March 10, 2006

EEHVS Task Force Update:

Workshop format an opportunity for focus, scrutinyBreakouts
and open dialogue generally seen as step in right direction

By Candy Richter
Staff Writer

In a departure from the traditional “sit and listen” meeting format, the Evergreen East Hills Vision Strategy Task Force held a workshop-style session on February 25. The group commandeered the Smith Elementary auditorium for the three-hour plus Saturday meeting, which meant a far shorter commute for the Evergreen participants.

Task Force member Jim Zito presents during the general session at the February 25 EEHVS meeting held in the Smith Elementary auditorium. Following opening comments, attendees were invited to participate in break-out sessions facilitated by Task Force members.

After opening session comments, attendees were encouraged to participate in one of the several breakout sessions led by a Task Force member.

Sessions were divided into round I and II segments, held consecutively. Each segment contained four concurrent breakout groups. While many attendees decided to remain in their chosen group until completion, some felt they needed to divide their time between what they considered to be important sessions conducted simultaneously.

This was an issue that council member Dave Cortese, identified as needing some fine-tuning for future workshops.

“I had some slightly different suggestions as to how to structure the breakout groups,” said Cortese. “My fear is that they’re having a great discussion on traffic in one corner, and a great discussion on amenities in another corner, but the people aren’t all participating in that discussion — and what this has to be about at some point is bringing everyone to consensus.”

Different views, same goal
While open-format workshops do encourage a free exchange of ideas and input between participants, this can also be the venue that illustrates the true width and breadth of an issue’s spectrum. One such example was the unit count group.

Heavily attended and helmed by Task Force member Jim Zito, The total number of housing units needed has long been a point of contention between the developers and the current residents.

In short, the builder must balance the cost of the unit or home against the cost of building out the amenities associated with the development – i.e. specialty lighting, streets, landscaping, etc.— each development has a list that varies from area to area. The more extensive the list, the greater the cost.

By attending the unit cost breakout, Task Force member Joe Head of Summerfield Homes hopes that fellow attendees will have come away with a greater appreciation for the cost vs. unit count for this project. And while he acknowledged that the existing community would probably like the unit count to stay on the low end, he feels he is obligated to make a proposal that makes financial sense.

“The amount of amenities proposed by the homes is significantly greater than anything normal in San Jose,” said Head. “So the question is, the number of homes being proposed in balance to the $280 million of amenities that the city would collect. It’s a city balancing of amenities versus the number of new homes.”

One point that was brought out in this session was that the original proposal for this plan actually called for 7,000 units to be built, a number that was immediately rejected and modified to a high-end cap of 5,700 units. However, the original amenities package that accompanied that 7,000-unit development was not reduced proportionally along with the unit count. This is a fact that Head hopes the residents will take into consideration.

Evergreen real estate developer Ed Abelite also sees this project as a long-term boon for the community, especially as a way to address some of the area’s traffic calming woes.

”I think some people are starting to realize that if this project is allowed to come to fruition, there is a whole list of amenities, the most important of which is traffic, [that] could come around and help the Evergreen area,” said Abelite “It’s not a popular thing to say, but without those 5,600 units you’re not going to get the schools, the parks, the youth centers, the open spaces – you’re not going to get any of that if we all simply say no. What I got out of this is it’s a package deal and it will help Evergreen, and we just need a consensus to get to that point.”

At the conclusion of the Round I segment, unit cost group facilitator Zito saw the breakout as a welcome change over past meeting formats.

Identified as one of the top priority issues for the community, the Traffic break-out group discussed elements of the recently released EIR (Environ-mental Impact Report) and expressed concern over impact areas and proposed calming measures.

“This is the first chance we’ve really gotten together,” said Zito. “To really sit down and discuss things face-to-face, and bring up topics that were on people’s minds. It’s something that we need to do more often so that we can understand each other’s positions and hopefully come to some sort of a compromise.”

In addition to the unit cost group, the other round I breakouts included amenities, traffic, and funding alternatives. Round II breakouts covered affordable housing, industrial/office/commercial areas, schools, and parks/open space. Minutes from each of these sessions can be accessed through the District 8 website by clicking on the Evergreen Visioning Project, then Task Force Meeting information hyperlinks.

Following the sessions attendees re-assembled to hear public comments and to take a survey that ranked in importance the salient issues facing the EEHVS. Survey results from Task Force members and the general public were tallied separately. Results are available on the District 8 website.

Growing pains
With no resolution in sight, and the Task Force facing a June deadline, EEHVS definitely has its work cut out. However, Cortese has made it clear that if necessary, the June deadline to bring recommendations to council will be extended.

“There has already been some discussion in past Task Force meetings that the June deadline might be unrealistic, said Cortese. “I think the consensus of the Task Force is that this needs to be done right and if it takes longer than June to do it right then that’s just the way it’s gonna be.”

This sentiment was echoed by Zito who stressed that “this is something that is going to stay with our kids, our grandkids and our great-grandkids down the line. We can’t be worried about [extending] a couple of months when something is going to affect this community for 50 or 100 years.”