3 larger empty properties). It seems the Town should contact all the owners of these vacant lots to find out what their plans are and inform them of their available options. The lots can build a new home with one or more ADUs. Assuming the lot is in a safer area of town, SB9 allows each of those empty lots to be turned into 4 homes with AMFA square footage limits (2 larger homes and 2 smaller adus.) or split into two lots with two units on each. Voluntarily up zoning the lot to 4 medium size homes could help us with the numbers and spread more of the new housing around the Town. Perhaps bumping up AMFA square footage (modestly) as an incentive to make some of the units affordable will spur the owners to build one or more affordable units on their empty property. Considering allowing these lots to be split into smaller ¼ acre or ½ acre lots would allow for more affordable home ownership without affecting the neighborhoods. The reality is probably half the residents of Portola Valley live on less than half an acre and there has been no decrease in home values for Portola Valley in recent years in these areas of higher density. The opposite, actually.
4. Affordable housing at Woodside Priory. If the affordable housing builder considers it viable to build 50 units at Ford field, then why are we not speaking with the Woodside Priory about developing some of their acreage into higher density affordable housing and helping them source the funding. If there is state and federal grant money available, why not work with the Priory to help fund the building of additional housing on their property? They have large empty lots at 200 and 210 Portola Road at Gambetta as well as in the back of their property totaling more than 5 vacant acres. A combination of federal, state, local, and private grants and donations along with a low/no interest loan could allow WP to move forward with additional housing for their staff and for others who work in town or educators at other schools. With 5 acres to work with, 50 affordable units are feasible at lower density than proposed at Ford Field.
5. Sequoias: They have proposed 23 units, all of them moderate or above. Perhaps they can be convinced to add 5 additional affordable smaller units to their site plans. Helping with funding for those affordable units might make them more viable.
6. Older properties: We need to take a look at all the properties that have not changed hands in more than 40 years (and have not had had any significant remodeling). After a few hours on the computer, I created a spreadsheet of 75 properties of 1 acre, 2 acre, or 3+ acres in the safer parts of Town that according to Zillow have not changed hands in 40, 50, even 60 years and would appear to have not done any major remodeling. The list is by no means exhaustive. Many of these properties are owned by residents who are in their 80’s and 90’s and many have a high likelihood of changing hands during the next 8 years. Others are currently rented out after their elderly owners passed away. These properties very probably all have the space to add an ADU (or 2 ADUs for the larger properties). The owners (or heirs) may be very interested in doing so if funds were available at low cost. The current owners might want to build housing for their adult children or relatives to allow them to return to Portola Valley. They might be interested in adding 3 SB9 units or splitting their property in half for a total of 4 units to put the property in a better position to be handed down to their children. They could volunteer to modestly up zone their property to 4 units/acre if their property meets safety guidelines, which would increase the value of their property if they want to develop it or split it into smaller lots and sell them. Further study is necessary to determine owner interest, feasibility, safety, privacy, etc. The Town should contact them to understand what their future plans are for their properties. It’s important that these owners be informed that they have many more options for their properties than they did just a few years ago. If each of those large properties added just one affordable ADU, we could eliminate the Ford Field apartments. Furthermore, having 4 medium homes on a very few of the flatter two‐ or three‐acre properties, if well designed and screened, would have little impact on the neighbors.
In addition, there are many larger older properties in town that have changed hands in the past 20 years but have also not made any changes to the properties, and many have all these same options as well for adding some housing if the property meets safety guidelines. The more people who sign up to add some additional housing to their property, the more the new units can be spread around at low density. Remember, the point is to find 50‐100 properties willing to add one or more affordable housing units so that we can eliminate the 50‐ unit affordable apartment complex planned for Ford Field. Current zoning rules currently put size limits on the
4 total square footage of all the units on a property and even if AMFA was modestly increased to encourage more ADUs, the effects on the surrounding neighborhood would likely be minimal.
7. Small zoning changes. Giving homeowners some additional floor area if they are willing to build an ADU (with increased floor area if it is rented out affordably for a specified amount of time) might spur some of the larger properties to add an ADU to their property. Additional incentives for affordable housing should be created.
Modest changes to the zoning code that allows larger ADUs instead of a larger house and a smaller ADU might help encourage a few new homes on properties.
8. “Plex‐type” housing units where duplex, triplex or quadplex units are built to look like one main structure so that the new homes might fit better into some of the neighborhoods. Four homes totaling 7000 sf could be designed to look just like one McMansion of the same size of which we have several.
9. Small cottage cluster housing projects with significant screening with the neighbors and privacy between units.
There are a large number of attractive tiny home and ADU manufacturers that create affordable one‐ or two‐ story small homes that would work well on an up zoned safe lot with minimal visual effects on the neighbors.
Instead of envisioning mobile home parks, think instead of cute storybook tiny homes. According to the Housing Element we have a big need for small affordable homes for single retirees and couples. Attractive 400 square foot, 1‐bedroom homes (+ loft) can be bought premade for as little as $100,000 plus site prep and utility hookups. Some examples: eESCAPE | Tiny Houses (escapetraveler.net)
10. Hawthorns Historic Complex: I know I started this missive stating how important our open space is and that is still the most important issue for Portola Valley along with spreading new units throughout the Town. But please stick with me while I explain this idea. Hawthorns has a 9,000‐sf historic home built in 1887 that the MidPen OSD wants to restore. Hawthorns Historic Complex | Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (scroll down the website for more information about the site). The historic complex also has 6 or 7 other accessory buildings including cottages, barns, coachman’s quarters, and a garage. It seems to me that restoring this complex into actual housing in a way that keeps the original authentic historic look and allows the complex to serve as both a visitor’s center as well as to house some Mid Pen rangers, employees, and farmworkers would actually provide increased security for the open space preserve and restore the historic buildings while provided sorely needed housing for workers interested in maintaining open space. The 9,000‐sf home could be partially the visitor’s center or office space downstairs and the upstairs could be efficiency apartments for MidPen staff and others.
The other buildings could be turned into housing units. The value of this site is that the housing and buildings have already been developed and are not “open space” and are not visible from Alpine Road while the remaining 70 acres would continue to be open space and be better monitored by people living on site. Why not create 15‐ 20 (?) small to medium units in these existing buildings on this already developed site of several acres? MidPen is seeking partners to develop the buildings. Of course, it only takes money... MidPen is having a public neighborhood meeting about the site next month on June 28 at 7 pm in Portola Valley. Register here :
Hawthorns Area Plan | Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
11. Back lot of Spring Down. I remember some mention in the past that the owners of Spring Down originally wanted to develop housing on their back lot. Why not reopen that discussion for a few small units?
