Portola Valley City Council
July 13, 2022

6/23/22, 1:22 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=3&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6493 2/2

8. I think this is an interesting option to move the town center soccer field to Ford Field, as recreation is clearly an acceptable use for the original donors.

Another possibility is to also move or supplement all or part of the tennis courts to Ford Field. We could also build some badly needed pickleball courts there. This option would permit more space for the housing development.

Here are some pros and cons
Pros
— Honor the meaning of the donation of funds for Ford Field — Locate the housing near the library including computer access. A significant number of people with very low income do not have a computer at home, so this could be a resource for them.
— Availability of town center facilities requiring less duplication of common areas (community rooms, lawn area). — Distribute the housing more throughout town. The current plan has all dense development along Alpine Road (from Ladera to Roberts). — Strong infrastructure as the town center area will likely be the most hardened for emergencies with backup power etc… — The public courts at Ford Field would be more accessible to non-residents from nearby areas requiring less driving — More interaction between residents using town center
— Reduce distance to the schools ~1.5 miles vs. ~2.5 miles. This reduction could help with legal qualifications (Helen Wolter mentioned this) along with just more walkable and bike friendly.
— Even in regards to evacuation as this location would likely evacuate using Portola Road Cons
— Cost of moving the fields and/or courts
— Perhaps some time when the fields were not available for public use These assessor maps may be useful for anyone wanting to dig in further.

Ford Field Map
https://gis.smcgov.org/gis_exchange/rastermaps/AM/BK077/07727.TIF Town Center
https://gis.smcgov.org/gis_exchange/rastermaps/LLSvol016/16-LLS-PG076.TIF Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

6/23/22, 1:23 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=3&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6496 2/3 Below is a letter sent to the town of Portola Valley, after learning that PV and Stanford University are in serious consideration of closing down Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy for purposes of investing in a low-income housing development project. This is an insensible and selfish decision that will have long-term impact to the Portola Valley and broader peninsula community as the valley is already running with fewer and fewer stables, yet new homes are getting built everywhere and traffic jams are spread everywhere around the bay area.

We kindly request that the town of PV and Stanford keep Isola Riding Academy at its current location and consider alternative locations for their housing projects. Thank you.
*************
To whom it may concern,
My name is Saria. I am eleven years old and I love horseback riding. I started learning the sport at the Isola Riding Academy when I was eight and the place has been like my second home. I would like to write and request you to kindly consider keeping the stable and the academy at its current location, so that other young children in-and-around the peninsula can continue to have the opportunity to get the best equestrian training in the bay area! Horseback riding at Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy is revitalizing, especially after a long week of monotonous learning over Zoom. Every time I mount on a horse, be it Marshmallow, Jessie, or Stormy, I feel liberated. Every time I take a deep breath of fresh air at the stable, I feel energized. As I walk and trot with the most gentle animal through the tranquility of the valley. I feel like dancing in paradise. It is that fantastic feeling of rejuvenation that motivates me to work hard and enables me to power through each week.

The coaches at Isola Riding Academy are incredible human beings. I remember my first time visiting the stable was at one of their summer camps back in 2018. I was a little nervous but the coaches were very approachable. They greeted me with open arms and a pleasant ear-to-ear smile, something harder and harder to find here in Silicon Valley. They were extremely patient, even if it meant showing absolute beginners like myself the right way to hold the reins for the Nth time, and the proper way to do a two-point repeatedly. It will be a tremendous loss to the community and young children if the academy and the stable are both taken away, and rebuilt into condos/houses that are nothing but lifeless commodities for real estate developers to reap big benefits.

Moving the horses and students to another stable may seem like a viable option but in reality, it is not. The facility is one of the cleanest and most well maintained among all the stables in the vicinity. The warm, fuzzy and homey feeling of the place could never be replicated and the people there will not be the same. Every rider that comes through the Glenoaks wooden gate has developed a long-lasting bond with the people and horses there. Closing the stable and the academy would mean sabotaging all of those precious relationships and taking nature further away from the community. For me personally, life without Isola Riding Academy would be like living in the desert without water.

Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy are one of the important icons of the Portola Valley due to its expertly run stable and top-notch equestrian training facility for families and communities in the peninsula. I hereby sincerely and kindly ask for your reconsideration of alternative locations for the lowincome development project.

Sincerely,
Saria Lum
*************

6/23/22, 1:23 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=3&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6496 3/3

8. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Ashlie Email
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:48 PM
To: housing
Subject: PVTC to infinity and beyond!
Categories: Red category
To whom it may concern.

My name is Ashlie and my daughter Eva (7 years old) has been riding at PVTC for a few years now.  We came to PVTC because of the expertise that our barn specializes in which is kids and ponies.  There are very few places (none that parallel our barn) for this.  My daughter has loved horses since she could walk. I have pictures of her in diapers on horses. The love she has for riding, horses, and competing is in her blood and soul.  This is her “thing”.  She is passionate and motivated about this sport and it drives her in all aspects of her life. As her mom nothing makes me happier than to see my child find her motivating factor in life even at her young age. PVTC is a second home for us. It is my daughters comfort place that she relates to others of all ages that share her same love of riding.  It truly is a community that we would be completely lost without not to mention sheer devastation for Eva and so many others. PVTC is a landmark of horse country and community that we are surrounded by.  PVTC is the reason I moved here from SF in 2002. I too have ridden horses all my life but could not find a equine community until I found PVTC.  It is a culture that is so important to the makeup of Silicon Valley and we hope that it will remain for many years to come. Thank you for reading and consideration.

Sincerely,
Ashlie

1 Dylan Parker
From: Peter Lipman
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:19 PM
To: housing
Subject: Status of Dorothy Ford Park Parking
I had counted only 47 parking places in my prior message, but just discovered that the conceptual site plan, included in the PVHE draft (p. 100), proposes 24 more parking places than I had seen (partly concealed beneath a thick green boundary line). As noted at the May 2 meeting presentation (but not in the PVHE), these lie mainly (16 ft) within the Scenic Corridor buffer zone. Appropriate for a "Scenic Corridor”? Peter Lipman
Begin forwarded message:

From: Peter Lipman <[email protected]>
Subject: Status of Dorothy Ford Park
Date: June 19, 2022 at 2:24:55 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Status of Dorothy Ford Park
Comments in response to the staff memo attached to agenda for the June 20 meeting of the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee, especially the section tilted “Legal Status of Ford Field:”

1. The correct town name for this property is “Dorothy Ford Park” (Town Open Spaces map:
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/2747/637741239556330000). Use of the name “Ford Field” is confusing and misleading because it obscures the 50+ year history as a designated open space park. Many residents associate this name only with the baseball field.

2. Regardless of whether the town was the legal purchaser of Dorothy Ford Park (as stated in the June 20 AHHEC memo), the more relevant good-faith issues are the source(s) of funds and the intent for the purchase. Rather than just questioning the veracity of statements from Susan Ford Dorsey, couldn’t AHHEC staff look for information from town records or from long-time residents? Several such folks, including town historian Nancy Lund, have confirmed that Tom Ford was the lead donor for acquisition of this property, supplemented by contributions from other town residents. And the Town Open Spaces Map above lists this property as “Acquired by the town . . . with a gift by Tom Ford.” This seems closely analogous to purchase of the Shady Trail open space parcel directly by the town in 2007, but with funds donated by more than 90 town residents. For both acquisitions, the good-faith intent of the donors clearly was to help the town preserve open space properties.

2 3. If the RHNA-Housing Element process would lead to growth of the town housing stock and attendant population by about 20 percent during only the next eight years, won’t there be need for even more recreational open space, rather than less? 4 What is relevance of current zoning status for Ford Park, cited as O-A (R-E/2A/SD-2) in the June 20 memo? Does the town have a zoning category for any open-space parklands (none seems depicted on the Town Zoning Map:
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/6770/635634073606070000).

Don’t all other town open space properties currently carry comparable R-E zoning designations (seemingly inappropriately?)?

5. If a town property that has been in use as an open-space park for the past 50+ years is to be recommended for repurposing as a high-density development with major long-term consequences for the town, shouldn’t input be obtained from the Portola Valley Open-Space Advisory Committee, which is charged with advising on acquisition and maintenance?

6. A final concern: does the conceptual site plan, included in the PVHE draft (p. 100) as evidence that high-density development of the site is feasible, include adequate parking spaces? This plan, which depicts 50-family housing units at a site remote from commercial business and work locations and without public-transportation options other than to local schools, contains less than one parking site per housing unit. Even so, virtually all available space on the site, other than the building footprints, would be paved for access roads and parking. Aren’t most families, even those with “below-average” income, likely to have two (or more) vehicles? Where to park the excess, except at the baseball field, thereby further negating use of remaining parts of the park as open space?
Peter Lipman
650-269-5295

1 Dylan Parker
From: Jessica McDonell
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:50 PM
To: housing
Subject: Save Isola Rising Academy
Good afternoon,
I am reaching out regarding the consideration of Glenoaks/Isola Riding Academy as a potential site for housing.

I understand the need for increased housing and do not mean to oppose that as a whole, but this stable is such an important part of the community and means so much to so many adults and children alike. In addition, it's home to wonderful horses who mean SO much to the riders that grow to love them.

Closing down Isola would not only take away an immensely beneficial and therapeutic resource from the adult and youth riders, but would also displace the horses.

Isola has become even more important and valuable recently. Due to Covid, people lost connection to recreation, and also many people have been so isolated. Once it was safe, this outdoor activity allowed people to take their minds off of hardships, and have some connection to other riders, as well as the horses. I know the stables made a huge difference to many people as everyone was struggling through such a difficult time over the past few years.

I implore the town of Portola Valley to please consider other sites that would not involve closing such an important and valuable community organization. The loss of Isola would be deeply felt in the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Kristien Van Vlasselaer
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:56 PM
To: housing
Subject: Housing at Isola stable location
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of the area and avid horse person I feel compelled to weigh in on the idea of converting the Isola stables area into housing. This area is one of the last bastions of equestrian living and appreciation in California and we need to retain as many equestrian centers and riding facilities as possible to avoid losing our valuable heritage and horse culture.

This may seem trivial, but horses and riding are an incredible refuge for countless adults and children in this area. I know this is an expensive and often pretentious sport (or at least it is perceived as such) but it really is a lifeline during these insane times. During Covid it literally saved my and many of my friends‘ sanity. Please reconsider converting this area into housing. If there is any way for us to find a different location we should do that we can keep horses and the people who love them happy and invested in this area.

Best,
Kristien Van Vlasselaer

1 Dylan Parker
From: Philipp Schmaelzle
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:17 PM
To: housing
Subject: We highly value Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy Hi,
we would like to share that Isola has a been a haven for us, that got us --and especially our kids-- through this pandemic and now continues to be a valuable place of community, recreation, exercise and learning we --with many others-- visit every week.

Of course, housing people is important and we'll have to leave those trade-offs to you. The purpose of writing here is to put some color on the value that Isola Riding Academy brings, especially to kids and families who otherwise would not have access to the magic of horse.

Riding has been the only activity that we could and still enjoy safely, free from the now everpresent concerns about COVID. Our kids regularly cite their weekly riding lesson as the highlight of their week, and the time at the barn is a highlight for us parents as well.

Our 8 year old twins were able to start learning riding at the lower barn at Isola / Glenoaks. We considered and sometimes tried other barns, but we wouldn't have been able to get our kids riding without Isola, either for financial reasons or practical reasons.

We were welcome at Isola, even though we are far away from being able to afford owning a horse ourselves.

We celebrated birthdays there. We made friends there. We came for the riding, and stayed for the (wonderful) restaurants. And it put Portola Valley big into our hearts.

It seems that there are other spaces that have less educational, community, learning, and emotional significance for so many people.

We trust that you will make good tradeoffs.

We hope to continue to have access to the joy of riding and the community at Isola.

Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have.

Best,
Philipp Schmaelzle & Svenja Lohner
with Emily Lohner & Bennett Lohner

2

1 Dylan Parker
From: Kristy Moding
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 6:07 AM
To: housing
Subject: Keep Isola
Horses are key to the culture, economy and environment. I am a resident of Portola Valley and want to keep it! Kristy Moding
Sent from my iPhone

1 Dylan Parker
From: Peter Lipman
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:38 PM
To: housing
Cc: Jeff Aalfs; Sarah Wernikoff
Subject: Developable area of Dorothy Ford Park for multi-family housing, comparisons with other sites
Comments on June 20 AHHEC Meeting: Developable area of Dorothy Ford Park for multi-family housing, comparisons with other sites
Once again, big thanks to the AHHEC members and staff for wrestling so conscientiously and in depth with the ineptly conceived “one-size-fits-all” CA State RHNA process that applies the same mandates to little Portola Valley and huge places like Los Angeles.

Presentations, discussion, and concerns presented at the June 20 meeting were impressively thoughtful, but much seems remaining to adequately evaluate the impacts of repurposing Dorothy Ford Park for high-density multifamily housing. This town park was acquired 50 years ago with funds donated for open-space protection by town residents who trusted that their intent would be honored. Along with my prior message of June 19, I hope you will consider the questions below and explore possible alternatives.

Developable area at Dorothy Ford Park
One issue is the description of this site’s “developable area” as 2.48 acres (108,000 ft2 ) and therefor
suitable for 50 housing units, as listed in the PV Housing Element draft document (6-08-22, p. 100). Based on a simple approximate check using the Google Earth’s ruler tool*, this area value seems reasonable for the entire site, if the unbuildable scenic corridor and creek buffer zones are included. But by the same method, the “developable area,” as demarked by green lines on the conceptual site plan in the PVHE draft (p. 100), is only approximately 1.6-acres (70,500 ft2; compare attachment A). Does such a reduced “developable area” still justify construction of 50 housing units under a multifamily zoning of 20 units/acre, or only 32 units? Additionally illustrative of site limitations, the conceptual site plan appears to place one-third (24) of proposed parking places within the Scenic Corridor buffer zone. Appropriate for a "Scenic Corridor”? And if the spectacular live oaks that are the signature of this site and the scenic corridor of the town master plan are to be preserved as urged by several committee members, the developable area becomes further reduced to less than 1.2 acres of disconnected space. The canopy area of just two majestic heritage trees, under which firehazard constraints would preclude any construction, is about 0.4 acres (17,000 ft2 ; see attachment B).

Comparisons with other site options:

In addition to several possible alternatives along Alpine Road mentioned during the June 20 meeting (additional sites in the Nathorst area, Alpine road remnant; what about the Town Center soccer field, or use of the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund to support a new land acquisition? I deplore having even to suggest repurposing of an existing athletic facility, but the RHNA process is what it is. And the south end of the soccer field has already been proposed as possible site for townhouses.

2 In comparison to the developable area of Dorothy Ford Park, area of the Town Center soccer field is about 2.3 acres (100,000 ft2
; see attachment C, same scale as A & B), without any apparent mandated buffer zones. Wouldn’t placing some component of mandated multifamily housing close to the physical center of the town and the nearby public facilities seem more equitable and appropriate than clustering all such development along distal segments of Alpine Road?
*By a research geologist, with >65 years professional experience A. Developable area is only about 70,500 ft2 (about 1.6 acres)

3 B. Canopies of the two majestic oaks occupy about 70,000 ft2 ( (0.4 acre)

4 C. Area of Town Center soccer field is about 100,000 ft2 (2.3 acres) Peter Lipman
188 Favonio Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
650-269-5295

1 Dylan Parker
From: Leni Trembley
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 7:43 PM
To: housing
Subject: Don’t close the stables
Sent from my iPhone please don’t close the stables! It brings joy to so many people and would be devastating to children and others. Please rethink what your doing.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Laura Russell
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 11:51 AM
To: Sylvia Thompson; housing
Cc: Andrew Thompson
Subject: RE: Housing element
Sylvia,
Confirming receipt of your email; it will be included in the record for Planning Commission and Town Council consideration.

Thanks,
Laura
From: Sylvia Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 12:42 PM
To: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Thompson
Subject: Housing element
Dear Laura:

Opt-in up-zoning, as proposed on page 96 of the Housing Element Update Draft, creates powerful economic incentives to fundamentally alter the environment and wildland habitats of Portola Valley. This program allows developers to profit from urbanization of our town and destruction of its WUI, which is unconscionable since the program is not needed to meet the town’s RHNA allocation.

Opt-in up-zoning harnesses fear and greed to encourage rapid development. Neighbors are forced into an economic prisoner’s dilemma: The first up-zoner in a neighborhood reaps a financial windfall at nearby property owners’ expense. The only way to reclaim some of the value lost to the new high-density project next door is also to up-zone and move out, ideally before someone else does. The ensuing race for the exits depresses land values, benefiting developers and cascading into the sort of overnight over-development seen in other formerly pristine places.

Once opt-in up-zoning arrives the Town will be flooded with sales agents and developers spending lavishly to entrench the new psychology: “Act now, before it’s too late!” The most immediate effect will be a new climate of mutual suspicion between neighbors. We are seeing the first signs of this already.

The authors of the Draft tell us that all-but-one seller moving out over the next eight years will ignore the multimillion-dollar payday created by opt-in up-zoning. They forecast redevelopment of the equivalent of a single three-acre property over the entire planning cycle. This estimate is not supported by evidence, argument, or logic. It is simply not credible.

There is no need for opt-in up-zoning even if we accept the forecast. The official 12-unit estimate represents

3.9% of total proposed dwellings. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

2 “advises communities to ‘buffer’ their assigned RHNA numbers with additional housing units ranging from at least 15% to 30% of their assigned RHNA numbers.” The current Draft forecasts a “buffer” of 21%.

Eliminating opt-in up-zoning with no other change results in a 16.2% “buffer,” which is greater than HCD’s 15% minimum recommendation.

Let’s go further and assume that it is critical to maintain the arbitrary 21% “buffer” proposed in the current Draft. This can be accomplished by a reasonable adjustment in the ADU forecast. Town staff estimate 11.5 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning horizon, despite being on track to approve 15 ADUs this year alone. Future ADU demand is likely to increase after implementation of the streamlined approval process outlined in the Draft. Adjusting the forecast to 13 ADUs per year replaces all 12 forecast housing units lost by eliminating opt-in up-zoning.

Opt-in up-zoning creates enormous economic incentives that, once established, will urbanize our town at a pace limited only by developer demand. The outcome will violate the existing General Plan and the vision for the Town established by its founders; a vision that motivated most of us to purchase homes here.

We strongly urge you to remove opt-in up-zoning from the proposed Housing Element Update.

Sincerely,
Andrew & Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson
[email protected]

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 1:48 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing element
Please see the comment below regarding the Housing Element. Thank you. ‐Melissa Thurman, MMC
From: Sylvia Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 12:42 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Thompson
Subject: Housing element
Dear Planning Commission Members:

Opt‐in up‐zoning, as proposed on page 96 of the Housing Element Update Draft, creates powerful economic incentives to fundamentally alter the environment and wildland habitats of Portola Valley. This program allows developers to profit from urbanization of our town and destruction of its WUI, which is unconscionable since the program is not needed to meet the town’s RHNA allocation.

Opt‐in up‐zoning harnesses fear and greed to encourage rapid development. Neighbors are forced into an economic prisoner’s dilemma: The first up‐zoner in a neighborhood reaps a financial windfall at nearby property owners’ expense.

The only way to reclaim some of the value lost to the new high‐density project next door is also to up‐zone and move out, ideally before someone else does. The ensuing race for the exits depresses land values, benefiting developers and cascading into the sort of overnight over‐development seen in other formerly pristine places.

Once opt‐in up‐zoning arrives the Town will be flooded with sales agents and developers spending lavishly to entrench the new psychology: “Act now, before it’s too late!” The most immediate effect will be a new climate of mutual suspicion between neighbors. We are seeing the first signs of this already.

The authors of the Draft tell us that all‐but‐one seller moving out over the next eight years will ignore the multi‐million‐ dollar payday created by opt‐in up‐zoning. They forecast redevelopment of the equivalent of a single three‐acre property over the entire planning cycle. This estimate is not supported by evidence, argument, or logic. It is simply not credible.

There is no need for opt‐in up‐zoning even if we accept the forecast. The official 12‐unit estimate represents 3.9% of total proposed dwellings. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) “advises communities to ‘buffer’ their assigned RHNA numbers with additional housing units ranging from at least 15% to 30% of their assigned RHNA numbers.” The current Draft forecasts a “buffer” of 21%. Eliminating opt‐in up‐zoning with no other change results in a 16.2% “buffer,” which is greater than HCD’s 15% minimum recommendation.

Let’s go further and assume that it is critical to maintain the arbitrary 21% “buffer” proposed in the current Draft. This can be accomplished by a reasonable adjustment in the ADU forecast. Town staff estimate 11.5 ADUs per year over the eight‐year planning horizon, despite being on track to approve 15 ADUs this year alone. Future ADU demand is likely to

2 increase after implementation of the streamlined approval process outlined in the Draft. Adjusting the forecast to 13 ADUs per year replaces all 12 forecast housing units lost by eliminating opt‐in up‐zoning.

Opt‐in up‐zoning creates enormous economic incentives that, once established, will urbanize our town at a pace limited only by developer demand. The outcome will violate the existing General Plan and the vision for the Town established by its founders; a vision that motivated most of us to purchase homes here.

We strongly urge you to remove opt‐in up‐zoning from the proposed Housing Element Update.

Sincerely,
Andrew & Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson
[email protected]

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 1:51 PM
To: housing
Cc: Laura Russell; Jeremy Dennis
Subject: FW: Thank to everyone for their good work to date! Hello,
Please see the below positive feedback regarding the housing element. Thank you. ‐Melissa Thurman, MMC
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank to everyone for their good work to date! Hi PV Town Council,
I didn’t want to add any public comments but did want to thank everyone for their work they’ve done on this extremely difficult mission on the housing element. I like the present 4‐area location of the housing proposed locations and understand they may change.

Thanks again!
Kerry Brown
70 Palmer Lane, PV

1 Dylan Parker
From: T. Sasha Huang
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:23 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please don’t touch the facility. It is probably one of the best maintained facility in the Bay Area and it means a lot to its students and community. Thanks.

Sasha
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile, sorry for the typos!

1 Dylan Parker
From: Tina Pocock
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:30 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Dear Committee Members,
We understand and agree that low income housing is important.

However it should not mean closing Isola Academy.

This equestrian facility is excellent and our family very much enjoys being there. My daughter loves her time with the horses.

Please keep Isola Academy open.

Kind Regards,
Tina Pocock
Mountain View, CA

1 Dylan Parker
From: Leah Solivan
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:42 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello. We live on Creek Park Drive, just down the road from Isola and Glen Oaks. We love going to Isola and riding the horses there. My daughter and I go almost everyday for a visit. She does the riding classes during the week and the camps in the summer. It is so valuable to have this equestrian facility right on Alpine Road. There are not too many left in the area, besides Webb Ranch and Spring Down. Our family is highly opposed to closing this equestrian facility and ask that you find another spot for the housing you are looking to add in Portola Valley.

Sincerely,
Leah Solivan
2 Creek Park Dr, Portola Valley, CA 94028

1 Dylan Parker
From: Brittney Gibson
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:49 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Dear Director of Housing at Portola Valley,
Isola Stables is an important staple in our community. It has been a safe haven for adults and children to ride, bond, and enjoy nature and animals. Equestrian facilities are part of the heritage of Portola Valley, and removing them alters the love of nature and purehearted fun in the community. I’ve seen farms being shut down due to Stanford’s commands to use the land for other purposes. I believe the community will shift for the worse without facilities like these. Please reconsider your plans and leave Isola Stables open.

Sincerely,
Brittney Gibson

1 Dylan Parker
From: Kathryn McDonell
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:49 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello,
I take riding lessons at Isola Riding Academy and I am contacting you to request that you find an alternate location for the proposed housing development. These stables are extremely important to the community and the students. The center where I took lessons previously was also closed and it would be extremely difficult to watch another fantastic equestrian center close its doors. There is not another academy like it nearby where the students, such as myself, could continue to learn.

Please consider the impact that this housing facility would have on the area and all who enjoy it.

