dev.citrusheightssentinel.com

Tag: norman hill

Guest Opinion: Some healthy advice for both leaders and protesters

Masked California Highway Patrol officers stand watch as protesters demonstrate against coronavirus restrictions at a May 1 protest in Sacramento. // Reader photo submission

By Norman Hill–
To the protesters against public health restrictions: You object to the stay-at-home, social distance, business curtailment measures and public event cancellations as infringements on your liberty.

Yes, they are infringements, but for protecting our people from the threat of death from a highly contagious disease, these temporary restrictions should be seen as acceptable and necessary. In these circumstances, individual responsibility alone is not enough.

When a person can be infected and contagious and therefore dangerous to others while showing no symptoms, a person may be unaware of spreading the disease. Broad restrictions are needed to protect public health and are supported by our courts.

Consider the continental soldiers at Valley Forge during the American Revolution. They saw military discipline as acceptable, temporary restrictions on their personal freedom so they could form an effective army to protect our country. So now we need to accept temporary restrictions as necessary to protect the lives of our fellow citizens from COVID-19.

And to our governors, mayors, public health officers, and other public officials adopting the current restrictions, also think back to Valley Forge. The drillmaster, Baron von Steuben, commented on how American soldiers were different.

He observed that when soldiers from other countries are told to do something, they do it. When American soldiers are told to do something, they ask why. After you tell them why, then they do it.

Citrus Heights business owners ‘in limbo’ awaiting end to virus shutdowns

Von Steuben’s observation still holds true about Americans, and not just our soldiers. In designing public health restrictions on our activities, remember that you need to be ready to explain why to the public.

For most of the restrictions currently in place, the why is clear with a deadly disease that is spread mostly by airborne droplets of varying sizes from coughing, sneezing, or just talking. But there may be some restrictions that are difficult to explain.

If you cannot tell the people why a restraint is necessary, perhaps you should not impose the restraint. Consider the vital importance of public acceptance of the restrictions and observe that our most respected leaders right now are the ones who explain why.

Norman Hill

Norman Hill is a Citrus Heights resident and a retired natural resources and environmental lawyer with the State of California.

Have a different perspective on this topic or another local issue? The Sentinel welcomes letters to the editor and guest opinion columns on local issues from Citrus Heights residents. Click here to submit one.

May 3, 2020
Guest Opinion: proposed Citrus Heights housing has flood, fire risk

An updated map showing a 261-home development proposed off Arcadia Drive in Citrus Heights. // Image credit: City of Citrus Heights

Guest opinion submitted by Norman Hill–
When I saw the latest map of Watt Communities‘ proposed 261-home development off Arcadia Drive in Citrus Heights, immediately two major concerns for public safety came to mind. I believe the city should take advantage of the early stage of this development to require two changes to address the public safety challenges.

The changes are:

1. Make sure there are no wood roofs or wood siding.

2. Make sure the foundations raise the dwelling units above the 200-year flood level.

The first concern is fire safety. The recent devastating fires in Napa and Sonoma Counties should have set off alarms in the minds of local planning officials. Communities that were supposed to be fire safe burned to the ground. Coffey Park in Santa Rosa was an urban setting away from wildland dangers, but it was reduced to ashes and foundations.

Norman Hill

The Sacramento Bee ran an editorial last month saying that given the experience with these fires, we should all focus more on prevention. A fire captain who had been deployed to the Wine Country fires told me how the construction and materials in a house will help or hinder firefighters during a firestorm. Houses with wood roofs and siding will catch fire quickly and be almost impossible to defend in a conflagration. Houses with fireproof roofs and stucco siding will resist the flames long enough to give firefighters a chance to save them.

The proposed houses should use fireproof roofing and stucco or brick siding in order to protect the buyers who will live in the homes. Changing the plans early will minimize the costs of these protective measures.