12. White property on Portola Road (Jellich Ranch). The Whites are building a well‐conceived housing project on Alpine Road with mostly 500 sf units for developmentally delayed adults. Would they consider adding a few affordable units to their own large property on Portola Road?
13. 3330 Alpine Road, next door to the Ladera Church. The 2.5‐acre property (partially constrained by slope on the upper portion) would appear to be rented out. Perhaps the owner would be interested in up zoning that property at the entrance to Town for mixed housing and work with Ladera Church on their project.
5 14. Mixed use commercial. Giving the rest of the owners of the commercial areas in town the option to expand their buildings by adding a second floor to add some housing units or on their parking lot makes sense. It does not eliminate any existing commercial. It just gives the owners the option to have the flexibility to rebuild at some future point to add some very limited small housing to their complexes without overly affecting the surrounding area. Even if the owners don’t have specific plans to do so in the next 8 years, there is nothing to stop us from adding that as an option to our Housing Element and rezoning to mixed use commercial and using the potential housing essentially as part of the housing buffer, if there is interest among the property owners to have the increased flexibility.
15. Survey of property stock: https://forms.gle/UnW2Y8QpFuS5kXBR7 We still need to have a complete survey of the Town’s property stock with details of the safety issues affecting each lot and the type of existing housing and accessory buildings available as well as each owner’s inclination for any future potential development on their property. I urge everyone in town to complete the survey at the link above. Feedback from both properties who are NOT interested in adding an ADU (or making any changes to their property) as well as properties that are interested in adding an ADU or up zoning their property is extremely useful to provide a complete Housing Element report. The plan is to provide the data collected to the Town. The survey also will be critical for the next RHNA cycle if we want to argue that PV is completely built out.
No non‐public information is asked or required in the survey. You can leave questions blank if you don’t wish to answer. If you have a non‐conforming accessory building on your property, you can leave off your street number of your address to maintain additional privacy and anonymity.
Some results from those who have completed the survey:
8 respondents were interested in adding an ADU or efficiency unit 4 wish to convert an existing accessory building.
An additional 2 contacted me privately about wanting to legalize unpermitted or nonconforming housing units.
Several respondents were not interested in adding an ADU because they either already have a legal one or they have significant geological/wildfire safety issues that limit additional building.
One of the interesting data tidbits from the limited responses is that of the several properties that already have ADUs, they range in sizes from 220 sf, 360, 400, 470 sf, 595 sf, 750 sf, to 1000 sf. Smaller is more common, realistic, and popular (and rented out).
I added a question later to the survey about funding affordable units. Five out of the 15 subsequent responses expressed interest in contributing to an affordable building fund or investment fund or in being open to some form of modest tax increase similar to our utility tax.
16. ADU interest list. The following is the list of properties that either have expressed interest (or I have heard that there is interest) in an external or internal ADU, or JADU, or efficiency apartment or in regularizing an unpermitted structure or converting an accessory building to an ADU or adding SB9 units. There is definite interest throughout Town for adding ADUs. I’ve left the listing relatively anonymous. We just need to keep collecting interested properties and letting owners know about their rights and options. Key will be providing some funding for those willing to build (and rent out) an affordable housing unit on their property.
Paloma Rd –(Alpine Hills/Westridge) - 2.6 Acres
Cheyenne Pt – (Alpine Hills) - 1 acre
Golden Oak Dr –(Alpine Hills) - 1.4 acres
Golden Oak Dr – (Alpine Hills) – 1.03 acres
Cherokee Ct – (Alpine Hills ) – 1 acre
Meadowood Dr – (Alpine Hills) - 1 acre
Hillbrook Dr – (Alpine Hills) – 1.1 acre
Grove Dr – (Alpine Hills) – 1 acre
6 Pomponio (PV Ranch) – 0.5 acres
Longspur (PV Ranch) – 0.5 acres
Alpine Road (Alpine Road) – 1 acre
Alpine Road (Corte Madera/Brookside) - 0.37 acres
Alpine Road (Corte Madera ) – 0.3 acres
Portola Road (Corte Madera) – 1.2 acre
Corte Madera Road (Corte Madera) – 0.48 acres
Wayside Rd (lower Wayside) – 0.7 acres (in very high fire zone so may not be feasible to add housing)
17. Other small zoning changes – My survey has brought out several unique situations that with small zoning changes would enable additional ADUs to be built. This includes ideas of modest increases in AMFA to add an ADU, more AMFA for an affordable ADU, getting rid of the 85% rule to allow more internal ADUs, changing the slope density rules to give back lost AMFA (if large earth movement is not required and the slope is not excessive), etc. Given the uniqueness of every property in Town, it would be useful for the Town to query property owners as to what roadblocks exist in the code that prevent them from adding a discrete ADU or from modestly up zoning their properties in ways that would not overly impinge on their neighbors. For example, changing the zoning rules for horse ownership to match the State horse zoning rules that allow a horse on 0.5 acre as opposed to 1 acre might enable a few adus.
18. Septic and sewer issues need to be solved. Allowing the addition of a greywater system should enable properties to add an ADU without extensively changing their septic tanks or leach fields. The Town needs to work with the SMC Environmental Health Department to work out regulations to allow greywater systems to reduce the need for leach field and septic tank changes or additions. Properties that are close to existing sewer lines should be able to join in the system affordably. West Bay Sanitary is in the process of changing its hookup fees so it might make it more feasible for new joiners.
19. Reversible zoning changes. Finally, the verbiage of any zoning changes put into our Housing Element and our general plan should include language that reverses high density zoning changes at Ford Field if it is included in the final Housing Element in the event our RHNA numbers are reduced or in the event we meet our targets in advance of required dates or prior to the building of any high‐density housing on the open space next to Ford.
There should be some sort of priority given to the recommended solutions with the Ford Field open space considered only as a last resort if we are truly not able to come up with a list of 100 specific locations for lower density affordable housing units.
Neighborhoods: Ultimately a balance needs to be struck between private property rights and the rights of neighbors to enjoy their own properties with a certain measure of privacy, safety, and the expectation for continued value of their homes. One would hope that each street in our small town would get together with their neighbors and talk about what would make the most sense in terms of adding a few additional new housing units on their street that would have the least impact on the quality of life for the street. If there is agreement and buy‐in and a willingness to be open to some limited development, I think the near hysteria could be reduced about the Housing Element and ultimately Portola Valley’s character can be preserved without developing a huge 50‐unit complex on our open space at Ford Field. I know that in my neighborhood, if one or two flatter one‐acre properties near me wanted to add 1 or 2 ADUs or medium size homes and was planning to do so in a manner that provided adequate screening and tasteful design, I would much prefer that to having a large high‐density complex next to Ford Field and it would have little impact on my quality of life or on my property value.
