Editor's note: As the Jackson Hills project moves closer to a public vote by Jackson residents to decide its fate, Allen Warren, president and CEO of New Faze Development Inc., is deciding whether to move forward on the project as well. Ledger Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell interviewed Warren on Wednesday, Feb. 27:

Jack Mitchell: Is it true that New Faze is considering asking the Jackson City Council to rescind its vote on Jackson Hills?

Allen Warren: We are at a critical juncture to decide if we want to move forward with the Jackson Hills project or not, and we are really on the fence.

JM: Why are you on the fence?

AW: For one, the project has seemingly divided the community. Many view our project as a positive development and logical step forward for Jackson, and then there are a number of residents that want no growth or development that have created fears that we are harmful and not helpful. There is concern over traffic impacts and the community losing its rural feel. Given the current real estate market we have to weigh the economic feasibility to move forward knowing that the opposition could delay us. We are deciding whether or not to move forward or to put the land up for sale and move on. Pulling the Jackson Hills item off of the ballot would allow us more time to discuss the benefits of the project.

JM: What are the benefits and why Jackson?

AW: When we first began seeking locations for our golf community, Jackson's natural environment and beauty made it a perfect fit. Coupled with the fact that Jackson lacked new housing stock, that the property was already within the city limits, already appropriately zoned and the city is dealing with ongoing wastewater issues, we saw Jackson Hills as a terrific opportunity to solve many problems. You need to understand we walked into this project in a very different way than most developers. We started with the golf course design focusing on making the lightest touch on the land, even to the point of using as little grading as possible. Then we looked at how housing could fit in around this plan.

JM: What about the impacts to the land, critics have cited destruction of the rural area?

AW: The attraction to the property is its natural beauty and the environment. Our concept is to mitigate our impact to the land, city and county and absolutely minimize altering the surroundings of what you currently see at the property.

JM: What about the oak trees?

AW: It's true the plan removes some trees, 10 to 15 percent actually. However, we are planning to replace those at a 3 to 1 ratio even more if the city of Jackson were to ask. I don't think we could stress enough that the attraction for this development is the rural atmosphere, the natural beauty of the land and the uniqueness of the city of Jackson itself. We want to seriously limit our impacts to this environment, mitigate and assist the city of Jackson's future.

JM: What about the impacts on the city of Jackson as a whole?

AW: We want to mitigate and pay our way as a developer. Take the issue of wastewater. We want to reduce or cap sewer fees. These fees are currently going up and a tertiary plant is going to have to be built with or without our project. The economic benefits to the businesses and the city are tremendous as we offer a revenue stream and better tax base. Traffic along Highway 49 is increasing and will continue to do so with or without our project as areas around Jackson develop. We want to pay for improvements to the roads.

JM: What about all those new people living in the houses off of the golf course?

AW: The types of buyers for these homes are retirees and pre-retirees, possibly telecommuters. Impacts on traffic as well as the schools will be minimal and again, even then, we are willing to pay our fair share as the developer.

JM: If Jackson City Council rescinds its vote, what then?

AW: We'd go to work on the development agreement with the city of Jackson. We'd then go before the public to see that their concerns have been addressed, get back in front of the Jackson City Council and try to move forward. We have spent millions on this project and see it as a shining star but the element that wants no change, no growth, and no development whatsoever may be strong enough to have us put the land up for sale and walk away.

JM: In talking with you, it seems the decision to walk away may have already been made. Is that accurate?

AW: It's a very real possibility, but not a decision I have made just yet. Take a look around. Cities such as Sacramento, Vallejo and Elk Grove, city staff's, educators and administrators are being laid off. Undoubtedly, cuts will eventually get to Jackson if they have not already. How are the businesses in Jackson and in Amador County doing? We're prepared to commit to 16 million in development fees to the city of Jackson. Money they can use to prioritize and use to build their future. And while I have felt the support of many people in Jackson, the no growth and no development under any circumstances seems to be loudest. I am reading lots of positives but I am going to need compelling reasons to move forward. We have an environmentally and economically advantageous program for the city of Jackson, but Jackson has to want that and right now I am unsure.

JM: I have come out in favor of your project, but had early access and open communication with you from the start. If people have questions or want to show support, or even take a closer look at Jackson Hills, whom could they talk to?

AW: David Carlson and Tom Blackman, both in Amador County are contact points for information and can be reached at 223-2276.