The second concern is flooding. The Sentinel’s Oct. 12 article about the proposed development said that housing would be set back from the creek leaving open space within the 100-year floodplain, but from my experience working in the field of environmental and natural resources law with the State of California for 40 years, I know that the currently calculated 100-year flood level provides only illusory safety.

Related: New map shows proposed 55-acre housing development in Citrus Heights

If built as shown on the map, the houses will flood. To protect the buyers and future residents, the housing units should be raised at least to higher than the 200-year flood level by raising the foundations or other means.

The 100-year flood is a flood estimated to have a 1-in-100 chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year, but experience has shown that the hydrology used for the 100-year flood estimates was too limited. In the past 70 years, the Sacramento region has been hit with storms that have continued to set new records. The 1951 flood set a record. That record was surpassed in 1964. The 1986 flood eclipsed all prior records. Then, the 1997 flood was 20 percent greater than the 1986 event.

These records were not included in calculating the 100-year flood levels, and these records show that our area is exposed to more serious flooding than we previously thought. Climate change is also expected to bring even more extreme weather events.

In Citrus Heights, our main flooding concern is with our creeks. With the impervious roofs, driveways, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots, rapid runoff now makes our creeks rise faster and crest higher than in the recent past. A short, intense rain can put the creeks over their banks. Storms with less rain than a 100-year storm can put flow levels well-above the calculated 100-year level in our creeks.

The damage caused by Hurricane Harvey in Houston should be a reminder of how expensive flood damage can be. If flood waters get into a house and cover the floor, the floor and most furniture will be ruined. Mold will set in. Dry wall will need to be replaced. And flood damage is often not covered by insurance.

We should minimize the exposure flood damage for this new housing. Using higher foundations for new housing along creeks seems to be the cheapest and easiest way to keep flood waters out of new housing and to protect future residents from flood losses.

Yes, we need more housing to serve our region. But we also need to protect the people who will live in that housing. By accepting these changes now, the developer may minimize the costs of making the changes and may smooth out the approval process for this project. Public safety needs to be considered.

Norman Hill lives in Citrus Heights and is a retired natural resources and environmental lawyer with the State of California. He also held positions in the Department of Water Resources and Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Have a different perspective on this topic or another local issue? The Sentinel welcomes letters to the editor and guest opinion columns on local issues from Citrus Heights residents. Click here to submit one.

November 19, 2017
Guest Opinion: The new city hall needs a replacement rose garden

An archive photo of the rose garden at the old Citrus Heights city hall. // Community photo submission

This guest opinion piece was submitted by Citrus Heights resident Norman Hill, who is the president of Preserve Our Civic Center. In 2015, Hill’s organization sued the City of Citrus Heights over the new city hall and medical office building project. The lawsuit was settled in 2016, with consideration of a potential replacement rose garden listed among the terms of the settlement agreement.

On November 16, the City of Citrus Heights held a public meeting seeking input about possibly having a rose garden at city hall. Unfortunately, few people attended.

When the city demolished the old city hall, the beautiful, geometric rose garden was lost. A show piece at Fountain Square Nursery, the formal garden was square, crossed by paths, and focused on a fountain in the center. Weddings and other special events were held there. After the city bought the nursery site for its first city hall, the city administration showed little interest in the garden and allowed it to deteriorate. At least one volunteer group offered to maintain the garden, but was rebuffed.

During public information meetings about using the site for a medical office building and building a new city hall elsewhere, people lamented losing the rose garden. During those meetings, city staff said that the city would create a new rose garden and solicited ideas for good locations. But when the environmental impact report for the Medical Office Building/New City Hall Project came out, the rose garden proposal was missing. Before bulldozing the area, the city had a yard sale selling off the statuary, fountain, and plantings. The city wanted the garden gone with no concern for retaining features for a replacement garden.

Failure to address the rose garden was one issue raised in the lawsuit challenging the environmental process for the project. As part of the settlement of that lawsuit, the parties agreed that (1) the city would hold a public meeting to discuss a replacement rose garden supported at least in part by volunteers and (2) the city council would make the ultimate decision about whether to expend any public funds for a rose garden.