I encourage residents in Town to keep exploring practical solutions, fill out the survey, and contribute money to the affordable housing fund so we can create an equitable Housing Element that welcomes new families of all income levels without drastically changing the Town’s natural environment.
7 Thanks again to the Town and the volunteer Ad‐Hoc Housing committee members for working so hard to find reasonable solutions for affordable housing for our Town.
Regards,
Rebecca Flynn
Cheyenne Pt
(Personal comments)
1 Dylan Parker
From: Melissa Thurman
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:12 PM
To: housing
Subject: Fw: Comments on the Housing Element Plan
From: Susan Ford
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 5:36 PM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Cc: Susan Ford < >
Subject: Comments on the Housing Element Plan
Dear Melissa,
I am writing as a follow on to the comments I made last night at the Planning Commission meeting (06/15/22). I am the widow of the man who gave the land, known as the Dorothy B. Ford Park to the town of Portola Valley in 1971. His name was Tom Ford and he settled in Portola Valley in the 1960s and was instrumental in the incorporation of Portola Valley.
He gave the gift of land to the town on two conditions. First, that the land stay in open space. And second, that the park be named after his mother, Dorothy B. Ford. I believe that the town would be breaking that promise to him and our family by developing it. That land is a place of solace for our community and it needs to be kept intact. Like every family in our community, our family has benefited from the beauty and recreation afforded by the park. Some of my favorite memories are of watching my son play Little League at Ford Field. And while I know that the baseball field is not at risk, taking half the park away would be devastating and demoralizing to the community that loves it.
Like everyone else, I am sympathetic to the need to develop more housing and understand that the state has declared that each country must create new housing. I urge you to find other suitable locales and know that they exist. The town does not need to take away a park from the residents. And, the town must keep its promise to the original donor of the property. Tom gave the land out of his love for the town and out of his love of open space. The town must honor its commitment.
Melissa, please put this letter in the next meeting digest for all council, commission, the ad hoc housing committee and the 'committee of committees' members.
Thanks so much. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Susan Ford Dorsey'
650‐619‐9951
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:14 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: 300 Alamos
From: Dave Toole < >
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 5:04 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: 300 Alamos
Hello,
We are the neighbors of 300 Alamos, Dave and Diane Toole, 250 Alamos.
We attended the ASCC review and mentioned a couple of issues. We have since met with our neighbors and look forward to a smooth build. There is one concern that we wanted to raise prior to the Planning Commission in regards to the request to remove the Italian pine trees and Aleppo pine that border our property. There are some health issues with one of the trees but the others provide shade for our patio and would expose us to direct sun if they are removed. The Lacroute’s are fine with this.
We would like to recommend they be pruned to better resolve the issues raised. Who should we speak with to discuss this?
We’re fine with all else. Looks like it should be great, though having spent many years building is always a challenge.
Best,
Dave and Diane Toole
1 Dylan Parker
From: Bree Vail < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 5:24 PM
To: housing
Subject: Housing and horses
City Council ,
There is an insidious force to remove rural life in our neighborhoods! Please don’t not flirt with the idea of tearing down another horse establishment! Equestrias are a very small but precious resource that is being hunted! Our horses trails are being disrespected to our dismay and lack of safety! I was Riding Monday and a couple with a vicious , snarling, lunging , growling and barking dog came around a blind corner! My horse knew they were there and began to take off running away from the danger! I told them that they were on the horse trail, and almost got me thrown and hurt! They glanced at my snidely and kept going.
There was a horse behind them and they spooked that horse so I turned and caught up to them and asked them to use their trail. That walking trail was across the street and pointed out that they almost injured 2 of us because of their carelessness!
They flipped me off and kept going!!!!!!
The other rider and I rode away together and couldn’t believe the changes that are occurring regarding the horse community !
Woodside is horse country!
That was the bumper sticker when I got here! Well horses are quiet! But I can type! STOP TEARING DOWN HORSE FACILITIES! Stop it!!!!!!
Give people room outside ! Respect horses! As equestrians are being forced out by unscrupulous bicyclists who just throw their bikes over the fences and ride where they want! That hurts horse easements!
Horses are a value to the community!
Please respect that! Don’t take that away!
A concerned citizen and equestrian!
Sent by a device
Bree‐Anna Vail
Hairdresser extraordinaire
1 Dylan Parker
From: Angelina Le Grix
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 6:23 PM
To: housing
Subject: KEEP GLENOAKS AND ISOLA RIDING ACADEMY!
To whom it may concern in the City of Portola Valley and Stanford University, We have been beneficiaries of Glenoaks and Isola Riding Academy for the last 7 years. Our daughter spends the majority of her free time at Glenoaks and she is now 12. We are residents of San Francisco, but Glenoaks is the closest equestrian facility to us. We drive 40 minutes each way, six times a week, for the wonderful and unique opportunity to ride horses in a natural environment. We have to drive this far because facilities that are closer to us have shut down. We beg you to keep Glenoaks as an equestrian facility that is accessible to Bay area families. The Isola Riding Academy makes horse riding accessible to families of different socio-economic levels. They offer riding lessons, low cost options to learn about horsemanship, various equestrian disciplines, and to develop and enjoy transformative relationships with horses. During Covid, horse riding was one of the few activities that remained open and was a saving grace for children and their families. Isola Stables and Riding Academy are the rare well-run businesses. We can trust that it is safe and they have been providing magical experiences for children for many years.
Thank you for your consideration. If Glenoaks shuts down, it will have a significant negative impact on our daughter's life and our family's happiness.
Thank you,
Angelina
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:32 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element at 6/29 Meeting
From: Lynda Brothers
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element at 6/29 Meeting
Please do NOT adopt the proposed draft until AFTER you have more effectively dealt with the safety of current residents. We do not have a clear safety plan and I live at PV ranch and I've very worried that I will not be able to evacuate. Secondly , since low income housing is exempt from CEQA you MUST FIRST CREATE a CEQA ‐like review to assure us the impacts of low income housing, such as safety will be addressed. Lynda Brothers, 30 Bear Paw.
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:32 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element Comments
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tim Scott
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Comments
Has The Town Council devoted enough consideration to moving the multifamily housing from Dorothy Ford Park to the Town Center soccer field?
The possible repurposing of Dorothy Ford Park is of great concern. This was acquired with funds donated for open‐space protection by town residents who believed their intent would be honored. The Scenic Corridor and live oaks should be preserved. The current housing element proposes 128 (Ladera Church 10, Ford Field 50, Stanford Wedge 39, and Glen Oaks 29) or 42% of the housing units on a very small portion of Alpine Road. This is far too much density for one area.
The housing should be spread across other sites to preserve the town's character, and better manage evacuation and traffic concerns. As a resident of lower Westridge, traffic, light spill, noise and emissions are of great concern.
