08.05.2026-PC Meeting Public Comment

1 Sarah Cawrse From: Darcy Smith <dsmith@portolavalley.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:34 AM To: Craig Heberer Cc: Sarah Cawrse; Town Center; Nicholas Martell Subject: RE: Notice of concerns — Woodside Priory nighttime lighting/use proposal (File # PLN_USE0002-2026) Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Craig, Thank you for your comments. I’m copying Nick Martell, the project planner, to ensure that your comments on the Priory application are included in the project record. Darcy Smith Town Manager Town of Portola Valley 765 Portola Rd Portola Valley, CA 94028 Phone: (650) 851-1700 x 215 Email: dsmith@portolavalley.net Schedule a Meeting with Me From: Craig Heberer Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 9:23 AM To: Darcy Smith <dsmith@portolavalley.net>; Sarah Cawrse <SCawrse@portolavalley.net>; Town Center <TownCenter@portolavalley.net> Subject: Notice of concerns — Woodside Priory nighttime lighting/use proposal (File # PLN_USE0002-2026) Dear Town Manager Smith, Planning and Building Director Cawrse, and Planning Commission Chair Brothers: I’ve been a resident of Portola Valley for 21 years, and live on Portola Green Circle, across from the Woodside Priory School. As I continue to study it, I have concerns regarding the pending Woodside Priory application to permit nighttime lighted use (File # PLN_USE0002-2026). The proposed nighttime lighting appears inconsistent with the Town's General Plan and with Condition 11 of the Priory's existing Conditional Use Permit, both of which I understand to restrict this type of use. 2 I’m concerned that approving an exception here would establish a precedent that other institutional and residential applicants in Town could invoke. I respectfully ask that this town-wide effect be thoroughly investigated and weighed before any decision is made. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, Craig Heberer July 14, 2026 1 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Sam Schillace Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 8:38 PM Subject: Re: Regarding the priory CUP and proposed night games To: Patrick Ruff Cc: <planningcommission@portolavalley.net>, Craig Heberer To the Planning Commission: I doubt Mr Ruff and I are going to agree, and I don't want to waste the Commission's time, so this will be my last reply on this thread. But I hope it is read. I moved to Portola Valley, and to the house we live in, 28 years ago. The town has always aspired to a rural character. The General Plan's noise element states its purpose as the preservation of "tranquility within the Town consistent with its rural character," and the land use element specifies that "all buildings should be subordinate to their natural surroundings in size, scale and siting" and that "monumental buildings should be avoided." That character is why we left Palo Alto for Portola Valley. For the first 20 or so years of our residence, the Priory was a good neighbor in keeping with that spirit. It was a quiet educational center. Over the past five years, it has become progressively louder, busier, and larger. Whether or not the Priory remains within the letter of the law, it has moved well outside the spirit of the town's General Plan as I understand it. I may be the loudest critic, but I am far from the only neighbor troubled by current activity levels. We don't even get a break in the summer, when the town is otherwise quiet - camp starts soon after the Priory is out. I'll address Mr. Ruff's points in order. On notice versus consultation. A broad announcement of intent to hold the first night game in my 28 years here is not the same as a conversation that incorporates neighborhood concerns before a decision is made. What was sent was not a question, it was a notice that this was happening unless stopped. That is precisely why I addressed the Commission directly rather than Mr. Ruff: the conversation was already made public, by Priory's choice, not mine. On "no expansion of programming." Mr. Ruff writes that the CUP for the athletic center "outlined the intended use of that specific facility," and that this proposal is therefore not an expansion. That is a narrow reading of a broad commitment. The discussion during that CUP process was not confined to a single building's use, it was about the overall noise and activity footprint of Priory's athletic programming 2 on its neighbors, repeatedly and at length. A request for a first-ever variance from both the Town's dark sky and nighttime noise ordinances is, on any reasonable reading, an expansion of that footprint. If Priory's position is that each new request can be evaluated in isolation from the commitments made to secure the last one, I would ask the Commission to weigh what that approach means for the durability of any condition it imposes going forward, including the conditions proposed for this event. On "committed to minimizing impact." That commitment is hard to square with a request to break two ordinances at once for an activity neighbors specifically raised concerns about during the last approval. The simplest way to minimize impact is not to add a new source of nighttime noise and light in the first place. And it is difficult to take at face value that a "one-time" event is genuinely one-time, after 28 years with no precedent. It reads far more plausibly as a recruitment and visibility event for an expanding athletic program, one that will return next year as "established practice" if approved now. On the Fromhertz house. I'll be fair here, because Priory has been responsive on this point. It commissioned a structural evaluation and detailed cost estimates, and I don't dispute either the work or its conclusion: the building is in poor condition, and restoration is not cost-effective. By Priory's own figures, restoring it would cost substantially more than removing it and rebuilding. On the matter of