[Read more: “Settlement reached in lawsuit against new city hall & MOB project”]

City staff are now working on a proposal to put before the city council early in 2017. The idea is to locate a new rose garden at the new city hall just outside the community room at the south east corner of the building by the post office. The public still has an opportunity to present ideas to city staff and can submit comments to the city’s facilities and landscape manager by emailing cmyers@citrusheights.net.

As a city less than 20 years old, Citrus Heights has few reminders of its history. We celebrate some historical features in the city, such as Sylvan School and San Juan High School. A rose garden at city hall would help remind people of the history of Fountain Square and help explain the reason for the name of the street running through our civic center. The garden would help people recall the now lost beauty of the formal rose garden at Fountain Square.

To help retain memories of the rose garden, the city should consider:

1. The new garden should include reminders of the earlier garden. With limited space available east of the community room in city hall, there is not enough space for a formal rose garden with paths modeled after the old one at Fountain Square Nursery, so a smaller garden could be accepted.

2. Roses should be the main feature of the garden, but other plants could be included as well.

3. The layout should allow multiple uses to maximize the public benefits from the garden. The layout should allow enough space so the area can be used for weddings and for breaks during events in the community room.

4. The new garden should include a fountain similar to the old fountain that stood in the middle of the square, formal rose garden. That fountain led to the name “Fountain Square.” A fountain much like the old one would fit along the eastern edge of the garden.

5. Because the city may use volunteers for much of the routine maintenance of the garden, the layout should allow ease of maintenance. Enough space should be provided between roses so people can get around the plants for dead-heading and pruning.

6. Decorative benches should be included to allow people to sit and enjoy the beauty.

7. Plantings should be selected to provide seasonal color all year.

8. The layout should promote a beautiful view from the community room.

9. Climbing roses should be planted along the eastern fence to filter the view of the parking lot.

10. In keeping with our name, Citrus Heights, a freeze tolerant citrus tree could be planted in a corner.

11. To promote water conservation, drip irrigation should be used.

12. Public art in the garden should stress simplicity, durability, and ease of maintenance. To increase community involvement, the city could solicit school class projects or competitions for designs or art work.

Members of the public are encouraged to present more ideas to help the city develop its proposal for a new rose garden at city hall.

-Norman Hill, President
Preserve Our Civic Center

Submit a guest opinion piece or letter to the editor: click here.

December 4, 2016
Settlement reached in lawsuit against new city hall & MOB project
This initial computer rendering of the new three-story medical office building on Greenback Lane shows the building with a 20-foot setback, which will increase to a 30-foot setback, according to terms of a settlement agreement reached. // Image courtesy, City of Citrus Heights.

A settlement agreement has been reached in a lawsuit between a resident group and the City of Citrus Heights, nearly a year after council members unanimously approved a controversial plan to move city hall and construct a three-story medical office building (MOB) in its place on Greenback Lane.

The lawsuit, filed last April by a resident group known as Preserve Our Civic Center (POCC), alleged the project did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and sought to put a halt on both the new city hall and MOB until alleged violations were addressed.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, POCC agreed to drop its lawsuit against the City, in exchange for several modifications to the original plan. POCC will also receive payment of $67,500 to cover its attorney fees and costs involved in the lawsuit.

Modifications listed in the settlement primarily address issues raised by residents during the debate over the project last year, including concerns about screening and setback for the 68,727-square-foot medical building, increased traffic, and a desire to preserve the old rose garden at city hall.

A statement issued by POCC spokesman Norman Hill summarized key aspects of the settlement agreement and stated the group was “pleased” to announce the settlement had been reached. Previously, Hill told The Sentinel he was hopeful “some kind of compromise settlement” could be reached with the City through the legal process, and he appears to have accomplished that.

