Mayor, Town Council members back course on moving Town Center Mayor, Town Council members back course on moving Town Center (March 10, 2004)

Editor's Note: The guest opinions here were written by Portola Valley Mayor George Comstock, Town Council member Steve Toben, and former mayor Kirke Comstock in response to an editorial and guest opinion published last week in this space.

Between a rock and a hard place

By George E.Comstock

It is distressing to me to see that some town residents do not feel heard. This is particularly true of Sue Chaput's feelings. She spent many valuable hours on the Town Center Citizens Advisory Committee last year examining potential sites for the permanent Town Center.

This hard-working committee examined several sites in considerable depth, but was unable to come up with a unanimous "best choice." The council has studied each of their several proposals and unanimously chose "the back quarter" at the special public meeting on Feb 9, 2004.

Using this location for an integrated Town Center complex was the clear top choice of the committee[td1]. The committee results were made available to the public at the August 27, 2003 council meeting.

I hope that residents know that we on the Town Council do hear them. We are also respectful of the fears existing among employees and other users of the present buildings. Some Moms have refused to allow their kids to participate in dance classes because of the perceived hazard.

We are all between a rock and a hard place. The town is concerned about potential loss of its insurance coverage and increasingly negative earthquake odds if we don't take prompt action on this matter. Considering today's litigation and settlement costs, the town could find itself in a precarious financial situation if someone is injured (or worse) in one of our present buildings.

One group of residents has urged that we have a professional statistician compare the earthquake risk to a person in the present facilities to the risk she or he would incur driving to it. If the driving turns out to be the greater risk, they would ask, "Do you need to feel such urgency?" This kind of comparison misses the point. The proper question is, "How does the risk of being in one of our present structures astride the infamous fault during an earthquake compare with the risk if one were in a new structure safely away from the fault zone?"

In 1975, the Town Fathers declared the buildings suitable for temporary use only- not to exceed five years. Thirty years later we are still using them for children's dance classes, scout troop meetings, yoga programs, library customers and staff, town staff, weddings and receptions, artists, and so on. Temporary?

Since we can't know when the next major quake will occur, only that it will happen and will be more intense the longer it waits, we have no ethical choice but to act. This is our greatest concern. Rebuilding on the safe portion of our present site allows us to start moving, and to do it in a financially responsible manner. Please help us accomplish this goal.

George Comstock is Mayor of Portola Valley.

Synergy at existing Town Center is paramount

By Kirke Comstock

The subject of the need to upgrade the Town Center has been in front of the Town Council and public for the better part of the last seven years. Many meetings, many of them heavily attended, have been held. Some of those meetings were excellent tutorials on Portola Valley geology.

In addition, the citizens committee on this subject was appointed and held a large number of public meetings. Various subcommittees were formed and addressed a number of alternative sites. Two of these sites (Ford Park and the existing Town Center) were owned by the town. Others were not.

Almost all people participating in this process operated on the basis that the location of existing buildings (except for the schoolhouse) could no longer be used due to geologic issues. The task then was to see what could be done. Just recently, the Town Council received the final geologic survey report. That meeting was well attended and there was lively participation by members of the audience.

As the writer of the column rightly pointed out, even Ford Field could not house all the existing functions. In my view the synergy of having all the functions that are now at the existing center is paramount. The issue is whether that can be done in a limited amount of space. This will also eliminate the very high costs of acquiring land elsewhere, not to mention the time involved. Preliminary site studies and the recently accepted geologic survey show that this can be done on the backside of the present site.

Aesthetically, this will result in a finished design being even less intrusive on the Portola Road Scenic Corridor. To characterize the relocation of existing facilities elsewhere on the site as leaving the site covered with buildings is misleading. When the old buildings are vacated, they will be removed and the location where they were will be either open space or recreational facilities such as soccer fields, baseball fields, and so forth.

It is difficult for me to see that rehashing the committee process will provide new information that would lead to any other conclusion. Your editorial even concedes that point. I think you are asking the council to engage in a process that may raise expectations that they have new information that needs to have the entire matter revisited. I think that would be unfortunate.

As you quoted the Mayor recently:" It's time to get off the dime".

Kirke Comstock is a former mayor of Portola Valley.

Years of consultation, consideration overlooked

By Steve Toben

I was pleased to read the Almanac's March 3 endorsement of the Town Council's recent decision to abandon the old structures at Town Center, due to unacceptable risk of collapse in the next big earthquake.

Unfortunately, the Almanac goes on to question the council's further decision to rebuild the Town Center on the western third of the existing campus, which has been cleared of fault traces. In urging the council to go slow and invite further public debate on several alternative sites, the Almanac overlooks seven years of study and dozens of public meetings, including extensive consultation with town residents that preceded the council's action.

Since 2001 alone, the council has convened two separate ad hoc committees to examine alternative sites, with participation open to volunteers from the community. The first of these bodies met in 2002 and assessed 11 different sites using an evaluation matrix that addressed factors including adequacy of the site to accommodate current Town Center uses; proximity to the Little Red Schoolhouse/Town Hall, and cost to purchase parcels in private ownership.

The second ad hoc citizens advisory committee met throughout the summer of 2003, again examined alternative sites, and submitted an extensive report to the council last August. Roughly two thirds of the advisory committee felt that the Town Center should remain entirely or predominantly on the current site. The remainder individually liked a variety of different options involving a mix of sites, but with no clear alternative consensus.

In arriving at the decision to rebuild on the existing campus, the council has taken full account of community perspectives and fully reviewed the reports of its ad hoc committees on this important issue.

We have had to balance the risks of delay against the benefits of seemingly endless further study, and concluded that we must move toward a solution on lands we already own and understand. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Furthermore, the council has committed to an intensive public involvement process over the next few months that will integrate residents' suggestions for the uses and design of the new Town Center on the current campus - a ringing affirmation of the town's tradition of inclusive governmental process.

Steve Toben is a member of the Portola Valley Town Council.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.