 |
Articles
South Colusa project goes to panel
By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat
November 1, 2007
Plans for a new community south of Arbuckle in Colusa County are finally in the hands of planning officials. But the long-discussed project is inspiring a renewed fight from local residents fearful of losing the area’s farmland.
Pacific Cascade Group has applied to the county for a general plan change allowing construction of homes, stores and industrial sites near Interstate 5 on the Yolo County border. The Orange County-based development firm hopes to create housing for 27,000 people over three decades, some 5,000 more than the county’s current population.
But foes of the development have formed an opposition group and are preparing a publicity campaign to denounce Pacific Cascade’s plan as an example of suburban sprawl that threatens the vitality of nearby farms.
“It takes away from our local efforts to improve our own community,” said Elaine Rominger, an Arbuckle almond farmer and former Woodland mayor battling the development. “It takes supervisors’ attention away from communities. And it’s going to absolutely skew the political and social network that we have.”
James L. Resney, Pacific Cascade’s vice president, declined immediate comment.
Pacific Cascade, whose local branch, Colusa Heritage Partners, has an Arbuckle office, hopes to rezone 3,512 acres of mostly agricultural land for a mix of homes, stores, industry and open space. The amendment would require approval from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The application calls for clustering industries on a 500-acre section around the I-5 and County Line Road crossing, as well as creating a traditional-style downtown and village green inside a ring road east of I-5.
Four “neighborhood centers” east of the freeway would include parks, churches and small shopping centers about a 10-minute walk from most homes. The project also includes an 874-acre greenbelt to the south meant to remain unbuilt for a decade, which Pacific Cascade calls a “shield” against rapid and unplanned growth in the area.
That argument has not won over opponents like Rominger, who have created a group called Colusa County Residents for Responsible Development. The group has held meetings for two months and is planning a letter-writing campaign to supervisors and newspapers calling for any development to take place close to Arbuckle.
“We’ll talk with our neighbors to identify the growth potential in the county as it currently is,” she said. “The general plan states development is to occur adjacent to the established towns.”
Arbuckle, home to some 2,300 people, already is the focus of housing growth. The county has approved five subdivisions in the unincorporated town and is reviewing applications for two others, according to Stephen M. Hackney, planning and building director.
Appeal-Democrat reporter Howard Yune can be reached at 749-4708. You may e-mail him at hyune@appealdemocrat.com.
Back to the top
|
South county development facing opposition
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
By Howard Yune/For the Sun-Herald
Plans for a new community south of Arbuckle in are finally in the hands of planning officials. But the long-discussed project is inspiring a renewed fight from local residents fearful of losing the area's farmland.
"The county is legally required to accept all applications that are submitted," said District 1 Supervisor Kim Dolbow-Vann. "It's important for the public to understand that accepting an application is definitely not the same as approving that application."
Foes of the development have formed an opposition group and are preparing a publicity campaign to denounce Pacific Cascade's plan as an example of suburban sprawl that threatens the vitality of nearby farms.
"It takes away from our local efforts to improve our own community," said Elaine Rominger, an Arbuckle almond farmer and former Woodland mayor battling the development. "It takes supervisors' attention away from communities. And it's going to absolutely skew the political and social network that we have."
James L. Resney, Pacific Cascade's vice president says the site for the proposed development is the right place to create a job engine in southern Colusa County. "The County-Line site is a short commute to the Sacramento airport and downtown Sacramento and it is out of the flood plain," Resney said. "It's the best site for protecting against sprawl and creating job growth."
Vann says that a lot of misinformation has been spread though out the county via rumor. "Both sides of this debate are trying to create that false perception. One side wants people to believe [the application] has already been approved for buy-out leverage purposes and the other side is using it to create fear that building is going to start any day now. And it's complete nonsense, we accepted the application and it is being processed as is required by law."
Pacific Cascade Group has applied to the county for a general plan change allowing construction of homes, stores and industrial sites near Interstate 5 on the Yolo County border. The Orange County-based development firm hopes to create housing for 27,000 people over three decades, some 5,000 more than the county's current population.
Pacific Cascade, whose local branch, Colusa Heritage Partners, has an Arbuckle office, hopes to rezone 3,512 acres of mostly agricultural land for a mix of homes, stores, industry and open space. The amendment would require approval from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The application calls for clustering industries on a 500-acre section around the I-5 and County Line Road crossing, as well as creating a traditional-style downtown and village green inside a ring road east of I-5.
