Thursday
July
24
2014
12:24 pm
Weather
  Search Again
  Home
  Local News
  State / National / World
  Sports
  Opinion / Letters
  Business
  Arts / Entertainment
  Lifestyle
  Obituaries
  Calendar
  Submit Event
  Comics / Games
  DJ Designers
  Archives
  Advertise With Us
  About Us
 

Check out our archive of Dining Guides - Yum!

OP-ED: More dialogue, less tension
August 11, 2012, 05:00 AM By Mark Olbert

Mark Olbert


The "final” environmental impact report for the proposed Transit Village in San Carlos is under review by the Planning Commission. It’s a step along the way to whatever the ultimate outcome for the project will be. But it also marks a missed opportunity. And that’s too bad.

California’s environmental impact review process identifies a project’s environmental impacts and aims to give decision makers as much objective information as possible on their nature and magnitude. It isn’t a go/no go document, because a city council can approve projects with significant negative impacts. That happened with the San Carlos grade separation project. But by painting a more complete picture of a project’s environmental footprint, EIRs hopefully lead to better projects and better decisions.

But there’s another type of valuable information which the EIR process surfaces that has nothing to do with what ends up in the report. That’s the reaction of the residents and businesses that will be affected by the project. The EIR process, by design, involves a lot of public participation. Even when feedback isn’t about an environmental issue, it can still be important.

The Transit Village project provoked, and continues to provoke, a tremendous outpouring of concern by our east side residents. At the recent Planning Commission meeting on the EIR, the council chamber was filled with red-shirted opponents. On a beautiful summer evening in the middle of the vacation season.

One would think the project’s sponsors would want to address this negative energy quickly and decisively. So far as I can tell, there has been little if any significant dialogue with the residents. Yes, there have been meetings, mostly a while ago. Yes, everyone wants to try and find a solution. Yes, there are reasons why more hasn’t been done.

But in the end, that’s all irrelevant. Residents’ concerns need to be addressed by the project’s sponsors. That could be through education, adjustments to the project, neighborhood improvements not directly associated with the project, or something else. While some of this has happened, most of what has occurred has taken place "off stage,” and not been pitched to the residents through community meetings. Consequently, it hasn’t altered their overall reaction to any significant degree.

What’s particularly odd about this situation is that it isn’t the first big contentious project in San Carlos, or even the first one that significantly concerns east side residents. The Hacienda and Palo Alto Medical Foundation projects showed the importance of focused dialogue between developers and residents. It isn’t clear to me why those lessons aren’t being applied to the Transit Village.

No one’s interest is served when tensions around a project ratchet upwards unchecked. Let’s hope a change of approach occurs soon.


Mark Olbert is a member of the San Carlos City Council. The views expressed here are his own.


Print this Page Print this Page |  Bookmark and Share
<< Back
 
  


 
You are in the Archives

Exit
  RSS feed RSS
Daily Journal Quick Poll
 
Are you willing to report your neighbors if they waste water?

Yes, it's the right thing to do
I would probably just go talk to them
No way, snitches get stitches
Not sure
 
 
 

 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
©2014 Daily Journal - San Mateo County’s homepage