motivation in making the offer to fund the bridge, he speculated, "They're sort of dead in the water at this point. If they put the money up, and it's approved by the county, then they can move forward and restart their building."

Reynen & Bardis' Parker did not return telephone calls seeking his comments.

According to RMA General Manager Greg Vorster, Reynen & Bardis proposes to "guarantee the monies and make a deposit at this time large enough to get the project started and guarantee money to complete the project via some type of deposit mechanism -- a bond or a letter of credit."

Vorster said Reynen & Bardis views its fair share contribution to the project as representing Phase 2, the Crest, the Greens and the Lakeview subdivisions on the South.

The developer hopes to recoup part of the $1.5 million it would advance for the bridge by getting the county to require other new development to pay a share of the bridge's cost. That would include the North properties being developed by Murieta Holdings and the Riverview subdivision on the South, which is currently in foreclosure.

Reynen & Bardis disavows responsibility for Phase 1 on the South, which was developed by Winncrest, although the principals in Winncrest and Reynen & Bardis are the same.

Vorster cautioned that "the funding is just the first battle in a long war."

There are environmental issues to be considered.

Resident Randy Jenco, owner of Viking Construction, the company that proposes to build the bridge for the set amount, has said it won't be a problem. Others have their doubts.

Ed Crouse, general manager of the Community Services District, has said in the past that he thinks more would be spent on governmental approvals for such a bridge than would be spent on actual construction.

Last November, North developer Gerry N. Kamilos of Murieta Holdings wrote to RanchoMurieta.com that because the Cosumnes is now identified as a resource of state and national importance, "I would rather attempt to walk barefoot and without water across the Mojave Desert than attempt to secure the permits necessary to put another crossing over the Cosumnes."

The proposed bridge -- for pedestrians, bikes and golf carts -- would be 12 feet wide and 400 to 600 feet long. It would be above the 100-year flood plain. The two piers supporting it would be outside the low water line of the river and within the high water line.

"Assuming that such a bridge requires compliance with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), there has to be a lead agency," said Dennis E. Yeast, director of the county's department of environmental review.

California environmental law requires a "lead agency" to prepare environmental documents for a project when the project involves the approval of multiple public agencies.

Yeast said it was "unclear to me at this time whether Sacramento County has approval authority over such a bridge in a private location like that. … It has been my position that since it's in the middle of Rancho Murieta and it's not a countywide facility that county citizens have access to, I don't know why we would want to be the lead agency. That issue needs to get resolved."

Normally, the lead agency would be "a governmental agency that had the authority to approve something," Yeast said.

Schieberl and Gumbinger say it isn't clear that a lead agency is necessary for the project, since the bridge is a private project, not a public one. Schieberl added that he would "prefer that the CSD assume the lead role" if it were necessary. He characterized the duties as being along the lines of managing the contract and construction aspects of the project.

In a memo to the CSD Improvements Committee, Crouse said the district "will be responsible for coordination of the CEQA documentation, including holding hearings on the project's (Environmental Impact Report) and certifying the EIR" if it serves as the lead agency.

At the committee meeting held the day before the meeting with the developer and county officials, Crouse said as the lead agency the CSD would be in the position of deciding whether an EIR was required and proposing mitigation. Potentially, the district could be "a lightning rod," he said.

"It puts the district in the position of approving the project," he told the committee. He added that he wasn't convinced the CSD could be the lead agency because it has no approval or permitting power. Ultimately the CSD board of directors would make the decision, Crouse said.

"Crossing any river, especially one like that, that is one of the last un-dammed rivers and a lot of interest in the Cosumnes River and its flood plain by downstream users, nature conservancy folks and the like, I think it will come under significant scrutiny," said Yeast. "That doesn't mean it's not feasible."

"I think it's good," said Crouse of the plans for the crossing. "Whether it ever can be built or not, we're not sure. This is the last hurrah."