Portola Valley Town Center rebuild: scant comment on environmental report Portola Valley Town Center rebuild: scant comment on environmental report (August 24, 2005)

** Comment period did not get wide public notice.

By David Boyce

Almanac Staff Writer

Without a community meeting or much public notice, a comment period has come and gone regarding a detailed report on the environmental impact of Portola Valley's proposed $20 million Town Center redesign project.

Plans are to demolish six 55-year-old former elementary school buildings that have served as a municipal center for 30 years and build a new complex on the 11.2-acre site but away from an earthquake fault area that bisects it.

After geologists found the fault three years ago, an intense debate broke out between the Town Council, which supports the project, and residents who wanted to upgrade the existing buildings, but their opposition has faded in the face of legal and liability obstacles to a retrofit.

The 45-day comment period for the 170-page report began June 21. When it ended August 4, only 14 pages of comments had come in -- from one member of the Town Council and several state agencies.

A 10-day comment period for the final report-- set to begin Friday, September 16 -- will be followed by a Town Council hearing, said Town Administrator Angela Howard.

The council must certify the EIR for the project to move forward, said Tom Vlasic, the town's deputy planner. The council can extend the review if significant issues come up.
Notifying the public

State law does not require public hearings for environmental reports, but does call public participation "essential" and encourages agencies to seek "wide public involvement, formal and informal" in order to "receive and evaluate public reactions."

Each of the five Town Council members received a copy of the report, said Ms. Howard. Copies also went to the state, the fire protection district, the school district and the sanitary district. Copies were also available at Town Hall, the Woodside library -- Portola Valley's library was closed -- and on the town's Web site. Ms. Howard said she provided copies as recommended by the consultant who prepared the report.

Copies did not go to the Planning Commission, the Architecture & Site Control Commission, or to the Almanac.

The town did advertise the comment period in small print in the June 22 issue of the Almanac. The EIR also came up briefly during several council meetings before and during the comment period.

Mr. Vlasic said it's not typical to call a public meeting specifically to discuss a draft environmental report, and that the reports tend to be included in packets prepared for meetings that address a project's broader aspects.

EIRs tend to draw attention when a project's direction hinges on an environmental issue or when the community has not thoroughly discussed a project, he said.

This project has made the rounds in Portola Valley. Since the discovery of the quake fault, a community conversation has taken place in town meetings, at town picnics and at an all-day design session in June 2004 in which 60 residents, including council members, used paper, glue and other implements of creativity to imagine layouts for the new complex.
Why an EIR?

Many construction projects don't include an EIR, relying instead on a shorter alternative that addresses mitigation of potential hazards. Such an alternative was planned for this project, but the potential historic value of the former school buildings necessitated a "focused EIR."

The sliding glass doors and covered walkways in the complex may exemplify "a modern postwar school" in a "spectacular setting of fields, redwoods and the Santa Cruz Mountains," the report said.

The complex may also "embody the great changes sweeping the formerly rural expanses of the Bay Area after the Second World War."

The recommended mitigations were to photograph the buildings for posterity and salvage materials for possible display or re-use in the new complex.

This historic aspect may explain why the Planning Commission was not invited to review the EIR, said Mr. Vlasic. The commission has had several opportunities to comment on the project's overall progress.
Comments

State agency comments cover the handling of hazardous materials and possible changes in vehicle traffic patterns and a possible archeological survey to address Native American concerns.

In his comments, Councilman George Comstock suggested adding language to balance the uplifting description of the school buildings with a recitation of the hazards abandoned buildings represent, including temptations to continue using them and the attraction they offer to "birds, skunks, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, snakes, spiders and other wildlife."

Resident Bernie Bayuk, a project critic and a regular at Town Center-related meetings, said he didn't know about the comment period, but that it didn't much matter. "The train has left the station," he said, recalling a comment by outspoken project critic Allan Brown.

Mr. Brown said he knew of the draft EIR but hadn't seen it. "I frankly have kind of given up on having any influence," he said. Besides, he added, EIR comments are often used as delaying tactics. At this point, he said he prefers to focus on design and fundraising issues.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.