Four "neighborhood centers" east of the freeway would include parks, churches and small shopping centers about a 10-minute walk from most homes. The project also includes an 874-acre greenbelt to the south meant to remain unbuilt for a decade, which Pacific Cascade calls a "shield" against rapid and unplanned growth in the area.
That argument has not won over opponents like Rominger, who have created a group called Colusa County Residents for Responsible Development. The group has held meetings for two months and is planning a letter-writing campaign to supervisors and newspapers calling for any development to take place close to Arbuckle.
"We'll talk with our neighbors to identify the growth potential in the county as it currently is," she said. "The general plan states development is to occur adjacent to the established towns."
Arbuckle, home to some 2,300 people, already is the focus of housing growth. The county has approved five subdivisions in the unincorporated town and is reviewing applications for two others, according to Stephen M. Hackney, planning and building director. "The application is being processed and treated the same as every application that comes through this office," Hackney said.
If approved, the next phase in the process will be the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] compliance process. Should the application be deemed incomplete the county is required to send a letter to applicant showing what the application would need to be considered complete.
Appeal-Democrat reporter Howard Yune can be reached at 749-4708. You may e-mail him at hyune@appealdemocrat.com. Sun-Herald writer Robert Parsons contributed to this report and can be reached at [530] 458-2121 or via email at parsonsrobert@yahoo.com.
|
Back to the top
Fight brewing over Colusa tract
By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat
November 18, 2007
Where almond orchards and alfalfa fields occupy a slice of Colusa County, a developer envisions offices, stores, a new downtown – and as many as 6,500 homes.
But the plan to build a new community almost from scratch is about more than stucco and asphalt. For its backers and foes alike, the South Colusa Gateway Community is about reshaping this Sacramento Valley farming area.
The development promises a much-needed revenue boost for Colusa County, which has struggled for years with budget crunches that have cut into such basic services as law enforcement.
But even such cash flow is too high a price for some area farmers fearful of farmland being paved over for an uncertain long-term return.
“Am I going to say OK, let’s sacrifice a chunk of our community just to pass our budget for the next five or 10 years?” said Tom Dafoe, owner of an almond farm in the area. “That’s significant? What are our children going to do when that money is gone? Just keep paving?”
Orange County group proposes project
Pacific Cascade Group, an Orange County development and investment firm, submitted an application to Colusa County last month to change the zoning of farmland to allow construction of the new town. South Colusa Gateway, first proposed in 2004, would occupy more than 3,500 acres south of Arbuckle.
The plans call for storefronts and apartments in a new downtown district east of Interstate 5, with an outer ring comprising houses, condominiums and five schools.
South Colusa Gateway would absorb an existing 500-acre industrial development zone next to I-5, where builders could erect offices, warehouses and travel services such as gas stations and restaurants.
James L. Resney, senior vice president of Pacific Cascade, estimated the county would collect property tax from about 300 homes to be built annually over 20 to 30 years. The community plan also allows for up to 9 million square feet of office and retail space.
A community on the Colusa-Yolo county line is an ideal distance from Sacramento to bring some of its economic strength to the rest of Colusa County, argued Resney, who sees South Colusa Gateway as both an ideal commuters’ base and a shopping hub for other county residents.
“Sacramento is its own economic engine, and we can pull some of that energy 30 miles north,” he said in an interview Friday.
But opposition has developed, with a collection of local farmers at its head.
An open house in December 2006 at the Arbuckle office of Pacific Cascade’s local branch, Colusa Heritage Partners, became a stage for more than 70 picketers who objected to the increased burden on roads, public utilities and the water supply. The campaign against South Colusa Gateway expanded in September with the creation of Colusa County Residents for Responsible Development, which is planning letter-writing campaigns to newspapers.
Elaine Rominger, a former Woodland mayor and Colusa supervisor candidate, predicted that a new community would pull customers away from existing merchants in the county. South Colusa Gateway’s very self-sufficiency also would lead residents to form a city, she added – and hold onto property and sales tax revenue that otherwise would flow to the county.
