Public: 'No' to planned community

Despite a limited amount of testimony last Wednesday, county residents had a one-word response on plans to build a major urban community in western Elmore County -- No.

Opponents of the proposed Mayfield Townsite planned community outnumbered its supporters by a nearly five-to-one margin during a public hearing hosted by the county's planning and zoning commission.

Testimony accepted at the meeting helped gauge the public's openness of building this planned community on the border with Ada County. Spanning approximately 5,000 acres, it would add another 15,000 dwelling units and nearly 37,500 more people to the county over the course of its proposed 50-year development.

Putting that into perspective, the townsite is "two times the size of Mountain Home and similar in size to Eagle and Meridian," said County Growth and Development Director Alan Christy.

The townsite project is tied, in part, to another planned community known as Mayfield Springs. That smaller, 761-acre project, seeks to serve another 10,000 people in this same region.

In his opening comments to the planning and zoning commission, Marty Goldsmith emphasized the need to put the planned community in the Mayfield area. The Caldwell-based developer said the limited amount of public land inside Elmore County puts restrictions on where to place this type of development.

Showing a map to the commissioners, Goldsmith said 76 percent of the county's total land is owned by either federal or state agencies. Of the remaining 24 percent, more than half is allocated for other uses, leaving just 7 percent for commercial development. Much of that is within the Mayfield area, he said.

John Starr was one of two people speaking in support of the planned community. A land use specialist based in Caldwell, he emphasized the need to accommodate future growth across the Treasure Valley, which currently stands at 3 percent per year and could double within 20 years.

"That's a lot of people, and we'll need to build another town to satisfy this growth," Starr said.

Meanwhile, there's limited land available in southern Idaho to accommodate this inevitable population increase, said Courtney Ireland.

"The county needs to seriously consider this project to help improve its tax base," added Ireland, who previously served with the county's planning and zoning commission.

Speaking out of turn as a project supporter following the testimony of its opponents, Ireland felt confident this planned community would come together as envisioned. She highlighted the success of the Hidden Springs planned community in the Treasure Valley as an example of how these projects effectively function.

Opponents of the planned community were far less optimistic.

Gene Wilson, who lives on Indian Creek Road, disagreed with the developer's need to build a community of this magnitude. He was equally offended by the developer's adage that, "If we build it, they will come."

"It should say, 'If we build it, we'll make lots and lots of money,' " Wilson said.

Mary Frisch, speaking on behalf of several residents in the Danskin area, said other planned communities in the Treasure Valley failed to become fully independent -- a key component of this townsite project. Without an influx of commercial and retail businesses to let them become self sufficient, these planned communities become nothing more than "dormitory communities" that end up relying on Ada County or nearby cities for support.

Frisch urged the commission to remember the failures of these planned communities when rendering its verdict.

Meanwhile, Brandon Isaacs doubted that this planned community would yield the 3,000 commercial and retail jobs needed to remain self sufficient. Building a community this size "in the middle of nowhere" is simply a bad idea, the Danskin resident said.

"Bedroom communities like this are already failing, yet we'd end up building another bedroom community for Boise," Isaacs said. "I can only imagine the type of damage this planned community would create."

Peter Humm, a Mountain Home resident, didn't consider the townsite's location a coincidence. Putting it just inside the county demonstrates the developer's intent to take advantage of cheaper land costs and lower tax rates while appealing specifically to people who want to work in Boise, he said.

If this project gets approved, Elmore County stands to lose its "rural, small-town values and become nothing more than a suburban appendage of metropolitan Boise," Humm added. Those who live there will work and shop in Boise versus Mountain Home, he said.

Meanwhile, those tens of thousands of new residents would eventually dominate the county's economic, cultural and political structures, Humm added.

"Eventually, they would have enough voters to influence the county's lifestyle and swallow up its rural identity," he said.

Others critical of the townsite project had more personal concerns with a project of this magnitude. Jonathan Craft, who's spent most of his life in the Mayfield area, doesn't want to see the road in front of his property become a high-speed thoroughfare for construction vehicles and increased traffic over the next 20 to 25 years.

"With all those people, there needs to be more done if we want to put that many out there," Craft said.

This expected spike in traffic "negatively impacts" everyone living in this rural community, Wendy Tippets told the commission.

Those testifying against the planned community then identified more immediate concerns involving limited water resources in this part of the county.

"Uncertainty is the only certainty with regard to water resources" in the Mayfield area, Frisch said. The developer's plan shows a "serious lack of scientific" data and if the aquifer in the area is actually recharging, she added.

Frisch called into question the developer's claims of increased water levels at the wells it monitors. Of three wells in the region equipped to measure water levels, only one showed any signs of increased levels while the others showed declines, she said.

Meanwhile, water usage in the Mayfield area has skyrocketed by 800 percent since 2007, Frisch testified. This spike is linked, at least in part, to ongoing irrigation in the region that includes running water sprinklers around the clock, which "gives credence" to the falling water levels, she said.

Approving a project of that magnitude "is paramount to the county gambling with our future" while the developer stands to profit handsomely, Frisch added.

Scott King, a water consultant for the developer, wasn't sure if the wells in the Danskin area were included in their previous analysis of water levels in the Mayfield area.

Wildlife mitigation remained another key issue highlighted by opponents of the townsite project. Dave Terrell, a spokesman with the Rocky Mountain Elks Foundation, highlighted the negative impact this planned community would pose to elk in the region.

Habitat in the Danskin area remains a "crucial area" for elk with a significant number of these herds passing though the Mayfield area each year, said Terrell, who based his information from years of tracking these animals.

Lori Atkins, who lives in the Danskin area, called the project's wildlife mitigation plan "inadequate." Contrary to the developer's wildlife mitigation plan, hundreds of elk migrate through this region each year, she said as she presented the commission with photos of elk herds taken from her home.

Sharing the land with this type of wildlife represents one of many reasons why people enjoy living in this part of the county. Meanwhile, urban sprawl from this planned community would have a "devastating impact" on elk and other wildlife, she said.

Michael Wilson, from Mountain Home, aired concerns over previous comments from the developer's representatives indicating that deer and elk would simply move once construction begins in the Mayfield area. Forcing them to migrate outside of their normal route "places more stress on them" which could lead to starvation in some herds, he said.

In response, project representative Mark Pecchinino emphasized that elk and deer migrate across the entire Danskin front, which includes a considerable amount of land outside of the Mayfield area.

Addressing the wildlife mitigation plan, Goldsmith also emphasized that, "the only animals we've been asked to mitigate are endangered species." He added that herd animals like deer and elk don't need this type of action.

However, Goldsmith did emphasize that the planned community does include steps to improve surrounding habitat near the planned community to reduce its impact on these animals.

Despite those assurances, people at the meeting remained skeptical.

In addition, Dr. Tim Brininger questioned Pecchinino's previous role in helping create the county's wildlife mitigation plan and now represents developers for both the Mayfield Townsite and smaller Mayfield Springs projects.

The doctor asked whether loopholes recently discovered in the plan were left there intentionally so developers like this could exploit them to get their projects approved.

In his final comments before the planning and zoning commission, Goldsmith urged the group to finish its deliberations and make its recommendation during last week's meeting, even if it meant adding conditions for the county commissioners to consider.

K.C. Duerig was among the commissioners that disagreed with this idea.

On a unanimous vote, the council agreed to continue its deliberations on the Mayfield Townsite at 7 p.m. March 9 at the county courthouse.