The town center location offers access to the library, computers, the town center community rooms and lawn area. It also allows for additional options for evacuation.
The soccer field could possibly be moved to Dorothy Ford Park.
Joye Scott
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:35 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing on open space
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Judith Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:46 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing on open space
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. I appreciate your careful and considerate approach to the problem.
Guided by the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements of our General Plan, at our last meeting Conservation Committee voted 8‐0: “Portola Valley Conservation Committee strongly opposes any development on any of the Town’s dedicated Open Spaces.”
Thank you,
Judith Murphy
Conservation Committee
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:35 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing on open space - oops
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:27 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing on open space ‐ oops
So embarrassed ‐ vote was 6‐0, not 8‐0
Judy
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Judith Murphy wrote:
>
> 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. I appreciate your careful and considerate approach to the problem. >
> Guided by the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements of our General Plan, at our last meeting Conservation Committee voted 8‐0: “Portola Valley Conservation Committee strongly opposes any development on any of the Town’s dedicated Open Spaces.”
>
> Thank you,
>
> Judith Murphy
> Conservation Committee
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:36 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: housing comments
From: Patt Baenen
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: housing comments
Dear Special Planning Commission,
My comments will be brief.
The challenges associated with finding space for so many housing units is understood. The changes will forever change our landscape and community. We can be leaders in the solution or mourner/groaners about the change, which will happen with or without our input.
Please think of the big picture. Adding space for more bike traffic, painting the intersection at Alpine and Portola Roads.
Consider round‐about instead of traffic lights. Add mass transit. Have buses come out on a much more regular schedule. Offer incentives for electric bikes for people to use for daily transport. Promote golf carts for local traffic. Build solar and/or windmills into the plan. Be as green as we can be with anything we do. Use as little concrete as possible, it’s so bad for the environment.
Think community gardens no matter the income.
Portola Valley can be an example for others as to what to do. Tiny houses, 2 story tiny houses with community space, train cars (think Pullmans), space ships, houses that are built in duplex and quadplexes instead of single loaded corridor units.
I appreciate all that you are doing to find the best options. It is not easy work.
Sincerely,
Patt Baenen
1148 Los Trancos Road
Portola Valley
Patt
Baenen
2 Scaled‐Up Productions
(650) 280‐7467 c
3 (650) 851‐7621 h
[email protected]
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:36 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: comment
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 8:36 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: comment
Hi,
We are relatively new to Portola Valley. We built a house here 6 years ago. We have come to realize how much the town residents love the baseball field at Dorothy Ford Park. We always see the kids in their uniforms and all the parents that come to cheer and watch their kids participating in the sport. We think it would be a shame to lose that. It seems there are so many other options available, like Portola Road. With the new senior center that is being built near Roberts Market, their might be jobs available and new residents could walk there. To put all the additional housing so close to the town entrance and center would not only be distracting, but also would increase traffic on the narrow road and change the feel of the town to those that visit.
We live at 250 Alamos and share a property line with the church below. We would be happy to negotiate some of the land at the bottom of our property if maybe some housing could go there. ~Dave and Diane Toole
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:36 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Multi-family Housing Proposal
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 11:09 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Multi‐family Housing Proposal
To whom it should concern,
Is this the same multi‐family housing proposal that has faced heavy opposition in the past? The one that senselessly calls for the destruction of our natural open spaces? The one that was just petitioned against and shot down? Good grief, the ink is probably still wet from the signatures. The people had spoken and we still do ‐ WE DO NOT WANT THIS! Of what I’ve seen and heard from the community where I’ve called home for almost four decades, from the people I’ve grown up with to the new relationships I’ve formed, this is not an effort that anyone is in favor of. This was evidenced further by the work I did alongside other town members to get this proposal rejected, and as you know, it was ‐ BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT THIS!
So here’s my proposal – how about rather than forcing the town to (again) go out and get signatures to show our opposition, maybe the committee should have to petition. Petition the town to see if the consensus is, “Yes! More buildings along Alpine Road!” See if the people are shouting, “Yes! Fill our beautiful open spaces with more structures!” Petition the fire department to see if they say, “Yes! Despite Portola Valley already having major evacuation concerns, we fully endorse efforts to increase the population, especially near the frog pond which creates the most additional pressure to our evacuation routes!”
Seriously, how is this even a discussion again? The committee is supposed to speak for the town. But we already said loudly and clearly what we wanted, so why is your voice now saying the opposite? With as must sincerity as I have,
Scott Knapp
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:37 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Draft Housing Element Discussion
From: Betsy Morgenthaler
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 10:37 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: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:37 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Trails and Paths Committee Comments on the Draft Housing Element From: Gary Hanning
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 10:31 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: Fred Leach <[email protected]>
Subject: Trails and Paths Committee Comments on the Draft Housing Element Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Trails and Paths Committee had a discussion of the Draft Housing Element on its agenda for our June 15th 2022 meeting. This email represents our comments on the Draft Housing Element put forth as a product of our discussion at that meeting.
1. Sites Inventory
Glen Oaks Stables and Isola Stables - The Trails and Paths Committee does not support converting this land to housing. This site has a viable local business that provides equestrian services such as horse boarding/training/riding lessons and camps that are vital to our residents and residents of neighboring communities. Glen Oaks and Isola also create jobs for residents of all ages, summer activities for our student residents and an opportunity to educate all residents about the Town's equestrian heritage. Horses and the Wedge, Glen Oaks and Isola stables are major contributors to the rural character of our Town. If the Stanford Wedge, Glen Oaks and Isola stables are eliminated then all of the rural character they contribute to Portola Valley would be lost forever. It would also leave the town with just one remaining equestrian facility (Springdown) to serve all local equestrians. It was pointed out that if the Wedge, Glen Oaks and Isola stables were eliminated then one could drive the entire length of our scenic corridor and not see a single horse. All this said, the Committee is very supportive of creating a mixed use zoning where the stables/facilities remain and those who work at Glen Oaks/ Isola could live on site.
Ford Field - There are two trails on this site: A path close to Alpine Road and an equestrian trail farther back on the property along the creek. It's easy to imagine that a large housing project on this small lot would have a dramatic impact on the usability and quality of these trails. The equestrian trail would likely be rendered unusable by horses due to the proximity of the proposed 3 story buildings and their corresponding mechanical/electrical/lighting/parking/landscape systems to the trail. The path along the road would also be impacted by parking and driveways. The committee is not entirely against putting in some small amount of housing at this location, but we are not supportive of putting in a large amount of housing that would have a severe impact on the public trail system.
