|
Supes OK with West Park progress report |
|
|
|
Written by Jonathan Partridge / Patterson Irrigator
|
|
Saturday, 22 December 2007 |
“It’s time for Stanislaus County to get its share.”
— Kevin Aguirre West Park supporter
MODESTO — PCCP West Park can move ahead in putting together its plan to develop Crows Landing’s former naval airfield into an industrial park after gaining approval from county supervisors Tuesday.
Stanislaus County supervisors unanimously approved a progress report on West Park’s work and land-use planning for the airfield.
Meanwhile, supervisors Jim DeMartini and Bill O’Brien voted against using the value of a runway for a 170-acre inland port as matching money to get state bond money for the project. The inland port, which West Park officials initially had said would be 150 acres, would allow goods to be shipped to and from the Port of Oakland via rail. Despite the supervisors’ protest, the inland port idea passed 3-2.
“Some people can see a vision, and some people can’t,” said Supervisor Dick Monteith, an ardent supporter of the project.
Monteith said he thought anyone stepping in the way of the plan is making a big mistake.
Supervisors Tom Mayfield and Jeff Grover said they would hold their judgment until April 8, when the master development plan must be completed.
O’Brien said he also would wait until April to finalize an opinion, but as a matter of principle, he did not want the size of the 150-acre inland port to increase to 170 acres. As a former mayor and city councilman in Riverbank, he said he understood the concerns of the Patterson and Newman city councils, which have both formally opposed West Park’s proposal because of its size and their worries about traffic and trains.
“I do understand what Patterson City Council and Newman City Council are thinking, and I weigh that in what we’re doing here at the county,” O’Brien said. “And what comes back to me over and over again as I try to put myself in their shoes is the level of trust — is that they don’t trust the county.”
DeMartini also took issue with the increase in size of the inland port. He also said the value of the land should not be used for matching funds. No one has ever clarified exactly what the value of the land is, he said, and he thinks bond money should be matched only by cash contributions from West Park.
The county aims to apply for state trade corridor bond money to help pay for the project.
A few speakers on Tuesday shared DeMartini’s cynicism toward the project.
Crows Landing resident John Schuler questioned who would be the employers at the proposed 4,800-acre industrial park. He said the project would increase local air pollution and would diminish prime farmland.
“I wonder why we have to be so urgent in taking this farmland and putting it under concrete and asphalt,” Schuler said.
Most other people who spoke were in favor of West Park. They said the business park would bring jobs to Stanislaus County, reducing commutes for many area residents.
“It’s time for Stanislaus County to get its share,” proponent Kevin Aguirre said. “The problem is a lot of people are afraid of innovation.”
A couple of West Park supporters noted that project officials have said the project would include a medical facility, adding that medical care is badly needed on the West Side.
DeMartini, who started the West Side health care task force, bristled at the notion that West Park would improve health care on the West Side. He accused some of the West Park advocates of being “paid activists.”
Lana Walker, who works with West Park consultant Mike Lynch, said she helped organize some of the speakers Tuesday, but she said none of them were paid.
Meanwhile, some of the speakers expressed shock at DeMartini’s accusations.
“My feelings were really hurt,” said 71-year-old Newman resident Angie Archibeque after the meeting. “… Shame on (DeMartini).”
Newman resident and West Park advocate Heather Wilson said she tried to approach DeMartini during a break in the meeting, but felt he blew her off.
“He’s just so whacked out,” she said.
Walker said some of the speakers had expressed interest in West Park at public workshops earlier this year and had requested more information through the developer’s Web site.
Archibeque also noted that a group of supporters has met regularly in Newman. She said she had collected signatures of more than 400 project supporters.
Other issues discussed
Several other aspects of the project raised less controversy.
For instance, county officials noted that there has been talk about zoning at the air facility and about what uses will be allowed in certain portions of the project. Some parts of the airfield will be restricted from development because of their proximity to runways.
County staff and West Park officials have met with California Department of Transportation aeronautics staff, and they are working on a draft developer and use agreement. West Park representatives also have started financial analysis. In addition, guidelines have been set for state infrastructure bond money that West Park hopes to use for its plans.
Looking ahead, the full master development agreement for the project is expected to be complete by April 8, though that may depend on the state bond process. In the meantime, the county plans to offer public workshops about land-use alternatives for the air facility, including one in Patterson on Jan. 24. In addition, Boston-based Global Insight will release a full report on short-haul rail, and developers should learn whether the project qualifies for state infrastructure bond money.
Meanwhile, debate over the future of the airfield grows increasingly heated.
In the words of Walker: “It will be an interesting fourth quarter.”
To reach Jonathan Partridge at the Irrigator, call 892-6187 or e-mail him at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Monteith said he thought anyone stepping in the way of the plan is making a big mistake.
DeMartini gets slammed for his opposition, accused of mis-conduct, besmerched online, in the newspapers and now on youtube... yet this political blowhard is allowed to threaten the very people he is sworn to serve.
What is it about this project that Monteith knows while the rest of us are left in the dark? If it's so great spell it out or are you indeed threatening the opposition? Is there that much money & political firepower behind this thing that warrents this statement? Do fill us in d**k! We're all ears.