SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'- PquIN 2.' OFFICE OF •' '� COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C4C!F pR�`P COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN COURTHOUSE. ROOM 707 222 EAST WEBER AVENUE STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95202-2778 'AREA 209' 944-9211 c 1 B J January 27, 1989 M E M O R A N D U M To: Kitty Walker Senior Planner From: Mel Wi ngett /11c Assistant County Administrator Subject: "MOUNTAIN HOUSE" NEW TOWN PROPOSAL You asked for some comments on the "Mountain House" new town proposal . Although my primary area of responsibility is governmental financing, I would like to start my response by dealing with one of the major flaws I see in the proposal and that is its location bisecting the Alameda-San Joaquin County line. Governmental Service Agencies From the governmental review basis, this proposal faces the dual steps and problems of approval from two counties. A comparable project in a single county would face only half of these relationship and potentially conflicting develop- ment review criteria. The fact that the "new town" straddles the Alameda-San Joaquin County line means that every governmental service delivery mechanism will have to be bifurcated or rely on a cumbersome bi-county special district organization, yet to be created. As an example of the many problems I foresee would be that special districts for the community, if authorized to levy special taxes or benefit assessments, would have to coordinate the implementation of these with two separate counties. These procedures normally involve the establishment of criteria developed from assessment rolls, rates established or monitored by the County Auditor, and eventual implementation on the tax bills of two different counties whose approach to the same problem may be different. As long as the community remains unincorporated it falls in the planning juris- diction of two counties. Even if the same initial lard use plan were adopted by both counties, it would be extremely difficult to insure that the plans of the counties remain coordinated. Hearings for development changes on one side of the community would have residents on the other side of the community and in a different county affected. It seems like a built-in unnecessary extra hurdle for the residents of the new town to relate to two jurisdictions with land use authority.