2. Alpine Trail
With much of the proposed new development to be placed along Alpine road, the Committee is concerned about the degradation of the quality of Alpine Trail and the Dwight Crowder Path. These trails are in close proximity to Alpine Rd. With new development comes more traffic on Alpine Rd and more audio/visual impacts to
2 Alpine Trail. Already we find the noise from traffic degrades the Alpine Trail user experience. Often times it is hard for trail users to have a conversation over the road noise. More traffic will only make the problem worse.
We are also concerned with the number of proposed new driveways to be cut through Alpine Trail and Dwight Crowder Path. Some of these driveways could be used frequently and will present safety hazards to Alpine Trail/Dwight Crowder Path users.
We understand that the Portola Valley Wildfire Evacuation Study includes a recommendation where Alpine Road would be widened. Given that Alpine Trail and Dwight Crowder Path (and other trails) are in the Alpine Road right of way easement, any widening of Alpine Road could consume the area where the trail/path currently exists. In an extreme case, widening of the road could eliminate a portion of a trail/path. The committee is very concerned and we recommend that any proposed new development along Alpine Road thoroughly study the need for widening the road now so that any impacts to the public trail system can be mitigated before any development begins.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gary Hanning
Chair, Trails and Paths Committee
Town of Portola Valley
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:37 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Frog pond
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Connie Knapp
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 9:21 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Frog pond
Please don’t put any developments in the frog pond area. We worked so hard to preserve it. It is so important to keep it in its natural state for wild life , it’s a scenic corridor and it means so much to the community.
Sincerely,
Connie knapp
Sent from my iPhone
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:37 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Input for the Planning Committee regarding low income housing options.
From: Maria Cristina
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 6:30 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Cc: housing <[email protected]>
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
2
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:37 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Frog Pond- honor your decisions and don't reverse course From: Christine E. Sherry
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 5:21 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Frog Pond‐ honor your decisions and don't reverse course Dear commission members,
I have received notice that there may be a renewed interest in putting housing on the Frog Pond site. I strongly oppose this consideration. Citizens of Portola Valley spent years debating and arguing this issue on a variety of grounds, including wildlife, habitat protection, trail protection, scenic corridors, etc. We all understood this was settled precedent.
We trust the council and the commission intend to honor their decisions and not revisit this again. We need to trust our local decisionmakers to stand by their word.
There are myriad other places in town where there is already development and the ability to create new housing, especially in already developed areas near Town Center. We urge you to honor your commitments to open space and find another way.
We are seeing enough at a federal level of decisionmakers who fail to honor precedent. The Town can and should do better. Trust in local government depends on it.
Best,
Christine Sherry
Christine Sherry
Principal, Sherry Consulting
4670 Alpine Road
Portola Valley, California 94028
[email protected]
mobile: 650.454.7867
www.sherryconsulting.com
1 Dylan Parker
From: Portola Valley - Planning
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 12:06 PM
To: housing
Subject: Fw: Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy
Jake Garcia
Consultant Planner
Office Hours Monday Afternoons and Wednesday Mornings
Town of Portola Valley
Tel: 628.222.5971
www.portolavalley.net
From: G Riley
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:15 AM
To: Portola Valley ‐ Planning <[email protected]> Subject: Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy
Hi,
I have learned that the town of Portola Valley and Stanford University are considering Glenoaks / Isola Riding Academy as a site to commandeer for housing take over. This is a beautiful space that should not be considered. I don’t fully understand the nature of this process, but it is very very disturbing that a beatufil place like Portola Valley is under a development mandate. In addition to all of the discussions it would be appropriate to also fight this statewide frightening process.
Thanks,
G. Riley
2
1 Dylan Parker
From: Becky Hilderbrand
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 7:32 PM
To: housing
Subject: Draft Housing Element Comments
We have all seen how extremely difficult it is to find enough sites in town to accommodate the volume of new multi-family housing needed. Because of our severe shortage of suitable properties, the Town should require any new multi-family developments to accommodate their “fair share” of very low and low income housing, which comprises 46% of the required number of new units.
Under this approach, the Town should give final approval to the Stanford project only if it allocates at least 46% of its units to VLI and LI housing. Currently the project includes only 15% of VLI and LI, with the remaining 85% going to higher income units. Stanford clearly intends to use its new Portola Valley project to house mostly its higher income employees, which is in stark contrast to the intentions of the state legislation with which the Town is going to such extraordinary lengths to comply. As a new member of the Portola Valley community, and one of the very few potential multi-family developments, the Stanford project should not be approved to until it meets the allocations newly imposed upon our Town.
Thank you all for your heroic efforts to navigate this challenging situation on behalf of our community! With appreciation,
Becky Hilderbrand
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 10:38 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Planning Commission [DO NOT EDIT SUBJECT]
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margo Blair
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 4:05 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission [DO NOT EDIT SUBJECT]
I have a few comments pertaining to last night's (6/29/22) Zoom meeting. 1) I would agree with the caller who suggested a 3rd meeting. I am finding that more and more residents are expressing interest in what the Planning Commission is entertaining as to the future of our Town. Perhaps a flyer and/or an email could be sent out to all residents with a one‐time form to fill with any questions or opinions. 2) I remain uncomfortable that the fire and emergency information is still absent from the information you propose to send to the State. I find the information provided by Don Bullard re dense housing construction should take a top priority in any housing plans.
3) I remain uncomfortable with the cavalier attitude towards the reality of the Density Bonus issue. I emailed a long finding on the laws, and could find nothing that allows an owner to maintain control of the number or design of what could be built, if they are adhering to the law of the Affordable Housing rules.
And then there remains the designs of the structures themselves. I am not sure 6 or more buildings echoing the design of 850 Portola Rd. reflect the rural aspect of Portola Valley. 4) Mainly, I would like to thank Nicholas Targ and Craig Taylor for seriously looking after our town. Their comments were the first, to my mind, that began and ended with the Town General plan and stayed consistently within the spirit of it. I believe it properly registered the fact we need to proceed very carefully with any major changes, (removing heritage Oaks, bulldozing landscape etc). There is time to accomplish what we need to, and maintain the special attributes that make Portola Valley the rural space we love.
Thank you, Margo Blair
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 12:46 PM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Planning Commission [DO NOT EDIT SUBJECT]
From: David Cardinal
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:09 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission [DO NOT EDIT SUBJECT]
Craig, et al – The 20% is pretty simple and pretty practical. Basically it is because “things get in the way” and not every parcel that looks promising is going to be possible for development. ‐‐ David ‐‐David Cardinal / Stanford University / Extremetech.com David Cardinal's Profile | Stanford Profiles
http://www.extremetech.com/author/dcardinal
David Cardinal | LinkedIn
http://www.cardinalphoto.com
1 Dylan Parker
From: Herb Schilling
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2022 3:50 PM
To: housing
Subject: Adequate Sites - Housing
Attachments: Housing-Final One.docx
This may be a duplicate of information I tried to attach to the Draft Housing Element document.
