|
 |
 |
| Tri-Valley Herald, Friday, November 11, 1994 |
|
|
| SUPERVISORS MOVE MOUNTAIN - New town near Altamont will be home to 43,000 |
|
STOCKTON—A new town to be built from scratch on the San Joaquin/Alameda county border got the green light Thursday from the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, despite concerns over potential impact on both sides of the Altamont Pass.
By a 4–1 vote, the supervisors approved a series of documents granting the project’s developer legal permission to build the proposed 4,784-acre, 43,000-resident Mountain House town. Supervisors in favor said Mountain House will provide needed housing and jobs, save prime farmland and boost the county economy over time. They noted, however, that the project poses some risks.
Critics, including the supervisor who voted against the project, said the town will compound what has already come to be a traffic nightmare through the Livermore Valley’s Interstate 580 corridor. Supervisor Bill Sousa, warned that the traffic impact will hit San Joaquin and Alameda counties hard. "This new town compounds and old problem and that’s the Altamont commute," he said. "That commute is already painful for those who do it." Sousa added, "All of the routes along I-580 through Livermore and Pleasanton are going to be bottled up."
The project’s own studies show Mountain House is expected to generate at least $200,000 vehicle trips daily within 20 years. The board’s approval marked the project’s final major public review hurdle.
Two years ago, supervisors agreed that Mountain House—three miles northwest of Tracy—was a logical place to concentrate county growth and it was added to the county’s general plan. Thursday’s hearing, however, covered more specific development and finance plans, final environmental reports and legal agreements binding the county and Mountain House developer Trimark Communities to commitments for the next 15 years.
The only thing in the way now of the project’s estimated 1997 start date are mostly routine development-related approvals and possible appeals or legal challenges, county officials said.
"Today’s approval literally put about 100 issues behind us," said a smiling Duane Grimsman, a Trimark vice president. Grimsman added, however, that complex though relatively minor issues remain. "Sure, there’s a lot of work left to be done before houses start going up," he said. "You’re looking at a (whole new) town."
The project has been in the works since 1988. Plans call for a densely populated community with 16,000 new homes and the same population as Tracy today, but on a land mass 30 percent smaller than Tracy. A dozen schools, two golf courses, a community center, shopping and places to work for about 22,000 are also planned. Buildout of Mountain House is expected to occur over a 20- to 40-year period.
Also during Thursday’s hearing, the board majority sided with Trimark over the handling of open space and impact on Swainson’s Hawk and San Joaquin Kit Fox habitats. Critics leveled charges that the project does not do enough in those areas.
Martin Vitz of the East Bay Regional Park District called the project’s plan for 70-acre regional park a "weak spot" in the project, noting that San Joaquin County’s own staff originally wanted Mountain House to set aside at least 400 acres for a regional park. Vitz said his agency is concerned that its neighboring parklands may end up handling heavy use from Mountain House residents over time. The park district serves Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
On habitat mitigation, state Department of Fish and Game officials and environmentalist attacked Trimark’s plan, calling it "a hollow document" without adequate protections. "The Mountain House habitat mitigation plan is nothing but a sales job. It has nothing to do with biology … It’s something to do with money and killing endangered species," said Waldo Holt, chairman of the San Joaquin Audubon Society.
Supervisors in favor of the project hope the development will generate new revenue for the county. Supervisor Bob Cabral said he believes the Mountain House will generate more revenue than what it will cost to provide services to the area. But he and other supporting supervisors admitted there are no guarantees. "There is a risk, but I for one am willing to take the risk," Cabral said.
Cabral represents the south county, including Lathrop and Tracy. Officials in from both cities oppose the project because it conflicts with their growth plans.
Supervisor Ed Simas also talked of the risk. But fear not, he said. "Let’s not be afraid, let’s move forward," Simas said.
Opponents also questioned the project’s promise to make the county money. One estimate shows the county making $3.4 million a year by the project’s 10th year.
|
|
|