Thank you,
Kathryn Mcdonell

1 Dylan Parker
From: Brita Sieve
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:03 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello,
Our two daughters have been learning to ride horses at Isola/GlenOaks for the past three years through the lessons, summer camps and Pony Club.  For our family to be able to go out to the beautiful land and be with nature has been one of the most soul satisfying events during our time of living in Silicon Valley. We are already surrounded by urban development, growth, housing and freeway noise. Isola/Glenoaks is a little oasis and it is what helps keep us balanced.

Kids need access to nature and horses and to be able to go out into nature regularly, without having to drive hours and hours and hours…. We beg you to not build low income housing on this site. There are other places to consider, but not this absolutely beautiful and precious place, where horses live and children get to learn how to take care of them and ride them… so many children enjoy and excel in this pursuit.  We are members of the Pony Club here and it has brought so much growth and calmness to our one daughter who participates in it. Without the Isola/Glenoaks facility, we would not be able to do Pony Club, as it would be too far away to be logistical feasible.  Isola and Glenoaks are gems and so very much needed in this urban sprawl. Please make the right choice for now and future generations by not erasing the land and natural beauty of Isola and Glenoaks.  Please do not erase the history of Portola Valley and destroy the land, which is needed now and for our future generations. Please, do the right thing for the long term planning of this community.

Sincerely,
Brita J Sieve
Tel. 917‐539‐5995

1 Dylan Parker
From: Jessica Williams
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:10 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Greetings,
I just heard that Portola Valley is considering putting low income housing on the Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy site.

Please do Not do this! This would be such a loss for the equestrian community. My daughter has been riding at Isola for almost a year now and she truly truly loves it. She had found a home and community at Isola Riding Academy. We feel so fortunate to have found this piece of equestrian heaven where she can enjoy horses amongst the beautiful setting of Portola Valley. Places like Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy need to exist!!!! Thank you,
Jessica Williams
Sent from my iPhone

1 Dylan Parker
From: Keri Yen Ng
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:14 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Sir/Madam:

I am writing to offer my support to keep Glenoaks/Isola Riding Program. As a life-long resident of the Peninsula, it is disappointing to hear that this precious space that adds so much enjoyment and personal value to the community is being considered for re-purpose to support housing developments. Housing in this area destroys the environment and peacefulness in Portola Valley.

Under no circumstances should housing be allowed in this area. This area is reserved for preservation of space and nature.

Keri Ng

1 Dylan Parker
From: Vanessa Larco
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:16 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Dear Whomever It May Concern,
I've been a member of the Glenoaks community for 10 years and I cannot imagine why this would be the location for low income housing. It is an amazing facility for horses, but it lacks infrastructure for building higher density. Specifically, where it is on Alpine road doesn't allow for many evacuation routes if there were to be a wildfire. I worry about what this would mean for our horses every fire season.

It is also bustling with wildlife which would see their habitat completely destroyed and replaced by more fuel for wildfires.

Lastly, this equestrian facility is welcoming and open to all the members of the community and beyond. I work nearby and run into colleagues at Isola often. It's a gathering place where we foster community and inclusiveness. We take great care of the land and all the animals that live in and around the area.

I worry deeply about what the destruction of this land would mean for the community and the safety of all of those around it.

Please reconsider the destruction of this property.

Best,
Vanessa

1 Dylan Parker
From: Juliana Wu
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:16 PM
To: housing
Cc: Isola Office
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello,
I am writing to share how much Isola Riding Academy and Glen Oaks Stables means to our family. Horseback riding is my daughter’s primary sport of choice. She is ten years old and has loved riding at Isola. Her favorite teacher, Olga Pyalling, also grew up riding at Isola. Another one of her favorite teachers, Sierra, came from California Riding Academy in Pacifica which sadly did not make it through the pandemic.

The children who take riding lessons all love horses and have so much empathy and care for animals and each other through Pony Club. This gives them a chance to be selfless and giving. With so many children just glued to screens and losing touch with nature, riding schools like Isola and Glen Oaks offer a true community place that serves the generations.

While low income housing is important, closing Glen Oaks and Isola would hurt the community. Please consider another location and allow generations of children to nurture their love of horses while gaining confidence and friendships.

Thank you for your consideration.

Juliana Wu

1 Dylan Parker
From: Johonna Katz
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:17 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please do not close another equestrian facility. The horses and these venues are the soul of our small rural town.

Without them, we will lose our culture and what makes Portola Valley so charming and unique. Seeing horses when we drive down Alpine brings so much joy and adds to our experience of living here…it’s WHY we live here. My kids have grown up taking lessons there, and they are helping to raise our next generation of equestrians. We now own a horse and use the town trails and Open Spaces. It’s part of the fabric of our family and we never would have had this experience if we didn’t live in Portola Valley. We must fiercely protect these equestrian spaces with everything we have! I know everyone is trying to find a space for the housing element project, but this is not it.

Thanks for your consideration,
Johonna Katz

1 Dylan Parker
From: don defranco
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:23 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please!
Don DeFranco
415-722-7259 cell
Broker Associate
Sotheby’s International Realty
Serving San Francisco and The Peninsula
DRE 01317125

1 Dylan Parker
From: Mary Kelly
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:35 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
To Whom it May Concern,
While I agree fully with the need for low income housing I must speak out for Isola! It is a safe and very important space in my daughter's life. The discipline and care that young people learn from working with horses is very important for raising hardworking and kind young citizens.

Please consider if there are other alternatives to fully shutting down the Isola operation! With understanding and concern.

Mary Kelly
(parent of Isola rider)

1 Dylan Parker
From: Andrea Alves
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:51 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
To Whom It May Concern:

Though I understand the necessity of low-income housing, especially in our area, there must be another site you can use for housing. Isola Riding Academy provides such an important service for kids and adults. Spending time with horses is very therapeutic for many children, including my daughter! Please do not take away the only facility that provides excellent lessons without requiring riders to own their own horse!! Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrea Alves

1 Dylan Parker
From: Jerrie Welch
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:59 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please reconsider removing yet another equestrian facility from Portola Valley. GlenOaks in our scenic corridor contributes to our more rural environment and offers a local service for many families.

We chose to purchase a lot and build a home in Portola Valley due to our daughter's interest in horses. Riding was a positive that no other avenue had provided.

Thank you for your time and genuine consideration as you navigate an untenable situation.

Jerrie Welch

1 Dylan Parker
From: MP Davis Eisen
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:05 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please do not build housing on the Isola land! Consider other alternatives which won’t impact the animals’ wellbeing or the area’s character. Thank you!
‐ MP

1 Dylan Parker
From: Lucia Steinhilber
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:21 PM
To: housing
Cc: Lucia Steinhilber; Steve
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please please please do not put low income housing on an area beloved and used for riding -- it is one of the hallmarks of Portola Valley to have horses, horse trails, and riding! Before I ever came to California to live I had heard lovingly of Portola Valley as a wonderful horse community. Along with it's quasi-rural nature and preservation of wildlife and vegetation, it has been such a shining example of co-existence with nature.

Please come up with other solutions or simply resist this given our extreme fire danger and already crowded infrastructure. Once our town is ruined by developers it will never be the same.

Thank you,
Lucia Steinhilber

1 Dylan Parker
From: Elaine Wen
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:18 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
To Whom It May Concern,
While I understand the difficulty in finding land to supply our growing needs for housing, I oppose developing Isola Riding Academy for the following reasons:

1. Housing should be closer to bus routes and transportation

2. Isola teaches hundreds of kids each year how to care and ride horses. Unlike the private stables, they allow large groups like the Girl Scouts to be able to access horses.

Thanks for listening,
Elaine Wen

1 Dylan Parker
From: Ellie Fischer
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:28 PM
To: housing
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Dear housing of Portola Valley,
Isola Riding Academy and Glenoaks Riding Academy are a big part of my life. and a ton of people's lives, not just me. I'm Ellie F, and I'm ten years old and love the horses and property of Isola and Glenoaks. I believe both riding academies' property is excellent for the horses and riders. Isola and Glenoaks property is big and I understand why you want to make the property more houses but Isola and Glenoaks feel like my home and I bet a ton of other people feel like that as well. Also, If you do decide to make the property into homes please take into consideration that the horses would have to move. A bunch of people board their horses and think the property is just the right fit for their horse. When I'm there I look around and see all the horses having the best times of their life. Even though I don't own a horse (I want to have a horse but, my parents say not till I'm older), I love taking lessons at Isola. Please think about what is best for the horses, riders, and owners. Even though there is another stable super close to Glenoaks and Isola (Web Ranch). Web Ranch is already full of horses and riders, it is super packed with horses and riders, and the riders and horses of Isola and Glenoaks Riding Academy would make it even more packed. Plus, they have a long waiting list for lessons, Lastly, I live in San Carlos which is about 30 minutes from our house to the stables but my family loves to go and watch me ride, we all think it is worth our while and drive there. Now, please don't make the Isola and Glenoaks Riding Academy properties into houses. My family, horseback friends, and I all think that Glenoaks and Isola should stay in Portola Valley.

Sincerely, Ellie F
Me on my favorite horse (Lola)

2

1 Dylan Parker
From: Debbie Fisher
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:30 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
We really don’t want the low income housing to displace Isola Riding academy! My daughter loves riding there and it is a beautiful area!
Thank you!
Debbie Fisher

1 Dylan Parker
From: saria
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 6:47 PM
To: housing
Cc: Vivian Lum
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
To whom it may concern,
My name is Saria. I am eleven years old and I love horseback riding. I started learning the sport at the Isola Riding Academy when I was eight and the place has been like my second home. I would like to write and request you to kindly consider keeping the stable and the academy at its current location, so that other young children in-and-around the peninsula can continue to have the opportunity to get the best equestrian training in the bay area!
Horseback riding at Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy is revitalizing, especially after a long week of monotonous learning over Zoom. Every time I mount on a horse, be it Marshmallow, Jessie, or Stormy, I feel liberated. Every time I take a deep breath of fresh air at the stable, I feel energized. As I walk and trot with the most gentle animal through the tranquility of the valley. I feel like dancing in paradize. It is that fantastic feeling of rejuvenation that motivates me to work hard and enables me to power through each week.

The coaches at Isola Riding Academy are incredible human beings. I remember my first time visiting the stable was at one of their summer camps back in 2018. I was a little nervous but the coaches were very approachable. They greeted me with open arms and a pleasant ear-to-ear smile, something harder and harder to find here in Silicon Valley. They were extremely patient, even if it meant showing absolute beginners like myself the right way to hold the reins for the Nth time, and the proper way to do a two-point repeatedly. It will be a tremendous loss to the community and young children if the academy and the stable are both taken away, and rebuilt into condos/houses that are nothing but lifeless commodities for real estate developers to reap big benefits.

Moving the horses and students to another stable may seem like a viable option but in reality, it is not. The facility is one of the cleanest and most well maintained among all the stables in the vicinity. The warm, fuzzy and homey feeling of the place could never be replicated and the people there will not be the same. Every rider that comes through the Glenoaks wooden gate has developed a long-lasting bond with the people and horses there. Closing the stable and the academy would mean sabotaging all of those precious relationships and taking nature further away from the community. For me personally, life without Isola Riding Academy would be like living in the desert without water.

Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy are one of the important icons of the Portola Valley due to its expertly run stable and top-notch equestrian training facility for families and communities in the peninsula. I hereby sincerely and kindly ask for your reconsideration of alternative locations for the low-income development project.

Sincerely,
Saria Lum

1 Dylan Parker
From: Perle Deutsch
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:15 PM
To: housing
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello,
I and my children ride at Isola. Isola is the only place where it is possible to ride without owning a horse in the area. It is also a happy place for horses and riders as well as a beautiful equestrian facility. Please keep it open to keep the area a joyful place to live for all. We need horses. Horses are good for the mind and the body. We need to keep the horse community alive in Portola Valley. We don't need more traffic, more people, more consuming, more trash. I hope you stop this process and keep Isola where it is.

Best regards

1 Dylan Parker
From: Rachel Mayberry
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:42 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Keep Isola! because it is really fun, because  all the horses are awesome, because I go there every weekend to ride and I’d be upset if it wasn’t there anymore.
‐ Sierra 5th grader

1 Dylan Parker
From: Lisa Friedman
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 7:55 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
I am the mother of two daughters who have been horseback riding at Isola for several years. My girls have spent countless hours at the barn taking lessons, learning to care for horses and making lifelong friends. Being at the barn during COVID has been a lifesaver for both my daughter and the other riders. They could be outside, maintaining some degree of normalcy when their lives were turned upside down.

Isola continues to be an essential part of their lives — as it is for so many children who have come through the riding school and learned so many essential life lessons and skills. Finding a barn is no easy feat in our area — it would be a tragic mistake to take away this essential resource that is beautifully maintained and beloved by so many in the community.

As a community we can’t afford to continue to destroy these resources, which are really treasures. Please take a stand for open space, for our children and do not allow Stanford to once again wield their power and wealth to build more housing. It will never be enough.

With appreciation,
Lisa Friedman
Stanford class of 1990
Sent from my iPhone

1 Dylan Parker
From: audrey bourguet
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:24 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Kids have an impossible time finding a barn to ride at in the Bay Area. Hearing that you are willing to kick them out considering the amount of money and land Stanford owns is unacceptable. It is quite clear that no one will build low income housing there and that it is an excuse to build other buildings that will benefit the university and not the community. We urge you to reconsider your decision. There aren’t many barns available at the moment and we are very concerned about what will happen to the horses.

Best,
Audrey Bourguet

1 Dylan Parker
From: Mehdi Shahabi
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:21 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
No low housing pleas. Keep Glenoaks and Isola riding open.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Luz Chambers
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:42 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Alas, Portola Valley’s wonderful bucolic character is soon to be bare bones, please consider saving Isola Stables from eviction.

Respectfully,
Luz Chambers

1 Dylan Parker
From: Pedro Alves
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:56 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
This is such a special place and it means so much to so many kids. Kids use this as part of their therapy and this place allows kids to have lessons without having to own or lease a horse.

Thank you,
Pedro

1 Dylan Parker
From: Aileen Tang
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:05 AM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hi,
I am writing to express my opposition to turning Isola Riding Academy into housing. There are very few such venues for kids to learn equestrian skills. Furthermore, Isola Academy's location is not that convenient for housing (far from grocery stores, basic amenities, public transportation). I urge you to pursue other available and better locations that can be used for more housing.

Regards,
Aileen Tang

1 Dylan Parker
From: Shirley Zhou
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 7:50 AM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hi Porta valley housing
I am writing to you, since we love Isola a lot, we want Isola riding to stay, my daughter had lots of lessons and summer camps there, also a birthday party, she loves Isola and the horse so much, so please reconsider the housing
THanks
Xiao

1 Dylan Parker
From: Charlotte Arrouye
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 11:54 AM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello,
I urge you to keep the character of the town of Portola Valley, it's a peaceful and rural ambiance that makes the town as special as it is, by keeping Glenoaks Stables. Horses are a huge part of not only the towns heritage, but additionally it’s charm. Equestrian facilities great a beautiful buffer and natural from city life to rural landscapes, not to mention the benefit to the community to have these open spaces and access to horses who are not only therapeutic, but also partners in a very rewarding sport. Today there is a good balance between modern development and pastoral quest that exists in the Portola Valley community ‐ the stables at Glenoaks is one of those spaces that creates contributes to the community being what it is and would be a huge lose to the town, the community, not to mention the environment (so much wildlife is able to flourish around the stable grounds as it is today and that is so special).

I understand that the state has put pressure on the towns to build more housing and meet those requirements soon, but I urge you to keep the Glenoaks property as the flourishing stable that it is today, allowing Portola Valley to be the quaint town that it is.

Thank you,
Charlotte Arrouye

1 Dylan Parker
From: Kartik Dadwal
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 6:01 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hi There
The town of Portola Valley and Stanford University, please spare Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy as one the location to build low income housing!
Please, let's revisit this and take Glen Oaks OFF the Sites Inventory, especially when there are so many other options
Thank you,
Kartik

1 Dylan Parker
From: christian busch
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 10:41 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Please don’t destroy portola valley. It’s fine as it is. It does not need any additional housing.

Best regards,
Christian Busch
Mulligan Valley Partners
Woodside, CA
[email protected]
+1 650 391 5001
Here's my calendar link to make finding a time easy:
https://calendly.com/mvpsv-cbusch/30min

1 Dylan Parker
From: Françoise Foley-Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:07 AM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Dear Housing Committee
Myself and my 2 daughters have been coming to Isola 3 times a week for nearly 2 weeks now and would very much appreciate the ability to continue doing so.

There are not many facilities in the area that also provide a connection with the Pony Club Association - a valuable teaching ground for responsibility towards and the care of animals.

This place is more than somewhere to jump on the back of a horse, they teach about the care and respect for the animal. Something that is invaluable to my girls.

I also realize the need for additional housing, so I hope we can find an alternative, that allows for more housing, but also lets us keep the horses we love.

Thank you for your attention,
Françoise Foley-Fisher

1 Dylan Parker
From: -kellySent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 8:10 AM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
To whoever is reading this email,
I really hope that you could reconsider the location of the low-income housing area. It would be really heartbreaking to see an equestrian facility be removed, especially in Portola valley, because horses are a big part of Portola valley. As much as I value the thought of more houses for people with low income, it would be upsetting to remove a place as amazing as Isola Riding Academy, which is filled with many memories and often laughter.

I really hope you do reconsider your idea of tearing this amazing facility down, and instead consider relocating this plan.

Sincerely,
Kelly
Get Outlook for iOS

1 Dylan Parker
From: Susan D'Elia <
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 4:39 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hi Portola Valley Community and Stanford University,
I am all for supporting affordable housing, but with all your open land opportunities, you have to find a better location than to remove the much beloved and important equestrian center like Isola Riding Academy. My daughter was an equine assisted therapy student and today is headed to college to become an equine assisted therapy teacher – Isola was an important contributor to her personal development and passion for serving both horses and humanity. Let’s find an alternative!
Thanks for your consideration,
Susan
Susan D’Elia
Founder, TECHMarket
(650) 576‐1112

1 Dylan Parker
From: Kae Devaney
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 8:39 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello,
My name is Kae Devaney. I'm 16 years old, and a rising senior at Summit Prep high school. I've been riding horses at Isola for a year and a few months now, and started working there as a stablehand for around 8 months.

I feel that keeping Isola in its current place would be what is truly best for the community and those around us.

Equestrian facilities, particularly those that offer quality lessons, are few and far between in Portola Valley. My family is middle-class, and we are not able to afford ownership of a horse, so a lesson barn like Isola provides an opportunity for me and many others to learn about riding, horsemanship, and horses.

As well as valuable knowledge, horseback riding is extremely emotionally beneficial. Over the course of the past year, Isola has changed my life. I've suffered from severe anxiety, depression, and gender dysphoria my whole life, at one point even leading me to hospitalization. I turned to unhealthy coping mechanisms such as self harm to try and cope with the intense emotions I was feeling. One day, my father set me up for a horseback riding evaluation at Isola, and when I sat on the horse for the first time, I felt like my problems had drifted away. Riding helps me to clear my head in a way no other activity ever has. When I'm struggling with a difficult problem, moral dilemma, or friend drama, riding helps me think through the situation. The joy I feel from getting to be around and ride these magnificent animals has only grown, and I am now in a much better place than I was. It's not just me who's experienced this, many of my coworkers and other riders at the barn feel the same.

The bond between horse and person is something so precious it must be felt to understand. The unique trust I've built with many of the horses is one of the most wonderful feelings I've ever experienced. Without Isola, experiencing this bond would never have been possible. I believe that this experience should be preserved for everyone.

Without Isola stables, I don't know if I would be here today. The bonds I've built with both animals and humans are very special to me, and it would have a huge and deeply negative impact on me and my coworkers if the barn was forced to shut down or relocate. Saving the magic of the stables is essential to my mental health, as it is to others as well. I think that horseback riding is truly an incredible experience, and one that should be preserved not just for those who can afford to own a horse, but for everyone.

Thank you for your consideration, and please take into account the voices of all of us here at the barn before you make the decision. We would really like to keep our safe haven.

6/29/22, 7:54 AM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6535 2/2

8. and Glen Oaks is one of the few places that children can learn to ride without owning a horse. NO.

Ford Field----essentially, the same argument re: evacuation.

Vacant Parcel next to Roberts Market---I have repeatedly proposed this lot to the Town as a wonderful site for affordable housing. Walkable to Roberts Market, walkable to Ormondale and Corte Madera School, and not completely isolated. Each time I have proposed this, I have been shut down. I do NOT agree with the three story apartment complex proposed, particularly with the consideration that taking out Roberts Market and the entire Hardware Store complex. Who thought of that? That's absolutely heartless and completely stupid. We all rely on that complex for our groceries, our hardware needs, and all the rest of those businesses. Do NOT under any circumstances TOUCH those businesses. 4370 Alpine Road---I think this, too, is a really good area to develop for affordable housing. Again, I want the Town to absolutely obey the recommendations of the Fire Martial. Within those recommendations and current building code, these are my thoughts. Thank you very much.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

6/29/22, 7:55 AM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6540 2/2

8. I also recommend that JADU target numbers be broken out and viewed separately from ADUs, as we can allocate all JADUs to very-low or low-income categories. I foresee strong demand for JADU rentals to students, caregivers, and local employees from Robert’s, Alpine Hills, or the like.

As the Targ/Taylor memo indicates, we must focus all our efforts first on ADU/JADU production. To that end, we need to survey residents NOW, not in 2023. And we must fast-track all other efforts to increase our ADU/JADU development - why are we waiting? I am referring to Policies 7-1 through 7-7 in Section 7 of the Draft Housing Element. We must also offer financial incentives for ADU amnesty programs and JADU conversions from our Inclusionary Housing Fund.

If at all possible, I ask that we do not rezone any property with 20 or more units per acre, unless on Town-owned property. This is the only way we can control state-mandated bonus density. To that end, I would like you to revisit the property at 4395 Alpine Road, and bring the units per acre down. I understand that Woodside is using 10 units per acre for its high-density areas.

In addition, I am strongly opposed to development at Frog Pond Open Space, as there are environmental impacts, huge safety concerns with that sharp corner, and adversely alters the Alpine Scenic Corridor. Please refer to the 12/11/19 Town Council meeting and the numerous presentations and public comments. I am one of the petition signers to preserve this as open space, and pledged money to maintain the site.

To recap my views:
· As recommended by Commissioners Targ and Taylor, take the necessary time to protect the core elements of our General Plan · Substantially increase ADU and JADU target numbers, fast tracking and increasing incentive programs. Survey and rally residents NOW! · Adopt the “sunrise” provisions as stated in the Targ/Taylor memo. · Eliminate opt-in rezoning - for 12 units, why would we offer such a controversial program that so many residents have spoken against? We can easily cover that amount through an aggressive ADU/JADU program and SB-9 units. · If private property must be rezoned, apply a maximum of 10 du/acre. Town-owned property may be higher, as bonus density can be controlled. · Protect Frog Pond Open Space, as our Town Council voted on 12/11/19. · Remain true to the General Plan of Portola Valley.

Thank you for serving as stalwarts of Portola Valley and our future. Your efforts to represent our residents and community are much appreciated.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

1 Dylan Parker
From: abigail tammi
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 8:29 AM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
My daughter recently started horseback riding lessons at Isola/Glen Oaks in Portola Valley. She has been LOVING it. She is a child who has not been too excited to try many sports, so it is really great to finally see her take to something and be motivated to learn. The staff and horses at the farm have been a really great addition to our weekly routine, and as someone who rode horses myself as I child, it has been equally wonderful for me to be around them again after so long.

There are great benefits of riding horses in terms of building kids' self-confidence and getting them engaged in their communities; in the current climate of school shootings it is especially important to give children positive outlets and connect them with resources in their communities to improve their futures. We come from San Mateo to Portola Valley which is known for their horse farms; it would be a travesty to take away this wonderful community resource. Please choose another site that is less damaging to the community for your affordable housing project.