“And then by the time it’s built out, they will no longer be part of county,” she said Thursday. “They’ll incorporate long before it gets built out. Unless the county is very astute in negotiations over incorporation, the county will lose any and all benefits they plan to get with increases in property tax and sales tax revenue.”
“We’re not opposed to new kinds of industry, but to bring in thousands of new homes – it’s like opening up the floodgates,” said Dafoe, who belongs to the Responsible Development group. “It’s such a 180-degree turn from what has been the general plan for Colusa County: to remain agricultural, to preserve the existing communities we have and avoid leapfrog development.”
The opposition to South Colusa Gateway did not appear to faze Resney, who said the economic argument for approving a new town will persuade county lawmakers in the end.
“We’ll be at this two, three years,” he said. “There will be time to study this. The county may decide this isn’t the direction they want to go. But if you’re afraid to go through the study, then you’re afraid of facts. What’s to be afraid of?”
Long process to approval
The fate of South Colusa Gateway will take several years to play out. County planning officials can demand more information from Pacific Cascade, and both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must approve the project. Builders also must give the county environmental and traffic reports required by the state.
County officials are taking up the South Colusa Gateway issue during a slumping housing market. But if its planners can hold out for long enough, real estate analysts predicted, the project could find enough home buyers because of continued migration into the state.
“We’ll see prices starting to rise, and there will be lack of homes in the three- or four-year pipeline that it takes to take properties through the planning process,” said Lloyd Leighton, a Yuba City broker who publishes a monthly newsletter on the Mid-Valley real estate market. “If you have lots in hand to take advantage of the shortage in supply, you can do pretty well.
“This is the time to keep moving forward, knowing it’ll be several years before you’re able to build anyway. Hopefully the timing will be better when you’ve finished. My guess is by the time they get it through the planning process, we’ll see a vastly different housing market.”
Whether South Colusa Gateway rises from the fields, another community may appear over the county line in Dunnigan. A new general plan proposed for Yolo County includes blueprints to add as many as 7,500 homes in Dunnigan. (A Board of Supervisors vote on the plan is expected in early 2009, according to David Morrison, assistant planning director.)
Supporters say another planned community nearby can benefit Colusa County if it allows South Colusa Gateway to be built – or drain funds away if the county quashes it.
“If that happens, Colusa County is going to lose,” said Donna Phelan, an Arbuckle homebuilder who chairs a charitable foundation created by Pacific Cascade. “That will drain us. People will go (to Dunnigan) for their goods and services when they could have kept their money in Colusa County.”
As migration to California grows and the big coastal cities become ever pricier to live in, the lure of cheaper homes inland will remain – and cause debates over developments like South Colusa Gateway to repeat itself, according to Greg Paquin, a Folsom-based real estate analyst.
“This is a question being asked from Bakersfield to Redding,” said Paquin, president of The Gregory Group. “You’ve got cities with boundaries that are maxed out.
“A lot of that (available) land is farmland or open space, and there are real challenges out there. But frankly, people are not going to stop coming into those communities.”
Back to the top
South County growth opposition gaining momentum
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
By Howard Yune/Appeal-Democrat
Where almond orchards and alfalfa fields occupy a slice of Colusa County, a developer envisions offices, stores, a new downtown - and as many as 6,500 homes.
But the plan to build a new community almost from scratch is about more than stucco and asphalt. For its backers and foes alike, the South Colusa Gateway Community is about reshaping this Sacramento Valley farming area.
The development promises a much-needed revenue boost for Colusa County, which has struggled for years with budget crunches that have cut into such basic services as law enforcement.
But even such cash flow is too high a price for some area farmers fearful of farmland being paved over for an uncertain long-term return.
"Am I going to say OK, let's sacrifice a chunk of our community just to pass our budget for the next five or 10 years?" said Tom Dafoe, owner of an almond farm in the area. "That's significant? What are our children going to do when that money is gone? Just keep paving?"
Orange County group proposes project
Pacific Cascade Group, an Orange County development and investment firm, submitted an application to Colusa County last month to change the zoning of farmland to allow construction of the new town. South Colusa Gateway, first proposed in 2004, would occupy more than 3,500 acres south of Arbuckle.
The plans call for storefronts and apartments in a new downtown district east of Interstate 5, with an outer ring comprising houses, condominiums and five schools.
South Colusa Gateway would absorb an existing 500-acre industrial development zone next to I-5, where builders could erect offices, warehouses and travel services such as gas stations and restaurants.