[For more on the lawsuit, see story: “Lawsuit filed against Citrus Heights over MOB, new hall”]

The city manager’s office confirmed Thursday that a settlement had been reached, but referred all requests for comment to City Attorney Ruthann Ziegler. Messages left by phone and email for Ziegler on Thursday were not returned by 4 p.m. Friday.

[follow text=”Get local news:”]

Five key modifications listed in the settlement include:
- Setback from Greenback Lane: In an effort to reduce the visual impact of the building from travelers on Greenback, the new Dignity Health medical building will be set back an additional 10 feet, for a total setback of 30 feet from Greenback Lane.
- Screening: To help provide screening for the adjacent neighborhood, a row of Redwood trees will be planted along the western border of the new medical building.
- Traffic: The left turn lane from eastbound Greenback Lane onto Fountain Square Drive will be extended by four car lengths. Hill previously told The Sentinel he believed this modification would help alleviate a traffic backup he anticipates with the new MOB.
- Access: Larger vehicles exiting a soon-to-be-built utility yard next to the new city hall will be required to exit only from the northern driveway. According to POCC, this will help reduce the impact on local traffic passing by on Fountain Square Drive.
- Rose garden. A public meeting will be held by the City to discuss development of a replacement rose garden at another location, although the ultimate decision is left to the City whether to expend public funds on the garden or not.
The settlement announcement comes less than a month prior to a scheduled Sacramento Superior Court hearing on the lawsuit, originally set for April 1, 2016. What's next It is unclear whether the lawsuit had an effect on construction progress of the new medical building, as neither POCC nor the City said work had been halted on the project. However, the lot has laid dormant since demolition of the former hall was completed in November of last year. According to a statement from the city manager's office in January, Panattoni Development had submitted plans for the new medical building, with construction estimated to begin in spring of this year -- although a specific start date was unknown. [Related: "Citrus Heights city hall ‘on target’ for completion by September" ] Construction work on the new city hall began last summer, with an expected completion date of September of this year. Save Save
March 12, 2016
Citrus Heights city hall ‘on target’ for completion by September

An in-progress view of the new Citrus Heights city hall, taken on Jan. 21, 2016. // CH Sentinel

Updated Jan. 22, 9:44 a.m.–
Construction of the new $22 million Citrus Heights city hall is “on target” for completion by September of this year, according to the project’s manager and City officials.

After beginning work on the project last July, Project Manager Tyler Gahagan said structural steel went in earlier this month, followed by a roof being put on the 35,000-square-foot facility last week. Currently, he said crews have started metal stud framing and are installing plumbing and electrical.

Gahagan said some site work had been slowed down by rain, which caused cement trucks to slip and slide in the mud, but he said the new hall is on track for completion by mid-September.

The new hall features a single-story design, along with an adjacent 4,000-square-foot utility yard. Its new location is on a 10.9-acre parcel just north of the post office on Fountain Square Drive, about a block away from where the old city hall was located.

Approved unanimously by councilmembers last March, the new hall project included authorization for Dignity Health to construct a three-story medical office building in place of the old city hall, at the corner of Fountain Square Drive and Greenback Lane. Demolition of the former hall was completed in November, and a groundbreaking ceremony for the new hall was held in July of last year.

[Related: Citrus Heights leaders break ground on new city hall project]

According to Monica Alejandrez, who serves as assistant to the city manager, Panattoni Development submitted plans for the new 68,727-square-foot medical building, but a specific start date is unknown. She estimated construction would begin in spring of this year.

On its website, the City calls the new hall and medical building project “a unique public-private-partnership,” which it says will generate more than 170 jobs and result in a “direct investment of $53.2 million into the Citrus Heights economy.”

[Image: Click to see official drawing of what the new city hall will look like when complete]

The new single-story hall will house 65 city employees, who were previously stationed in four separate buildings at the old hall. Staff are currently located in a temporary city hall facility being leased in the Grand Oaks Shopping Center on Auburn Boulevard. The hall was moved in July 2015 to allow for demolition work to begin.