In addition to being a mom, I'm also a social worker at the VA and I see our veterans get great benefits from equine therapy at farms in the area as well. Please allow us continued access to these important resources. Thank you, Abigail Mariani

1 Dylan Parker
From: erika everingham
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 12:12 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello Portola Valley Housing team
I am writing to let the town of Portola Valley know how much Isola means to our family. We are residents of West Menlo Park who have been attending Isola riding academy for about 4 years.

We attend for lessons and for Pony Club which is a meaningful club for young riders. We choose to spend a lot of time and money at Isola because we love the atmosphere and horses and what it offers. The land is beautiful and peaceful.

When we go to Isola we also almost always stop at at Ladera County Shopper for either The Lobster Shack, Portola Kitchen or Bianchini’s so it’s definitely a factor for us to support the local Portola valley merchants/ restaurants. We love those places and probably would not go that way otherwise so to us it’s part of our Portola Valley days.

Many young families like ours love Isola for its peaceful beauty. It would be a shame to lose it. Unfortunately I can not provide other land suggestions but often low cost housing is valuable to have closer to a park, school, affordable retail, transportation or a library. I don’t see that location covering any of those. I understand that does not have many options within Portola Valley. Please consider an alternative option besides Isola for the new housing.

Thank you
Erika

1 Dylan Parker
From: Julie Mills
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 3:28 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
Hello Town of Portola Valley and Stanford  University‐
Isola Riding Academy provides care and residence for a number of horses.  Their programs are amazing and help many children.  Alternate sites would be available to build low income housing and should be used.  However, this area should be preserved for the conservation of open space and for the immense benefits isolas use provides for the residents and students.

Sincerely‐ Julie mills‐ Isola supporter and parent
Sent from my iPhone :)

1 Dylan Parker
From: Lia Alves
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 5:56 PM
To: housing
Subject: Isola/Glen oak stables
Categories: Red category
Dear [email protected],
I hope that another location is chosen. I do not want this stable to go. I know it is for a good cause, but if possible, please choose another location. Horses mean so much to me. I have struggled with my mental health a lot, and horses were the only thing that gave me joy, or motivation to live for a while. Now I am recovering, but horses are the only beings that make me completely forget what has happened to me. They give me hope when I feel like giving up. They are beautiful intelligent creatures, that have so much emotion. I feel moving them from their home would not be fair to them. Please consider what I have said. Thank you, Sincerely, Lia Alves

June 23, 2022
Dear Portola Valley Planning Commission,
Please do not include the opt‐in single family re‐zoning changes in our Housing Element Plan.

This zoning change will have huge repercussions down the road and to include now to only add 12 units to our plan to comply with the state RHMA mandates is reckless.  EVERYONE that owns a home in this town should have a sign off on a change like this and most do not have an understanding or even knowledge of this possible change to our zoning laws.  As our town representatives, you MUST represent ALL of the people of this town and seek out their agreement before you submit our plan.  The inclusion of the opt‐in rezoning will have huge negative financial and standard of living impacts on ALL of the people of Portola Valley.

I implore you to delay and slow down your response to the state.  We have until the end of January to submit our plan. This gives you time to solicit the response of every resident of this town.  The opt‐in zoning will bring major change to Portola Valley and will not be reversible.

I am not against adding housing (although the demand of a 13.8% increase in a rural town over 8 years seems way out of line), but I am against changing zoning laws that we all agreed to when we bought our homes in Portola Valley.  We have all bought and many built or remodeled our homes and had to comply with the building rules pertaining to house size, impervious surface rules, lighting rules, set‐backs, landscape requirements, paint colors, and to now change the rules of the game is wrong, terribly wrong.  Anyone that owns a home here and works hard to maintain it knows that to change the zoning laws so that neighbors can sell and developers can put multi‐family units next door would agree that this will create huge problems and financial losses and degrade our quality of life that we worked hard to achieve.  We have to protect our property values and our standard of living.  We didn’t just land here by accident, we chose to live here.  We worked hard to be able to purchase a home here and work hard to continue to live here.

Add more ADU’s and JDU’s to the housing plan and find the best place to add the townhouses or condos.  Add more housing at The Sequoia’s and at The Priory.  To me, these seem like the best places to add housing because it fits in with the needs and demands of what is already there.  Don’t create an opt‐in re‐zoning change that will forever change (and destroy) Portola Valley as we know it for no good reason.  Please find the additional 12 units some other way or lower the “buffer” in the plan.

Submit minimal requirements and let the state decide if that is good enough.  Don’t over‐ comply.  Remember if you give them an inch, they will take a yard.  Please do not be over‐ zealous in giving in to the state’s demands.  Please don’t let the state roll over our town.  Make sure that they know that the people you are representing are not in agreement with the quantity of houses they are requiring.  We are a rural community with narrow roads, steep terrain, limited jobs, limited transportation, no water, dry vegetation and that although we understand the spirit of the housing initiative, this is not the place to add all of these homes.

There is no common sense in how the state is trying to solve the real housing problem that we have.  Try to minimize, delay, and do what you can to protect our residents that have invested their money, time, emotion, and love into our Town of Portola Valley.  Please do not go forward with the opt‐in single family rezoning.

Sincerely,
Anne Ashmead

1 Dylan Parker
From: Kari Chinn
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 8:51 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Special Planning Commission - Draft Housing Element Discussion Hi,
I just saw this one as it came into junk mail
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margaret Blair
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 6:52 PM
To: Webmaster <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Special Planning Commission ‐ Draft Housing Element Discussion I am including here more research on the density Bonus issue, as regards our Housing Issues. I do not feel the reality of this has been adequately presented to the Town   At a previous meeting I read a portion of the Density Bonus law, and was assured by the Town council that we could maintain control of the density a developer could use.

I have highlighted the main points in the enclosed document. Could this be discussed and  could you please explain where it legally states we can control the use of the Density Bonus law.

Thank you, Margo Blair
Sent from my iPhone

<https://www.portolavalley.net/Home/Components/ENotification/ENotification/ShowImageByUniqueKey?key=969568 32d7c642889de7421349a11c52>

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:05 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Please remove Frog Pond Park for consideration for housing Attachments: 220628PvrPlanningCFrogPond.pdf
-Melissa Thurman, MMC
From: Dan Quinn <
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Maria Cristina <[email protected]>; Gary J. Morgenthaler <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Betsy Morgenthaler <[email protected]>; Danna Breen <[email protected]>; Helen R Quinn <[email protected]>
Subject: Please remove Frog Pond Park for consideration for housing Dan Quinn
10 Bear Paw
Portola Valley, CA 94028
[email protected]
6/28/2022

Dear Portola Valley Planning Commission:

I understand that some people have recently mentioned Frog Pond Park as a possible site for housing. How is this possible? I strongly object.

I thought this was all definitively settled in 2019, years after this area was shown as green (open space) on Town maps.

After investigating the area myself, I signed a petition and let the Town know that this place is too precious as open space to use for a few residences. After petitions, meetings, discussions, etc., our Town Council voted on December 11, 2019, to remove Frog Pond Park (aka the “road remnant”) from consideration as a site for housing on Town‐owned land.

What has changed since then??

2 After the vote, I breathed a sigh of relief, believing that this issue was now finally settled.

I gave my book One Morning at the Frog Pond: February 26, 2019  to several Council members. (If anyone on the Planning Commission wants a copy, let me know.) Helen and I and many others donated to the Town fund set up to finance continued maintenance of Frog Pond Park. We joined our neighbors and the local Scout troop on work days, removing invasive plants and cleaning up the area.

The entirety of Frog Pond Park needs to remain open space. The open surface of the seasonal pond itself is not enough to maintain the ecological integrity of this iconic open space, where Pacific Chorus Frogs gather at the beginning of the rainy season, singing loudly enough to drown out conversation. Where White‐tailed Kites hover, motionless in the air, looking for voles busy in the grass. Great Blue Herons, Mallard Ducks, Deer, Coyotes, and Bobcats come here, among many other birds and animals. Please ask the Town Conservation Committee for a copy of Nona Chiariello’s cogent analysis of the ecological needs of the Frog Pond, from 2019.

Please reaffirm the integrity of the entire Frog Pond Park, including the “road remnant”. What will it take to permanently put this issue to rest?

Sincerely yours,
Dan Quinn
Check out my images: <CaptureTheLight.zenfolio.com/FrogPondBook>















!"#$#"
%&&





 ""''(
)*

'*
'"





+


#
"

*,
 *
-'
''.
'
/


' $0'
'
''.
1)'
 .2
#$
)


''*
/+
'

*


'/


'

''
'

3


'
#
4
"
'$/

+
'  



"'
/)' 
*

*




-

'
#
'

#''

'
#
'
/
/


'*
#
'$/



'
"

 '*'#'''
#$

#+
*
#
".

 


"+
,
 
*
-3-

5
*

"64/
"#'*

''
/

' 
 
*
*$8

'#

*'#


11
/



+
).



*'
/


/.

+ 

'''
'/'

*$
) +
".- 






'
+

#"
".

'$
3)/


 ""'''#

"
-$40

*)*"


'*
*


/*'

/#
#
*"
#
/,
 *
-$
8 2
*


.
'*

#9#


-*'

"+ +'+

'*
#
 




$




/,
 *
-

*'

"

'
#
$



'
/#
/

'
'

*'
/'

"


# #

/
'##

'
#



#/#

',
 ' 



.
 /


'
''  *


*
#+

'$8

8


*:
'
+

"
''


- /

+
'.'


''$;



0

'<
*#-'


'*
.#'#"


" "

.
*'*"'$
'
'-


'

+""

/

#
/=


>'#
''/


# #

*'/

,
 */
"
$

'


//
"



/




,
 *
-#* 

5
*

"6$8

-


"


'''


'1
9#


'


1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:06 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Alpine road remnant
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Christopher Berg
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 1:51 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Alpine road remnant
Dear Planning Commission members,
I am a longtime resident of Portola Valley, residing at 4 Thistle Street. Three years ago this coming December, the Town Council, upon receiving overwhelming support from town committees , a petition of over 700 town residents, and personal presentations and pleas by many concerned residents, voted to remove the Alpine Road Remnant from  a list of possible sites for high density housing development. The Council simultaneously agreed to designate  the Alpine Road remnant as permanent open space,  thereby making this small piece of land part of the Frog Pond Park natural preserve.

So strong was support for this expansion of the designated open space that a number of residents pledged to financially support the work needed to restore the road remnant and adjoining sections of Frog Pond Park in order to maximize this open space’s ability to sustain and support the various forms of plant and animal life that thrive there.

I was witness to this process and the Town Council’s decision. I signed the petition, spoke at a Council meeting against development of the Alpine Road remnant, and made a personal financial pledge to support needed restoration of the remnant and Frog Pond Park.

So, I am now shocked and really dismayed to learn that the Alpine Road remnant is again under consideration as a site for high density residential development. I would like to respectfully remind the Planning Commission that there are numerous reasons that the Council saw fit to designate the road remnant as open space to be preserved. It is immediately adjacent to the very sensitive and important ecosystem of Frog Pond Park that supports a large variety of plant and wildlife. It is an important part of a well used wildlife corridor that extends from Los Trancos, through Mader Valley, Coal Mine Ridge and to Windy Hill preserve. As the late Herb Dengler once told me, as he sat overlooking the Frog Pond up to Windy Hill,
“This is one of the most beautiful places I know of to just sit and look ‐ it is an iconic California landscape view.” Building on the Alpine Road remnant would also permanently destroy this invaluable and precious view corridor that is emblematic of the natural beauty of the town we call home and that the Town government and residents have worked so hard and so effectively over the years to preserve.

I urge the Planning Commission to review the actions taken by the Town Council in December of 2019 to permanently designate the Alpine Road remnant as open space,  and to remove it from any consideration as a place where high density housing could be developed.

Sincerely,
Christopher Berg

2 4 Thistle Street
Portola Valley, CA

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:06 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Uncounted ADU's
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Uncounted ADU's
Hi,
We understand that any ADUs built on our properties may be grandfathered‐in if they weren’t PV  approved structures.

I’d like to advise that we, and several immediate neighbors may possibly have such ADUs on our properties. We hope this disclosure doesn’t result in any town action against us and our neighbors.

We hope this helps to alleviate the amount of new housing added into PV and believe that there are a lot of uncounted ADUs presently being used for local housing.

Thanks, this is for your information and this is not a public comment, Kerry

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:06 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Frog Pond
From: Julie Dickerson
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 1:08 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Byrne <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Frog Pond
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Julie Dickerson <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:11 PM
Subject: Frog Pond
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Byrne <[email protected]>
Dear Planning Commission,
I'm writing to strongly advocate for the open space (known now as the Frog Pond) that we worked so hard to protect.

This area is used every day by people walking the trails, horseback riders, joggers, dog walkers and students going to Corte Madera school. This connector piece allows for safe travel away from the traffic, with open views of the hills, the riparian meadow that is a vibrant frog habitat (as well as home to many raptors, red tail hawks, blue herons and grazing deer) and the sense of ease and peace it affords all who live nearby.

We cherish this space as we also live in one of the more densely populated areas of PV. It is with extreme urgency and desire that we implore this community to protect this space.

There are other areas of PV (down the Alpine corridor) that don't impact space, views or community the way so many would be affected losing this small park‐like setting.

We feel so strongly, that we, among others, were one of  the family's that also offered to put money forth to make sure it is protected and maintained. We were assured that this was designated as open space. Please don't go back on your word ‐ which was agreed upon after thoughtful consideration.

Thank you,
Julie Dickerson & Andy Byrne
274 Corte Madera Rd.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:13 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Please survey the town residents re: ADUs and ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Joanne Donsky
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 11:08 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Please survey the town residents re: ADUs and
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I oppose up‐zoning that would allow 3 or 4 units to be built on one acre.

I support doing a survey of town residents to find out how many have the possibility of and/or interest in creating ADUs or JADUs on their property.

Thank you for your consideration,
Joanne Donsky

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:14 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing housing housing in PV
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Majda
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:48 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing housing housing in PV
Hello, and thank you for taking seriously resident input on this contentious topic. We can get through it all if everyone feels heard, and if we can come up with a plan that doesn’t unnecessarily create dissension.

My suggested approach is for the Housing Element to propose as many ADUs and JUDUs as possible, as these would be scattered throughout Town rather than grouped together.

Such concentrated groupings could lead to backlash or other unanticipated consequences, which have rarely been discussed in the many zoom meetings I’ve listened to.

Let’s not anticipate HCD rejection; let’s make a  constructive plan that preserves critical Town resources like open space, and maximizes fire safety.

Fire safety: To date, factors other than home hardening and vegetation control have not received adequate attention.

Distance between structures is widely regarded by experts to be an important factor in fire risk control, yet plays no role in the HE.

Consultant Moritz’ fire map, paid for by the Town, should play a key role in guiding development plans until new maps from Woodside Fire are available. The Housing Element should rely on the Moritz maps.

Finally, I think we might benefit from consulting with other WUI towns with similar vegetation, hills and gullies.

Thank you for all your efforts,
Majda Jones

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:14 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Draft Housing Element
From: Fred Wang
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 8:24 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>; Tracy Wang <[email protected]> Subject: Draft Housing Element
Dear Portola Valley Planning Commissioners:

After reviewing the documentation in advance of the June 29th Planning Commission meeting, we would strongly urge you to support the recommendations put forward by Commissioners Targ & Taylor in their memo with regards to eliminating the opt‐in rezoning program.

The opt‐in rezoning program is simply bad policy. As other residents have commented, it creates a perverse incentive by certain homeowners to gain financially by re‐zoning their properties for denser development at a cost to their neighbors in the community, creating a "zero‐sum game" situation, where one homeowner gains at the cost of all of their neighbors. Portola Valley homeowners have always been held to a certain standard on development of their property with regards to impact on neighbors ‐ by creating this opt‐in rezoning program you would allow a homeowner to bypass decades of precedent set by the town and negatively impact the financial value of a property that was based on this precedent, creating financial damages to the other homeowners and creating a hostile atmosphere between the neighbors (and the town).

As the memo points out, this particular program only generates 12 units of housing which can easily be met through a combination of trimming a very generous buffer that's been budgeted, as well as increasing the number of ADUs in the community, which could very well be undercounted given the number of non‐permited ADU's that have been built already.

We understand the town has been put into a difficult position with the state mandates and we applaud the efforts of the volunteers to find the least impactful solutions here, but this particular aspect of the Housing Element, the opt‐in rezoning program, should be eliminated from the final plan. It provides minimal benefit at an extreme and severe negative cost to our neighborhoods, community, and property values.

Regards,
Fred & Tracy Wang

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:14 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: ADU info
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: courtney moulds
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 8:11 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: ADU info
Hello,
We have a studio that may be able to qualify as an ADU rental. How do I learn more about that program? We would like to do what we can to help avoid the changing of zoning laws in Portola Valley.

Thank you,
Courtney Moulds
George Tidmarsh
Sent from my iPhone

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:16 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Update - 4395 Alpine Road
Attachments: Letter to Town of Portola Valley - Housing Element Update.pdf From: Leticia O. Cvietkovich
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 10:01 AM
To: housing <[email protected]>; Town Center <[email protected]>; Craig Hughes <[email protected]>; John Richards <[email protected]>; Jeff Aalfs <[email protected]>; Sarah Wernikoff <[email protected]>; Maryann Moise Derwin <[email protected]>; Laura Russell <[email protected]>; Jeremy Dennis <[email protected]>; Cara Silver <[email protected]> Cc: Chuck R. Reed <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Housing Element Update ‐ 4395 Alpine Road
Good Morning,

Please see the attached letter from Chuck Reed regarding the Housing Element Update.

Sincerely,

Leticia O. Cvietkovich
Legal Executive Assistant
Hopkins & Carley | A Law Corporation
San Jose | Palo Alto
70 South First Street | San Jose, CA 95113
Direct: 408.299.1361 | Main: 408.286.9800
[email protected]
hopkinscarley.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________ Any tax advice contained in this correspondence (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax‐related penalties under federal, state or local tax law or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. For more information about Hopkins & Carley, visit us at http://www.hopkinscarley.com/.

Chuck Reed
[email protected]
T. 408.299.1409
F. 408.998.4790
4860 0255 4918.1
San Jose
70 South First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
T. 408.286.9800
F. 408.998.4790
June 27, 2022
By Email: [email protected]
Portola Valley Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Portola Valley
765 Portola Rd.

Portola Valley, CA 94028
Re: Housing Element Update 4395 ALPINE ROAD
Dear Committee Members:

Hopkins & Carley represents the Allen Family Trust, Robert and Karen Allen, trustees, who make their home at 211 Nathhorst Avenue, Portola Valley, adjacent to 4395 Alpine Road.

Very late in the last committee meeting there was a discussion and approval of rezoning the property at 4395 Alpine Road to allow for 20 units per acre. Staff informed the committee that building at such a density would result in a three story project. See the YouTube recording at https://youtu.be/LuRQHjXAx30?t=15831 (4:23:50)
With density bonuses for affordable housing, a project could be built at 36 units per acre, making it even taller than three stories. Losing control over height and mass under state density bonus law or streamlined ministerial approval law is a serious threat to our town. A project at three, four or five stories would be a radical change in character for Portola Valley and have a significant environmental impact on the scenic corridor, the riparian corridor and on the neighboring homes. It would create major traffic increases, complicating evacuation efforts in the event of fires, and add major risks for pedestrians, especially when analyzed with the cumulative impacts of other projects, like the Hawthorn Area Plan. Environmental clearance for such a project would require an Environmental Impact Report, which is a lengthy process when done correctly.

The change on this single parcel is unnecessary for the town to achieve its RHNA allocation numbers, but including this radical change will jeopardize the schedule for updating the Housing Element. On behalf of the Allen family, I respectfully request that rezoning of the property at 4395 Alpine Road to allow for 20 to 36 units per acre be dropped from consideration.

Sincerely,

HOPKINS & CARLEY
A Law Corporation
Chuck Reed
cc: Town Council, Planning Commission, Town Attorney (By email: [email protected])

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:16 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Proposed Draft Housing Element
From: Lee Middleman  On Behalf Of Lee Middleman
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 8:43 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Donnie (M) <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Draft Housing Element
Dear Commission,
I am writing to support the proposed housing element plan you will be reviewing this week.  I know you face difficult trade offs and concerns.  But we must contribute our fair  share to the Bay Area housing needs.

A number of the concerns expressed by our citizens are mistaken. 1) No matter where we add housing in the town, there will be increased traffic on Alpine Road, so why not put as much housing on this road near the town exit. It will reduce traffic within the town. These folks will leave town first in an emergency, clearing the road for the rest of us.
2) We have a wonderful amount of open space (Windy Hill, Coal Mine Ridge, the Hawthorns, etc).  We can thus consider using the unused portion of the Ford park for housing.  It best located on a major town route, near Ladera Country Shopper, and closest to services in Palo Alto and along Route 280.  I sure that if the Fords were here today, they would see this as the best use of their gift to the town.
3). We can maintain the rural character of our town while still doing our civic duty.  And without getting in trouble with the state.
4) Although many people in the town say they support more affordable housing, many just don’t want it near them or even in our town.  But they ignore that emergency and town services are impacted by the lack of reasonable housing.

Thank you for your volunteer efforts for the town,  Lee and Donnie Middleman *****
I now have an online gallery shop for my ceramic art. Please visit: Etsy.com/shop/leemiddleman

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:16 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Dorothy Ford Park* and the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund: a proposal From: Peter Lipman
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 7:45 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Dorothy Ford Park* and the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund: a proposal Dorothy Ford Park* and the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund: a proposal [*Dorothy Ford Park (7.7 acres) includes the baseball field as well as the open‐space parcel; see the 2020 PV Open‐ Space Map].

The thoughtful discussion prepared by the PV Planning Commission Subcommittee for its June 29 meeting on the 2023‐ 31 draft Housing Element is greatly appreciated. Among other topics, it expresses multiple concerns about the AHHEC draft plan to repurpose the open space and remove the majestic oaks of Dorothy Ford Park for dense development of low‐income multifamily housing. While the current AHHEC plan attempts a conscientious response to ill‐conceived CA RHNA mandates, it would negate and dishonor the good‐faith commitments made 50 years ago to the town folks who collaboratively donated the funds for this open‐space acquisition, not anticipating that that their generosity might require a legally binding covenant for protection from development in future times. In the present contentious era, abandoning this long‐protected open space at the entry to the town’s defined Scenic Corridor would further reduce trust among current Portola Valley residents. And during extended discussion at its June 20 meeting, a sizable minority of AHHEC members (4 of 10) opposed the repurposing of Ford Park for housing, but with ambivalence expressed on both sides.

I especially endorse the Subcommittee’s proposal for new land use/zoning designation of Ford Park (and other designated PV Open Space, for which no special zoning category seemingly exists currently?). Some alternative for meeting the RHNA mandates are suggested below.

RHNA‐mandated donation of existing town‐owned land?
Implicit in the AHHEC draft plan, but not explicitly discussed, is the embedded conclusion that the only feasible way to meet the RHNA low‐income mandates would be to transfer town‐owned land to a developer. Shouldn’t such a consequential conclusion be evaluated in relation to RHNA responses elsewhere? Are other nearby towns similarly finding it necessary to make comparable land donations for similarly high‐density development? If meeting the Housing Element requirements indeed requires town donation of an available site for low‐income housing (still an incompletely answered question for many of us), why has the AHHEC plan not considered options to purchase a more suitable land parcel as an alternative to the relatively few town‐owned properties of sufficient size for such development, none of which seems adequately appropriate? (Despite my prior suggestion that Town Center soccer

2 field would be a physically feasible alternative to development at Ford Park, I’d hate to see the beautifully organized cluster of recreational facilities at the PV center disrupted.) Alternative proposal?
As an alternative to Ford Park, why couldn’t the Housing Element Plan include a town pledge, committing the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund to support purchase of a suitable stand‐alone site for the mandated low‐income housing, preferably in central Portola Valley close to the Town Center and other desirable support facilities? This would also disperse required multifamily development more equitably beyond the Alpine Road corridor where the AHHEC draft plan currently places all such housing.