the investigation requirement, the Priory did of course comply with the requirement to assess the building. My concern is forward-looking. That report is dated August 2025, nearly a year ago, and it states plainly that the structure is unsafe and that access should be restricted. Yet the building still stands, with no plan stated to neighbors. If Priory's own engineer considers it unsafe and infeasible to preserve, the straightforward course is to act on that finding and to say, on the record, what is intended for the parcel and on what timeline - so that a technically satisfied condition doesn't simply lapse into an undisclosed option on whatever comes next. This is not a question of whether Priory can comply with the letter of a CUP. It plainly can, and has the resources and process discipline to do so if it so chooses. The question is whether the Commission wants to continue granting case-by-case exceptions to a pattern that, taken as a whole, is steadily converting a quiet rural campus into a venue for large public events with stadium lighting and amplified programming. Portola Valley does not lack for places nearby to hold a Friday night football game under lights. It is one of the few places left that doesn't have to. I would ask the Commission to deny this application. Respectfully, Sam Schillace On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 9:39 AM Patrick Ruff wrote: Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I just want to follow up on the concerns raised regarding this application. We take our responsibility as a thoughtful and respectful neighbor seriously and would like to clarify a few points. First, regarding the assertion that Priory committed not to expand athletic activities, and that this is an example of new programming. During the approval process for the new community athletic center, we outlined the intended use of that specific facility and its associated programming. The current proposal does not represent a broad expansion of athletic programming, but rather a limited 3 and carefully considered request for games already scheduled, consistent with our overall campus use and mission. We remain committed to managing noise, scheduling, and lighting to minimize impact on our neighbors. Second, regarding the Fromhertz house, Priory has complied with the CUP condition. We engaged qualified professionals to evaluate the building's structural integrity and the economic feasibility of restoration. To satisfy this requirement, we submitted a structural report and cost estimates dated August 26, 2025, to Town Planning shortly thereafter. Please see the attached. Third, we have consistently and proactively communicated with our neighbors for the past two years. We have sent regular schedules of construction activities and other campus events to neighbors. Our intention is to share information transparently and invite dialogue, and remain open to continued conversation and constructive feedback. Finally, we respectfully disagree with the characterization that Priory has acted in bad faith or sought special treatment. Our approach has consistently been to work within established processes, comply with Town requirements, and balance our educational mission with our obligations to the surrounding community. We appreciate the Commission's careful consideration of this matter and welcome the opportunity to provide any additional information that may be helpful. Thanks, Patrick On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 1:22 PM Sam Schillace wrote: To the planning commission: I just heard about this idea, this week. I strongly object, and I think the planning commission should deny this CUP application. I wish to note two things. First, when the Priory applied for the CUP for the volleyball building that is currently being constructed, they asserted repeatedly that there would be no extension of loud sports activities like this one - this is, in fact, exactly the kind of creeping behavior we were worried about, objected to, and were assured the Priory had no intention of. The building isn’t even done yet (believe me, we get to listen to construction noise all day, all summer) and this promise is already being broken. Second, to my knowledge, the Priory has not produced the plan for the Fromholz house that it was obligated to provide, and agreed to provide, within 30 days of the CUP approval. Again, the Priory seems to have gotten what it wanted and then ignored promises it made. As far as I am aware, no attempt at discussion with neighbors has been made prior to this more public proposal, contrary to assertions that they would work closely on noise issues related to the sports 4 program. I was forwarded one email which was not an invitation to discussion but rather a declaration of the same intent, and then this note went out to broad distribution. This seems less like asking community permission, and more like an attempt to establish fait accompli without actually being the considerate neighbor the Priory always claims to be. A single night game might not seem like a big deal, but it’s part of a broader pattern of bullying and bad faith that we experience as close neighbors of the Priory routinely. Respectfully, I ask that the commission conduct public comment and debate, and that this is considered skeptically in light of the recent behavior of the Priory relative to promises made about the CUP they wish to amend. The are no other schools or activities that I am aware of that get variances of our town dark sky and nighttime noise ordinances. The Priory isn’t special and shouldn’t get them either. Sam Schillace On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 10:27 AM Patrick Ruff wrote: Dear Neighbors, I’m writing to share that Priory is applying to host a special community night on Friday, October 9, 2026. This would be the first event of its kind on our campus: a single evening of middle school and high school footba