Background

The new city hall project caused some controversy among residents during discussion tracing back to 2013, with concerns about increased traffic, construction noise, and whether a new hall was needed. Supporters, like the Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce and city council members, billed the project as good for jobs and a cost-efficient way to replace an aging hall without incurring debt.

[Related: Council votes 5-0 for new city hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened]

The city manager’s office previously released figures saying the net impact of the new hall to the City’s general fund would only be about $8.9 million after 15 years, largely due to a $6.9 million lease agreement with Dignity Health for use of the old hall grounds, as well as projected energy savings from a new, more efficient city hall facility.

[follow text=”Follow local news:”]

A lawsuit filed by the group Preserve Our Civic Center is still ongoing against the project, with a Sacramento Superior Court hearing scheduled for April 1, 2016. Norman Hill, a representative for the group, said the lawsuit seeks to stop the project from moving forward, due to alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Hill said a "key" issue involved in the lawsuit regards traffic impact from the new medical building and city hall, a "major impact" he believes was "concealed" from the public, in violation of CEQA. Prior requests for comment from city officials regarding the lawsuit have been referred to Ruthann Ziegler, the city attorney for Citrus Heights. Ziegler replied Wednesday afternoon to a Sentinel request seeking the City's perspective and response to the lawsuit, as well as if progress had been delayed on the project due to the lawsuit. In a short email statement, she said "progress on both the MOB and the new city hall is continuing," but did not comment on the lawsuit. [Related: Judge denies motion to halt Citrus Heights city hall demolition] Last July, Judge Timothy Frawley denied a motion from Hill's group which sought to temporarily bar the City of Citrus Heights from proceeding with plans to demolish the old city hall. Although that attempt was unsuccessful, Hill said he's hopeful "some kind of compromise settlement" can be reached with the City through the legal process, but said specifics couldn't be addressed due to the ongoing nature of the lawsuit.

January 20, 2016
Judge denies motion to halt Citrus Heights city hall demolition

A computer rendering of the new three-story medical office building on Greenback Lane, approved by Citrus Heights council members on March 26, 2015.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge denied a motion Friday that sought to temporarily bar the City of Citrus Heights from proceeding with plans to demolish its existing city hall and allow Dignity Health to construct a three-story medical office building (MOB) in its place, according to court documents.

Norman Hill, who heads up the group suing the City over the MOB and city hall project, said his “Preserve Our Civic Center” group sought a temporary restraining order after learning the City had planned a July 18 “Cash & Carry” day to liquidate various items and decor from the existing hall’s property. He said Judge Timothy Frawley ultimately rejected the group’s motion for a 10-day restraining order, after finding “the balance of the equities came out in favor of the City” and determining such an order would present a “great hardship for the City.”

City representatives were unavailable for comment by phone and email over the weekend.

The POCC lawsuit, initially filed in April, asks the court to declare the city council’s March 26 approval of the new hall and MOB project to be “invalid and void,” and that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project “fails to satisfy the requirements of [the California Environmental Quality Act].” It also asks the court to order a “new legally adequate” EIR for the project, and require suspension of all contracts related to construction on the project until alleged violations of CEQA are addressed, according to court filings.

[Learn more: Lawsuit filed against Citrus Heights over MOB, new hall]

Although unsuccessful in temporarily halting progress on the city hall demolition, Hill said his group plans to continue with the lawsuit against the project, estimating it could take until early 2016 to get a final decision from a judge. The retired environmental attorney and Citrus Heights resident said he’s currently awaiting a “big pile” of documents to be released by the City in response to a Public Records Act request.

Note: this story will be updated Monday to include comments from the City, if reached.
[follow text=”Follow local news:”]

July 19, 2015
Lawsuit filed against Citrus Heights over MOB, new hall

A lawsuit was filed against the City of Citrus Heights last week by a group alleging “noncompliance” with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a recently approved new city hall and three-story medical office building (MOB) project.