Use of the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund?
Why hasn’t any use of the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund been explored for such purposes in the current AHHEC draft plan? This fund was established many years ago, specifically to support availability of affordable housing in the town. At year start, it had a balance of $4.6M (1/12/22 Staff report to PV Council). Wouldn’t support of low‐income multifamily housing be an appropriate purpose for this fund? Could some state or federal funds also be obtained to help support a land acquisition if dedicated to low‐income housing by a non‐profit developer?

Backup plan
Such a pledge to purchase a suitable site could be backed by a “sunrise” stipulation that, should such a site fail to be acquired and made available for low‐income housing within the next few (3‐5?) years, the town would then make available the entire Ford Park for this mandated need (as recommended by the Planning Commission Subcommittee). By using the entire park, including the baseball field, the mandated housing could be developed more flexibly and at lower overall density, without some of the drawbacks in the current schematic plan. With additional acreage, the heritage oaks in the northern part of the site could be protected, and needed parking could be provided without impinging on the Scenic Corridor buffer zone. If required for release from in‐place deed restrictions, the CA State grant funds ($232,200) could be repaid from the Inclusionary Housing Fund. The town already has a second baseball field, at the Town Center.

But hopefully, this undesirable backup stipulation would marshal town support for a more attractive solution.

Peter Lipman

1 Dylan Parker
From: Peter Lipman
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 1:51 PM
To: housing
Subject: Dorothy Ford Park* and the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund: a proposal Dorothy Ford Park* and the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund: a proposal [*Dorothy Ford Park (7.7 acres) includes the baseball field as well as the open-space parcel; see the 2020 PV Open-Space Map].

The thoughtful discussion prepared by the PV Planning Commission Subcommittee for its June 29 meeting on the 2023-31 draft Housing Element is greatly appreciated. Among other topics, it expresses multiple concerns about the AHHEC draft plan to repurpose the open space and remove the majestic oaks of Dorothy Ford Park for dense development of low-income multifamily housing. While the current AHHEC plan attempts a conscientious response to ill-conceived CA RHNA mandates, it would negate and dishonor the good-faith commitments made 50 years ago to the town folks who collaboratively donated the funds for this open-space acquisition, not anticipating that that their generosity might require a legally binding covenant for protection from development in future times. In the present contentious era, abandoning this long-protected open space at the entry to the town’s defined Scenic Corridor would further reduce trust among current Portola Valley residents. And during extended discussion at its June 20 meeting, a sizable minority of AHHEC members (4 of 10) opposed the repurposing of Ford Park for housing, but with ambivalence expressed on both sides.

I especially endorse the Subcommittee’s proposal for new land use/zoning designation of Ford Park (and other designated PV Open Space, for which no special zoning category seemingly exists currently?). Some alternative for meeting the RHNA mandates are suggested below.

RHNA-mandated donation of existing town-owned land?
Implicit in the AHHEC draft plan, but not explicitly discussed, is the embedded conclusion that the only feasible way to meet the RHNA low-income mandates would be to transfer town-owned land to a developer.

Shouldn’t such a consequential conclusion be evaluated in relation to RHNA responses elsewhere? Are other nearby towns similarly finding it necessary to make comparable land donations for similarly high-density development?
If meeting the Housing Element requirements indeed requires town donation of an available site for lowincome housing (still an incompletely answered question for many of us), why has the AHHEC plan not considered options to purchase a more suitable land parcel as an alternative to the relatively few town-owned properties of sufficient size for such development, none of which seems adequately appropriate? (Despite my prior suggestion that Town Center soccer field would be a physically feasible alternative to development at Ford Park, I’d hate to see the beautifully organized cluster of recreational facilities at the PV center disrupted.) Alternative proposal?

2 As an alternative to Ford Park, why couldn’t the Housing Element Plan include a town pledge, committing the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund to support purchase of a suitable stand-alone site for the mandated low-income housing, preferably in central Portola Valley close to the Town Center and other desirable support facilities? This would also disperse required multifamily development more equitably beyond the Alpine Road corridor where the AHHEC draft plan currently places all such housing.

Use of the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund?
Why hasn’t any use of the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund been explored for such purposes in the current AHHEC draft plan? This fund was established many years ago, specifically to support availability of affordable housing in the town. At year start, it had a balance of $4.6M (1/12/22 Staff report to PV Council). Wouldn’t support of low-income multifamily housing be an appropriate purpose for this fund? Could some state or federal funds also be obtained to help support a land acquisition if dedicated to low-income housing by a non-profit developer?

Backup plan
Such a pledge to purchase a suitable site could be backed by a “sunrise” stipulation that, should such a site fail to be acquired and made available for low-income housing within the next few (3-5?) years, the town would then make available the entire Ford Park for this mandated need (as recommended by the Planning Commission Subcommittee). By using the entire park, including the baseball field, the mandated housing could be developed more flexibly and at lower overall density, without some of the drawbacks in the current schematic plan. With additional acreage, the heritage oaks in the northern part of the site could be protected, and needed parking could be provided without impinging on the Scenic Corridor buffer zone. If required for release from in-place deed restrictions, the CA State grant funds ($232,200) could be repaid from the Inclusionary Housing Fund. The town already has a second baseball field, at the Town Center. But hopefully, this undesirable backup stipulation would marshal town support for a more attractive solution.

Peter Lipman

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:17 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Please listen to the community's concerns
From: Sara Donahue
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 6:39 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Please listen to the community's concerns
Hello,
We are among the very concerned citizens of Portola Valley. The current housing element plan has the potential to permanently and significantly change Portola Valley’s rural corridors and residential neighborhoods for the worse.

We are 100% in favor of opt‐in upzoning to permit the development of 4 units of housing per acre on residential lots throughout Portola Valley (with some restrictions). Under this provision, a neighbor can sell his property to a developer (and the developer can also purchase adjacent properties) who can then build up to four units of housing/acre.

Please listen to what the community is saying — we want to preserve the defining characteristics of our beloved town.

Thank you,
Sara Donahue

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:17 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Plan feedback
From: robin murray
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 6:43 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element Plan feedback
I am writing in response to the Draft Housing Element Plan.

Firstly, I appreciate all the hard work that has been done - this is not an easy task by any measure.

That said, I am writing to strongly object to the voluntary up-zoning proposal. There are many reasons, but in the interests of brevity my main concerns are as follows:

1. This proposal has the potential to rip apart the social fabric of the town. It will pit (and already has pitted) neighbor against neighbor. Emotions are running high and from what I hear, there is real risk that this may result in litigation between neighbors; between residents and the town; and between residents and committee members. There are alternative solutions and given the proposal is not material to the overall recommendation, why take the risk on destroying the town's social fabric?

2. Each resident of the town bought into the general plan when they moved to Portola Valley. To make a change of this magnitude it must have the support of the town’s residents to be seen as legitimate. But there has been no survey of the town’s residents despite the fact that this is clearly a highly contentious issue. Surveys have repeatedly been requested to no avail. From what opinions I have been able to solicit, the proposal has very little support from the residents. Hence the charged atmosphere. Please survey your residents as a matter of urgency.

3. The proposal is ill-thought through and is a classic example of a prisoner's dilemma as articulated in the June 29th Colleagues Memo by Commissioners Targ and Taylor. As drafted residents are incented to re-zone their property in fear that a neighbor might seek to rezone their property, first (and devalue the neighboring property).

I urge the committee to eliminate this proposal from the plan.

Best

2 Robin Murray

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:25 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Judith Murphy
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 3:09 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing
Thank you, Planning Commissioners, for all the work you are doing to make sure the new housing that PV must build will fit into our community well.

I see 2 different, overlapping projects needing completion:

1. Completion of a Housing Element update for this rhna cycle that is acceptable to the State of CA with no cheating or fudging.

2. Actually building the number of new units that the state requires. This requires strict adherence to the numbers in the plan, but not how/where they are actually built.

As a last ditch measure we might need to rezone the Ford Field for 20/acre. I strongly hope if this is done there will be  a clear commitment to NOT actually doing anything there unless 3 years into next cycle we are way behind on new Low and Very low units. Because the Town owns the land we should be able to hold back and not actually build there unless we have to.  Because there is a buffer in our numbers this could be possible.

I agree there is no way to use ADUs for rhna numbers submitted to the state; there is no history to support it.

But I also think that with an early push from the Town we might actually be able to meet those Very Low/Low numbers with JADUs and ADUs.

1. JADUs could be quick, easy and cheap and the smaller ones demonstrably lower income.

2. There are a large number of accessory structures around town (pool houses, offices, gyms, studios) that were built in the last 10 years+, permitted and up to code, that specifically do not have kitchen or full bath facilities because they were not allowed. A facilitated pathway for adding kitchenette or full bath to create a true ADU could add a substantial number of units fairly soon without great expense.

3. There are a fair number of units from #2 category that later “got creative” and added small cooking area, or larger bath.  Amnesty for these units should be relatively simple, as they are largely ready to go.

4. There are an unknown number of older units around that are nowhere near compliance  with current codes.  They would need substantial financial investment and planning department time to become officially sage and livable.  I think amnesty for these units is problematic,  disproportionately difficult and should not be a priority.

I am opposed to financial support for wealthy homeowners who may never rent their units.  The Town should make freely available streamlined permitting, fee reductions, etc. to everyone because we have numbers to meet.  But any cash support will hopefully require a deed restriction and actual commitment to rent at below market rates (with follow up confirmation.)
The Planning Department is in overwhelm and their staff is more than busy.  A great backlog of routine tasks will need catching up on after housing element is completed.  When they are swamped, they think of adding staff or calling

2 consultants ‐ both expensive solutions.  Tackling the ADU issues is not on their calendar anytime soon. I believe a Task Force of residents could quickly do 90% of the work needed for getting an expedited ADU program up and running ‐ much faster than staff, much more locally appropriate than consultants and FREE.

Thank you,
Judith Murphy

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:27 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Letter regarding Housing Element Plan
Attachments: PV Planning Commission.docx
From: Allan Ashmead
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 8:52 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter regarding Housing Element Plan
Hello Planning Commission,
Please see my letter attached. Thank you for all that you do for Portola Valley! All the best,
Anne Ashmead
10 Antonio Court

June 23, 2022
Dear Portola Valley Planning Commission,
Please do not include the opt‐in single family re‐zoning changes in our Housing Element Plan.

This zoning change will have huge repercussions down the road and to include now to only add 12 units to our plan to comply with the state RHMA mandates is reckless.  EVERYONE that owns a home in this town should have a sign off on a change like this and most do not have an understanding or even knowledge of this possible change to our zoning laws.  As our town representatives, you MUST represent ALL of the people of this town and seek out their agreement before you submit our plan.  The inclusion of the opt‐in rezoning will have huge negative financial and standard of living impacts on ALL of the people of Portola Valley.

I implore you to delay and slow down your response to the state.  We have until the end of January to submit our plan. This gives you time to solicit the response of every resident of this town.  The opt‐in zoning will bring major change to Portola Valley and will not be reversible.

I am not against adding housing (although the demand of a 13.8% increase in a rural town over 8 years seems way out of line), but I am against changing zoning laws that we all agreed to when we bought our homes in Portola Valley.  We have all bought and many built or remodeled our homes and had to comply with the building rules pertaining to house size, impervious surface rules, lighting rules, set‐backs, landscape requirements, paint colors, and to now change the rules of the game is wrong, terribly wrong.  Anyone that owns a home here and works hard to maintain it knows that to change the zoning laws so that neighbors can sell and developers can put multi‐family units next door would agree that this will create huge problems and financial losses and degrade our quality of life that we worked hard to achieve.  We have to protect our property values and our standard of living.  We didn’t just land here by accident, we chose to live here.  We worked hard to be able to purchase a home here and work hard to continue to live here.

Add more ADU’s and JDU’s to the housing plan and find the best place to add the townhouses or condos.  Add more housing at The Sequoia’s and at The Priory.  To me, these seem like the best places to add housing because it fits in with the needs and demands of what is already there.  Don’t create an opt‐in re‐zoning change that will forever change (and destroy) Portola Valley as we know it for no good reason.  Please find the additional 12 units some other way or lower the “buffer” in the plan.

Submit minimal requirements and let the state decide if that is good enough.  Don’t over‐ comply.  Remember if you give them an inch, they will take a yard.  Please do not be over‐ zealous in giving in to the state’s demands.  Please don’t let the state roll over our town.  Make sure that they know that the people you are representing are not in agreement with the quantity of houses they are requiring.  We are a rural community with narrow roads, steep terrain, limited jobs, limited transportation, no water, dry vegetation and that although we understand the spirit of the housing initiative, this is not the place to add all of these homes.

There is no common sense in how the state is trying to solve the real housing problem that we have.  Try to minimize, delay, and do what you can to protect our residents that have invested their money, time, emotion, and love into our Town of Portola Valley.  Please do not go forward with the opt‐in single family rezoning.

Sincerely,
Anne Ashmead

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:29 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: (PV Forum) # Housing
From: Bill Russell
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 11:36 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>; Town Center <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: (PV Forum) # Housing
My name is Bill Russell. My wife and I have lived at 200 Nathhorst Avenue for more than 30 years, previously at 56 Hillbrook. Below are our comments to the draft housing plan. Please consider them in making your recommendations to the town counsel. I am asking that these comments be sent by you to all members of the planning commission for their review and consideration. If anyone wants to speak to me about anything I have written, my phone is 650 815‐8323. Bill Russell  PS: one correction needs to be made to what I have written below: The number of possible units at 4395 Alpine is not 36 but rather 41; my original calculation was based on a one acre site when the actual size is l.l8 acres. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Bill Russell <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: (PV Forum) # Housing
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Bob Adams <[email protected]>, robert allen <[email protected]>, Tammy Cole <[email protected]>, ellen vernazza <[email protected]>, Bruce B. Roberts <[email protected]>, Peter Draeger <[email protected]>, jamie koblick <[email protected]>, Jeff Booth <[email protected]>, Chuck Falore <[email protected]>, Mary Khan <[email protected]>, Greg Franklin <[email protected]>, Kimberley Cashin <[email protected]> COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
It is requested that the following proposed sites be removed from the recommendations:
l. Opt‐in Rezoning Program sites (12 projected units).

2. 4395 Alpine Road housing Site ( 23 projected units).

As discussed in detail below neither project is needed to meet the state mandated 253 RHNA requirement and neither program has any meaningful support from the town citizenry.

OPT‐IN SINGLE FAMILY REZONING WILL POTENTIALLY DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF PORTOLA VALLEY The committee is proposing "voluntary" opt‐in zoning across all of Portola Valley. This proposal, if adopted, will permit any homeowner in Portola Valley (regardless of neighbors' objections) to construct up to four dwelling units per acre on all properties in Portola Valley that are one acre or greater in size. This is a dramatic shift from the one acre/one residence zoning that has prevailed throughout this town's history, embodied  in its general plan and enabling zoning, and relied upon by every homeowner who has ever purchased a single family residence on one acre within the town.

2 Instead of the town‐wide zoning being one home per acre it will be four homes per acre. The immediate and long term impact will be as follows:
l. The economic value of every existing one acre/one home residence within the town will decrease substantially.

Potential purchasers of these homes will not pay as much, knowing that he/she could be surrounded by multi‐ famiy structures, the result of which would be to reduce the value of the home purchased as well as its quiet enjoyment.

For those of us who have lived in this town for 20, 30, 40 years or more, it is often the case that our home is our primary economic asset. To haphazardly open the door to dense development with a reduction in economic value and peaceful enjoyment of that asset is entirely without justification. There is no town wide support for this proposal and it is not needed to reach the 253 RHNA mandate.

2. There is nothing in the committee proposal permitting any neighbor from preventing the development of another's property for four units. To the extent that the development qualifies as "affordable housing" bonus density law may apply, permitting increased density beyond four units per acre. When an ADU is constructed notice must be given to neighbors, giving them a right to object. Nothing in the current proposal requires that this be done. To the extent that this qualifies as "affordable housing" construction may proceed on a "by right" basis meaning that no significant objections may be made.

3. This proposal will create a race to the bottom: those homeowners who see a neighbor selling his property for multi‐ family development may feel pressure to do likewise with his own parcel for fear of having the neighbor's development reduce the value of his own home unless he gets on the band wagon and seeks out a developer.

4. The town reaction to this proposal is known to the housing committee. When the proposal was initially made the actual location of those  properties whose owners were interested in upzoning were disclosed. Many lived on Georgia Lane. When the neighbors on that street determined what their neighbors were contemplating there was an uproar.

Objections were vehemently made, lawyers were consulted and potential chaos was the order of the day. In the current draft plan the location of those properties whose owners are interested in upzoning is not disclosed. Could this be because the committee saw the hue and cry that arose from this proposal and does not want a repeat performance?

5. The draft plan forecasts the construction of but 12 units under the opt in zoning program over the next eight year cycle. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that, once it gets rolling, the ball will  stop at 12 units. And there is nothing within the proposed legislation that limits the number of four unit/acre projects that can be approved. Even if there were such a limitation, any developer denied permission would be heard to argue that his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were being denied by allowing others to develop, but not him.

This proposal is an ill conceived plan created by the housing committee, not borne out of any demand from the residents of this town. Being charitable, perhaps the committee was simply trying to spread the burden of increased housing density through the town. My central belief: the fairest and best way to share the burden is to (l) construct affordable housing on town owned lands that are economically and geographically removed from existing single family neighborhoods and (2) construct ADUs and JADUs which present almost no interference with either the economic value or quiet enjoyment of homeowners adjacent to those ADUs and JADUs. In contrast, once you start down the path of changing the zoning and use of private property on which every homeowner has relied in purchasing his home there is no turning back; only a lifetime filled with lawyers and acrimony between neighbors. 4395 ALPINE ROAD HOUSING SITE
To begin at the beginning: the committee originally proposed involuntary re‐zoning of selected homes within the Nathhorst Triangle without any consultation with the affected homeowners and without any site visits to determine the viability of any such zoning changes. There was an immediate and vociferous cry of foul from the homeowners in the Nathhorst Triangle and adjacent Applewood Development. In fact everyone throughout the town that spoke on the subject said that involuntary zoning changes to residential properties against the express wishes of homeowners was

3 inappropriate. Regardless of the attitude of those living in the triangle or Applewood, the committee, from day one, has focused, and continues to focus, on singling out the Nathhorst Triangle for development.

After abandoning the involuntary re‐zoning plan the committee next proposed development of two vacant lots next to Robert's and immediately adjacent to existing Nathhorst Triangle Homes, and the parking lot behind Robert's, as well as re‐development of the office complex at the entrance to the Nathhorst Triangle and Applewood Developments: four possible sites, all concentrated at the Triangle in the middle of the scenic corridor.

The first domino to fall was the vacant lot on Alpine, now known as the Willows Project. It is an approved 13 unit development for disabled adults. Even though no one with a heart could seriously oppose the concept, it was the wrong project at the wrong place. The 13 units represent a significant fire risk and a significant interference with the quiet enjoyment of the homes that are immediately adjacent to it.

Now, under the current draft plan, the committee proposes allowing the development of the vacant lot next to the Willows Project so that the owner of that property can build 20 units per acre which, if it is qualified affordable housing, means that the owner will be able to build 36 units on one acre. Once again, such a density substantially  creates a major fire risk and a major impediment to the peaceful enjoyment of those Nathhorst Triangle homes that are immediately adjacent to it, not to mention its impact on the scenic corridor and evacuation in the event of a disaster. Such a development is the documented exact opposite of what the town's residents want: the committee's own survey of everyone in the town revealed that the least desirable solution to the housing issue was the construction of dense, apartment‐ like structures.

Wouldn't it simply make more sense to not include this vacant lot as as part of the RHNA program which makes development a pre‐approved "by right" project without the right to any meaningful control over the development itself and, instead, remove it from a 20 unit/acre district and just allow the owner of this vacant land to make application to the town for development either within existing zoning laws or as a recognized and appropriate exception to the zoning (think variance). In such a case the town maintains very real control over the nature and extent of the development of this property. It is not a rejection of the right to develop, only imposition of the customary restraints that affect and protect all of us. And the owner of this vacant lot has experience working with the Town as he is also the owner of the Willows Project next door.

NEITHER OPT‐IN ZONING NOR THE 4395 ALPINE ROAD PROJECT ARE NEEDED TO MEET THE STATE MANDATED RHNA REQUIREMENT (253 UNITS)
The housing committee proposed site descriptions are listed on page 104 of the draft plan (all number references are to pages of the draft plan unless otherwise indicated). The committee proposes presenting a plan for 306 units to the state in the draft plan.

The state mandate only requires that there be a realistic presentation of 253 units, not 306 or any other number. If the Opt‐in plan and 4395 Alpine are removed from consideration there will still be 271 units for state consideration, eighteen more than are required.
" Every jurisdiction in California receives  a target number of homes to plan for. This is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA...Portola Valley's income specific estimated RHNA is....253 units. " (Page 4 June 8, 2022 Memorandum Town of Portola Valley from Laura C. Russell, RE: Public Review Draft Housing Element and Guide to Providing Comments.)
"After Town Council review, staff will update the Draft Housing Element based on the comments received and submit it to the State Department of Housing and community Development (HCD) for their review. In the fall, the Town will conduct additional public meetings to update the document according to HCD comments," Page 3 of June 8, 2022 Memorandum Town of Portola Valley.

4 The current state wide legislation effectively eliminates local control over housing and associated planning. Although all cities and towns within California must comply with the state mandate, no city or town is required nor can any such jurisdiction be compelled  to give more than the RHNA allocation. In the case of Portola Valley that is 253 units. The state will review the town designation of units and determine whether or not they reasonably meet the 253  requirement; if so, the state has no authority to insist that any local town or city provide additional possible units as a buffer against the possibility that construction may not go forward. If the state rejects any of the proposed 253 units then the state must give its reasons and provide Portola Valley with an opportunity to replace the rejected sites with new ones. At that time, and after further resident participation, new sites can be proposed. These may include development of units at Town Center, or the road remnant near the frog pond, or the Ford Baseball Field itself or any number of realistic possibilities. All options will be open. What is clear is that it is currently unnecessary, as part of a first draft, to anticipate rejections and propose additional units when those proposals are poor choices and, in the case of upzoning, a very dangerous choice.  And when the town's residents themselves are not in favor of providing a buffer beyond what is required, why do so?  We are at the beginning of the process working with the state. By analogy, consider the draft plan to be  a first date. How far would /should any of us go on a first date? The committee proposes presenting 306 units to the state, 53 more than are required. This amounts to a 21% bonus when the state itself "recommends" (no legal requirement) as little as a 15% bonus. More importantly, the committee's analysis of bonus is incorrect even if a bonus of some kind is to be applied. The purpose of a bonus is to protect against the possibility that some of the designated units won't actually be constructed. However, no bonus percentage (of any kind) should be applied to those units where there is no or very little likelihood of non‐development.

For example, pursuant to HCD guidelines, "in addition to vacant and underutilized land resources, a community may satisfy their RHNA requirements though "alternative means" which may serve as credits toward their RHNA. These alternative means include the consideration of proposed, pending, or approved development projects that haven't received a certificate of occupancy prior to the start of the 6th cycle on June 30, 2022" (page 90).

According to the draft report 52 units fall within this category, 13 units being from the approved project at 4388 Alpine Road (aka Willow commons, now in development) and 39 units from the Stanford Wedge. Thus, 52 units from the RHNA mandate of 253 units should be removed from any bonus calculation, leaving 201 units (253 minus 52)  to which a bonus percentage could conceivably apply.