July 1, 2022
Housing Elements Public Comments by Portola Valley Resident Herbert Schilling
Low-Cost Housing Above Parking or Storage Areas
It is noted on page 59 of the Draft Housing Elements that land costs is the single biggest issue limiting affordable housing in Portola Valley. I would therefore suggest that the Town consider either building small low-cost rental units above the parking areas of Town-owned property, such as the Town Library or lease the land above commercial parking areas such as parking area behind Roberts Market. Most school and church parking lots could also be utilized for this type of housing as could the parking area of the Sequoias. The car storage of the Portola Valley Garage might also be appropriate for this kind of housing.
To keep the cost down and for earthquake resistance, all support columns and bracing would be structural steel. These relatively small studio or one-bedroom units would all be built as standardized prefab modular units. They would be built as light weight but structurally sound as possible in order to better handle an earthquake. All would have solar panels on the roof. In so far as possible these units would be screened with trees on at least one side.
These units could also be used as small ADUs, without steel substructure on private properties. However, if they were on private property, it is likely the owners would require market-rate rent.
I appreciate the images of a second story structure may not be visually appealing, but it does address the problem of building low-cost housing where the surface land is so expensive. I also appreciate it means more work for Town Staff, hence is not very appealing. However, if the Town cannot meet its quota for low-cost housing in another way, this is a relatively inexpensive solution.
Rental Units above Commercial Property or Horse Facilities The Town could also encourage commercial property owners to rebuild their buildings to include a second story with one or more rental units.
Unfortunately, these units would likely command market value rents. But if rental units were built over horse stables or storage buildings the rents would likely be lower. All structure would have to be rebuilt to current earthquake and fire codes.
1 Dylan Parker
From: R FLYNN
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 1:24 AM
To: PVForum; housing
Subject: #housing more ideas for the housing element #pv Some more ideas for the housing element:
Increase the AMFA by up to 800 (?) sf for 1 acre properties (maybe more for larger properties and less for smaller properties) who add an affordable adu to their property and deed restrict it for 10 (?) years. The sf increase would be dependent on the size of the adu and the reqt to follow our zoning rules with set backs, spacing, etc and go thru ascc approval. As a further incentive for those willing to deed certify the affordable rent for a longer period (15, 20, more years ?), the homeowner would get a bonus of 10% of the adu sf for use in their own structure. Specific details to be worked out. This will encourage the building of affordable adus bc their construction won’t require homeowners to give up their amfa for their own house. Allow the adu as an extra structure as well.
Put 2 tennis/pickle courts at ford field and 2 at corte madera school. Replace the tennis courts, maintenance yard, and some parking with some housing at town center. Put the parking underground. Make the housing mixed affordability.
Rebecca Flynn
(Personal comments)
1 Dylan Parker
From: Kristi Corley
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 7:36 PM
To: Kari Chinn
Cc: Laura Russell; housing
Subject: Re: [PVForum] Weekly Town Update June 23, 2022 #News Laura,
The Portola Valley residents are requesting all housing site locations for the Housing Element to be listed with an address as well as an accurate title.
This document has only two addresses listed for all proposed housing sites.
A resident should be able to drive around to all proposed housing locations by address. In fact, some cities are giving tours of their proposed housing sites for complete transparency.
Please do not call Dorothy Ford Park Open Space….
"Ford Field (the portion next baseball field)”
...that can mean to the right or left of baseball field? Why is the planning department using vague terms for the Dorothy Ford Open Space site? Please answer? The above and below quote for the Dorothy Ford Open Space is way too vague for a housing site site location.
The above quote is not clear to Portola Valley residents! As you can see by the Town Open Space Map below, Dorothy Ford Open Space has an official name and location. Nona C. From the open pace committee worked very hard on this map.
Please include this Town Open Space Map whenever using Dorothy Ford open space for a proposed housing site so residents actually know where this site is located.
Be more transparent with the Dorothy Ford Open Space site for the public and residents.
1. Sites Inventory – specific locations where additional housing can be built at a higher density than is currently allowed. The proposed sites include:
1. Ford Field – the portion next to the baseball field give address as you do with
1. 1. Glen Oaks – equestrian center on Alpine Road
There are many equestrian sites on Alpine Road, above is not clear, no address listed.
2 Where is Stanford wedge listed below? I don’t see it.
Map of Open Space sites in Portola Valley.
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/2747/637741239556330000 I look forward to a response.
Thank you,
Kristi Corley
On Jun 23, 2022, at 5:01 PM, Kari Chinn - PV Communications & Community Engagement <[email protected]> wrote:
In this week’s Message:
Town Council Summary
Housing Element Update - Provide Comments on the Future of Housing in Portola Valley
Reflection from Council Member Richards- “Embracing Change in Portola Valley” Wildfire Preparedness Committee Tip – Enforcement of 0-5 Foot Regulations in Very High Fire Zones
June 25 - PV Communications & Safety Day
June 28 - Town Hall Closed from 8 AM – 1 PM
June 28 - Hawthorns Area Neighborhood Meeting
Join a Site Tour for the Hawthorns Area
New Transparency Portal for the San Mateo County Sheriff How to Access COVID-19 Vaccines for Children Under 5
Looking for a Beach Read?
Town Council Summary
A summary of the most recent meeting held on June 22nd is now available. The Town Council held a public hearing and adopted the draft FY 2022-23 budget and adopted a resolution determining and establishing the Town’s FY 2022-23 Appropriations Limit.
Housing Element Update - Provide Comments on
the Future of Housing in Portola Valley
3 The Town of Portola is updating the Housing Element of the General Plan. This update represents meaningful changes to the type of housing that would be allowed in Town.
State law requires that every city/town and county in California adopt a Housing Element every eight years. The Town is required to plan for 253 new housing units for the time period 2023-2031 across four income levels, including housing units that are affordable to lower income people, compared to San Mateo County median incomes. In the past, the Town has relied on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to meet state housing obligations. With this update, additional approaches are necessary to plan for the 253 unit mandate. Multifamily zoning is being considered for the first time in the Town’s history.
The Town Council appointed a 15 person committee of residents called the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee to lead the Town’s efforts. The Committee has been meeting at least monthly since August 2021; there have been a total of 15 public Housing Element meetings to-date.
The Public Review Draft Housing Element and extensive materials from the 15 meetings are on the Town’s website; visit www.portolavalley.net/housingelement for more information.
