| BACK
to letters index
It's great that the RMA and RMDCCC can find some common ground
Kudos to both the
board and RMDCCC for finding ways to focus upon and express common
ground on the environmental issues, instead of focusing upon their
differences. As I've often preached, the board's hands are largely
tied on many issues by all the ancient easements and development agreements
which bind the corporation, but there are many areas in which
the board still has the legal latitude to make its voice heard at
the county, and
environmental issues such as traffic impacts and open space and oaks
and wildlife preservation are key among them.
So,
Hurrah! to both the board and RMDCCC for finding a more cooperative
and less contentious tone. Neither really has to be perceived as the
"enemy" of the other, each just has to accept that the other
has a very different role to play in this drama. I'm quite encouraged
to see that adjustment apparently taking hold.
And thank
you, Candy, for the most detailed explanation of RMDCCC's positions
that I have seen to date. It is so much easier to evaluate
a concrete position statement than the broad rhetorical conclusions
we all tend to come up with in public meetings. Laying out your theories
in this explicit way gives "moderates" and "skeptics"
a lot more to work with in trying to decide whether to support RMDCCC's
specific positions, and which ones (by helping us understand
just what those positions are.)
I recommend more
of the same. Maybe even RMDCCC's own town hall meeting on
TV to lay out its own views for the members in detail? Why not?
--
Wilbur Haines, February 5, 2004
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Here's my letter to the county about development
I hope folks are
sending in their comments regarding the new South's Draft EIR. If
you have any questions, feel free to call 0832, or e-mail me at PatCan85@aol.com
In case anyone's
interested in reading my letter to Supervisor Nottoli and DERA, I've
included it below.
Dear Mr.
Nottoli:
Regarding
the 2003 South Lakeview Draft EIR, I'd appreciate consideration
of the following:
1.) As I
indicated several weeks ago, I'm requesting the removal of what
appears to be a 1,050 acre developer-benefiting error regarding
the 1,900 acre residential use passage on page 3-2. Since the only
known approved county documents, dealing with specific acreage numbers,
clearly specify there are only 850 buildable acre lots in all of
Murieta's PUD, with 1806 acres of preserved open space, I would
expect DERA to include these figures in this, and all future, Murieta
EIRs. To continue to omit the county's own verified and approved
documentation clearly contained in the 1973 FEIR, from any and all
subsequent EIR's, creates the dangerous possibility of fraudulent
misuse, by developers, of protected property within our PUD.
2) A request
to forbid developers in Murieta (North and South) from terracing
our substantial hillsides to make them conducive for slab construction.
The new Lakeview Draft EIR (on page 1-36) indicates plans for destruction
of our topography providing a "stair step" effect. Not
only is this devastating to the environment, and reflects poor ecological
planning, but as we've recently discovered in the South, when homes
were built in this fashion, (the erection of slabs on extensive
terraced hillsides) combined with the unusual clay formations within
Murieta, several of these dwellings are experiencing serious structural
damage. (See 1-29-04 Sac Bee article, two RanchoMurieta.com articles,
and future River Valley Times article.) By avoiding this process,
and requiring developers to employ other construction methods ,
we will preserve, at least partially, the integrity of the environment,
as well as offer some additional protection for future homeowners
regarding potential structural loss.
3.) A request
for a clear and thorough wildlife evaluation, specifically regarding
the Swainson Hawk and Bald Eagle populations, believed to reside
within Murieta. Although the prior decade old South EIR (regarding
Lakeview, before the maps expired) stated the county, at the time,
thought the Swainson's Hawks were 8 miles away, we now have experts
verifying they've sighted the threatened species as close as Deer
Creek Hills (just North of Murieta), as well as sightings recorded
by the California Natural Diversity Data Base/CNDDB, in the 2003
South EIR, on page 5-35-5-38, on county property near the airport.
Also, the
county's own recent July 2003 report (control number 03-PRE-0126)
regarding the Murieta airport area (within our PUD) documents (on
page IS-15) "Swainson's Hawks--courting behavior and 3 birds
observed 3/28/03 and 4/7/03. Also, on page IS-18 "The large
trees on-site provide nesting habitat for a variety of bird species,
potentially Swainson's Hawk. As nests were observed in the canopies
of some of the on-site trees..."
Since the
presence of this state-threatened species is clearly documented
near our airport's noisy runway, it seems reasonable the Swainsons
might inhabit the terrain of our far quieter, less disturbed, Murieta
acreage.