James L. Resney, senior vice president of Pacific Cascade, estimated the county would collect property tax from about 300 homes to be built annually over 20 to 30 years. The community plan also allows for up to 9 million square feet of office and retail space.
"A community on the Colusa-Yolo county line is an ideal distance from Sacramento to bring some of its economic strength to the rest of Colusa County," argued Resney, who sees South Colusa Gateway as both an ideal commuters' base and a shopping hub for other county residents.
"Sacramento is its own economic engine, and we can pull some of that energy 30 miles north," he said in an interview Friday. ??But opposition has developed, with a collection of local farmers at its head.
An open house in December 2006 at the Arbuckle office of Pacific Cascade's local branch, Colusa Heritage Partners, became a stage for more than 70 picketers who objected to the increased burden on roads, public utilities and the water supply. The campaign against South Colusa Gateway expanded in September with the creation of Colusa County Residents for Responsible Development, which is planning letter-writing campaigns to newspapers. Elaine Rominger, a former Woodland mayor and Colusa supervisor candidate, predicted that a new community would pull customers away from existing merchants in the county. South Colusa Gateway's very self-sufficiency also would lead residents to form a city, she added - and hold onto property and sales tax revenue that otherwise would flow to the county.
"And then by the time it's built out, they will no longer be part of county," she said Thursday. "They'll incorporate long before it gets built out. Unless the county is very astute in negotiations over incorporation, the county will lose any and all benefits they plan to get with increases in property tax and sales tax revenue."
"We're not opposed to new kinds of industry, but to bring in thousands of new homes - it's like opening up the floodgates," said Dafoe, who belongs to the Responsible Development group. "It's such a 180-degree turn from what has been the general plan for Colusa County: to remain agricultural, to preserve the existing communities we have and avoid leapfrog development."
The opposition to South Colusa Gateway did not appear to faze Resney, who said the economic argument for approving a new town will persuade county lawmakers in the end.
"We'll be at this two, three years," he said. "There will be time to study this. The county may decide this isn't the direction they want to go. But if you're afraid to go through the study, then you're afraid of facts. What's to be afraid of?"
Long process to approval
The fate of South Colusa Gateway will take several years to play out. County planning officials can demand more information from Pacific Cascade, and both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must approve the project. Builders also must give the county environmental and traffic reports required by the state.
County officials are taking up the South Colusa Gateway issue during a slumping housing market. But if its planners can hold out for long enough, real estate analysts predicted, the project could find enough home buyers because of continued migration into the state.
"We'll see prices starting to rise, and there will be lack of homes in the three- or four-year pipeline that it takes to take properties through the planning process," said Lloyd Leighton, a Yuba City broker who publishes a monthly newsletter on the Mid-Valley real estate market.
"If you have lots in hand to take advantage of the shortage in supply, you can do pretty well. "This is the time to keep moving forward, knowing it'll be several years before you're able to build anyway. Hopefully the timing will be better when you've finished. My guess is by the time they get it through the planning process, we'll see a vastly different housing market."
Whether or not South Colusa Gateway rises from the fields, another community may appear over the county line in Dunnigan. A new general plan proposed for Yolo County includes blueprints to add as many as 7,500 homes in Dunnigan. [A Board of Supervisors vote on the plan is expected in early 2009, according to David Morrison, assistant planning director]. Supporters say another planned community nearby can benefit Colusa County if it allows South Colusa Gateway to be built - or drain funds away if the county quashes it.
"If that happens, Colusa County is going to lose," said Donna Phelan, an Arbuckle homebuilder who chairs a charitable foundation created by Pacific Cascade. "That will drain us. People will go [to Dunnigan] for their goods and services when they could have kept their money in Colusa County."
As migration to California grows and the big coastal cities become ever pricier to live in, the lure of cheaper homes inland will remain - and cause debates over developments like South Colusa Gateway to repeat itself, according to Greg Paquin, a Folsom-based real estate analyst.
"This is a question being asked from Bakersfield to Redding," said Paquin, president of The Gregory Group. "You've got cities with boundaries that are maxed out.
"A lot of that [available] land is farmland or open space, and there are real challenges out there. But frankly, people are not going to stop coming into those communities."