The Draft Housing Element currently includes four primary approaches to plan for housing in the community in the future:
1. Sites Inventory – specific locations where additional housing can be built at a higher density than is currently allowed. The proposed sites include:
1. Ford Field – the portion next to the baseball field
2. 4395 Alpine – vacant parcel next to Roberts Market
3. Glen Oaks – equestrian center on Alpine Road
4. 4370 Alpine – currently offices
2. Affiliated Housing – allows institutions in Town to build some housing for their employees or the Town’s workforce. Proposed sites include:
1. The Sequoias
2. Christ Church
3. Ladera Community Church
3. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) remain an important part of the draft housing plan.
4. Opt-in Upzoning Program – would allow property owners to voluntarily develop up to four units per acre if the site meets safety criteria (such as fire safety, slope, geologic safety, and evacuation route)
If you haven’t been involved in the Housing Element Update process, now is a good time:
4 Attend the Planning Commission Meeting on June 29th at 7 pm via zoom Submit comments on the Draft Housing Element by July 8th Attend the Town Council meeting on July 13th at 7 pm via zoom or in person Visit www.portolavalley.net/housingelement for more information Visit www.portolavalley.net/community/town-calendar for meeting information
Reflection from Council Member Richards
“Embracing Change in Portola Valley
Council Member John Richard’s penned an essay on Embracing Change in Portola Valley that he shared at a recent Town Council Meeting. You can read the whole essay here
Wildfire Preparedness Committee Tip - Wildfire
Preparedness Committee Tip – Enforcement of 0-5
Foot Regulations in Very High Fire Zones
The Wildfire Preparedness Committee has created a series of tips to help the community prepare for wildfire season. You can see the current tip and download any past tips on the website.
June 25 - Annual Communications and Safety Day
Portola Valley Emergency Preparedness Committee presents (in conjunction with nationwide ARRL Field Day) the Annual Communications and Safety Day. Come by Town Center on Saturday, June 25, 2022, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Get help From the County Office Of Emergency Service to Set up mobile emergency alerts
Participate in the special test alert at 4 pm
Learn about the Evacuation Traffic Study and developments on Evacuation Plans Learn about the Portola Valley Safety Element update process See the PV Emergency Communications trailer and learn about amateur radio, GMRS, local emergency communications networks and local repeater networks. Learn about how to organize your neighborhood for emergency preparedness Meet representatives from Woodside Fire Protection District, WPV-Ready, and
WPV-CERT
June 28 Hawthorns Area Neighborhood Meeting
5 June 28, 2022 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Town of Portola Valley Community Hall - 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
Midpen is now collecting information to characterize existing conditions at the Hawthorns Area and would appreciate your input on key considerations for the property.
Please join Midpen at this public meeting to learn more about the Hawthorns Area and provide your comments. RSVP here
There is also a survey available regarding future uses at the Hawthorns Area. You can take the 5-10 minute survey here.
June 28 – Town Hall Closed from 8 AM – 1 PM
Town Hall will be closed next Tuesday, June 28th from 8:00 am to 1 PM for Emergency Preparedness Training
Join a Site Tour for the Hawthorns Area
The Hawthorns Area is a 79-acre property that is part of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve located within the Town of Portola Valley and owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen). The property is currently closed to the public.
In 2021, Midpen initiated a multiyear process to develop the Hawthorns Area Plan, which will establish resource management goals, identify long-term land management activities, and introduce ecologically sensitive public access to the Hawthorns Area.
Midpen is hosting public site tours at the Hawthorns Area this summer on the following dates. Please join us to visit this beautiful property! Dates:
Friday, July 15, 9:00am-noon
Friday, July 15, 1:00pm-4:00pm
Saturday, August 6, 9:00am-noon
Saturday, August 6, 1:00pm-4:00pm
Space at the site tours will be limited, so please click here to RSVP. Additional information will be provided closer to the day of the event.
New Transparency Portal for the San Mateo County
Sheriff
6 The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office has created a new Police Data Transparency Portal. The Portal is easily accessible through a link on the home page of the San Mateo Sheriff’s Office website. The information shared includes staff demographic data, internal investigation data, eviction data, and crime data.
You can access the portal directly here.
How to Access COVID-19 Vaccines for Children
Under 5
Parents and care-givers of young children now eligible for COVID-19 vaccines should contact their pediatric provider to schedule an appointment.
Other options include Walgreens (for ages 3 and up) and CVS (for 18 months and older). Information is also available on MyTurn.
San Mateo County Health is providing COVID-19 vaccine for young children at targeted clinics in certain communities most impacted by the pandemic. San Mateo County Health is not offering or scheduling large-scale vaccination clinics for young children as they focus on those most in need.
County Health’s community clinics will continue to offer vaccines and boosters to residents 5 and older.
Looking for a Beach Read?
Are you looking for something new to read while on vacation? The Sustainability Committee has created a list of resources that can help you find new information and perspectives and learn about the news and information on climate change Take a look at the reading list of 42 great books. Many of which you can check out from the Portola Valley library.
_._,_._,_
Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#163929) | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic
Mute #news
Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [[email protected]]
7 _._,_._,_
1 Dylan Parker
From: Kristi Corley
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:07 PM
To: Laura Russell; Jeremy Dennis; housing
Subject: Planning commission action minutes 6/29/22? How will residents be informed? Laura, Jeremy and Housing Element Planners,
Please provide the public with the YouTube of the 6/29/22 Planning Commission meeting.
Improve transparency and post 6/29/22 Planning Commission Action Minutes now on PV forum! Midnight ‐12:35am action on 6/29/22, the public should be informed! Other action items should be listed as well.
The Recommendation to Town Council to combine Dorothy Ford park open space and Ford field baseball parcels (for future zoning,) the public should be informed of any action votes which took place at that meeting.
Once a parcel or combined parcels are up‐zoned ( 20 units per acre) the parcel can never be downzoned! It seems to me that the approval for minutes of 6/29/22 planning commission would not occur until 7/20/22 until after the Town Council 7/23/22 vote which delays informing the public what happened in the meeting.
Transparency on housing site selections are important. Only 21 residents on the special planning commission meeting 6/29/22 at the midnight vote, a meeting which started with 110 Portola Valley residents who originally attended. Right now as of 7/5/22, eighty nine “interested“ residents might be uninformed of the 12‐12:35 AM vote.
Thank you for your consideration.
All the best,
Kristi Corley
1 Dylan Parker
From: Kristi Corley
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 10:05 PM
To: Laura Russell; Jeremy Dennis; housing
Subject: Re: Planning commission action minutes 6/29/22? How will residents be informed? Date Correction 7/13/22 rather than 7/23/22 in bold, please post this letter instead of previous one.
On Jul 5, 2022, at 8:07 PM, Kristi Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
Laura, Jeremy and Housing Element Planners,
Please provide the public with the YouTube of the 6/29/22 Planning Commission meeting.
Improve transparency and post 6/29/22 Planning Commission Action Minutes on PV forum before 7/13/22 Town Council meeting!