The lawsuit, initiated by the nonprofit group “Preserve Our Civic Center,” asks the Sacramento County Superior Court to declare the City’s approval of the new hall and MOB project to be “invalid and void,” and that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project “fails to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.” It also asks the court to order a “new legally adequate” EIR for the project, and require suspension of all contracts related to construction on the project until alleged violations of CEQA are addressed.

The $53 million project was unanimously approved by the city council on March 26, authorizing the aging city hall to be torn down and replaced with a 68,000 square feet Dignity Health medical building. A new $22 million city hall would then be built next to the Post Office down the street on the 10.9-acre Stock Property, paid for in part by a 15-year lease agreement with Dignity Health.

In legal filings, Preserve Our Civic Center identifies itself as a group “composed of persons whose economic, personal, aesthetic, health, and property interests will be severely injured if the adoption of the Project is not set aside pending full compliance with CEQA and all other environmental laws.”

The lawsuit alleges “deficiencies” in the City’s several-hundred page EIR, including “an inadequate project description, and an inadequate analysis regarding impacts to transportation and circulation, air quality, biological resources, land use, and noise.” The lawsuit alleges that such deficiencies will result in “significant environmental impacts.”

The CEQA-required EIR is a detailed analysis of potential environmental effects for certain projects, with “significant” effects being required to be adequately mitigated, reducing the effect to “less than significant.” The Report must also include an analysis of alternatives to the project, assessing if other options may create less effect on the environment.

Citrus Heights resident Norman Hill, who heads up the group filing the lawsuit, said the EIR “seemed to be designed to understate the effects, so that the City would not have to deal with mitigation.”

[Read the final version of the EIR and traffic study here: http://www.citrusheights.net/836/Environmental-Impact-Report]

Citing the legal complaint filed by Hill’s group, Monica Alejandrez with the city manager’s office referred comments to City Attorney Ruthann Ziegler, who was unable to be reached by phone or email on Friday.

City council members were aware of the likelihood of a lawsuit prior to their vote to approve the final EIR and authorize the project to go forward, as Hill had threatened litigation previously.

“Mr. Hill, I’m sorry that you feel the way you feel,” Councilman Jeff Slowey told Hill during the March 26 council meeting. “But threats, they don’t bother me in the least bit. If you wanna go to court I say bring it on — but bring your checkbook.”

[Prior story: Council votes 5-0 for new city hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened]

Hill said the council “just blew off anything that called for a reduction of the impacts,” and should have done more to address issues like aesthetics, traffic, and glare, highlighting concern for neighbors who would see “this three-story monstrosity” from their homes and neighborhoods. He acknowledged the City made an improvement by switching the new hall location away from a previously proposed site on Antelope Road, but said it “unfortunately” seems that lawsuits are “what people have to do to be heard by this City.”

[Related: New City Hall Site Option Draws Support, While Medical Building Criticized]

Hill, a retired environmental attorney, said he looks forward to a CEQA-required settlement conference between his group and the City, hoping City officials will be “willing to talk.”

“Ideally we’d like to see the MOB back on the Stock Property, but I’m not sure how much success we’d have with that,” said Hill, who has also proposed an alternative two-story MOB design. “I think there may have to be some give-and-take between us and the City.”

*Editor’s note: this story will be updated with comments from the city attorney, if reached. For more context on this story, see: Council votes 5-0 for new city hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened

[follow text=”Get local news updates:”]

May 3, 2015
Planning Commission votes 5-1 for new hall & MOB; lawsuit threatened

Updated Mar. 12, 3:48 p.m.–
Despite the threat of litigation from a resident group Wednesday night, the Citrus Heights Planning Commission voted 5-1 in favor of recommending the city council approve a proposal to tear down the existing city hall, replace it with a 68,000 square feet medical office building (MOB), and build a new $22 million hall just north of the Post Office.

Norman Hill, with the resident group Preserve Our Civic Center, addresses planning commissioners Wednesday night.