However, "per HCD guidance, a community may also credit the number of ADUs that are anticipated to be developed during the 6th cycle housing element planning period toward their RHNA requirements. The forecasted development of ADUs during  the  planning period must be based on an analysis of prior years' building permit and and local development regulations that promote ADU development." (page 90) The draft plan proposes 92 units as credits against the RHNA allocation (page 93). Considering the streamlined process that is now underway (pre‐approved plans, abbreviated administrative procedures, amnesty programs for ADUs constructed without town approval, etc.) the estimate of 92 is probably overly conservative and there need not be any bonus calculation against the 92 units. However, even if one wanted to ignore all that will happen going forward and just rely on historical numbers (which includes the pandemic years) the total number of ADUs' building permits issued between 2017 and 2021 is 39 or an average of 7.8 per year. Projected over the 8 year cycle means that, at an absolute minimum, there will be 62.4 ADUs and not the 92 currently projected by the housing committee.  It is worth noting that the  average of 7.8 ignores the fact that from January through  May 2022 there have already been 7 building permits issued. (page 92).  As stated above, the number of units to which one could reasonably apply a bonus calculation is 201.  If you then subtract the 62.4 units derived from a very conservative ADU calculation, a bonus should apply to no more than 138.6 units (201 minus 62.4). Fifteen percent of 138.6 units is 20.79 units which, when added to the 253 is  273.9 units.  Presenting a proposal with 271 units, which is still l8 over the 253 requirement, should be more than sufficient.

EPILOGUE

5 The State of California has forced this Apocalyptic world of uniformity upon local towns and cities, entirely disregarding the unique characteristics of such places in the hope of forcibly creating a world where everyone gets to live every where they want whenever they want. Here's my personal experience: when I graduated from law school and went to work for a big city law firm I had the option of working in San Francisco or the branch office in Los Angeles.  At that time, my firm paid more to its beginning associates than any other firm in California : $15,500 per year if you worked in San Francisco or $16,000 per year if you worked in Los Angeles. $500 was real money so I moved to Los Angeles, with the intention of living  in Malibu overlooking the Pacific or living in Beverly Hills overlooking Rodeo Drive. To my everlasting humiliation I discovered that I could afford neither, meaning that I might have to live in a neighborhood that was farther from my work than these two venues. Before selecting that option I contacted the mayors of Malibu and Beverly HIlls and demanded that I be admitted under the Affordable Housing Programs that each such city surely had. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that there was no such thing. Having graduated from law school I knew "my rights" so I called Governor Reagan to complain. He was entirely sympathetic and said "Young man, just you wait, in a short 50 years, every hamlet throughout California will have the Affordable Housing Plan of which you speak and then you will be able to live wherever you want whenever you want, regardless of your income or your age or the impact on your chosen community." And now my dream is coming true and I can live in Pacific Heights or Montecito or even Portola Valley! The End.

Bill Russell

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:35 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Comments on 6/15 Town Planning Commission meeting From: Trish Heald
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on 6/15 Town Planning Commission meeting Dear Commissioners Kopf-Sill, Goulden, Hasko, Targ, and Taylor, Thank you for last night’s meeting. I thought it was respectful and productive. I would now like to share some thoughts. Please bear with me as clear email communication is necessarily long.

I understand the concern of relying too heavily on ADU/JADU units in the housing plan, and of stretching our argument for those numbers past the point of credulity based on historic production. This point was made clear to Woodside when they asked the same question and received this answer:
“‘HCD staff indicated general support for focusing on ADUs but cautioned that the housing element RHNA plan still needs to project future units based on historic production unless it has solid evidence showing a larger number of units would be constructed during the 8-year period,’ the report states.” Source:

Almanac
The text I have highlighted in bold is pertinent. I do not believe the town has done enough communication and research on the potential for JADU and ADU construction over the next eight years. I believe a survey would show there is justification for increasing JADU and ADU numbers in the plan. Increasing JADUs in the plan is particularly advantageous because they truly provide low-income housing (a JADU, say, is affordable to a single mother + infant "family," compared to a $2000/month or more duplex, condo, or cottage under the opt-in re-zoning plan).

Therefore, I request that the town conduct a rigorous survey of its residents to determine interest in JADU and ADU projects over the next eight years (Woodside did this). I request that this survey includes succinct and clear wording explaining how the town is making this easier and faster (streamlined processes, dedicated staff hours), and more affordable (incentives, subsidies, pre-approved plans). I think there would be more commitment to JADUs and ADUs if it was explained in the survey that they have the potential to alleviate

2 some of the need for high-density development on scenic corridors and potentially all of the need for opt-in re-zoning of residential properties. It may be a good idea to focus this communication and survey only on JADU units since this is the area least understood by residents, easiest to implement, and could be most impactful in the lower-income categories, which, after all, is what the RHNA requirements really seek to address. I do not accept that it is too late in the process to survey the town and get this number right.

With solid evidence in hand of the town’s projected supply of JADU/ADUs over eight years, I believe we can add and justify 12 units (or more) to the JADU/ADU number (possibly even split this number out so it’s clear we have both a robust ADU and JADU plan). If we add only 12 units of JADU/ADUs to the plan, we can eliminate the contentious opt-in re-zoning element.

Last night, I heard precisely zero comments from residents in support of opt-in re-zoning.

Zero. I heard multiple comments from residents who have strong objections to this element of the plan. Those comments are, I believe, representative of what are most likely the views of the majority of town residents. I did hear Chairperson Kopf-Sill speak in favor of retaining the opt-in re-zoning element, saying that she wants it because she knows people who would like to live in these kinds of houses (i.e., the new cottages/townhouses, etc. that re-zoning would make possible). This statement concerns me because I believe the logic here is an inappropriate basis on which to create a new zoning law. I am also concerned that her statement may reflect that she has not yet incorporated or maybe not yet understood the many realistic objections to and consequences of opt-in re-zoning raised last night at the meeting by some planning commissioners and all residents who spoke.

I would also like to note my concern regarding Planning and Building Director Laura Russell’s comments at the end of the meeting. If I understood her correctly, she stated that she can “go rogue” and technically go direct to HCD with whatever draft plan she wants and that there is no legal requirement for the planning committee to approve or the town council to approve the draft plan, nor for residents’ wants and needs to be addressed in the plan. I realize that Ms. Russell does not mean to threaten town residents or planning commissioners with such an action; however, the comment does speak to what I feel may be an underlying impatience with and/or disregard for the views of some planning commission members and the residents of this town (beyond the AHHEC). In my opinion, these kinds of statements and the potential attitudes they may suggest, are a problem, if only as a matter of optics. Optics matter. Especially in a small and passionate town.

I saw this problem playing out also in Chairperson Kopf-Sill's remarks, which seemed to suggest that planning committee members and residents need not question or pressure test or ask for a change to the 21% buffer number because the AHHEC had already put the hours in to figure this out, so why should they spend time re-examining it? If the AHHEC plan is a “draft” document, then isn’t it completely appropriate and desirable that members of the planning committee and residents pressure test and request changes to

3 the document? I didn’t get the feeling those perspectives were welcome. It made me wonder about the process here.

My questions to planning commission members are these: who decides what draft housing element plan goes to Town Council and through what channel? Because, if I understood correctly, it sounds like there is a possibility that the Town Council is presented with

1. a draft housing element plan defended by AHHEC members and the Planning and Building Director; as well as

2. another document/dissenting opinion paper or comments by the planning commission who weren’t able to reach consensus on some items so can’t wholeheartedly endorse the draft element plan; and, then, potentially

3. an outcry of residents who are at best feeling confused and at worst sense a breakdown in town governance.

I appreciate the extra time and effort Commissioners Hasko, Targ, and Taylor have committed in order to mitigate or eliminate this undesirable outcome. I am also deeply appreciative of the members of the AHHEC committee and Ms. Russell even though I disagree with some of the proposals in the draft housing element plan. Specifically, the number of JADU/ADUs, the inclusion of an opt-in rezoning plan, and a 21% buffer.

If I have understood correctly, the consequence of putting in “too low of a buffer” is that the HCD will engage in a bit of back and forth (in advance of the January deadline) with the town. In my eyes, this does not seem punitive, does not reflect poorly on the town or Ms. Russell, and therefore it’s worth it to give a lower buffer number a try.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Trish Heald
160 Sausal Drive

1 Dylan Parker
From:

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 12:29 PM
To: Adrienne Smith
Cc: Housing
Subject: questions
HI Adrienne,
Thank you so much for all your efforts on behalf of the town for the housing element. I appreciate your hard work and poise.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Is the only way for the Town to meet the Very Low units (which I assume is synonymous with “affordable” units) is via rezoning a few properties to a minimum of 20 units per acre?  Does the state offer no other way to meet that very low RHNA segment? Jr. adus don’t qualify? Is there a particular size of unit on that 20+ units per acre that is prescribed?  Or is an increased zoning just the simplest way to satisfy the state for the housing element?

2. Where can I get a spreadsheet of all the properties in town listing their acreage and the size of the existing housing units as well a list of all the vacant properties? At a minimum does the Town have a list available of how many properties there are in each general size in Town (i.e. how many properties are 0.1 acre, 8000 sf, ¼  acre, 1/3 acre, ½ acre, 1 acre, etc. up to how big?)
Thanks
Rebecca Flynn

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:37 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Questions
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: DANNA BREEN
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6:11 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Questions
As you all know our General Plan is internally consistent. This draft housing element gives us an idea of what changes may take place. They are substantial. The town chose to begin with the Housing element and then move to Safety element which is being drafted without resident participation and crafting. Ostensibly we can’t predict what the implications are to the safety element until the housing element is finalized. Residents would like PC to articulate what changes and implications they see occurring to the remaining  elements of the General plan : ie land use, circulation…all of them, because no doubt the entire General plan will need changing and perhaps that was the point of all of this.

Adding 20% to our current population with no planned infrastructure is challenging. I’d like to hear what you feel will ultimately need to happen to our wonderful document to make it internally consistent again after the housing element is approved. What does that mean to the General Plan? I would like specifics please and if you need more time…perhaps hit the pause button for some time. As always, respectfully yours, Danna Breen, 4680 alpine rd.

Sent from my iPad
Danna Breen

1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:40 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: No to building housing!
From: Ana Kostioukova
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 7:43 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: No to building housing!
Our area is prized for being horse country. Please don't destroy it by making it look like Palo Alto or Mountain View! Those are lovely places, but the same reason Tuscany is able to remain so beautiful is by eliminating construction of new buildings, etc., we need to do the same to preserve what we have. We don't want these towns to look like the rest of the Bay Area.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Maria Cristina
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 6:30 PM
To: Town Center
Cc: housing
Subject: Input for the Planning Committee regarding low income housing options.

Input for the Planning Committee regarding low income housing options. -We feel it is very important to maintain Portola Valley's current environment into the future. I was born and raised here, and hope it can continue to have it be the lovely place it has been until the day I die.
-Our leaders need to keep our General Plan as a priority no matter what the state may require. To this end I would beg you to remove open space lands from your consideration for housing. In particular, I was distressed to hear a Housing Committee member suggest the Alpine Remnant /Frog Pond site. Many of us contributed much time, effort and money to assure that this site would remain open space. -The gateway on Alpine Road will be impacted in a major way with the Stanford projects and so suggest you consider putting low income housing in the current location of the soccer field at the Town Center. The playing field could then be put along Alpine at Ford Field. Parking could be moved under the oaks between the two playing fields and maybe a small quantity of cottages could be built in the current parking lot for the baseball field. Perhaps you could work with the builder of the Wedge or the Church? -Pls don't remove Glen Oaks Stable. Already one stable on Alpine is being removed by The Wedge project and it would be sad to see another gone. Perhaps a few housing units could be put on the land but without displacing the stable -Our Town government needs to step up and offer incentives and streamlined plans for residents regarding ADU/JADU. This is one of the best paths forward but we need our town government to help.

I believe that residents are not putting in applications because they are waiting for this to happen.
-Town needs to seriously consider the future impact on donations of land if residents see that land donated under the condition of being open space, instead ends up being high density housing. I know that the events of recent years have adjusted my thoughts regarding future donation of our land.

Thank you for your time & attention,
Maria Southgate

1 Dylan Parker
From: Melissa Thurman
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:28 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting From: Karen Askey
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:27 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>; Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting
Dear Planning Commission,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and ideas in your meeting regarding the Housing Element Draft on 6/15/22. It’s unfortunate that you were all not involved in this process from the onset, as the Planning Commission is instrumental in shaping Portola Valley’s future while serving as the guardians of our General Plan. This is no easy task…
As I’ve mentioned before, most residents are very concerned that the current Housing Element Draft has strong potential to lead to overdevelopment and high density, steering us away from the core of our General Plan. In addition, many residents have expressed frustration as their comments and concerns seem to go unheard. For example, at the 6/20/22 AHHEC meeting, a large number of residents voiced their desire for more ADUs/JADUs and disapproval of the opt-in program (while several non-residents approved it), yet the AHHEC seem to discount those resident’s concerns. If you haven’t already, I urge you to review the public comments in that meeting.

Kudos to Commissioners Targ and Taylor in their sub-committee role. I am very impressed and in alignment with their Colleagues Memo to be presented at the 6/29/22 Planning Commission Meeting, as are many of my fellow residents. Their suggestions and ideas will allow Portola Valley to meet its RHNA allocation while avoiding overdevelopment, and maintain low-density housing. Our General Plan clearly states that buildings should be “subservient to the natural setting and serve to retain and enhance the rural qualities of our town.” Hear hear!
And I couldn’t agree more with taking the time to get it right! This HE plan is not just about the next eight years in Portola Valley, but about hundreds of years to come. (In addition to the “sunrise” concept, Commissioner Taylor offered up a new idea about Affiliate Housing at the Hawthorns property, and I am certain there will be more ideas as we thoughtfully move forward.) I also recommend that JADU target numbers be broken out and viewed separately from ADUs, as we can allocate all JADUs to very-low or low-income categories. I foresee strong demand for JADU rentals to students, caregivers, and local employees from Robert’s, Alpine Hills, or the like.

As the Targ/Taylor memo indicates, we must focus all our efforts first on ADU/JADU production. To that end, we need to survey residents NOW, not in 2023. And we must fast-track all other efforts to increase our ADU/JADU development - why are we waiting? I am referring to Policies 7-1 through 7-7 in Section 7 of the Draft Housing Element. We must also offer

2 financial incentives for ADU amnesty programs and JADU conversions from our Inclusionary Housing Fund.

If at all possible, I ask that we do not rezone any property with 20 or more units per acre, unless on Town-owned property. This is the only way we can control state-mandated bonus density. To that end, I would like you to revisit the property at 4395 Alpine Road, and bring the units per acre down. I understand that Woodside is using 10 units per acre for its high-density areas.

In addition, I am strongly opposed to development at Frog Pond Open Space, as there are environmental impacts, huge safety concerns with that sharp corner, and adversely alters the Alpine Scenic Corridor. Please refer to the 12/11/19 Town Council meeting and the numerous presentations and public comments. I am one of the petition signers to preserve this as open space, and pledged money to maintain the site.

To recap my views:
 As recommended by Commissioners Targ and Taylor, take the necessary time to protect the core elements of our General Plan
 Substantially increase ADU and JADU target numbers, fast tracking and increasing incentive programs. Survey and rally residents NOW!
 Adopt the “sunrise” provisions as stated in the Targ/Taylor memo.  Eliminate opt-in rezoning - for 12 units, why would we offer such a controversial program that so many residents have spoken against? We can easily cover that amount through an aggressive ADU/JADU program and SB-9 units.  If private property must be rezoned, apply a maximum of 10 du/acre. Town-owned property may be higher, as bonus density can be controlled.  Protect Frog Pond Open Space, as our Town Council voted on 12/11/19.  Remain true to the General Plan of Portola Valley.

Thank you for serving as stalwarts of Portola Valley and our future. Your efforts to represent our residents and community are much appreciated.

Karen Askey
119 Groveland Street
650‐776‐5585

1 Dylan Parker
From: Laura Russell
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:58 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting From: Karen Askey
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:27 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>; Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting
Dear Planning Commission,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and ideas in your meeting regarding the Housing Element Draft on 6/15/22. It’s unfortunate that you were all not involved in this process from the onset, as the Planning Commission is instrumental in shaping Portola Valley’s future while serving as the guardians of our General Plan. This is no easy task…
As I’ve mentioned before, most residents are very concerned that the current Housing Element Draft has strong potential to lead to overdevelopment and high density, steering us away from the core of our General Plan. In addition, many residents have expressed frustration as their comments and concerns seem to go unheard. For example, at the 6/20/22 AHHEC meeting, a large number of residents voiced their desire for more ADUs/JADUs and disapproval of the opt-in program (while several non-residents approved it), yet the AHHEC seem to discount those resident’s concerns. If you haven’t already, I urge you to review the public comments in that meeting.

Kudos to Commissioners Targ and Taylor in their sub-committee role. I am very impressed and in alignment with their Colleagues Memo to be presented at the 6/29/22 Planning Commission Meeting, as are many of my fellow residents. Their suggestions and ideas will allow Portola Valley to meet its RHNA allocation while avoiding overdevelopment, and maintain low-density housing. Our General Plan clearly states that buildings should be “subservient to the natural setting and serve to retain and enhance the rural qualities of our town.” Hear hear!
And I couldn’t agree more with taking the time to get it right! This HE plan is not just about the next eight years in Portola Valley, but about hundreds of years to come. (In addition to the “sunrise” concept, Commissioner Taylor offered up a new idea about Affiliate Housing at the Hawthorns property, and I am certain there will be more ideas as we thoughtfully move forward.) I also recommend that JADU target numbers be broken out and viewed separately from ADUs, as we can allocate all JADUs to very-low or low-income categories. I foresee strong demand for JADU rentals to students, caregivers, and local employees from Robert’s, Alpine Hills, or the like.

As the Targ/Taylor memo indicates, we must focus all our efforts first on ADU/JADU production. To that end, we need to survey residents NOW, not in 2023. And we must fast-track all other efforts to increase our ADU/JADU development - why are we waiting? I am referring to Policies 7-1 through 7-7 in Section 7 of the Draft Housing Element. We must also offer financial incentives for ADU amnesty programs and JADU conversions from our Inclusionary Housing Fund.

2 If at all possible, I ask that we do not rezone any property with 20 or more units per acre, unless on Townowned property. This is the only way we can control state-mandated bonus density. To that end, I would like you to revisit the property at 4395 Alpine Road, and bring the units per acre down. I understand that Woodside is using 10 units per acre for its high-density areas.

In addition, I am strongly opposed to development at Frog Pond Open Space, as there are environmental impacts, huge safety concerns with that sharp corner, and adversely alters the Alpine Scenic Corridor. Please refer to the 12/11/19 Town Council meeting and the numerous presentations and public comments. I am one of the petition signers to preserve this as open space, and pledged money to maintain the site.

To recap my views:
 As recommended by Commissioners Targ and Taylor, take the necessary time to protect the core elements of our General Plan
 Substantially increase ADU and JADU target numbers, fast tracking and increasing incentive programs. Survey and rally residents NOW!
 Adopt the “sunrise” provisions as stated in the Targ/Taylor memo.  Eliminate opt-in rezoning - for 12 units, why would we offer such a controversial program that so many residents have spoken against? We can easily cover that amount through an aggressive ADU/JADU program and SB-9 units.
 If private property must be rezoned, apply a maximum of 10 du/acre. Town-owned property may be higher, as bonus density can be controlled.
 Protect Frog Pond Open Space, as our Town Council voted on 12/11/19.  Remain true to the General Plan of Portola Valley.

Thank you for serving as stalwarts of Portola Valley and our future. Your efforts to represent our residents and community are much appreciated.

Karen Askey
119 Groveland Street
650-776-5585

1 Dylan Parker
From: Karen Askey
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 9:07 PM
To: housing
Subject: Fwd: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting Hi, these comments are for the Special Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, June 29th. I sent them to [email protected] earlier today, and will enter them on the Housing Element site as well.

Please confirm they will be shared with the Planning Commission.

Thanks,
Karen
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting To: Karen Askey <[email protected]>, Town Center <[email protected]>, Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Hi Karen,
Thanks for your comments. As I mentioned before, if it’s Housing Element related, please email my team at [email protected]. We are getting a lot of comments and want to make sure we are tracking them all.

Thanks,
Laura
From: Karen Askey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:27 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>; Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Comments for 6/29/22 Meeting

Dear Planning Commission,

2 Thank you for your thoughtful comments and ideas in your meeting regarding the Housing Element Draft on 6/15/22. It’s unfortunate that you were all not involved in this process from the onset, as the Planning Commission is instrumental in shaping Portola Valley’s future while serving as the guardians of our General Plan. This is no easy task…

As I’ve mentioned before, most residents are very concerned that the current Housing Element Draft has strong potential to lead to overdevelopment and high density, steering us away from the core of our General Plan. In addition, many residents have expressed frustration as their comments and concerns seem to go unheard. For example, at the 6/20/22 AHHEC meeting, a large number of residents voiced their desire for more ADUs/JADUs and disapproval of the opt-in program (while several non-residents approved it), yet the AHHEC seem to discount those resident’s concerns. If you haven’t already, I urge you to review the public comments in that meeting.

Kudos to Commissioners Targ and Taylor in their sub-committee role. I am very impressed and in alignment with their Colleagues Memo to be presented at the 6/29/22 Planning Commission Meeting, as are many of my fellow residents. Their suggestions and ideas will allow Portola Valley to meet its RHNA allocation while avoiding overdevelopment, and maintain low-density housing. Our General Plan clearly states that buildings should be “subservient to the natural setting and serve to retain and enhance the rural qualities of our town.” Hear hear!

And I couldn’t agree more with taking the time to get it right! This HE plan is not just about the next eight years in Portola Valley, but about hundreds of years to come. (In addition to the “sunrise” concept, Commissioner Taylor offered up a new idea about Affiliate Housing at the Hawthorns property, and I am certain there will be more ideas as we thoughtfully move forward.)

I also recommend that JADU target numbers be broken out and viewed separately from ADUs, as we can allocate all JADUs to very-low or low-income categories. I foresee strong demand for JADU rentals to students, caregivers, and local employees from Robert’s, Alpine Hills, or the like.

As the Targ/Taylor memo indicates, we must focus all our efforts first on ADU/JADU production. To that end, we need to survey residents NOW, not in 2023. And we must fast-track all other efforts to increase our ADU/JADU development - why are we waiting? I am referring to Policies 7-1 through 7-7 in Section 7 of the Draft Housing Element. We must also offer financial incentives for ADU amnesty programs and JADU conversions from our Inclusionary Housing Fund.

If at all possible, I ask that we do not rezone any property with 20 or more units per acre, unless on Townowned property. This is the only way we can control state-mandated bonus density. To that end, I would like you to revisit the property at 4395 Alpine Road, and bring the units per acre down. I understand that Woodside is using 10 units per acre for its high-density areas.

3 In addition, I am strongly opposed to development at Frog Pond Open Space, as there are environmental impacts, huge safety concerns with that sharp corner, and adversely alters the Alpine Scenic Corridor. Please refer to the 12/11/19 Town Council meeting and the numerous presentations and public comments. I am one of the petition signers to preserve this as open space, and pledged money to maintain the site.

To recap my views:
 As recommended by Commissioners Targ and Taylor, take the necessary time to protect the core elements of our General Plan
 Substantially increase ADU and JADU target numbers, fast tracking and increasing incentive programs. Survey and rally residents NOW!
 Adopt the “sunrise” provisions as stated in the Targ/Taylor memo.  Eliminate opt-in rezoning - for 12 units, why would we offer such a controversial program that so many residents have spoken against? We can easily cover that amount through an aggressive ADU/JADU program and SB-9 units.
 If private property must be rezoned, apply a maximum of 10 du/acre. Town-owned property may be higher, as bonus density can be controlled.
 Protect Frog Pond Open Space, as our Town Council voted on 12/11/19.  Remain true to the General Plan of Portola Valley.

Thank you for serving as stalwarts of Portola Valley and our future. Your efforts to represent our residents and community are much appreciated.

