‘A much better plan.’ Crows Landing business park moves forward, but cities cite concerns

Stanislaus County’s plan for a business park and public airport near Crows Landing has sparked a debate over traditional growth issues including traffic impacts, land use and farmland preservation.

The cities of Newman and Patterson asked the Board of Supervisors to delay a decision Tuesday on environmental studies for the 1,500-acre Crows Landing Industrial Business Park at the former military airfield south of Patterson. Up to 15,000 people could work at the business complex plotted for development over 30 years.

County leaders approved the environmental work on a 4-0 vote, with an abstention from Supervisor Terry Withrow, whose wife has a minor interest in property near the former air base.

Newman City Manager Michael Holland said there are unresolved issues with housing for the thousands of employees hired to work in the industrial plants, distribution centers and aviation-related businesses. Because a county policy prohibits home construction in unincorporated areas, the project will boost demand for homes in nearby cities like Newman and Patterson — and require the cities to provide mitigations for loss of farmland.

Holland said the county’s environmental report should include farmland mitigation fees to help the cities with those requirements. Residential developments in Stanislaus County must be offset by measures to conserve productive farmland.

Holland also said the county needs to pay its share for improvements to the Highway 33 intersections at Stuhr Road, Jensen Road and Yolo and Inyo streets. County Public Works Director David Leamon said vehicle traffic generated by the industrial center would make the county responsible for 28 percent of the costs.

County supervisors said they’re willing to work with Newman on the traffic mitigations.

In letters Thursday and Friday, Patterson raised a number of issues from utilities to groundwater impacts and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Attorney Robin Baral of Churchwell White, representing Patterson, said the environmental study does not recognize the need for an out-of-boundary agreement for the city to provide wastewater service for the Crows Landing center. Unless the city’s ultimate service area is extended to include the site, Baral said, the Local Agency Formation Commission will need to approve a special agreement for sewer service outside the city’s territory.

Board Chairman Jim DeMartini was less sympathetic with Patterson’s latest concerns after county officials had discussed the project with the city on almost a monthly basis. DeMartini criticized the city for proposing a deal in which the county would endorse the Northwest Patterson annexation in exchange for city support for the Crows Landing business park.

“It is totally inappropriate,” DeMartini said, adding that plans for the city’s northwest annexation are sketchy. According to a copy of the city’s proposed deal, released by DeMartini, Patterson wanted a promise from the county to explore a Zacharias Road alignment for the South County Corridor expressway.

Patterson’s 1,200-acre annexation, northwest of the city limits and south of Zacharias Road, could include 2,500 to 3,000 dwellings, as well as commercial development and public amenities. County officials had no estimate on how many business park employees would live in the annexation area.

In other comments at Tuesday’s hearing, representatives of Sierra Academy of Aeronautics said the flight school at the former Castle Air Force Base in Atwater could possibly use the Crows Landing airport as a satellite location. The pilot training school has 44 aircraft logging more than 80,000 annual training operations and has a need to use other airports.

County Supervisor Vito Chiesa said the Crows Landing business park won’t be built tomorrow, but it’s a better plan than a previous proposal, called West Park, that stirred controversy.

“We have a much better plan now,” Chiesa said. “The economy is better. It’s time we start moving forward slowly.”

The county Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors are expected to review a master plan for the project in the next two months and could seek proposals next year to choose a developer.

This story was originally published October 30, 2018 at 4:55 PM.