Back to the top
Colusa can grow without Heritage
Appeal Democrat
November 25, 2007
I am very concerned about the proposed 6,600 homes at County Line by Colusa Heritage Group. The literature I’ve received by this group is upsetting. The statements and graphs make it seem like we are a pathetic lot here in Colusa County and that our only chance of survival is this huge development in the south of the county.
We have done a lot of good work over the past few years in getting Colusa, Arbuckle and Williams to a place where we can grow and develop businesses. Pushing all our resources and taxpayer money to the south tip of the county will only destroy this hard effort we've made to grow our existing communities.
-Nancy Cain Myers
Arbuckle
Back to the top
Colusa development hurts ag, residents
Appeal Democrat
November 24, 2007
Everyone who supports farming and our small town communities should be very wary of the development plan being touted by developer Colusa Heritage Partners to build a new town along the north edge of County Line Road near Interstate 5. They are putting out a lot of propaganda about their proposal and the benefits that will accrue to Colusa County and its citizens. This is a bad plan, meant to create vast profits for the developers and a few local landowners, but will be very detrimental to the communities of the county.
This land is served high-quality irrigation water from the federal Central Valley Project. The fields have been leveled to grade for row crops or are served by drip irrigation and are suitable for a wide variety of food or fiber production.
If the Colusa County administration grants approval for the requested zoning changes, up to 6,600 homes will replace the agriculture with commuter-type urban residents who will leave the county for jobs elsewhere and do their buying in the cities where they work.
Their children will overload our school system, but their money will support businesses elsewhere. Existing communities will see their planned growth wither on the vine.
There are many negative impacts, such as insufficient groundwater to support a large urban area, insufficient traffic circulation, etc., that I will not even go into. Suffice to say that it is folly to try to transplant urbanites into a rural setting at a period when commute costs are skyrocketing and housing demand is in a slump. Ask the supervisors to stick to the current general plan.
Garreth Schaad
Colusa County Farmer
Back to the top
Proud of Colusa's heritage
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
I keep seeing pictures of Colusa Heritage Partners representatives handing checks to Colusa County people. I would like to know what CHP is expecting in return for this money? The definition of bribery id the act of giving anything to persuade. Are they expecting these groups to support their project in return for the money they are receiving?
I also don’t understand how CHP can have an office with paid staff, but not be generating any income. All the businesses in Colusa County need income to stay in business. How can CHP not run a business in the same manner as the rest of us and yet remain in Colusa County?
This, in addition to the bribes they are giving Colusa county residents, is very disturbing.
I think we need to trust Colusa County residents to work out our general plan and not rely on Southern California developers to come in here and tell us what to do. We are proud of Colusa’s Heritage and for them to use our heritage in their name makes me sick.
Sincerely,
Gene Carie
Back to the top
Sprawl buffers?
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
When I read the brochures sent to my house by Colusa Heritage Partners, I shake my head. How does creating sprawl by building more than 5,000 homes in the middle of farmland create a sprawl buffer? They want us to believe that creating sprawl will lead to less sprawl? I don’t understand. This does not make sense.
Most everything in the information they send out is misleading and really does not tell the truth. I am concerned that people are being fooled by what can only be called propaganda. If you support this project then I challenge you to look carefully at what is being presented.
As a former member of the Colusa County Planning Commission I have looked at this very carefully. We need to do things for this county that will protect and enhance its heritage not destroy it. I think you will see what is being advertised is bad for Colusa County, and bad for Colusa County’s Heritage.
Sincerely,
Carole Cain
Back to the top
Respect true Colusa County heritage
December 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
I am writing to respond to the “Colusa Heritage Partners” crusade for leapfrog development of parts of the Southern County that are currently zoned Agricultural.
There will be growth in this county, that is a given. Well-planned housing that is developed within existing communities is expected. New industry that is compatible with agriculture is welcomed. However, massive, developments that create new communities while threatening our existing communities and our agricultural backbone are not wanted.
One huge factor in this type of growth is what it does to our existing downtown areas. We end up with decaying old town without the proper growth, and then “Revitalization Committees” have to pop up and fight against blight. Downtown buildings become vacant. This reduces property values there, as well as promotes vandalism. That harms our existing local businesses! We need to responsibly expand and develop our existing town infrastructures, not create whole new ones.