Karen Askey
119 Groveland Street
650-776-5585

1 Dylan Parker
From: Melissa Thurman
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:36 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Plan Comments From Nathhorst/Applewood Neighbors Attachments: June 25.docx.pdf
From: Caryl Russell
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 8:37 AM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; Bill Russell <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Housing Plan Comments From Nathhorst/Applewood Neighbors ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Caryl Russell <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:43 PM
Subject: Housing Plan Comments From Nathhorst/Applewood Neighbors To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Bill Russell <[email protected]> Dear Ms. Thurman:

The letter dated June 25, 2022 attached below was previosly emailed as an attachment to you and the planning commission as well as others on June 27, 2022. The subject line of this June 27, 2022 email was "Housing Plan Comments From Nathhorst/Applewood Neighbors". Could you please confirm by email receipt to me that this important letter from the community has been placed on the public record and forwarded to the planning commission? It is very important that this be done immediately as it relates to the Planning Commission meeting tonight.

Thank you very much.

Caryland Bill  Russell
And Nathhorst/Applewood Neighbors
‐‐
650‐283‐8441

June 25, 2022
Dear Planning Commissioners:

REGARDING UPZONING TO ADD MORE HIGH DENSITY TO THE NATHHORST-APPLEWOOD

NEIGHBORHOOD
When the 29+ property owners in the immediate Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood bought their lifetime homes, investing their life savings, they, like all Portola Valley residents, had no expectations of living within a high density neighborhood. And like the other neighborhoods in Town, there was no high density zoning in the Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood.

At this time, the high density 11,182 sq. ft. Willow Commons project is under construction in the Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood. The 1.26 acre site has 13 housing units, a large 3,939 sq. ft. support building, including a public trafficked commercial coffee shop and directly affects several adjacent homes. This is a 46% increase from the 29+ homes in the neighborhood.

Now there is a Town Staff proposal for further increased density by developing two lots adjacent to Willow Commons:

Property #1 is 4394 Alpine Road, to be potentially rezoned at 20 units/acre. Given the Mullin Default Density law provision, rezoning this lot automatically qualifies the owner for a density bonus of 20 units resulting in a total of 43 units on 1.18 acres. Density bonus law also eliminates the ability for the Town to disapprove a developer's request for an incentive or concession.

Property #2 at 4370 Alpine Road, to be potentially rezoned at 6 units/acre for a total of 9 units on 1.5 acres.

A 20 unit/acre Nathhorst project would require 3 stories (as stated by Laura Russell in the 5/2/22 AHHEC meeting) and would directly affect multiple neighborhood homes while disproportionately impacting the Nathhorst Applewood community. It is contrary to the wishes of town residents as reflected in the AHHEC's own survey, as well as the Town referendum of 19 years ago that overturned a Town Council rezoning of the same neighborhood for high density development. Why upzone properties in this neighborhood if the parcels are not required to achieve the 253 RHNA units?
Together with the Willow Common’s 13 living units, these two additional proposals would expand the Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood by 225%. This is 3.25 times the number of existing homes stuffed into a small, long standing residential community of this town.

Regarding Ford Field: It may be true that one or two lovely oak trees might be lost, but numerous willow trees have been removed at the Willow Commons project. Even more trees could be lost in the Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood should more high density development be built there. Does the possibility of losing two trees near Ford Field outweigh a

whole neighborhood being forever changed? And are the two lost trees monetarily worth the millions of dollars lost to the immediate 29+ Nathhorst Applewood property values? It is our collective belief that the best way to achieve the RHNA 253 unit requirement is through voluntary ADUs and JADUs and the use of publicly owned land where the town maintains maximum control over the planning, architecture, and construction. These sites include Ford Field, Town Center, and the remnant near the frog pond. All of these are geographically and economically removed from long standing, existing Portola Valley neighborhoods. This will reduce, if not eliminate, interference with both the peaceful enjoyment of existing homeowners and the economic value of their properties while spreading the responsibility for housing equally across all town residents.

After last week’s nearby Edgewood fire it is clear that SAFETY MUST COME FIRST. Adding more high density development in addition to Willow Commons (itself having minimal building separation and not required to adhere to Portola Valley's fire hardening standards) would seriously increase fire danger from an increased compact fuel load. Buildings and vehicles contain fuels that have a much greater heat of combustion than vegetative fuel sources due to their chemical composition, density, and very low moisture content. This difference is enormous, hundreds to thousands of times more energy is released from a burning house or vehicle than from a comparable area of vegetative fuels. For example: a 3000 square foot house (with no furnishings or vehicles) releases the same amount of heat when it burns as 23 acres of vegetation. Adding more high density development to the Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood would add an unfair increase of fire hazard to the neighborhood. It needs to be spread out.

Adding more high density development to the Nathhorst Applewood area would highly impact evacuation for all residents in Portola Valley Ranch, upper Alpine, Willowbrook, Brookside, and the Corte Madera neighborhoods. Alpine Portola is already one of the busiest intersections in town, and it is THE evacuation route for the many hundreds of people living in these areas. Evacuation would be much less challenging and dangerous by placing high density developments on properties closer to the I 280 escape route rather than adding hundreds of cars to the most vulnerable intersection of town.

An additional consideration is the impact of the proposed Hawthorns Area Plan on the Nathhorst Applewood neighborhood. The Open Space District is in the process of opening the Hawthorns Area directly across the street from the properties being considered for high density development. This additional traffic and parking along Alpine Rd will add hundreds more cars to this already busy road and intersection. Many school children walk and ride their bikes through this area every day to and from school. With all the children, hikers, and bicyclists that use this stretch of road and trails, adding hundreds of cars from further housing development and Open Space visitors can only exacerbate the probability of a serious accident. Consider the existing traffic and overflow parking problems at the entrances of Windy Hill and the Stanford ‘Dish’ hiking trail on Alpine Rd near I 280.

We are not opposed to the town providing affordable housing, especially for those who work and support this community on a daily basis. We do however expect that the Town's housing implementation: 1) distributes the responsibility of housing equitably across all town residents and neighborhoods, 2) does not interfere with the rights of existing homeowners to the quiet enjoyment of their homes, 3) keeps the town fire safe, 4) keeps open all evacuation routes, and 5) preserves the country lifestyle on which this community was founded and embodied in the General Plan.

Based on these concerns, we ask the Planning Commission to recommend that no Nathhorst Applewood property is upzoned to 20 units per acre and instead distributes Portola Valley's housing needs more equitably and less disproportionally across all of Portola Valley.

These comments and suggestions are made with the full support and express permission of the following Portola Valley Residents.

Bill Russell 200 Nathhorst Ave Charles Falore 230 Nathhorst Ave Caryl Russell 200 Nathhorst Ave Mary Falore 230 Nathhorst Ave Jamie Koblick 285 Nathhorst Ave Barbara Falore 230 Nathhorst Ave Sue Koblick 285 Nathhorst Ave Karen Mobley 9 Applewood Lane Kevin Ford 235 Nathhorst Ave Scott Mobley 9 Applewood Lane Celeste Ford 235 Nathhorst Ave Margarita Vincent 165 Portola Rd.

Bob Allen 211 Nathhorst Ave Phil Vincent 165 Portola Rd.

Karen Allen 211 Nathhorst Ave Kimberly Cashin 3 Veronica Place Tammy Cole 145 Nathhorst Ave John Cashin 3 Veronica Place Dan Cole 145 Nathhorst Ave Kathie Christie 155 Portola Rd.

Ellen Vernazza 120 Nathhorst Ave John Matlock 155 Portola Rd Jim Vernazza 120 Nathhorst Ave Amato Giaccia 7 Applewood Lane Marilyn Fidge 4320 Alpine Rd Jeanne Giaccia 7 Applewood Lane Lex Hobson 4320 Alpine Rd Omar Aguilar 1 Applewood Lane Bob Adams 11 Applewood Lane Viridiana Lourdes 1 Applewood Lane Susan Adams 11 Applewood Lane Jeffrey Booth 250 Nathhorst Ave Ron Eastman 5 Applewood Lane Janice Tomer 250 Nathhorst Ave Michael Miller 5 Applewood Lane Greg Franklin 12 Applewood Lane Bob Shultz 145 Portola Rd Sue Lowe 12 Applewood Lane
Suzanne Yamada 145 Portola Rd Mary Khan 240 Nathhorst Ave Wan Yan Ling 1 Veronica Place Zarina Khan 240 Nathhorst Ave Yee Jiun Song 1 Veronica Place Aurangzeb Khan 240 Nathhorst Ave Peter Draeger 3 Applewood Lane
Ann Marie Draeger 3 Applewood Lane

1 Dylan Parker
From: Laura Russell
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:00 AM
To: housing
Subject: Fw: Draft Housing Element Discussion
From: Betsy Morgenthaler
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 10:36 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: Draft Housing Element Discussion

June 28, 2022
Dear Chair Kopf-Sill and
Commissioners Goulden, Hasko, Targ, and Taylor,
The challenges posed by accommodating to the state mandated housing are many. Your care and extraordinary attention to detail in evidence at your last June 15th meeting and again most recently in Commissioners Targ and Taylor's proposal to the Chair and fellow commissioners is reason enough to thank you for your dedication.

We are fortunate to have you.

Our collective DNA foremost includes the core goals and principles of our General Plan, for recognizing that and calling it out as you do, I’m heartened.

I’d like to add both support and commentary to your proposal.

ADUs and JADUs
In the survey completed earlier this year, I advocated disbursing RHNA 6 housing throughout Portola Valley to spread the housing and human impacts. ADUs and JADUs do this most effectively. I also advocate strongly for it because it exacts the least toll on the staff and community. It is the least divisive, and for the Town, the least expensive solution. And there is a means of demonstrating that these units will be used as stated, to address housing needs.

Additionally, unlike ADUs, JADUs are new to most residents. With the benefit of marketing their far lower cost burden, JADU candidates are poised to come out of the woodwork.

Commissioners, please give serious consideration to a hefty increase of our ADU and JADU count.

The Opt-in Program and SB 9
Director Laura Russell’s proposal suggests reconsidering the Opt-in program and instead counting SB9 housing and lot splits. It aligns with existing state law, we will be dealing with it one way or the other, and receiving credit for it makes excellent sense. As others have pointed out, SB 9's advantage is its provision for home owner occupancy for minimally 3 more years, something of a deterrent to speculators.

Proposed for your consideration are the addition of 6 SB9 lot splits, for a total of + 6, whereas the high side of 6 lot splits would allow for + 30 or + 42 units. Those taking advantage of SB 9 might on their own be inclined to take full advantage of the housing options, more so with Town encouragement, so the current SB 9 number over 8 years seems low to me.

2 Multi-family Units
It is spirit crushing to imagine losing the pair of majestic heritage oaks that have graced Dorothy Ford Open Space for well over a century. There must be another way. Commissioners Targ and Taylor have proposed a 3- year sunrise to allow for that. Please afford these elder oaks in their prime the chance to live another century or more.

As well, we learned at an earlier housing element committee that in order to attract grant money the “magic number” of multi-family housing units was 50. The paucity of locations that would accommodate such a substantial development put Ford Field and Open Space in the sites.

Creating some common understanding of the grant funding source(s), their restrictions and constraints would help inform the process. For example if we could learn whether and what kind of flexibility there was in # of total units, or whether a subset of the units might be located at a parcel nearby, if not at the same location, it could create degrees of freedom that allowed for an improved project. Such investigations take time, but with the Commissioners’ proposed Sunrise provision, there would be that time.

The Road Remnant?
The Town may be considering the potential loss of Ford Field as well, and as I understand it giving consideration to relocating the baseball Diamond to the Road Remnant adjacent to Frog Pond. Yikes.

After significant input and Town assurances, revisiting that decision, and all that would come with it, would necessarily be difficult for the community.

The most obvious practical impediment is the Road Remnant’s shape which has been its leading constraint. It's 2 sizes too small for a baseball diamond. Even ignoring Alpine Road Scenic Corridor's 75 foot setback, there’s scant evidence the parcel could accommodate the playing field width without eliminating the set-back, quite possibly entirely. Were it somehow to be shoehorned in, the result would be school bound kids, hikers, horses and riders pushed to the curb of Alpine Road, and it's a blind curve at that.

The fertilizers and chemicals playing fields require degrade ponds and are especially harmful to frogs. The felling of oaks in the woodland, would further deplete their habitat and vernal pond buffer. All these things would give pause, but to return to the first point, it does not fit.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Betsy Morgenthaler

1 Dylan Parker
From: Nona Chiariello
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:05 AM
To: housing; Town Center
Subject: Draft Housing Element Discussion
June 29, 2022
Dear Chair Kopf‐Sill and Commissioners Goulden, Hasko, Targ, and Taylor,

Creating more affordable housing in Portola Valley is a huge challenge, and the Town is fortunate to have your expertise and heroic dedication applied to it.  I want to join in expressing my sincere thanks for your work.

I will focus my input here on 3 reasons why Dorothy Ford Park open space should be vigorously protected.

1. The Ford open space and its venerable oaks are iconic to the history and natural heritage of this town.  The two oldest Valley Oaks now at the site can be seen as mature trees in early 20th century aerial photographs, which means they are more than a century old and likely much older.  Such trees are rightly called “witness trees” because they were witnesses to the history that shaped our region and our town.  The Valley Oaks should be a testament to our unshakeable appreciation for Portola Valley’s first open space.  Move the baseball diamond if you must; trees of this age cannot be moved.

2. As old as they are, however, the trees are not just part of the Town’s past.  Valley Oaks are not susceptible to Sudden Oak Death, a disease that is ravaging Tan Oaks, Coast Live Oaks, and other species in our area.  Also, Valley Oaks tolerate a warmer, drier climate than do our Coast Redwoods, which are succumbing to drought at Ford Field and throughout most of Portola Valley.  As we face a warmer, drier future that puts many of our trees at risk, the last thing we should contemplate is sacrificing majestic Valley Oaks that provide shade, habitat for wildlife, and solace for people.  A growing scientific literature tells us unequivocally that access to green space fosters a healthier soul.  People need open space, now even more than in the past.

3. A genuine commitment by the Town to equity and inclusion must recognize that residents of denser housing will benefit from free, public open space even more than residents who are lucky enough to have multi‐acre properties all to themselves. As the Town adds affordable housing and new residents, we should be increasing the availability of open space, not abandoning it. The best part of Portola Valley is its open space; this wealth should be shared and passed on, as a core component of our commitment to equity, inclusion, and future generations.

A deeper dive into the implications of developing Dorothy Ford Park open space would undoubtedly point to additional concerns related to habitat sensitivity, but raising those issues at this conceptual stage seems premature to me.  I believe the reasons above are sufficient to take Ford open space off the table, and I thank you for considering them.

Sincerely,
Nona Chiariello
163 Brookside Drive

7/7/22, 5:34 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6541 1/2

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. Submitter DB ID 6541
IP Address 2001:5b0:230a:5398:b159:2967:d898:88da
Submission Recorded On 06/29/2022 3:05 PM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 21 secs.

First and Last Name
Andrea Young
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Isola Riding Academy
City
Portola Valley
State

CALIFORNIA
Zip Code
94028
Comment

7/7/22, 5:34 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6541 2/2

8. Hello town of Portola Valley,
My name is Andrea Young. I own and manage Isola Riding Academy located at the Glenoaks Equestrian center. I wanted to let you know about Glenoak and Isola Riding Academy and what it means to the community and the people that ride and work there.

It's a community of people that share the same passion and joy that horses bring. It builds confidence in children and brings a relaxing and even exciting thrill to all that love this sport. The extensive health benefits one gets when working with horses has been proven over and over again.

Over the past twenty years this facility has allowed thousands to learn to ride, and thrive, in the equestrian community. Thanks to Glenoaks, several successful horsemen have achieved much in and out of the show arena and also have gained enough experience to go on and become trainers themselves.

Our riding school, Isola Riding Academy, is a thriving business. Our students number in the hundreds. The demand for a place to ride is very high, whic shows how much the community wants the ability to have access to horses. Equestrian facilities are disappearing fast, especially now due to the high cos of land.

Isola Riding Academy is a place in the community where you can make friends and meet others. You can learn to ride, have a birthday party, do a Parent and Me class for the little ones. You can attend horsemanship camp, compete in a horse show, participate in Pony Club and the Interscholastic Equestrian Association (IEA). Both Pony Club and IEA are recognized by colleges and universities and have scholarship programs… all without owning horse.

Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy not only serves the Portola Valley community, but the surrounding areas as well. People, after they ride, frequently go to the local restaurants and shops which ultimately helps our lovely town of Portola Valley.

Losing yet another equestrian facility would be a tragedy. For the people who love Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy, shutting it down it would cost the hundreds of customers a wonderful place to learn. It would take away the livelihood of a number of people, and the many part-time jobs that community teens need to gain work experience, and volunteer hours.

Please consider taking the Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy facility off the list of potential sites for housing development.

Thank you for your consideration,
Andrea M Young
Isola Riding Academy
650-332-4886
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:35 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6542 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6542
IP Address 12.199.206.66
Submission Recorded On 06/29/2022 7:04 PM
Time to Take the Survey 17 minutes, 51 secs.

First and Last Name
Tricia Christensen
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Much gratitude and support to the committee and staff. The Element represents so much thought, work, and commitment.

My only comment is that there should be more of an effort to recruit more businesses to the Affiliated Housing Program. It seems like there could be many more mini developments around town, which might reduce the size of the bigger developments.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:35 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6543 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6543
IP Address 2600:1700:5450:4600:5479:fe90:b5f2:961
Submission Recorded On 06/29/2022 8:29 PM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 13 secs.

First and Last Name
Kimberly Castaneda
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) ISOLA
City
Portola
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I received a notification from ISOLA informing clients that the town of Portola Valley and Stanford University are in the process of deciding on a locatio to build low income housing, considering the ranch as a likely location.

While I acknowledge the need for affordable housing, it was devastating to learn this could be at the expense of ISOLA. Five years ago I relocated to the Bay Area for a career opportunity, and ISOLA provided a form of therapy and refuge. The knowledgeable and caring employees of ISOLA welcomed me into their barn, demonstrating their love for horses and sharing their passion of horsemanship.

Through my connection with horses, I have found happiness and hope. ISOLA provided me a social safe haven, a place to relieve stress, relief from anxiety - an accessible sanctuary, a practical form of therapy. I cannot fathom the prospect of losing this special space; displacing not only horses, but many other species who share their home, along with instructors, mentors, and teachers of the Portola community. Eliminating this resource would rob our local residents, children and adults, of their opportunity to experience this magic in their own backyard.

ISOLA is a piece of Portola’s identity built on the values of the community and neighbors. Please reconsider this space for low income housing, and preserve this beautiful oasis on behalf of our fur friends.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:35 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6544 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6544
IP Address 98.37.250.5
Submission Recorded On 06/30/2022 1:07 AM
Time to Take the Survey 8 minutes, 37 secs.

First and Last Name
Qing Li
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Palo Alto
State
CA
Zip Code
94303
Comment
This letter is from my 8 years old son.
"I want to keep Isola Riding Academy open. First, I learn horse riding at Isola stable. The teachers are kind, the horses are kind. If you take over this property, the coaches won't have a job! Secondly, it is my opportunity to learn horse-back riding and I love riding horses. Thirdly, if the coaches do not have a joy they will have to work hard for a new job. Would you like if you lost your job?" Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:35 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6545 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6545
IP Address 107.137.69.10
Submission Recorded On 07/01/2022 7:09 AM
Time to Take the Survey 24 minutes, 37 secs.

First and Last Name
Jonathan H Hillier
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
California
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Hello,
I was raised in Portola Valley beginning in 1955. I went away for college. Became a pilot. I got married and lived for a while in Palo Alto. We bought a very substandard house that should have been bulldozed. But I we could not afford to build a new house so over 28 years we have fixed it up. Lots of sweat equity. We did this because of the rural nature of Portola Valley. Because there are no street lights or traffic lights. Because it is quiet. We love it.

Then politicians in Sacramento passed a cookie cutter law that we have to cram more housing into our rural town. And you see how fun this has been.

I wish the efforts, potential lawsuits, and emotion would go to strike down the state law that is threatening to change our way of life in Portola Valley and the vision the founders had for this town.

That being said, here are my opinions on the four approaches for housing in the future:

1. Site Inventory: Ford Field- no! 4395 Alpine- ok Glen Oaks- maybe 4370- ok

2. Affiliated Housing: Sequoias- ok Christ Church- ok Ladera Com Church- ok

3. ADU's and JADU's: No

4. Opt-in Upzoning Program: absolutely not.

I urge the town to use all powers to push back on this overreach from the state. Fire safety and egress come to mind as tools.

Respectively,
Jon Hillier
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:35 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6546 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6546
IP Address 99.4.123.13
Submission Recorded On 07/01/2022 4:12 PM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 47 secs.

First and Last Name
Judith Murphy
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) PV Race and Equity Committee
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
PV Race and Equity Committee at its June 30, 2022 meeting unanimously requested the following wording changes be made to Section 3: Affirmatively Affirming Fair Housing of the Draft Housing Element.

Proposed changes to bullet item #3 under Preliminary Findings (pages 28-29):

We request it be changed to read:

Countywide, racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, cost burden, overcrowding, an homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and have historically faced a number of barriers to equal housing access. Similar disparities are not evident in the Town of Portola Valley, however in part due to the limited racial/ethnic and economic diversity noted above. In the regional context, Portola Valley represents a high opportunity area with relatively low accessibility to low- and moderate-income households.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:36 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6547 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6547
IP Address 98.37.250.59
Submission Recorded On 07/02/2022 3:23 PM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 22 secs.

First and Last Name
LYNDA L. BROTHERS
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) self
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I believe the Housing Element needs significant additional analysis before it is ready to submit. In its current form, it fails to protect the health and safety of existing residents and in fact would adversely impact extant conditions. It's your duty to provide for us, not some generic standard.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.
2022-7-1 Housing Element comments LLB.docx

1 PUBLIC COMMENT ON HOUSING ELEMENT

SUBMITTED BY LYNDA L BROTHERS
JULY 1, 2022

1. The Draft Housing Element (“Element” hereinafter) fails to identify the unique natural features of Portola Valley (“PV” hereinafter).

The Draft Housing Element fails the citizens of Portola Valley in many ways. I recognize that an advisory committee and Town staff have spent a lot of time on the Element. Unfortunately, it is clear that those efforts were biased by an approach initiated from a perspective of state-wide training of PV staff (and state led threats) and without full consideration of the many ways in which the state-wide, one-size fits all mandate simple DOES NOT FIT OUR PHYSICAL, GEOGRAPHIC OR NATURAL CONDITIONS. Portola Valley represents a very unusual (perhaps unique in the State) confluence of earthquake hazard, (the San Andreas run through PV), fire hazard (surrounded by highly flammable, open space area), a long history of flooding and is accessible by only ONE ROAD: Alpine Road. Some will argue that egress is also possible by Portola Road, but in either case, avenues for egress are severely limited especially from areas such at PV Ranch, Corte Madera and similar neighborhood. There are remedies for these physical issues, but PV has NOT yet created appropriate responses. There is no Evacuation Plan; similarly, fire safety .areas have not been identified. Absent correction of these deficiencies, it is really irresponsible to add additional homes (and vehicles) to PV

2. By failing to identify and address the natural and physical limitations of PV, the Element fail to adequately identify or resolve impediments to growth.

Rather than describe the many physical aspects that make PV unusual and make application of the Housing Rules nearly impossible, the draft Element takes a subservient tone vis-à-vis state law. The Element does not advocate for the citizens, as I believe our government is required to do. The Element mentions a small town

2 attitude, but fails completely to point out the natural, physical, geological attributes that can easily result in a disaster if additional homes and autos are added to PV.

The Element should NOT be submitted to the State until PV develops and obtains wide-spread approval and acquaintance with an evacuation plan and other appropriate vehicles for emergency response. For example do ALL RELEVANT RESPONSE AGENCIES agree, that WITHOUT FAIL, up hill residents shall be allowed exit or egress before those down hill if an emergency arises up hill? Again, if the Element honestly and appropriately identified the impediments to development, we are all willing to work to develop appropriate responses. Failure to do so as in the Element is irresponsible. In addition, the tone of the Element is offensive; in numerous instances it references a largely white demographic without supplying adequate support or comparison to other similar jurisdictions and without reference to the history of the area. I’ve lived in this vicinity my entire life (getting on to 70 years) and we are as diverse as any comparable community; and in any case, there CANNOT be an expectation that such demographics shall change overnight.

