::: COMMUNITY NEWS

Full text of RMA letter to county

Published Saturday, January 31, 2004

Here is the full text of the Rancho Murieta Association's letter to the county about the draft supplemental environmental impact report for Lakeview, a subdivision proposed for Murieta South, and the North-South pedestrian bridge

January 29, 2004

Joyce Horizumi
Department of Environmental Review
827 Seventh Street, Room 220
Sacramento, Ca. 95814

RE: RANCHO MURIETA BRIDGE CROSSING AND LAKEVIEW DSEIR

Dear Joyce,

As the General Manager of the Rancho Murieta Association, I am making a comment on the Rancho Murieta Bridge Crossing and Lakeview DSEIR. The following comments are preliminary only and we may make additional comments or choose to testify at the public hearing before the Project Planning Commission.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 1-1 states, "new bridge to be planned and constructed by the Rancho Murieta Association". Please correct to read, "The new bridge is being constructed by the Rancho Murieta Parks Committee. Upon completion the Rancho Murieta Association will take ownership of the bridge".

Under Table ES-1, page 1-25, Rancho Murieta Association supports the Alternative Pedestrian Access referenced under BL-Al-l. In the same table on page 1-26, Section LM-Al-2 - Pedestrian/bicycle Trails Plan, the RMA is requesting that the mitigation measure be expanded to include a trail plan which depicts the trail plan from the new bridge location with connections to Riverview Park and the Lakeview Development including construction details, creek crossing, trail width and paving material. In addition provide trail cross sections and relationship of the trail to residential units and setbacks to the Cosumnes River. In addition a preliminary grading plan for the trail should be submitted and easements obtained from the respective landowners.

Currently no off-street trails exist in Murieta South as the trails fall outside the boundaries of each specific map. Therefore, we are requesting that planning and construction of the pedestrian trails be conditioned with the Lakeview map to insure construction of the trail system.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The RMA has received substantial input from the members regarding open space in Rancho Murieta. Apparently in the 1973 EIR 1806 acres were identified as open space. Has the 1973 EIR been amended and if so, how many acres of open space are allocated for Rancho Murieta and when did the amendment occur. What is the County's definition of open space? What is included in open space and what is excluded? Page 3-2 designates 1900 acres for residential use. How is the 1900 acres being substantiated? Can you please provide us with this documentation.

Also under the project characteristics, animal and plant species are discussed. However, the EIR does not address the need for a wildlife management plan.

LAND USE
Under land use, page 4-23, Table LA-3, the bridge-funding scenario is reviewed proposing five different scenarios. The funding scenario is already identified in the Urgency Ordinance and the encumbered properties depicted in Exhibit I-E of the Ordinance. Why are these other scenarios being put forth?

Table LA-2 shows different build out numbers than those presented to the RMA by the developer. Please confirm these unit counts.

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The RMA has several comments and requests for additional information on the traffic and circulation report. Has a traffic survey been undertaken as part of the Lakeview DSEIR. If so, is a copy available and is it part of the DSEIR?

On page 8-27 reference is made to a cash contribution by the developer to the County in the amount of $501,400 for the construction of 8 foot shoulders on both sides of Highway 16 including a fair-share contribution for the bridge. When is this work scheduled to start and finish? On the same page the $1100 fee for District 7 of the Countywide Development Fee is referenced. RMA is requesting that these fees be used exclusively for Highway 16 improvements.

This DSEIR also touches on a Park and Ride Lot. Is the location of the lot being identified in any document and if so is it going to be constructed as part of the commercial development.

Telecommuting is suggested as a traffic mitigation measure. Our current cable plant is in need of upgrading in order to provide these enhanced services. Is funding for these plant upgrades available via incentives through the TSM Plan or other means?

GRADING AND EROSION
Several references were made in the DSEIR regarding the impacts of grading and that a creative redesign would reduce the amount of grading to make better use of existing terrain and possibly create a more aesthetic project and preservation of oak trees. Is County Staff recommending this redesign to the Board and can the applicant be required to adopt a revised design?

Why aren't the grading and erosion sections from final CEQA documents included in the DSEIR?

PARKS AND RECREATION
Summary of Impacts and Their Dispositions:
Page 15-3 - Blue Oak Woodland. This section states that impacts to the blue oak woodland are significant and not mitigatable due to the Board of Supervisors' failure to act on mitigation measures. Are these mitigation measures being recommended in this DSEIR? Does the County have a program in place that allows developers to purchase and preserve oak habitat? Has a location been identified for the mitigation required in the Lakeview development? What is the status of the mitigation for Phase 2, the Crest and the Greens?

PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Pages 5-22 and 5-23 depict typical street and typical comer frontage. These exhibits appear to be the same. Plate BR-F appears to be an incorrect representation of a corner lot.

Is the County going to continue the practice of allowing mitigation trees to be used in front yard landscapes. If so, will some form of deep-water irrigation system be required and will the current spacing standards be amended.

Last but not least, the community is concerned with the loss of Swainson's hawk habitat in the County. Has a reliable survey been performed within the development to verify nesting sites on both sides of the River that are threatened by development?

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. We look forward to a response.

Sincerely,
Greg Vorster, PCAM, CCAM
General Manager