This type of growth harms agricultural communities. Between 1982 and 1987 the Central Valley lost a half million acres of farmland to sprawl. [From Smart Communities Network, paying the costs of sprawl smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/sprawl. shtml.] According to the American Farmland Trust [sagepub.com] the United States lost 6 million acres due to development between 1992-1997. Additionally our Yolo County Neighbor sites that between 200-2002 they lost an average of 11 acres per day, and the State lost 50,000 acres in the same time period. [California Dept. of Conservation (conservation.ca.gov)] This year the U.S. for the first time became a net food-importing nation [Range Magazine, of Polar Bears and Lilacs, Winter Issue 2008]. With the recent debacle of Chinese imported lead filled toys, and lunchboxes, I would hope people are starting to wake up and get concerned about protecting where their food is coming from, and how we can continue to produce it.
This development won’t bring wealth to our county, but it will bring long-term infrastructure cost and commitment in the form of roads, water, schools, and law enforcement to name a few. But by then the developer will be long gone, and we’ll have to figure out how to keep paying for it. In addition, frighteningly, it will change in our voting block to include people without any agricultural background who want to pass local ordinances against agriculture interests.
There are a million places we can go and experience crowded roads, fast food, malls and development. There are only a couple of mainly agricultural counties left in existence. We are unique. Our agricultural communities can NEVER be replaced once they are lost. I hope the Board will follow our general plan, and respect the true Colusa County Heritage, and that heritage is agricultural. I hope we can find the value in our County. It has many attributes, it is unique and it is special. Help keep it that way.
Cristy Edwards
Back to the top
Concerned about project
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
I am very concerned about the Colusa Heritage Partners proposed development project on the south Colusa County Line. I have lived and farmed on the County Line for 40 years and hope that my family may continue to farm for many more years. To place 6,500 new residences in the middle of this farming area will make it very difficult for me and my neighbors to continue farming. I would think it would be better to place new growth in the county adjacent to the existing communities that would like to grow. I hope that the Colusa County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will deny the Colusa Heritage Partners application for this project.
Don Peart
Back to the top
Beware of proposed project
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank Jim [Slim] Edwards for his great letter to the Editor about the Colusa Heritage Partners proposed 6,600 home development in south Colusa County. Mr. Edwards lives in the northwest part of Colusa County and he realizes this development will affect our entire county. He expressed my concerns about this development. We don’t need our agricultural land rezoned for homes. We, who live on County line, have been accused of being against progress. We are for intelligent growth around our existing towns. Beware, the entire county will be affected in a negative way by his proposed project!
Kay Abele
Back to the top
Don't be fooled
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
We, the citizens of Colusa County, have been bombarded in a “family-friendly” way by the developer known as “Colusa Heritage Group” and its deep-pocket propaganda. Be assured that this is a full-fledged political campaign, with a lot of misleading advertising to come. With millions of dollars already invested, Colusa Heritage Group will spend whatever it takes to protect its project. Be prepared and don’t be fooled. CHP doesn’t care about you or me or our community. Its bottom line is business profit, period. When you see CHP, be sure to slow down and take a look at the facts and their intentions here in Colusa County.
Very Sincerely,
Catherine Kaelin
Back to the top
Colusa development doesn't add up
Appeal Democrat
December 18, 2007
I have attended many of the meetings and developer workshops (Pacific Cascade Group) conducted since the south Colusa development was initiated. Questions regarding infrastructure, water, waste facilities, and types of businesses were never answered, and the topic was quickly changed.
There have been promises of positive financial impact to Colusa County budgets including personal property taxes and sales tax generated from the proposed development. It would be interesting to see an analysis of how “residential rooftop” property tax revenues contribute to the Colusa County budget. Do these revenues actually pay the cost of ongoing increases for infrastructure such as schools, fire, police, and road maintenance? And, should the new community pursue “cityhood,” what would be the budgetary impact to the remainder of the county?
New growth should be a planned process reflecting the heritage of Colusa County and existing community needs.
-David Towle
Arbuckle
Back to the top
Growth versus groundwater in Colusa County
Appeal Democrat
January 6th, 2008
For some farmers in south Colusa County, the most compelling reason to fight a future town among their fields and nut orchards lies underneath the area - hundreds of feet below ground.
