|
 |
 |
| The Record, Friday, November 11, 1994 |
|
|
A TOWN IS BORN- COUNTY OKS PLANS FOR MOUNTAIN HOUSE
|
|
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors Thursday approved the Mountain House development in hopes that the planned new town of 44,000 residents just west of Tracy will help propel the local economy into the 21st century.
Supervisors asked few questions during a six-hour public hearing before voting 4–1 to give Trimark Communities Inc. final approval for the Mountain House project. Supervisor Bill Sousa cast the dissenting vote.
Another 2 1/2 years of planning will pass before any dirt is moved on the 4,800-acre swath of alfalfa fields where Trimark plans to build 16,000 homes and draw 22,000 jobs over the next 20 to 40 years. "I want to see Mountain House become a reality as soon as possible, and this community should be able to take advantage of the economic turnaround," said Supervisor Bob Cabral. "Let’s get some housing and jobs going in San Joaquin County."
The development’s approval culminates five years of negotiations between the county and Trimark over initial plans for the enormous task of building an urban community from the ground up.
The county is now faced with the sizeable responsibility of monitoring Trimark’s adherence to agreements that the developer made on everything from open space to sewage to job creation. Opponents of the project worried that the agreements give Trimark too much leeway.
Each of the supervisors acknowledged Thursday that the huge task of creating Mountain House from scratch carries risks for San Joaquin County. But those who voted for the project said the benefits of potential property-tax income and jobs are worth taking a chance. "I for one am willing to take the risk because I feel fairly confident that economic risks will be taken care of," Cabral said. "I think this is a good project, and it’s our obligation to keep the costs down and in line."
"Life is a risk," said Supervisor Douglas Wilhoit, who reversed an earlier stance he took against Mountain House. "I think given the bright future for the state of California … this project can be a success."
Some of the risks outlined in county reports include the cost of providing public services to the fledgling town, the scarcity of water, how to treat sewage, the loss of farmland and whether the town will attract high-paying jobs or town residents will commute to the Bay Area.
Additional risks are the impact of the development on an endangered species of hawk, whether the project will further clog county roads and freeways, and the cost of the proposed homes.
Before casting the sole "no" vote, Sousa said the county doesn’t need the Mountain House homes and that Interstate 205 would be choked with traffic from the development’s residents. "This new town compounds an old problem—the Altamont commute," said Sousa. "We need to stop building for the Bay Area and build for ourselves."
Mountain House lawyers and consultants argued that the development is the most scrutinized in county and state history.
Proponents say Mountain House is the county’s best opportunity for new homes and jobs because of its Bay Area proximity and its plans for industrial parks and pedestrian-friendly town centers, schools, shopping, and a combination of dense housing and higher-priced ranchettes.
"It represents a challenge and opportunity for us to create a quality community in San Joaquin County," said Trimark General Manager Duane Grimsman. "I want to reaffirm our long-term commitment to the project, and we are fully aware of the risks."
Groups concerned about the impact of the development saw the 2 1/2-year gap between Thursday’s approval and the project’s groundbreaking as a window of opportunity to set up stricter regulations that would protect farmland and wildlife.
Supervisors agreed to the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau’s request that the county consider protecting farmland by requiring developers to set aside money or one acre of land for every acre lost to development.
Environmentalists who vehemently criticized Trimark’s plans for protecting the Swainson’s hawk said that a plan for farmland preservation would satisfy their concerns about the project’s impact.
The toughest opposition to the project came from the state Department of Fish and Game, which is responsible for protecting the state’s wildlife. Cindy Chadwick of Fish and Game warned supervisors that Trimark’s plans to protect the hawk were insufficient, making state-mandated environmental reports written for the project invalid.
Chadwick said the department was deciding how to respond to the county’s approval of Mountain House’s wildlife plans. But Mountain House cleared its toughest hurdle Thursday when supervisors approved the project. Mountain House is a small portion of the holdings of Trimark Communities and its parent company, Sterling Pacific, Grimsman said.
Trimark worked to protect its investment of more than five years of payments to consultants and lawyers by close negotiations with the county. Strategies also included soliciting more than $20,000 in campaign contributions to supervisors Barber and Simas over the last two years and scheduling the final paperwork in time for Thursday’s vote by the current board.
|
|
|
