January 28, 2005

Evergreen Visioning Project Task Force struggles to complete proposal

By Mike McFerran
Staff Writer

Displaying little sense of urgency, the Evergreen Visioning Project Task Force continued its struggle to reach consensus on details of a plan to be considered by city planners as they draft a smart growth plan for Evergreen.

Of the task force’s 35 members, 21 attended the monthly meeting held Jan. 12 in Cougar Hall at Evergreen Valley High School. It became evident during this two-and-a-half hour meeting that the task force is no further along on key issues than it was at the December meeting.

Members seemed to be bogged down with discussions about procedures, pushing the substantive business of the Task Force into a future that is growing short.

District 8 Councilmem-ber Dave Cortese assembled the task force for its first meeting in the fall of 2003. Its ultimate purpose is to make recommendations that will be used to help plan the smart growth of Evergreen. Revisions will be made to land use designations for four specific Evergreen area properties, traffic policy will be updated and certain community projects and improvements could be included as a part of any revised development plans.

The task force’s recommendations on mix of development to be allowed and the new amenities most desired by the community will be considered as the planning process moves forward.

After the Dec. 1 meeting, the Times reported that “San Jose City Planner Laurel Prevetti and Councilmember Cortese gently reminded the task force that two important steps in the planning process couldn’t happen until they had some solid numbers and proposals to work with.”

Scope of development
A key piece of the task force’s proposed project description is a recommendation for the number and type of housing units for each of the four opportunity sites being studied. The Planning Department already has received a competing recommendation from the owners and developers.

At the December meeting the task force was urged to begin discussions with developers in order to arrive at a negotiated number amenable to both groups. Not only has that meeting still not taken place, but the task force spent more than 30 minutes at the January meeting discussing the procedure by which they were going to select a subcommittee to initiate the meeting.

Although Cortese pointed out that any delay may push the entire schedule out past acceptable limits, the task force decided to take another week to conduct an e-mail vote to choose the subcommittee.

This meeting began as Prevetti patiently described a process diagram and proposed timeline for the project, again pointing out that the process is in danger of being delayed if the task force is not forthcoming with its preliminary plan. Cortese’s reminder was this time not so gentle.

At one point, as the task force discussed further procedure for informing the community of its actions, a seemingly frustrated Cortese pointed out that, “As soon as this group starts making decisions, there will be something to update the community on.”

Project schedule
The current schedule for the project calls for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) starting in April. If the project remains on schedule, the draft of that report should be available for public review and comment in July.

But prior to the EIR, the city must prepare a new traffic policy and preliminary drafts of the Smart Growth Strategy document.

Cortese must balance between giving the task force unlimited time to reach agreement on their prospective proposal and keeping the project moving ahead on a realistic schedule.

“The task force is a very diverse, representative group,” he says, proudly. “I am depending on them to give me guidance. And, consensus is the purest form of guidance … I have a desire to get as many people on board as possible.”

But, Cortese admits that, if they cannot reach consensus soon, he will have to take on the more traditional role of the councilmember and represent the district using all the input he has to date. If that means moving forward and requesting the Planning Department to begin drafting the necessary preliminary reports without a complete proposal from the task force, that is the path he must take.

At this stage of the process, the task force may be resigned to advising that there are some details they can agree on and some they are still studying.

Cortese insists that the task force members should not be alarmed in any case. There is much yet to be done before development will begin and there will be several more opportunities during the process for the task force to refine and augment their input.

Next meeting
The next meeting of the Evergreen Visioning Project Task Force is set for Thursday, Feb. 24 at 7 p.m. Location to be determined. The EVP Task Force meeting is open to the public. Time is reserved in the agenda for public comment.
If you would like to be placed on the e-mail list to obtain agendas and minutes of the meetings, contact the District 8 Council office, (408) 277-5242.