The comments in the Element are further offensive in that they imply low and moderate-income housing will be for non-whites. Either eliminate these gross racial comments or supply some meaningful data – they are offensive and irrelevant.

Comments about restrictive covenants is also offensive and largely inaccurate. For example, the draft Element claims that racial/ethnic minorities make up 18% of PV and 61% of San Mateo County overall. Yet I see 2020 census data indicating that PV is 92.9% white and SMC is 59.5% white. Where do their numbers come from? http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PortolaValley.htm shows huge inconsistencies between the Element and census reality. In sum, by failing to accurately identify the limitations to growth (of any kind) and by using dog whistle numbers and references the Element creates an unnecessary and useless basis for important decisions regarding growth.

The Element was obviously written by an off-site consultant who used the same boiler plate for PV as they no doubt used elsewhere. Again, the Element completely fails to adequately represent the residents of PV, fails to identify the unique physical characteristic that have lead to road closures (the obvious one being Alpine Road above Portola Road), the imminent likelihood of a major earthquake with the San Andreas fault going right through Town, the extensive wildfire interfaces. It is really negligent of theTown to present such a sloppy, inaccurate Element. The boiler plate

3 approach reiterates how the approach taken by PV was swayed by, if not completely throttled by state agencies, and how PV has not used the authority granted to it.

3. Prior to proposing any additional housing, the Town of PV has a duty to protect the public health and safety of current residents. To do otherwise is caprious and irresponsible.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that the Element is misdiagnosing the entire housing situation in terms of the physical and natural area. As in medicine, if you get the diagnosis wrong, the treatment is unlikely to be beneficial. The Element highlights historical racism as a reason for the lack of diversity, based on no data to support racism. And it goes on about costs of land development without realistically evaluating market factors and history. The Element confuses current reality with some historic intention. That approach (which of course underlies the State Housing Law, and is undoubtedly created by new comers) lead to wrong outcomes. The cost of land and development has a long history and it has been misrepresented in the Element. The Town must provide a rigorous financial analysis that quantifies what cost of ownership or rent will result from market development of a number of representative properties, then quantify how much subsidy would be required to bring those units into the affordable range. Without knowing this and addressing it, we're abdicating our responsibility (self-imposed or state-imposed) to diversity. This requirement is in addition to and beyond the need to address needs of current citizens.

4. The Town must not include such a large contingency.

The Town staff chose to include a much larger than required contingency thus suggesting that more than necessary new housing be developed. This contingency is irresponsible, unnecessary and should be removed entirely. The Town should only commit to the bare minimum number of new dwellings and this approach is fully supported by anaylsis of our unique physicl and natural cinrcumstances. The Town asserts it took physical conditions into account in suggesting the large contingency, but I have reviewed numerous documents (from a member of the Ad Hoc committee) on the public record that clearly question those calculations. (I can supply the specifics if needed. I specifically object to development at Ford field area, especially while it is still possible that Stanford Wedge project may also be constructed. Both

4 will add outrageous amounts of traffic to Alpine Road, which as stated above is basically the ONLY egress for residents.. The only way to develop along Alpine is to convert Arastradero Road into a better, multi-lane road. Has the Town begun negotiations with Palo Alto for that? The Town must develop a sequences evacuation plan for uphill residents before any additional housing along Alpine Road. I can support some limited site-specific designation but near City Hall along Portola Road, but not Ford Field or any other location along Alpine Road.

Said differently, need do not have and we need a quantitative analysis of evacuation capacity and times. People think Ford Park offers the best evacuation potential for new construction; maybe it does for those rnew esidents, but what about those of us uphill who will be trapped once Alpine Road near Ford Field and Ladera reaches gridlock? It’s stupid to call Ford Park a good option for evacuation. Town Hall or Sping Down area is much better – at least it adds the new population to an area where they will not STOP the current residents from egress. The population of Ladera is about 1/3 that of PV and their evacuation is between Ford Field and 280.

God forbid there's a fire in or approaching Ladera. Their evacuation would take priority. Then what happens if we have an earthquake up hill? Will you people please think for a change? It would be a welcome approach. Remarkably, at this stage of the process and after all these mis- guided efforts, we don't know how we’d evacuate. IT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE, ARBITRARY AND

CAPRICIOUS FOR THE PV TOWN TO AGREE TO DEVELOP ANY

ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO MEANINGFULLY
ANWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT EGRESS IN AN EMERGENCY. PV
should have appealed its RHNA number, which was based on a flawed methodology and did not include the numerous disastrous physical and natural phenomena here. ing a purely empirical analysis that, despite claims that the methodology took our high fire hazard into account, in fact the methodology systematically and excessively burdened high-hazard communities.

5. The Element appropriately encourages the development of accessory dwelling units (ADU) but fails to fully evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of this approach.

5 I do support the addition of ADUs in limited circumstances, such as homes with 2- acre parcels, with application of all relevant zoning, building laws. But a lot of ADUs will create some area-wide impacts which must be addressed in advance. I’d suggest the Town create some kind of “new housing impacts: fund to deal with cumulative impacts. [I’ll say in passing, this (i.e. cumulative impacts) is a critical concern under CEQA but not addressed in a site-by-site approach.] This is a really good point. I've been pushing ADUs and JADUs but in the back of my mind recognizing that they're not appropriate throughout PV given the wildfire hazard and evacuation issues. Those can be addressed on a parcel by parcel basis (if a TC is willing to do so. The current TC isn't.), but I suspect the cumulative impact can only be assessed through a CEQA mechanism.

6. Since low income housing is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA” hereinafter) PV MUST develop a detailed environmental impact standard the will require identification and evaluation of environmental impacts (as defined in CEQA) and appropriate mitigation.

As a long-time development and environmental attorney, I’m appalled that the legislature in 2007 passed a law making low income housing is exempt from CEQA. Given then exemption, the Town of PV MUST, in the Element or before it is sent to the State, adopt a Town law that requires a complete environmental review of all the topics listed in Appendix G CEQA and commits to mitigation of significant impacts. Otherwise, the ELEMENT IS A COMPLETE DEROGATION OF THE TOWN’S DUTY TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF CITIZENS. Prior to allowing low income developments, PV Town must require all impacts be identified and mitigated BY THE DEVELOPER OF LOW INCOME HOUSING as a condition of building permit approval. Doing so is well within the authority of the Town to protect the public health and safety of citizens.

I recognize, that unlike CEQA, the Town is not required to respond to comments. I recognize that many people have put a lot of effort into Element, however, I believe very strongly, that the suppositions and basic approach biased those efforts bady in

6 favor of a state-favored outcome that failed completely to address the specific physical, natural circumstances that make PV unfit for the one-size fits all legislation on housing. It is truly irresponsible of our public officials to fail to protect the rights, health and safety of exisiting residents at the benefit of “looking like a good town” to some arbitrary state agency. The Element is a disaster at many levels and the approach taken has unnecessarily precipitated excessively numerous controversies.

It’s a sad state of government affairs.

Respectfully Submitted:

Lynda L. Brothers
30 Bear Paw
Portola Valley, CA

7/7/22, 5:37 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6548 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6548
IP Address 2603:7080:4f40:4f00:f871:17ef:61fa:6915
Submission Recorded On 07/04/2022 10:02 AM
Time to Take the Survey 13 minutes, 59 secs.

First and Last Name
Debra and Tom West
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
California
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Dear Town of Portola valley Council,
We bought our property on Goya Rd in 1989, because of the rural character of the town, and loving the peace and quiet. We don't want to see that character destroyed due to developers wanting to make huge profits at the expense of the people that have worked hard to be able to live and raise families, and retire in this beautiful and scenic town. Please remove the opt-in-up-zoning from the housing element.

Thank you,
Debra and Tom West
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:37 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6549 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6549
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:1129:4c15:e190:1e75
Submission Recorded On 07/04/2022 3:20 PM
Time to Take the Survey 34 minutes, 55 secs.

First and Last Name
Robin V Chapman
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portolla Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Dear Planning Committee,
Please keep Glenoaks Riding Stables/Academy! Glenoaks emulates everything that is Portola Valley. Portola Valley's founding fathers designed this tow to emphasize specific principals of a senic rural corridor with a strong active horse community. Glenoaks is the only teaching/training stable that prepares riders to compete at local and national shows representing Portola Valley. If you take away this stable, you are taking away the last teaching/showing stable left in Portola Valley. The others that are actually in Portola Valley are all boarding barns. Glenoaks also employs approximately 30 local people who are skilled horsemen and horsewomen who count on Glenoaks for their livelihood.

One of Glenoaks mandate is to be environmentally green which gives this stable a strong connection to our residents by perserving Portola Valley's principals. Glenoaks protects the creek on the premises where Steelhead Trout live and thrive. Glenoaks owner wanted to build low income housing for their employees and paid over $100,000.00 in permit fees to only be stopped. It is my hope that Stanford and Glenoaks owner can resume this project.

If you take away Glenoaks, you are taking away the founding and cherished prinicipals of Portola Valley. My very best, Robin Chapman Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:37 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6550 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6550
IP Address 2600:387:6:803::28
Submission Recorded On 07/04/2022 3:58 PM
Time to Take the Survey 8 minutes, 9 secs.

First and Last Name
Elina kremer
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Isola riding academy
City
Hillsborough
State
CA
Zip Code
94010
Comment
My daughter is an animal lover. Horse riding is a great passion of hers. It was very hard to find any horse academies reasonably priced and having a great teachers. Not everyone can afford to have their own horse or lease it but lots of people wants to learn horse riding. Please let’s keep this place on its place and give kids and adults an opportunity to learn.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:37 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6552 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6552
IP Address 73.92.236.240
Submission Recorded On 07/05/2022 5:38 PM
Time to Take the Survey 0 minutes, 46 secs.

First and Last Name
Delaney Hintz
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Isola Riding Academy
City
los gatos
State
California
Zip Code
95032
Comment
As a 14 year old employee at Isola, as a former student at the riding school, as a neighbor who delights in seeing my little cousin ride horses at Isola, I believe that tearing down this beautiful establishment is not the right decision for the community. Seeing all of the people who are learning to ride, young and old, and delighting in horses and horseback riding makes me feel so happy. I discovered horseback riding one year ago when COVID 19 had just hit and it saved me from going down the wrong path in life. After a bad experience at one barn, Isola gave me the confidence to jump again and I don't think I'd be where I am today without it. After meeting some of my little cousins friends and seeing them ride together and have so much fun, I couldn't think of another place as amazing as Isola that they could get the same experience. There are so few places to horseback ride with the Silicon Valley hustle and bustle so having an accessible horseback riding facility benefits and enriches the community. So many people that I have met while working have never been on a horse or need the confidence to get back in the saddle after a hard fall; Isola gives them the confidence to get back on a horse or the excitement of getting on a horse for the first time! Whether you are young or old, experienced or inexperienced, you will have a good ride at Isola and maybe discover a new love of horses and the majestic sport horseback riding is.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:37 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6553 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6553
IP Address 76.14.27.239
Submission Recorded On 07/05/2022 7:07 PM
Time to Take the Survey 40 minutes, 29 secs.

First and Last Name
Vy Nguyen
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Redwood City
State
CA
Zip Code
94062
Comment
Dear Members of the Committee:

I agree that it is important to address housing for people before it becomes a problem of unhoused peoples. Attempting to rectify a housing shortage by building housing is a noble, and effective way of addressing a symptom of the issue, however the location of planned multi-family housing needs to be thoroughly considered. The proposal to develop housing on the south side of Alpine Road, at the current site of Glenoaks Stables and Isola Riding Academy, is a poor choice. The drawbacks are many, but what we will lose is a precious resource we cannot reclaim once developed. I lived this firsthand; the town I grew up in hosted the stables setting for the film National Velvet. Those stables were not a temporary movie set - it was a longrunning equestrian facility and an important center of community for hundreds of people. That facility, along with many acres of natural grassland, is gone forever. Houses attached to a never-ending stream of bumper to bumper car traffic plowed over rolling hills where wild turkeys, deer, eagles, and rabbits used to roam alongside horses and cattle. The developments also signaled the beginning of a change to the entire city. A thriving community of people who owned small business serving their city were replaced by commuters leaving daily and spending their money elsewhere. Along with the loss of small businesses was the eventual loss of community. I can hardly recognize the town I grew up in anymore. Look to the City of Walnut's history as a lesson in the harms of large scale development. Preserving Portola Valley's rural lifestyle and preserving its last equestrian facility does more to serve the community in Portola Valley and the greater Peninsula area than housing that would be more suitable in an urban location. Jobs, small businesses, recreation opportunities, and conservation of existing wildlife-friendly habitat is valuable, it is a scarce resource growing scarcer, and once gone cannot be replaced.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:38 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6555 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6555
IP Address 96.90.211.141
Submission Recorded On 07/06/2022 2:09 PM
Time to Take the Survey 17 minutes, 19 secs.

First and Last Name
Richard Crevelt
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Portola Valley Hardware
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Dear Committee,
As a local business owner and representing the business community of Portola Valley, we feel the Draft Housing Element Plan does not adequately address our concerns and interests in the community. As we have stated, and acknowledged by the committee, the local businesses in town are essential to the health and success of our community. As previously stated, if re-zoning is allowed, specifically referencing Program 8.5 without guidelines and ordinances that protect small local business from being evicted for re-development then the Housing plan is deficient from a comprehensive perspective of our essential business's. The housing element is also not entirely clear when referencing "re-zoning" vs "mixed-use zoning". In the segment of mixed use zoning it is stated that the only property eligible is 4370 Alpine Rd. There needs to be clarification that the other commercially / retail zoned properties are not and will not be included in any re-zoning. If this is not the case, then ordinances need to be established protecting the essential business in town.

Thank you,
Richard Crevelt, Pres. Portola Valley Business Association Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:38 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6554 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6554
IP Address 73.223.117.2
Submission Recorded On 07/06/2022 8:30 AM
Time to Take the Survey 11 minutes, 56 secs.

First and Last Name
Kurt Jaggers
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
1) I strongly oppose high density housing at Ford Field - that approach violates the PV general plan and also breaches a moral commitment made by the Town to the Ford family and PV community to preserve Ford Field as open space. 2) The Town needs to look more creatively at all of the land it controls/owns to distribute the affordable housing to multiple locations and avoid the current plan of placing 50 units on approximately one acre at Ford field. That is a terrible solution to more affordable housing in PV. 3) It is hard to take a position on opt-in zoning given no clarity on what rules the Town would create to limit and control this potentially very divisive policy.
4) I believe the Housing Element should be submitted after the local election 5) I keep hearing that the Housing Element needs to check all of the boxes and be approved on the first pass by the HCD. That makes NO sense to me.

The Town and its staff needs to have the courage and fortitude to strongly advocate for housing policies that assure safety and preserve the character of this town. If it takes a few passes to get to a solution with HCD so much the better the outcome will be. 6) Sunrise strategies that allow the Town more time to come up with better solutions is a great concept and should be pursued. I know everyone is tired and just wants to put this all behind them BUT the stakes are far too high to take that position. 7) I am OK with field and play spaces being relocated but PV should not lose any recreational facilities as part of this process.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:38 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6556 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6556
IP Address 98.37.234.130
Submission Recorded On 07/06/2022 3:14 PM
Time to Take the Survey 35 minutes, 27 secs.

First and Last Name
Jon Myers
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I don't know how and when "Dorothy Ford Park and Open Space" was changed to "Ford Field Housing Site", but I urge you to convert it back to open space and a baseball field. It would be a tragedy to lose this special piece of Portola Valley.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:38 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6557 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6557
IP Address 2601:647:6000:5350:4478:6c23:773a:bf75
Submission Recorded On 07/06/2022 4:42 PM
Time to Take the Survey 2 minutes, 52 secs.

First and Last Name
Craig Buchsbaum
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I am submitting written comments in the attached file. My comments focus on the "opt in" proposal and my prefererence for dense housiing development at town center rather than locations that would more directly impact individual parcels.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Town Council.docx *unable to download attachment; computer noted document was corrupted - DP 7/7/22

7/7/22, 5:39 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6558 1/2

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. Submitter DB ID 6558
IP Address 2602:306:3047:9860:2136:49d0:75a3:e61
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 9:57 AM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 15 secs.

First and Last Name
Robert and Susan Coffman
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment

7/7/22, 5:39 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6558 2/2

8. We wish to convey our sincere appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of the town staff and all the volunteer committee and council members in putting together this proposal.

We largely agree with the draft proposal and definitely support development of ADU’s and JADU’s. Clearly the most difficult decisions will be the siting of higher density housing. Some of the sites identified so far will not be large enough to place many units. While we would like to see more exploration o Town Center as a site for denser housing units, we recognize that among the few available choices, Ford Field may be the most viable alternative on which to build high density units to meet the RHNA requirements for lower income housing. *Good transportation access, along with safety considerations (both on the site itself and proximity to 280) make this site less impactful
*Although considered as open space, the site is not used for recreational activities we associate with other more substantial open spaces readily available. We understand the baseball field will remain available. The current RHNA requirements have likely put the Town in the position that it cannot honor all prior commitments to restricted land use, especially when the land is legally available for other uses. For Ford Field, the hopes of long ago donors should not be sufficient reason to prevent consideration of this site.

While we understand that it may be necessary to include a proposal for voluntary upzoning of individual residential properties, we think it should be avoided if possible. Voluntary up zoning will likely raise a number of complicated issues for neighbors whose properties lie next to those up-zoned.

In the context of RHNA requirements and SB9, we think that safety considerations should be given a very high priority. With higher density housing, it may not be possible to site buildings at an ideal distance apart, but it should be possible to insist on fire resistant building principles, along with earthquake engineering.

Overall, we are comfortable with the current draft of the Housing Element. We believe it is a good faith effort to meet onerous state requirements and to balance the many community concerns that have been raised.

Sincerely
Robert Coffman Susan Coffman
239 Echo Lane, Portola Valley
July 5, 2022
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:39 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6559 1/2

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. Submitter DB ID 6559
IP Address 2601:646:ca80:9f60:2dfe:a5b4:b0cb:e10f
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 10:54 AM
Time to Take the Survey 1 minutes, 37 secs.

First and Last Name
Catherine Magill
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Conservation Committee
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment

7/7/22, 5:39 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6559 2/2

8. The Conservation Committee understands that The Town is facing a very difficult task trying to accommodate state mandated housing while honoring both the letter and the spirit of the Portola Valley General Plan. We appreciate your careful and considered approach to the problem.

Guided by the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements of our General Plan, at our last meeting the Conservation Committee voted 6-0 with one abstention: "Portola Valley Conservation Committee strongly opposes any development on any of the Town’s dedicated Open Spaces.” The report the Committee of Committees sent to AHHEC in May (strong consensus from 7 of Town’s standing committees) included this: "Our Parks and Open Spaces should be fiercely protected from development. State laws now prohibit creating parks to avoid building housing, so it might be nearly impossible to create new parks in the future... There was much resistance to building on any of our public parklands... Demands on fields and courts has been increasing despite a stable population. They will be under increased strain with increased use from increased population. The Town should be not merely protecting our parks and open spaces but proactively looking for ways to increase them if possible…" The General Plan is our Constitution, not just a set of rules, and must be honored. Our rural nature, views, scenic corridors and open spaces are repeatedly mentioned and protected throughout the General Plan. It was a founding principle of The Town and is why most of us have chosen to live here.

We are wholeheartedly in favor of meeting our state obligations to plan for and build more housing, that too is critical. But it would be a terrible, irremediable loss to the Town to sacrifice our parks and open spaces to do so.

Thank you,
Catherine Magill
Chair, Conservation Committee
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:39 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6560 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6560
IP Address 2600:387:c:6c16::8
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 11:16 AM
Time to Take the Survey 2 minutes, 29 secs.

First and Last Name
Katherine Federle
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I’m writing to plead that we do not close any more equestrian facilities, ie. Glen Oaks, or trails in P.V.! I moved here in 1989 to be in a horse community not another urban housing development . Go else where for that and leave P.V,’s horse community alone! Thank you, Katherine Federle, P.V. resident on Meadowood Dr.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:39 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6561 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6561
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:84ec:f8a7:4346:77a7
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 11:27 AM
Time to Take the Survey 6 minutes, 49 secs.

First and Last Name
Keri Ng
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Glenoaks
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I'm writing to support and keep Glenoaks! I'm a life-long resident and it is disappointing to hear that a precious place like Glenoaks which provides so much enjoyment and value to the community is being considered for housing. Housing on this site will destroy the environment and the main principals that Portola Valley was founded. Under no circumstances should housing be allowed on this site. This area is reserved for preservation of space, nature and town culture.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:40 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6562 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6562
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:84ec:f8a7:4346:77a7
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 11:45 AM
Time to Take the Survey 16 minutes, 28 secs.

First and Last Name
Abi Mariani
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Glenoaks
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
My daughter recently started riding lessons at Glenoaks/Isola. She is LOVING it. She is a child that has not been too excited about any other sports and riding has been a blessing as it motivates her to take interest in something and learn a new skill. As someone who rode as a child, it is wonderful for me to be around the horses again. The staff are patient, experienced on what is needed for children to be successful. These well trained horsemen and women bring great joy to the children and anyone lucky enough to walk through their gates. In our current climate of school shootings, it is especially important to enable kids to develop self-confidence and aa venue for them to engaged in their communities. It would be a horror to take away yet another wonderful horse barn from Portola Valley. Choose another site that would be less damaging to our precious equestrian community.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:40 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6563 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6563
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:84ec:f8a7:4346:77a7
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 12:01 PM
Time to Take the Survey 15 minutes, 16 secs.

First and Last Name
Amy Chan
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Glenoaks
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Why would the planning committee destroy one of the last actively successful barns just to build housing when there are so many other choices to find land for housing? My whole family rides and loves this place. It's not just for kids, they have many programs for all levels. They routinely host publix BBQ's where we've met the neighbours and have had many wonderful experiences. My children and my friend's children are simply heartbroken knowing that you're even considering using Glenoaks to build more houses down an already too busy Alpine Road. Please let Glenoaks remain a stable part of our community.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:40 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=5&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6564 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6564
IP Address 107.137.68.5
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 12:01 PM
Time to Take the Survey 6 minutes, 13 secs.

First and Last Name
Susan Bennett
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) none
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I am VERY concerned about evacuation issues, we have too many people/animals already for the few exits to this town many avenues of escape have bollards blocking traffic. We cannot afford to have more housing anywhere, the fire danger is way too high and you need to address this as a town, it looks like you are neglecting those issues. btw I tried to register a jadu and was rebuffed , reason given was not a valid reason at all, looks like you really don't care about adding to your existing numbers in what could have been very easy way...how many others experienced this? makes me wonder.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:41 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6565 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6565
IP Address 170.203.217.218
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 12:33 PM
Time to Take the Survey 4 minutes, 29 secs.

First and Last Name
Anne Van Camp
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) WHOA!
City
Woodside
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Equestrian property owner in Portola Valley.

Please keep Glen Oaks/Isola stables. Do not remove the little culture we have!!! Horses 🐴 are magnificent creatures and offer a unique contact with nature to kids and adults who are surrounded by concrete and asphalt.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:41 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6566 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6566
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:84ec:f8a7:4346:77a7
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 12:59 PM
Time to Take the Survey 52 minutes, 24 secs.

First and Last Name
Michelle Snape
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Glenoaks
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I wanted to let you know what a gift Glenoaks Stables has been to our family. Our middle child has always had a love for animals especially horses since she was a toddler. We tried some other riding stables, but had to leave because of poor management and unreliable teachers. My daughter has been at Glenoaks now for over a year and this is her second home. She has grown up so much from her experiences there, the grounds are stunning and all the people including other riders are inviting. Our daughter is the middle child of two high achieving siblings and it was only at Glenoaks that she was able to find her self esteem and build her confidence. During this pandemic, riding was the one thing she was able to do which lifted her spirits tremendously She has become so proficient in her skills that at only 14 years old she is spending her summers there as a camp counsellor. Her experiences at Glenoaks will impact her for a lifetime. I cannot think of another facility that has impacted the lives of so many horse/nature lover young and old. Thank you for your consideration, Michelle Snape
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:41 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6567 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6567
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:84ec:f8a7:4346:77a7
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 1:14 PM
Time to Take the Survey 8 minutes, 37 secs.