“None of us will ever, ever be able to make all of the people happy all of the time,” Planning Commission Chairman Rick Doyle said just prior to the vote, adding his fellow commissioners should not make their decision based on “threats or innuendos.”

Doyle was joined by Commissioner Russell Blair in a yes vote, citing belief of a recent positive shift in public support for the proposal. Blair held up a stack of documents that included a record of over 100 public comments received, stating a majority of recent comments were in support of the proposal, following the city council dropping plans to move city hall to a site on Antelope Road last year.

[From last year: “New City Hall Site Option Draws Support, While Medical Building Criticized“]

Doyle and Blair were also joined in support votes by Commissioners Christy DeCelle, Albert Fox and Michael Lagomarsino, with Trish Dawson supporting an alternative that would rehabilitate the existing city hall and allow Dignity Health to develop its medical building on the 10.9-acre “Stock Property” next to the Post Office instead. Commissioner Leah Cox was absent.

Although several building alternatives were considered during the preparation of a several hundred page Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the study found the current proposal would create “no significant effects” to the environment, after mitigation measures. According to a staff report delivered to commissioners Wednesday night, under the California Environmental Quality Act, an alternative is only required if “significant and unavoidable impacts” are found.

[Related: GALLERY: Artistic Images of Proposed New City Hall]

Compared to controversial, crowded meetings last year, public comment was noticeably lower, with just eight speakers making their voice heard on Wednesday.

Two City staff members gave comment in support for the proposal, citing aging and inefficient existing city hall facilities, while business leaders from the Chamber of Commerce and Sunrise Marketplace said the deal would bring an economic boost and “help draw new tenants to our retail corridor.”

Beryl Turner-Weeks, who lives “across the street” from the proposed new hall, reiterated comments residents have had in the past about project cost in light of a shrinking $26 million city reserve, as well as increased construction noise and traffic — although a traffic study report by Fehr and Peers found the proposal would not create a significant increase to traffic in the area.

[Read the final version of the EIR and traffic study here: http://www.citrusheights.net/836/Environmental-Impact-Report]

Resident and retired environmental attorney Norman Hill told commissioners that his group, Preserve Our Civic Center, was “ready and willing to pursue litigation,” but proposed an acceptable compromise that would lessen the visibility impacts of the MOB by lowering it from three stories down to two, and increasing the setback away from Greenback Lane. Hill’s “olive branch” compromise, was rejected by Dignity Health’s Sigrid Owyang, who said the current three-story design maximizes parking spaces, is more “comfortable” for patients, and has been tested elsewhere.

Preserve Our Civic Center previously threatened litigation over the Antelope Road location for city hall, causing council members to vote 3-2 to put a hold on the plans in July last year, adopting the new 10.9-acre Stock Property as the “preferred site” several months later. Hill said POCC is hopeful a compromise can be met that would likewise avoid litigation in this case as well.

[From July: “Council Postpones Vote on New City Hall Deal, After Lawsuit Threat”]

Discussion of the proposal came about last year when City officials said Dignity Health proposed a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” for Citrus Heights to get a new hall for a net cost of about $5 million, after 15 years. Due to changes in the new hall’s proposed location, that net cost is now estimated at $8.9 million, according to Monica Alejandrez, assistant to the city manager.

Cost benefits to the City would come primarily from income brought in by the proposed Dignity Health lease, as well as from projected energy and repair savings coming from a more efficient new city hall building, according to City Manager Henry Tingle.

While the planning commission’s vote only sends a recommendation on to the city council, a final vote on the proposal has been set for a city council meeting on March 26, where opponents pledge to pack the meeting out.

“I don’t pull out the big guns for every meeting,” said Tim Schaefer, who heads the resident group Save City Hall. “But I can guarantee you that this room will be packed for the council meeting.”

Computer rendering of Dignity Health’s proposed new three-story medical office building on Greenback Lane.

March 12, 2015