In addition
to the state-threatened Swainson's Hawks concerns, the federally-threatened,
and state-endangered, Bald Eagle has been sighted, by numerous resident
on multiple occasions over several years, roosting at Lake Calero
(North Murieta) Due to the fish stocked in all three of our back
lakes--Calero, Chesboro, and Clementia, members of the Audubon society
have explained the Bald Eagles presence is likely due to our enormous
tree coverage as well as the ample food supply (fish) in our lakes.
Therefore,
it appears, a thorough study of endangered and threatened wildlife,
(including the Bald Eagle and Swainson's Hawk) within Murieta should
be conscientiously mandated by the county for any and all Murieta
EIRs. In addition, because of the occurrence of the federally threatened,
and state endangered, Bald Eagle within the Rancho Murieta PUD,
formal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as
well as California Fish and Game, concerning potential impacts of
planned development on this protected species should be sought.
4.) A request
for the removal of the 5 funding scenarios regarding the river crossing
(page 4-20--4-23) based on total rooftop numbers that may never
be approved within our PUD. Since, I believe, R&B agreed to
fund the project, in exchange for building permits, I'm concerned
these scenarios may provide a potential loophole for escape from
their prior commitment.
5.) As I've
indicated before, I'm requesting a complete moratorium on all build
out (North or South) until there's been a full accounting of all
open space provisions for our entire PUD (not just one phase at
a time) Since the RMDCC believes the 1973 FEIR, mandating 1806 acres
as a wildlife refuge and open space preserve, with only 850 buildable
lot acres, we feel it's critical specific acres/land use issues
are addressed before any building approvals are acquired within
our PUD. Obviously, if the acreage count is generated after homes
are constructed, and if the line of open space has been crossed,
the damage would be dreadfully irreversible.
Once the
bottom line figures are clear, I believe, South residents should
receive their fair portion (although their remaining property availability
is extremely limited) of the open space provision for Murieta, rather
than put off the count and have the entire preserve eventually allotted
to the North.
In accordance
with CEQA requirements, I'm confident the county will address each
of these essential issues in a full and expeditious manner. Thank
you for your continued interest in the RMDCCC's concerns. We're
looking forward to another fruitful meeting with you on Monday.
--
Candy Chand, February 4, 2004
Editor's note:
You can see the county documents -- and other documents related to
Rancho Murieta -- at the county's web site, http://www.dera.saccounty.net.
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Another thank you for the RMA's comments to the county
I would like to
echo Candy's comments and say thank you. I have just recently started
to get involved in the open space issue here in Rancho Murieta and
I was pleased to see our GM address some of the issues that I have
been concerned about. I hope this type of communication continues.
--
Matthew McGuire, February 3, 2004
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Thank you, RMA board, for your responsiveness to our development concerns
My, what a difference
an election makes. :)
How
wonderful to read the recent letter to the county (posted in the sidebar
on RanchoMurieta.com) written by GM Greg Vorster for the RMA board,
which actually addressed specific issues the RMDCCC recently brought
to their attention. After attempting, for over three years, to get
various directors to show interest in our concerns, it's refreshing
to see the board take such positive steps.
Here's a bit of
recent history: A few weeks ago, a couple of members of RMDCCC met
with a few key board members, and our general manager, to share some
of our concerns with the 2003 South Draft EIR. In fact, we made photocopies
of specific pages, as well as highlighted and added our own notations.
Although, in all honesty, I fully expected, once again, to be politely
dismissed, I'm pleased to see, this time, the directors actually addressed
each of the issues we brought forward, including the following:
1.). The RMDCCC's
detection of what we believe is a 1,050-acre error (in favor of the
developer) within the acreage statistics on page 3-2 (noted as 1,900
rather than 850)
2.) Our concerns with the draft EIR's lack of detail regarding the
Swainson's Hawk and other threatened and endangered species.
3.) The RMDCCC's desire to see an accounting of the 1973 FEIR mandate
for 1,806 acres of open space, which was discovered by two of our
members several months ago.
4.) Our concern about destructive grading within the hillsides of
the new proposed development
5.) Our apprehension regarding what we see as a potential loophole
for the developer -- the introduction of several proposed scenarios
for funding the river crossing, rather than what was already agreed
upon by all parties.
With the release
of the RMA board's recent letter to the county, which specifically
dealt with each of the issues we brought their way, I must admit,
for the first time in three years, I'm actually pleased with their
timely and caring response.
Although the RMDCCC
has already introduced our comments, and we're scheduled for another
fruitful face to face supervisor meeting on Monday, about these and
other development issues, I must say, I'm pleased to see the RMA board
take such a positive leap of faith.
As the old saying
goes -- better late than never. Thank you!
--
Candy Chand, February 1, 2004
Add
YOUR opinion | Back to the top
BACK
to letters index
|