First and Last Name
Tina Peacock
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Glenoaks
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Though we understand that low income housing is important, it should absolutely not be at the expense of Glenoaks Stables. My daughter loves her time with the horses and it's an excellent facility where my family enjoys spending time there. Please do not touch such a precious part of our family. It would destroy my daughter.

Kindly, Tina Peacock
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:41 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6568 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6568
IP Address 2600:1700:9920:96b0:84ec:f8a7:4346:77a7
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 1:19 PM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 21 secs.

First and Last Name
Nicole G
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) GLenoaks
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Please do not destroy our beloved horse stables/academy. Horse riding is so therapeutic for my son and is such a huge part of his life.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:42 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6569 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6569
IP Address 50.202.202.62
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 1:56 PM
Time to Take the Survey 9 minutes, 3 secs.

First and Last Name
Arianna Nuri
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
City
Los Altos
State
CA - California
Zip Code
94022
Comment
Good Afternoon,
OnbehalfoftheMidpeninsula RegionalOpenSpaceDistrict,we respectfully submitthe attachedcomments regarding the Town of Portola Valley’s Draft Housing Element.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this item. Should you have any questions about this letter, please contact Jane Mark, Planning Manager, at [email protected] or (650) 625-6563.

Kind regards,
Arianna Nuri
Planner I
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Midpen Comment Letter_TPV Housing Element Update 2023-2031.docx.pdf

July 7, 2022
Laura Russell, AICP, Planning & Building Director
Town of Portola Valley
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: [email protected] and [email protected] Subject: Town of Portola Valley Draft Housing Element Update (2023-2031) Comments

Dear Ms. Russell:

On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Town of Portola Valley (Town) draft Housing Element Update for 2023-2031. Midpen has been following the Housing Element Update process and appreciates the Town’s public engagement process and its emphasis on open space preservation as it considers how best to address the region’s housing needs.

Comprised of over 65,000 acres of acquired and protected open space on the San Francisco Peninsula, Midpen is one of the largest regional open space districts in California. Our braided mission is to acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space and agricultural land of regional significance, to protect and restore the natural environment, to preserve rural character and encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and to provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.

While much of Midpen’s open space lands are along the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains, Midpen owns and manages Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Preserve), which is located in the Town of Portola Valley adjacent to The Sequoias retirement community (APN 79200030). Based on The Sequoias’ proximity to the Preserve, we would like to share specific considerations regarding the Housing Element Update and the proposed intensification of The Sequoias to include 23 additional housing units, which is incorporated within the Housing Element Update.

Conservation Easements
Midpen holds open space and conservation easements over portions of The Sequoias property (recorded December 21, 2004). The open space easement is intended to preserve and protect in perpetuity the natural, scenic, and open space values of an approximately 3.84-acre portion of The Sequoias parcel (see Attachment 1). As stated in Section 4.c of this recorded easement, “[t]he placement or construction of any buildings, structures or other improvements of any kind on the Open Space Easement Property (including without limitation, fences, roads, signs and DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

parking lots) is prohibited, excepting, however, the existing improvements thereon and the maintenance, repair and use of said improvements.”
A separate conservation easement applies to an approximately 1.96-acre portion of The Sequoias parcel to preserve and protect the natural, scenic, and open space values of the easement property in perpetuity. In accordance with Section 2.c of this easement, the Northern California Presbyterian Homes & Services (Grantor) will provide a 30-day written notice to Midpen prior to any application to a government entity for a new development within the Easement property to ensure consistency with conditions of the Easement and request written approval from Midpen (see Attachment 2). The conservation easement allows development but includes restrictions on that development. Midpen has shared a copy of these two easements with Mr. Ray Boudewyn of The Sequoias.

Conservation Values
Notably, a portion of this parcel is designated as Essential Habitat by the Conservations Lands Network1 due to its significant conservation value and contribution to interconnected landscapes that are critical to safeguarding healthy ecosystems. Although intensified development may be necessary to meet the region’s housing needs, increased human activity— particularly from light, noise, and chemical applications, such as rodenticides— negatively harms proximate ecological systems. As such, care must be taken to ensure the pattern of development considers the vital role of natural and working lands in sustaining our society, as well as the ecological systems that depend on them.

Defensible Space
Defensible space vegetation clearing for fire safety can impact open space natural resources.

Planned developments adjacent to public open space lands should be situated so that necessary clearing for structure protection can be conducted on the private parcel and not encroach on protected public lands that preserve native habitat and wildlife corridors. In addition, the responsibility for defensible space maintenance should also fall on the private property owner that benefits from the built development. Extending the necessary clearance onto public open space lands risks transferring the cost of annual structure clearance maintenance from the private owner to the public taxpayer.

Recreational Access
The Town’s Sequoia Trail provides an important access to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve and the opportunity for a short loop trail when combined with Preserve trails. Care should be taken to ensure that the physical trail, as well as the trail experience, are preserved.

Given the conditions of the easements on the property and the inherent conservation values of the site, Midpen respectfully asks the Town to ensure new developments associated with The Sequoias are mindful of adjacent protected open space lands and regional conservation goals. 1 https://www.bayarealands.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CLN%202.0%20Final%20Report.Web.pdf DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

To this end, Midpen would appreciate additional housing units being located as far away from the preserve as is feasible.

Sincerely,
Ana Ruiz
General Manager
CC:

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager
Jane Mark, Planning Manager
Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager, Town of Portola Valley
Attachments

1. Open Space Easement

2. Conservation Easement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 540495F5-43D7-4818-AB44-F8624F6FD00E

7/7/22, 5:42 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6570 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6570
IP Address 2600:1700:a460:2300:f52d:ca89:483e:51fa
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 3:53 PM
Time to Take the Survey 6 minutes, 52 secs.

First and Last Name
Adam Arnon
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Menlo Park
State
CA
Zip Code
94025
Comment
In short, I think that Glenoaks is part of the fabric and charm of this area. I believe that it would be a huge mistake to build a complex at that spot.

I also want to emphasize that I'm fully aware, and am very personally impacted, from the high housing prices. Saying that, there are far better ways to bring down the housing costs than the proposed plan. We are constantly saying "believe the science", as we should, but then go on and push programs that have little to no scientific merit. This is a prime example of it.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:42 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6571 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6571
IP Address 137.184.42.185
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 4:09 PM
Time to Take the Survey 52 minutes, 32 secs.

First and Last Name
Lucia Steinhilber
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
Please do not push out Isola/Glenoaks equestrian from Portola Valley. One of the iconic aspects of this community is it’s horse-friendly reputation and tradition. Let’s strive to keep this establishment which keeps the Alpine corridor horse-aware! We love the horses here even if we don’t have one ourselves. As an illustration of this and the calming love horses exude which help humans, a wonderful one-eyed mule on Westridge named Mulysses recently passed away and so many PV residents walked by him every day on their rambles and petted him—we all miss him and the quiet positivity he radiated. Glenoaks is similar but important in a different way as they give lessons and educate us about equines. Let’s protect this treasure! Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

7/7/22, 5:42 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6572 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6572
IP Address 2601:647:6000:28d0:c06e:30a8:86c3:e7cc
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 5:17 PM
Time to Take the Survey 0 minutes, 57 secs.

First and Last Name
Karen Askey
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
See uploaded PDF. Thanks.

Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Askey - Housing Element Draft Comments 7:7:22.pdf

July 7, 2022
Although I have submitted earlier comments on the Housing Element (HE) Draft, I have follow-up thoughts after attending the two Planning Commission Meetings on 6/15/22 and 6/29/22, the 6/20/22 AHHEC meeting, reviewing public comments and speaking with other residents..

I have attended all the AHHEC meetings in 2022. The Committee and staff worked long hours through a difficult situation, however, I don’t feel that the Committee decisions were reflective of the majority of the resident comments and concerns. Many residents are frustrated about this.

As Commissioner Targ aptly stated, PV’s General Plan is the Constitution of our town, and should drive all planning decisions. Simply put, the Housing Element should follow the General Plan and not vice versa. The General Plan is very specific about the intent of the gateway into Portola Valley and Alpine Road as the scenic corridor. We must make every effort to remain true to the plan.

The current HE Draft has strong potential to change our General Plan, through high-density and overdevelopment. What we decide today will shape the future of Portola Valley for our children and for hundreds of years after us.

Through a creative “sunrise” proposal, our Planning Commission members (Targ, Taylor, Hasko) all support the concept that more time will help ensure our commitment to the General Plan, and provide for us to learn and/or create new alternatives. Since the HE draft was released, we’ve already had new suggestions to ask about Affiliate Housing at Hawthorns, to develop a campaign for donations for our Inclusionary Housing Fund to buy more appropriate property for development, relocating a sports field, and a few others. All ideas are worthy of exploring in further depth. Please review the Colleagues Memo of 6/29/22 by Commissioners Targ and Taylor.

We should amend the current Housing Element Draft to adhere to our General Plan and more accurately reflect the majority of resident viewpoints. Specifically:
* Adopt a “sunrise” provision into the Draft, which delays the higher-density projects (Dorothy Ford Park, Glen Oaks and 4375 Alpine Road) while we explore other alternatives and fill our housing mandate through lower-density projects. On page 33 of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, with respect to timing of rezoning, it states “A locality’s ability to accommodate needed housing during the planning period requires designating appropriate zoning as early as possible. Generally, however, a rezoning should occur no later than three years and 120 days from the beginning of the planning period.”
* Increase the number of targeted ADUs/JADUs and immediately begin the push for ADUs/JADUs and survey residents at once . Ms. Russell stated that out of the 16 ADUs

targeted for 2022, 1 is a JADU. At 2022’s pace we would develop 128 units, and that is without formalized programs in place - clearly, we have tremendous opportunity here. (HE Draft, page 91). Thirty more units over our existing plan can eliminate one project such as 4375 Nathorst or Glen Oaks. Create and deliver education, marketing and incentive programs (utilizing the Inclusionary Housing Fund) promptly. Move all programs listed in Section 7, Goals, Policies and Programs, up on the timeline, starting them immediately.

Pages 30 and 31 of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook discusses different methodologies to our 30/30/30/10 income-level for ADUs, as well as on how to project the targeted number of units. Admittedly, more work for staff, there a other methods we can employ to increase our target numbers and validate why JADUs would fall into very-low or low income levels, due to the 500 SF limit, number of bedrooms, or calculating the average price per square foot of a rental JADU in Portola Valley. Language pulled verbatim from the HCD document is as follows:
“• Potential for accessory dwelling units (ADU) or junior accessory dwelling units (JADU): The jurisdiction can count the potential for the development of ADUs within the planning period. The analysis is based on the following factors:
- the number of ADUs or JADUs developed in the prior planning period - community need and demand for these types of housing units - the resources and/or incentives available that will encourage the development of ADUs - the availability of ADUs and JADUs for occupancy, rather than used as offices or guest houses
- the unit must meet the Census definition of a housing unit, which can be found on the U.S.

Census Bureau website, and be reported to the Department of Finance as part of the annual City and County Housing Unit Change Survey
- the anticipated affordability of these units. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the appropriate RHNA income category to be accommodated through ADU and JADU development.

Affordability can be determined in a number of ways. As an example, a community could survey existing ADUs and JADUs for their current market rents and consider other factors such as square footage, number of bedrooms, amenities, age of the structure and general location, including proximity to public transportation. Another method could examine current market rents for reasonably comparable rental properties to determine an average price per square foot in the community. This price can be applied to anticipated sizes of these units to estimate the anticipated affordability of ADUs and JADUs. Available regional studies and methodology on ADU affordability can also be a resource to determine the likely affordability mix for ADUs and JADUs. - other relevant factors as determined by HCD.

In addition, the housing element must describe and analyze any currently adopted ordinance and other factors that could affect ADU and JADU development within the planning period. At a minimum, the housing element should analyze whether the ordinance conforms with state ADU and JADU requirements and any additional development standards (i.e., setbacks, maximum unit sizes, lot coverage, etc.) adopted by the local government, zones allowing ADUs, fees and exactions, and any other potential constraints impacting the development of ADUs and JADUs.

Since 2017, the Legislature has passed a series of new laws that significantly increase the potential for development of new ADUs and JADUs by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing element that incentivize their development. As a result, using trend analysis when estimating the potential for development may not accurately reflect the increased potential for these units. To account for this increased potential, HCD recommends the following options when performing this analysis:
• Use the trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production. This is a conservative option to only account for the effect of the new laws without local promotional efforts or incentives (safe harbor option).
• Where no other data is available, assume an average increase of five times the previous planning period construction trends prior to 2018. This option is a conservative estimate based upon statewide data on ADU development since the implementation of the new laws (safe harbor option).
• Use trends from regional production of ADUs.
• Include programs that aggressively promote and incentivize ADU and JADU construction.
• Other analysis (reviewed on a case-by-case basis).

Potential affordability of these units must still be calculated per the analysis outlined on the previous page. In addition to the above options, the element should also include a monitoring program that a) tracks ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and b) commits to a review at the planning cycle mid-point to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved. Depending on the finding of that review, amendments to the housing element may be necessary, including rezoning pursuant to Government Code 65583.2 (h)and (i).” (Note: we must be cautious to use 2020 and 2021 construction numbers due to the impact of Covid closures and uncertainties.)
* As JADUs are new and very different types from ADUs, separate them out on the HE draft, and discuss a different income allocation with HCD. Portola Valley can make a strong argument that JADUs should fall in the Very Low and Low-Income categories, given the limit of 500 square feet attached to a main house. Portola Valley currently has hundreds of homes with rooms with separate entrances that could easily convert to a JADU. Again, we need to survey our residents immediately to show the proof to the state. * Eliminate the controversial opt-in program and replace them with SB-9 units (HE draft, page 96). Please refer to the Planning Commission meeting transcript of 6/29/22 which validates this suggestion.
* Eliminate the buffer on known-projects - the Wedge and Willow Commons - as well as at Ford Field, as it is under town control. Those three projects total 102 units, equating to a decrease of 20 units in the buffer. (HE Draft, page 89)

* Decrease the buffer on above-moderate units, as the buffer is more important for VLI, LI and Moderate levels . “To reduce the likelihood of having to rezone, it is a best practice to have 15 to 30+ percent more units listed in the inventory than are required to meet a jurisdiction’s RHNA. This is especially important for the moderate, low and very low-income categories.”
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-10/RHNA_Buffer_Document_Final.pdf) * Continue to explore alternatives to developing at Dorothy Ford Park . It is clear that Tom Ford was one of the original founders/donors of the Open Space Acquisition Fund, and donated money for the specific purpose of creating Dorothy Ford Park as open space in perpetuity. Even if we can legally negate Tom Ford’s request, I call on the Town Council to make the right moral decision. The “sunrise” provision allows the Town to explore other alternatives first.
* With respect to the HE draft page 95 regarding utility improvements, has a study been performed to show that it will be economically feasible for property owners to cover this expense? Are we being realistic or should we provide economic incentives for utility improvements?
* On the HE draft page 99, Table 6-6, why is 4395 Alpine Road heavily weighted to the Moderate Income and Above Market Income units? Shouldn’t the income distribution be weighted toward very low and low-income, as it is designated at 20 du/acre? * With the adoption of the Sunrise provision, we should change the order of Goals, Policies & Programs, putting higher-density projects towards the end and other development consistent with our General Plan first.
* Allow for 20 du/acre projects only on Town-owned property, in order to control bonus density.
* Immediately begin a donation/funding program for the PV Inclusionary Housing Fund in order to purchase future property for additional housing which is consistent with the General Plan. Make a strong, continuous push to educate and market this program to residents. Many folks will donate if they know it will be used to save open space and create lower-density projects.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. As I’ve mentioned in prior meetings, I am happy to help with fundraising efforts, marketing programs, or the like.

Karen Askey
119 Groveland Street

7/7/22, 5:43 PM Manage Survey Statistics - Text Report
https://www.portolavalley.net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page=6&size=30&formId=75&itemID=94609&id=6573 1/1

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Submitter DB ID 6573
IP Address 2601:647:6000:3560:bc03:ffa9:6800:f495
Submission Recorded On 07/07/2022 5:19 PM
Time to Take the Survey 3 minutes, 35 secs.

First and Last Name
Susan Hine
Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.) Not answered
City
Portola Valley
State
CA
Zip Code
94028
Comment
I am concerned about the two very large Oak trees in the property next to the baseball diamond and Ford Field.

Those trees are so old and valuble they should be preserved and not removed.

Will that leave enough space for building in that location? Thank you
Susan Hine
Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

1 Dylan Parker
From: Brigitte Hajos
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:06 AM
To: housing
Subject: Glen Oaks/Isola Riding Facility Closure in Favor of New Housing - Public Comment NO Dear Housing Committee:

Woodside and Portola Valley are some of the last equestrian bastions in the Silicon Valley area. They are horse land and closing still more horse riding facilities pushes horses and equestrians out of The Valley. Too many public riding facilities have been closed and we are losing precious opportunities to save the sport and these precious animals. When riding facilities close horses are sold off. Many are put down or end up in slaughter houses if there are no imminent buyers.

Horses are majestic creatures with therapeutic powers far beyond most people’s understanding. When horses are trained to participate in equestrian sports everyone wins, children, adults and even the autistic and handicapped as horses can be used for movement therapy.

Every time a horse facility is closed Portola Valley loses more of its horse community flair and more cars come to the roads. More cars means horses and riders are more endangered and pushed out of the area. Crossing the roads to trails is already so difficult because of cars going too fast. We need more awareness to equestrians and not less.

What we need to do is to designate horse riding facilities as public lands like parks. So the public never loses the connection to these precious animals and the equestrian way in Portola Valley is preserved.

Sincerely,
Brigitte Hajos
Equestrian and Horse Lover

1 Dylan Parker
From:

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 4:07 PM
To: [email protected]; housing
Subject: #Housing #INFO Housing Element comments
These are my personal opinions (not as the PVForum moderator). I do not work for any government agency.

I want to start with giving a huge thanks to the volunteers on the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee, Town Council members, and to the Town Planning department that have spent the hours and hours of time and effort on behalf of the Town working to craft a reasonable Housing Element solution. The draft Housing Element has a lot of well thought out proposals.

However, I am opposed to the proposal to build a 50‐unit housing complex on the open space next to Ford Field. This sets a dangerous precedent for our town. A very large, high‐density complex on our open space does not match our Town charter or character and does not protect our open space. Putting housing on open space, tearing down the ancient Oak trees that symbolize our town and our very commitment to preserving our natural surroundings, and planning for potentially three‐story buildings is an unfortunate choice to meet the housing mandate. In addition, the plan would destroy even more open space to add an undefined “community space.”  The concentration of these households in one area at the edge of town suggests there is little intention to have these families integrate into the Portola Valley community. Are we saying that these very low‐income households of essential workers are “undesirable” and should be kept apart from the rest of the Town, should be confined in their own tight space with inadequate parking, should not be integrated into our Town life, and should not use our existing community amenities?? Why do we want to concentrate the housing for essential workers in one place, on our public open space? I completely understand the rationale (the State gives 100% affordable housing credit for 20 units/acre zoning whether affordable housing is actually built or not), but I cannot justify placing a huge high‐density complex on our limited open space at Ford Field and crowding our community playing field.

I firmly believe that we can produce other, better alternatives that spread those 50 affordable homes more around town.

We really do not want to communicate the message to HCD that our open space is available for building high density housing. This would be simply telling HCD that all our open space is now available for housing. Just because it is an expedient way of meeting HCD’s guidelines that are really meant for higher density cities with a lot of infill lots along public transportation corridors does not mean that it makes sense for Portola Valley, our charter, and our challenging geography. It has been abundantly clear through hours and hours of work and testimony, that Portola Valley residents want a more dispersed solution to meet state mandates with lower density housing and smaller units spread around town and not built on open space.

I’d like to ask that we consider some more ideas to find replacement units for those 50 very low‐income affordable units at Ford Field. I’m listing several, some of which are new and others which focus more attention on some of the ideas that have been advanced already.

I ask that residents in Town keep in mind that the core idea is to disperse more lower density affordable housing throughout the safer areas in Town. That means many more properties will need to step up to consider some of these ideas and volunteer to add new housing, particularly affordable housing, to their properties and everyone in the vicinity of those properties will need to accept the need for a few more homes on their street. One hopes that when

2 faced with either ruining Ford Field and our open space or having a few new neighbors of all income levels, everyone in Town will be willing to be more open‐minded, generous, and welcoming.

1. Money. There is NO other more compelling rationale to demonstrate our commitment to building affordable housing units in Town than to raise the money to do so upfront. If we expand our affordable housing fund to $25 to $30 million (or more) and establish that the money is for low/no cost loans and partial grants to build affordable units for very low‐income households on properties spread throughout the safe areas in Town, then we make the most concrete indication that the housing will actually be built which is HCD’s main priority in approving a housing element. That sum of money should cover ~50 small to medium affordable housing units (avg ~700 sf, ranging from 300 to 1200 sf.) An established fund of money set aside with detailed requirements for its use will ensure that property owners in Town who have the available space and interest in building an ADU or “plex” type housing will be able to do so without money being the constraint. Key to our Housing Element for Portola Valley is providing HCD with a plan that is realistic in its execution, i.e., that has a very high probability of having the affordable housing units built. We need to put money behind that to emphasize our commitment to our plan. It is very important for Portola Valley to establish upfront how critical it is to retain our natural character while putting in place money and realistic plans to welcome a wider range of incomes among us.

2. Specific List of Committed ADUs:  we have spoken at length about the potential risk of providing a plan that is made up of mainly ADUs, many of which are unlikely to be rented out at affordable rates. However, we have not spoken enough about ways to reduce that HCD denial risk. The simplest way is to establish:
a. Money to specifically build affordable rentals as mentioned already. Specifying that the affordable housing fund will be used to provide low/no interest loans and grants to residents to help pay for these ADUs in exchange for affordable housing rents with additional incentives made for units with 2‐3 bedrooms to accommodate a family. Residents could build their ADU and use the affordable rent to pay back the loan, with the property owner eventually gaining complete ownership of the structure after a specified number of years.
b. Specifying individual property addresses that plan to add housing is the most realistic way of rationalizing the use of ADUs and low density housing proposals. c. Provide a list of specific properties where residents are willing to commit to building an affordable ADU/ Jr ADU that would be rented out.
d. Provide a list of specific properties where residents wish to turn an accessory building into an ADU or regularize an unpermitted structure into an ADU or turn internal space into an internal ADU. e. Provide a list of specific properties where residents wish to voluntarily up zone their property. f. The Town needs to make plans to contract with an affordable housing group to provide the logistics, screening, and management of the rentals for the low‐income housing built with the Town fund loans and grants. Providing that service will make having affordable ADUs much more realistic for the Town and easier to administer for residents. (in the plan already) g. Building costs in the Bay Area create significant impediments to building and the massive increased costs of building in Portola Valley don’t help. Smaller makes sense when building affordable homes. If Belmont considers 540 sf for one bedroom, 815 sf for two bedrooms and 935 sf for 3 bedrooms to be reasonable for their affordable housing site, there’s little reason for us to plan for any larger units to meet our affordable housing goals. Working with ADU builders to design units that fit in with the style of PV homes would go a long way to making it easier for residents to add them to their properties. Working with soils, civil, and structural engineers to provide more “generic” plans for these structures that take into account the usual (and unusual) PV soil conditions would also reduce soft and construction costs.  (in the plan already)

3. Empty lots. Completely missing from the latest Housing Element plan is a listing of the current vacant, privately‐ owned property in Town. Although we have only a few such undeveloped lots, they should definitely be specifically listed in the plan for new housing, even if it is only for one SFR and one market rate ADU (or two for