An Orange County developer planning a community south of Arbuckle to attract more than 20,000 residents has predicted the project, South Colusa Gateway Community, will enrich county coffers while providing new housing and retail shops. But nearby landowners fear the water use by subdivisions and businesses could dry out a groundwater supply they say is already drawn alarmingly low.
If thousands of homes are built in the area, “I would give the aquifer a lifespan of six months,” Gary Schaad, president of the nearby Dunnigan Water District, said Thursday. “There is absolutely no way the groundwater could serve a community of that size.”
Such sobering forecasts present one of the early attacks on the South Colusa Gateway project, envisioned to create up to 6,500 homes on a 3,500-acre expanse east of Interstate 5. The developer, Pacific Cascade Group, applied in October to the county’s planning department for an exemption to its land-use general plan in hopes of building homes, stores, office space and industrial zones over about 30 years.
Officials of the Colusa County and Dunnigan water districts described the area as vulnerable to overuse even in its current, thinly populated state - especially during droughts like the one that gripped the region in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
County officials should get a better idea of their groundwater supply in a few months when the Colusa County Groundwater Management Plan is completed. The county embarked on the plan about a year ago. It’s supposed to go to the Board of Supervisors in May.
Once largely devoted to pasture and grain crops not needing irrigation, south Colusa County first saw home and farm wells drilled after World War II, according to Schaad.
But from the start, he added, such drilling has been plagued by quick exhaustion of underground water and the gradual need to probe ever deeper - from about 300 feet in the 1950s to as much as 750 feet now.
Another community planned for Dunnigan, just inside the Yolo County border, also promises to attract up to 20,000 residents, a further drain on groundwater supplies. The Yolo County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote in early 2009 on a general plan that would include the groundwork for the Dunnigan project.
James L. Resney, vice president of Pacific Cascade, gave few details about the company’s estimates of the groundwater supply but called fears about its quick exhaustion premature.
“We have studies already that verify substantial groundwater and no overdraft,” said Resney. He added the company arranged test drillings at the South Colusa Gateway site in mid-2006 to depths as low as 1,300 feet.
Since the 1960s, the Tehama-Colusa Canal has funneled water from the Sacramento River near Red Bluff south through the valley, and the channel now supplies most of the region’s farmland.
Pacific Cascade’s outline of South Colusa Gateway does not mention the possibility of using canal water, instead calling for the drilling of seven wells producing about 1,000 gallons per minute.
Don Peart, a director for the Arbuckle-based Colusa County Water Board, called the canal the only realistic hope for supplying South Colusa Gateway - but warned of the opposition farmers would put up against diverting its water away from their lands.
“First, we have to see what happens to our district when a developer wants to cut 3,500 acres out of our water district,” said Peart. “It would put a tremendous burden on the landowners in the rest of the district to lose that percentage of land that’s not going to pay taxes to the district.
“We’re just trying to get a well that produces 800 gallons. If they can get 1,000, then God bless them.”
Back to the top
Bad for Colusa’s heritage
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 20, 2007
Dear Editor,
I was looking through the brochures mailed by Colusa Heritage Partners. They show a farmer with his grandkids by his side looking out at open agricultural land. I am trying to figure out what this picture is supposed to show? The caption reads, “Moving Colusa County forward.” It looks to me like he is explaining to his grandkids to take a look at this field now because it will soon be a bunch of houses. I don’t know about you but I don’t think that building a bunch of houses on prime farmland is the best way to move Colusa County forward. There are plenty of other areas, where the soil is not as good, to build in Colusa County. I think we need to encourage growth around the existing cities where it is being planned and not out in the middle of nowhere. Please let your Supervisors know that this sprawl project is bad for Colusa County, and bed for Colusa’s heritage.
Sincerely,
Roy Wachsmuth
Back to the top
South Colusa County Sprawl
Colusa County Sun Herald
December 20, 2007
Dear Editor,
I have attended many of the various meetings and developer workshops [Pacific Cascade Group] conducted since the South Colusa development was initiated. The developer sponsored workshops were, in my opinion, a ploy by the developer to “generate” statistics to demonstrate their willingness to listen to and work with the community. Questions regarding infrastructure, water, waste facilities, and types of businesses were never answered and the topic was quickly changed. It was clear that their method of conducting business was centered on what they wanted regardless of what the community was saying.
