December 15, 2006

City Council discusses EEHVS, unanimously passes EIR

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

Nearly every public council chamber chair was filled and the public remained seated and quiet during the long evening session for the last City Council session of 2006.

Those from Evergreen who came to hear the outstanding issues remaining for the Evergreen East Hills Visioning Strategy were not disappointed. Sleepy maybe, but not disappointed.

The council finally took up the matter just before midnight with a presentation from the planning department describing a proposed timetable and an outlook for a possible end to the project, which has taken approximately three years to piece together. That was followed by a public comment period consisting of 20 speakers. Finally, District 8 Councilmember Dave Cortese made a motion, which passed unanimously with a small amount of discussion.

Although the entire EEHVS project was scheduled to be voted on by the council, first at the Dec. 5 session and then rescheduled to Dec. 12, Cortese along with Mayor-elect Chuck Reed and Councilmembers Judy Chirco and Nancy Pyle urged the Rules Committee to defer the discussion and any votes, other than the Environmental Impact Report, until the spring, which it did at its Dec. 6 meeting.

It still appears that there are differences between the developers and community members. Even though the planning staff set a recommendation, it apparently didn’t meet the “delicate balance” that would please both developers and the community on the number of new housing units to be developed on the four parcels: Arcadia, Campus Industrial, Pleasant Hills Golf Course and Evergreen Valley College. Also, a number of questions remain about amenities, such as parks and community centers, traffic congestion and school sites.

The motion that passed in the wee hours of Wednesday morning had five separate recommendations including certification of the Environmental Impact Report. All five were part of a memo the four councilmembers developed and submitted Dec. 12. The others included:

Direct staff to develop the funding agreement for council action in early February with assumptions on amenities, schools, updated area development policy, planning and implementation for use as negotiating points.
Have staff schedule a study session in late January with a complete set of draft documents including a draft funding agreement.

Direct staff to hold a study session before the end of January answering approximately 50 questions, including a number of general questions as well as those dealing with amenities, industrial conversion, transportation, open space, sunshine, schools, pool units and specific sites.

Develop a timeline that includes community meetings with the target for reporting back to council by the first week in March.

That timeline, which the planning department offered in its presentation, provides two more community meetings in January and February as well as a council study session and reviews of draft financial and fiscal studies before returning to the council for consideration in March.

“I’m happy that planning has woven several community meetings into its process,” Cortese said. “We need additional information.”

Cortese’s memo had indicated earlier deadlines, but planning staff, City Manager Les White and most councilmembers felt that the time should be spaced out so that a final product will be available in March.

One of the more important aspects missing from the planning staff’s current report are the draft financial and fiscal studies, said Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Director Joe Horwedel during the planning presentation. The other areas are finding the best balance between property owner/developers and the community on the number of units to be built, transportation—costs and state bond options, costs and number of amenities, affordable housing, schools, employment land retention, industrial land retention and finally, the fiscal impacts of the strategy, such as employment questions and General Fund demand.

The public spoke up about a number of things, including the steep divide in the number of housing units recommended by the developers and the community, the impact on schools and available land for new schools, a potential new grocery store, freeway congestion and access, as well as city street congestion, industrial versus commercial versus housing, open space, inspections and dumping on the Arcadia site.

Council members, especially Reed and Chavez, questioned the industrial conversion in the campus industrial site and how the loss of 120 acres of industrial land will affect the city. Horwedel told members, “You hired me to look at the area 20 to 50 years down the road. Once you lose industrial land [to housing or commercial uses] you won’t have the ability to use it again.”

It’s important, he added, that the lands in the Hitachi campus not become isolated, so that it can expand if necessary.

Cortese said he’s also “confident that the EEHVS won’t get thrown out.”

In the end, he added, “some of the residents will be upset and some of the developers will be upset with the decision. But we’ve all invested time and money in this process. In the best case, the council will end up approving parts of the strategy.”