COMMENTS BY SUPERVISOR JIM DEMARTINI
April 22, 2008 Board Meeting
RE: West Park Proposal
I have chaired the Crows Landing Naval Air Base Steering Committee for 3 ½ years, and am very familiar with the impacts of this project on the West Side. I know if its promises and of its short comings.
What is being proposed would be the largest industrial park in California, situated in an agricultural area next to a town of 500 people (Crows Landing) on one side and a city of 20,000 people on the other. (Patterson)
My opposition to this project is its rail component as well as the enormous size, 4800 acres, the size of both Newman and Patterson combined. I am not against an industrial project, a project that would create jobs and opportunities for county residents, but the negative impacts of the West Park Proposal can’t be overstated.
The trains going through the city of Patterson. That would disrupt emergency services.
The 141,000 vehicle trips, especially trucks, that would clog our streets.
The 14 million gallons of water a day this project would require is certainly a concern to Patterson.
Possible introduction of exotic pests that could be brought in from foreign countries.
The loss of prime farmland, an irreplaceable natural resource.
The air pollution this project would generate.
Quality of life issues for the people that live on the West Side.
A fallacy being promoted is that construction of the “inland port” will eliminate the trucks going over the Altamont. This will not happen. If there is a void left when trucks are diverted to Crows Landing, that void will soon be filled by other trucks, as not all trucks utilizing the Altamont are going to the Port of Oakland as the project proponents would like you to believe.
We have been told that the Port of Oakland is interested in this project – they are not. The Port of Oakland is only interested in a project that would allow railcars double stacked with containers through the Donner Pass east to Chicago.
In fact the port of Oakland said of the West Park proposal: “This is a project whose time has not yet come.” Hardly an endorsement. We were told by StanCOG that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission would submit the request for the bond money. Then we later find out that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission had no interest in this project and StanCOG would have to submit the application for the infrastructure bond.
We were told the San JoaquinCOG would put money into this project, but that turned out not to be true. I wonder what else we have been told that is not true.
Let me explain what this project is all about. The centerpiece, the driving force, of West Park’s proposal is a money losing railroad that will need a subsidy to operate. This proposal cannot mitigate the quality of life issues and the health and safety issues presented by the rail component. The West Park Project has a very questionable market for rail at best and is on a substandard rail line that leads to nowhere. Remember the railroad tracks that run along Highway 33 are not a main line that connects to anything. There is no enthusiasm from the Port of Oakland for this project. I can’t understand why anyone thinks this is a viable project. And who will pay the subsidy for the railroad? We are told that a Mello-Roos District will be formed and businesses that move into the industrial park would pay the subsidy even though they may not use rail. Now the question I have is who would agree to rent space that includes a subsidy for a money losing railroad run by people WHO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OPERATING A RAILROAD? I think that would drive away any rational business.
When I look at what this Board’s RFP (request for proposal) was and then I look at the West Park Proposal, I can not understand why we ever went into negotiations with West Park. We did not ask for a 4800 acre project, we asked for a 1527 acre project. A 1527 acre project, confined to the footprint of the air base would have had local support. If West Park can’t make this project work on 1527 acres, we should look for someone who can. We also asked for a project that would maintain “sensitivity to the surrounding communities,” the West Park Proposal certainly does not do this.
The West Park Project has been opposed by virtually every elected Board and public entity on the West Side. It is opposed by:
The City of Patterson
The City of Newman
The Patterson Unified School District
The West Stanislaus Fire District
The Del Puerto Health Care District
The West Stanislaus Resource Conservation District
The Stanislaus County Farm Bureau
The Crows Landing Community Service District
As well as the Crows Landing Steering Committee and the Selection Committee
I have to wonder how anyone considers this project to be sensitive to the surrounding communities when virtually no one who lives there supports it.
With uncertainty of the financial viability of the West Park project, the strong opposition to it from local government entities, I am reminded of the California Transportation Commissioner who asked how could the West Park project rise to the top of the I Bond Funding with no local support and an uncertain financial plan.
I know we need to create jobs in Stanislaus County, but this is not the right project for the West Side or Stanislaus County. A smaller project, confined to the footprint of the air base would create jobs and garner local support, something it must have. The fallacy of this project is that it must be 4800 acres to be viable and that we need this much land for industrial use, yet the absorption rate for industrial land in Stanislaus County is less than 150 acres a year. If our industrial absorption rate remains at 150 acres a year it would take 25 years to use up the industrial land we already have.
There is ample land available for industrial development. Patterson has 600 to 800 acres in Keystone yet to develop. Other places in Stanislaus County have industrial land to develop also. Turlock has 1500 acres, Beard Industrial Track has hundreds of acres, Oakdale has 400 acres, and Ceres has 900 acres. This totals about 4000 acres. The West Park project should be rejected. The RFP was for 1527 acres not 4800. The project was supposed to maintain sensitivity to surrounding communities. When a proposal is made that is vastly different than the RFP it should never be considered.
This board should listen to the concerns of the government entities and elected bodies that represent the West Side. They care about their communities. They have legitimate concerns that have not been addressed. At the community meetings held by West Park no attempt was made to listen to public input and concerns of the people that live there. The purpose of the meetings was only to find a way around the objections, not modifying the project to be more acceptable. We were just told that the EIR (environmental impact report) would address these concerns at a later date, but at the end of the day, an EIR only points out issues. It does not have to solve a problem or issue. A problem discussed in an EIR does not have to be solved to approve a project—as overriding considerations can be adopted to approve the project despite great impacts.
Truck traffic
Water Supply
Introduction of exotic insect pests
Air Pollution
Noise
Loss of prime farmland
These issues do not have to be solved by the EIR.
I would like to see a good project on the Crows Landing Air Base. One that would create jobs and economic development, and so would everyone else on the West Side. But to do this we must, today, reject the West Park Project. I have no faith or confidence in the West Park Project. This Board should re-issue a new RFP and start over again, but next time with a project that we could be proud of, one that has public support and one that would be in the best interest of the West Side.