Developer, board majority stand fast as Spur fate waits
John Eade does not so much as walk into a room as take
possession of it.
A tall, powerfully built man whose tanned face and Western dress
give him away as a rancher, Eade’s presence and personality are
hard to ignore.
Developer, board majority stand fast as Spur fate waits
John Eade does not so much as walk into a room as take possession of it.
A tall, powerfully built man whose tanned face and Western dress give him away as a rancher, Eade’s presence and personality are hard to ignore.
Today, Eade may still look like a rancher, but his focus is on development. He’s found success in Nevada, but he may have met his Waterloo in the tiny enclave of Tres Pinos, just down the road from where he lives.
The county Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take what is expected to be its final vote over a proposal to build a 44-unit hotel just off Airline Highway and Southside Road Tuesday, Oct. 23.
The project is Eade’s, and as the days count down to next week’s meeting, he sounds both frustrated and mystified.
“It’s crazy is what it is,” Eade said in a recent conversation.
While the county has not denied the project outright, the board did reverse a planning commission recommendation that the project get the zone change it needs to survive. The county planning staff and the commission majority initially agreed: the project should get the zone change it would need, and a “mitigated negative declaration” would be adequate.
The California Environmental Quality Act dates back to the 1970s. It demands that if any development has any significant impacts on the surrounding community, a detailed – and often expensive – study called an environmental impact report must be performed. If no significant impacts exist, or if practical mitigations can be determined, a much smaller document – a mitigated negative declaration – will do the job.
It’s the issue of whether a hotel does or does not pose significant impacts on Tres Pinos that is at the heart of the controversy.
On Aug. 15, the commission recommended a zoning change from residential to commercial in a 3-2 vote, with Gordon Machado and Mark Tognazzini dissenting.
And that’s the way the issue went to supervisors on Sept. 25. The board voted 3-2 to require an EIR. Reb Monaco, whose district encompasses the proposed site of the project, dissented along with Jaime De La Cruz. Pat Loe, Don Marcus and Anthony Botelho supported the EIR requirement.
That’s not going to happen.
Eade, along with his wife and partner Jae Eade, are adamant. Visiting the site with them days after the Board of Supervisors made its determination, Jae said the couple had stayed up late at night the day after the meeting and they agreed: no EIR.
“It’s ludicrous to even talk about an EIR,” Eade said.
Armed with the county’s own initial study and planning commission’s vote, Eade’s consternation could be understandable.
Eade certainly knows the proposal is controversial. Signs opposing a hotel in Tres Pinos sprouted at both ends of town. An unscientific poll of households in the town revealed overwhelming opposition. There were letters to the editor in both local papers.
Still, Eade believed that he had facts to support his plans.
Then came the Sept. 25 supervisors’ meeting.
The room was filled with opponents, whose lawyer spoke at some length. Applause punctuated the speeches.
In the end, the board opted to require an EIR.
According to Eade, such a document would take as long as a year and cost up to $100,000. He acknowledges that he’s already sunk more than that into the project in the form of studies and reports, but he’s not going any further.
He almost could have anticipated the vote, according to one long-time observer of the board. Confronted with a room packed with opposition, faced with a threatening lawyer with years of trial experience, it’s commonplace for boards to send a project home with a request for more information. It buys time and it buys information. Further, if a project moves ahead without an EIR and it is challenged in court, the courts are likely to take the safe approach as well and opt to require an EIR, the observer said.
That approach may be common, but it flies in the face of the Environmental Quality Act. A portion of the text of the law reads, “the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.”
Eade’s plan now: to convince one or more of the board majority that they erred in September when the matter comes back up Tuesday, or to walk away from the project and sell the property to a homebuilder.
Obviously, he hopes to sway the board. But a poll Wednesday of the three board members opting to require an EIR reveals that’s unlikely.
“I haven’t seen anything to change my mind,” said Loe. “The county counsel explained it to the group perfectly: if you allow a negative declaration and it’s challenged in court, you will probably lose.”
Botelho was once thought by some observers to be a likely advocate of expediting the project. That did not prove to be the case, and nothing seems to have changed his mind.
“There were a lot of questions I had concerning water, wastewater and drainage,” Botelho said. “How do you proceed with a project like that without the appropriate tools to move forward? Information is our friend. That’s why I’m kind of sticking to the EIR position.”
Supervisor Marcus was more circumspect. “I think a lot of things could happen,” he said. “Conceivably, there could be two board members who would favor the project without an EIR because of economic development, two willing if some concerns are addressed and one who wouldn’t settle for anything less than a full EIR.”
While he hastened to add that he had not discussed the proposal with colleagues since the Sept. 25 vote, he said he had spent several hours with the county planning staff studying the project.
Marcus said the county needs more visitor facilities, but he questioned Eade’s sincerity. “I just don’t understand how you would walk away from a project you care about,” he said. “With Mr. Eade … it’s kind of like waving a stick of candy in front of a child and then taking it away.”
“I cannot see how as a county we can have a roomful of people – a partial town – objecting and say that we’re so desperate for economic development that we’re going to let this project go through,” Marcus said.
For Eade’s part, he believes he’s addressed every concern:
– Water – Eade lays claim to research indicating water drawn from a well on site would have no effect on the Tres Pinos Water District well.
– Wastewater – Eade cites the Regional Water Quality Control Board position that the hotel should be served by a regional system served by the Tres Pinos Water District. The district has a moratorium on new sewer hookups. Eade responds with data from the local water district showing the plant only occasionally reached 90 percent of its capacity from April 2006 to June 2007.
– Leapfrog zoning – Eade’s survey shows the parcel within 63 feet of commercially zoned property.
– Swimming pool – Eade promises to haul water from a swimming pool off site should it ever need to be drained.
– Noise – Eade said the hotel would comply with county noise standards, and said plans call for a design that reduces vehicle speed on site.
– Parking – The county statutes contain a formula for calculating parking needs. Eade’s calculations show the project exceeds the minimum requirements.
– Use of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway – a locked gate would ensure that hotel guests and staff use in when the main entrance area is blocked and that only emergency personnel would have keys.
Moreover, in a Wednesday night call from his Nevada ranch, Eade said his legal counsel had submitted a letter to the county, offering to indemnify it against all legal challenges should the development proposal proceed without a requirement for an EIR. The county would not make the letter available by press time, however.
Looking at it in black and white, Eade says it’s hard to understand how he could be standing at this juncture today. For the neighbors who so adamantly voice opposition, it’s hard to imagine anything else.