James Resney has stated “It’s the best site for protecting against sprawl and creating job growth.” How is developing a new community of 27,000 people in prime agricultural land not sprawl? Can you imagine traffic congestion created by just one-half of the proposed population at the County Line Road and Old Hwy 99? Mix in the agricultural equipment movement in the same area and you have an even greater congestion issue. I suspect Mr. Resney has never traveled Old Hwy 99 during busy harvest season. But, we must not forget, Pacific Cascade’s vice president James Resney knows what is best for Colusa County.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of how “residential roof top” property tax revenues contribute to the Colusa County budget. Do these revenues actually pay the cost of increased needs such as schools, fire, police, and road maintenance, or will existing Colusa County budgets have to compensate? And, should the new community pursue “city hood,” what would be the budgetary impact to the remainder of the county?
New growth should be a planned process reflecting the heritage of Colusa County, and the community needs of individual cities and towns within the County.
David Towle
Back to the top
Heritage application incomplete
Colusa County Sun Herald
Project would bring 6,500 new homes south of Arbuckle
February 7, 2008 - 11:18PM
County officials say the Colusa Heritage Partners General Plan Amendment Application is incomplete.
Stephen Hackney, director of planning and building, issued the letter of incompleteness late last month.
Pacific Cascade Group, an Orange County development firm, through it’s subsidiary, Colusa Heritage Partners, submitted an application to the County in October, requesting zoning changes of farmland to allow construction of a new town.
The project, known as South Colusa Gateway Community, was first proposed in 2004, and would bring as many as 6,500 new homes, impacting more than 3,500 acres of farmland south of Arbuckle.
Project supporters say the development would bring new money to a county desperately strapped for cash.
Opponents say the project would change the face of the county and are seeking to preserve the culture of farming in Colusa.
The letter of incompleteness says the applicant still needs to acquire “letters of agency” or letter of authorization “from each landowner upon whose land the proposed project action is to take place.”
The letter also requires the applicant to “expand upon, flesh out and make clear” the promises that the project would “provide a shield against sprawl.”
“This has not been explained or justified,” the letter says. “To characterize such a benefit, where an apparent contradiction in definitions…does not assist County staff or decision-makers, without a fully laid out discussion within the application packet.”
Officials said they expect Colusa Heritage Partners will re-submit a completed application, but did not speculate as to when.
Contact Sun-Herald writer Robert Parsons at 458-2121 or rparsons@tcnpress.com.
Back to the top
Dear Editor: Why do we need 6,000 homes?
Colusa County Sun Herald
February 21, 2008 - 4:52PM
Why do we need 6,000 homes?
Recently three letters appeared in the Colusa County Sun-Hearld presenting opinions on the Colusa Heritage Partners south county development plan. In reading these letters I was left with more questions than answers.
How will the tax base on 6,000-plus homes and strip mall businesses help pay for basic services like doctors, infrastructures like roads, and water management for the county as a whole?
Monies generated by the new development will, in all probability, not even cover the cost of maintaining the roads, parks, water and waste management systems of the new development.
Road infrastructure costs will increase due to the traffic generated by the new homes and businesses. On second thought this may not be true since residents of the new community will only need to get on Interstate 5 for travel to jobs and shopping. Major shopping will still be in Woodland, Sacramento, Vacaville, etc. since the size of the proposed development is not sufficient to attract the big box stores.
Yes, there are 500 acres that have been zoned commercial for many years. And there are new homes already in place and waiting to be completed in the Arbuckle area that would accommodate workers of jobs generated. Why do we need 6,000 plus additional homes?
It appears that Colusa Heritage Partners has not stepped forward out of the goodness of their hearts to help Colusa County. They saw a market for new homes as a bedroom community to Sacramento and are here to capitalize on that market.
It has been stated that this plan promises to turn around the county’s current economic situation deserves to be explored. I agree. But 6000 homes and a few businesses situated in prime agricultural land is not what I would consider a good plan.
The current review and updating of the County General Plan is in the process of shaping the future to preserve existing communities while improving our economy and quality of life for the entire county. It is this neutral process, not the interests of Colusa Heritage Partners or any other developer to determine what is best for Colusa County.
The south county plan as well as other large proposals requesting rezoning should not be considered until the County General Plan update has been completed.
David Towle
Arbuckle
Letters to the editor
Proclamations
|
 |