Midnight -12:35am action on 6/29/22, the public should be informed! Other action items from meeting
should be listed as well.
The Recommendation to Town Council to combine Dorothy Ford Park Open Space parcel and the Ford Field (baseball) parcel (for future zoning purposes), the public should be informed now!
Once a parcel or combined parcels are voted to be up-zoned (20 units per acre) the parcel can never be downzoned! For this reason, the public should be informed! It seems to me that the approval of the action minutes of the 6/29/22 planning commission would not occur until planning commission 7/20/22 and after the Town Council VOTE on 7/13/22 (date correction.)
Any delay in informing the public what happened in the Planning Commission 6/29/22 meeting prior to the 7/13/22 Town Council vote does not seem right to me.
Transparency on housing site selections (include all addresses so residents can drive to sites) and parcel merge updates are important to the Portola Valley public.
Only 21 residents were remained at the special planning commission meeting on 6/29/22 and attended the midnight vote, a meeting which started with 110 Portola Valley residents. Right now, as of 7/5/22, eighty nine “interested“ residents and many more residents might be uninformed of the 12-12:35 AM vote and action items of the planning commission.
2 Thank you for your consideration to inform residents of all 6/29/22 planning commission action items right away.
All the best,
Kristi Corley
1 Dylan Parker
From: Dylan Parker
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 9:43 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Regards,
Dylan Parker, AICP Candidate
Associate Planner
Town of Portola Valley
Tel: 650.851.1700 Ext. 230
www.portolavalley.net
Please visit www.portolavalley.net/virtualappointment for information on how to make an appointment for Planning and Building services.
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 11:33 AM
To: Dylan Parker <[email protected]>; Jeremy Dennis <[email protected]> Cc: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Thanks Dylan.
Judith A. Hasko
From: Dylan Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Hasko, Judith (Bay Area) Jeremy Dennis <[email protected]> Cc: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Hi Judith,
2 Hope you had a great holiday weekend. Confirming receipt and will add to the draft Housing Element public comments. I assume Laura and/or Jeremy will discuss the matter when they return to the office next week.
Regards,
Dylan Parker (he/him/his), AICP Candidate
Associate Planner
Town of Portola Valley
Tel: 650.851.1700 Ext. 230
www.portolavalley.net
Follow us:
Please visit www.portolavalley.net/virtualappointment for information on how to make an appointment for Planning and Building services.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Jeremy Dennis <[email protected]>; Dylan Parker <[email protected]> Cc: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Jeremy and Dylan: As Laura is out, I wanted to make sure the following made it into the record for the housing element discussions. Please confirm receipt and how you will handle this to make sure it gets into the record.
Judith A. Hasko
From: Hasko, Judith (Bay Area)
July 5, 2022 9:28 AM
To: 'David Murdoch'
Cc: 'Laura Russell' <[email protected]>; Anne Kopf‐Sill <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
3 Thank you for your outreach David. I am copying Laura Russell, the Town Planning Director, so she can put this into the record for consideration by the Town and the various committees and commissions, and respond on possible next steps, and Anne Kopf‐Sil, the Chair of our Commission, so she is aware. I appreciate the update and hope you are well.
Judith
From: David Murdoch
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Hasko, Judith (Bay Area)
Subject: Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
Dear Judith,
This is David Murdoch from Glenoaks Equestrian Center. I wanted to thank you for supporting us at last Wednesday's meeting and to assure you that there are many young and older Equestrians and Horse lovers in Portola Valley and surrounding areas that desperately hope that the Rural nature of our community is not further diminished.
I particularly appreciate you remembering our application to build low cost housing for our workers and suggesting a further approach should be made to Stanford. I still am very keen to do this and my architect, Ken Kornberg, who I still work with, has all the plans and documents If this was approved we could start immediately and the Town would have 6 housing units to its credit.
I would be grateful if you could suggest how we might move forward from here.
Thank you for your time and help.
Yours Sincerely,
David Murdoch
Isola Stables
650-867-8201
_________________________________
This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments.
Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Any personal information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be processed in accordance with the firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at www.lw.com.
1 Dylan Parker
From: Peter Lipman
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:26 PM
To: housing
Cc: Bev Lipman
Subject: For the Town Council: Save Town Open-space Preserves! Save Town Open-space Preserves!
Dorothy Ford Park Open-Space Preserve (7.7 acres), the town’s first open-space park, has been recommended for development as a multifamily-housing site in the draft PV Housing Element plan.
This park (including the baseball field) was acquired by the town more than 50 years ago with funds donated by early residents, specifically to create an open-space gateway to the then-new town of Portola Valley and its Alpine Scenic Corridor. It has continued to the present time as a designated Open-Space Preserve in the town’s General Plan.
Does the town’s inadequate foresight to codify the donors’ goals with a binding legal deed restriction, at that more-trusting time (only six years after forming the town), justify use of a resulting legal loophole to ignore the clear intent of their contributions?
Does that blunder now justify using all the permissible developable space within the entire Ford Park for highdensity multi-family multi-story housing, even placing a third of needed parking lots in the restricted buffer zone of the Alpine Scenic Corridor (as proposed in the draft Housing Element plan)? Does that lapse also justify abandoning the core values and community goals long-defined in the Introduction of the PV General Plan, such as “To preserve and enhance the natural features and open space of the area” (Plan, 1010-1).
How much weight should be given to the recommendation in the draft Housing Element plan, when endorsed only by a slim committee majority (change of one vote would have caused a tie), with much concern and ambivalence expressed by all members?
Is this such a desirable “End” that it justifies such an inappropriate “Means”? And after a first town preserve is repurposed for high-density housing, will potential donors for open-space acquisition ever again trust the town to honor intended purposes of future contributions?
Peter Lipman, July 7, 2022
(with wife Beverly, lead donors for the 2012 acquisition of Shady Trail Open-Space Preserve)
2
1 Dylan Parker
From: Leslie Kraus
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 7:55 AM
To: housing
Subject: Draft Housing Element
I have two comments on the Draft Housing Element.
First, I am not in favor of the Opt‐in‐Single‐Family Rezoning Program. A rezoning of this magnitude needs to be part of the full disclosures that are critical in any real estate transaction and I doubt it was at the time most homeowners in the Valley purchased their properties. My understanding from a local agent is that since this type of rezoning has become part of the discussion it is beginning to be included in those disclosures but it will be some time before a ‘group’ of homes/properties that would be impacted by a resident opting in would all have been made aware of the possibility.
Second, on page 55 under ‘Utilities’ it states that California Water Service “has indicated it has sufficient capacity to meet the housing needs stipulated in this housing element”. I don’t understand how this is possible (even with what I assume will be required water efficient landscaping) in light of the combined RHNA numbers of all the areas Cal Water serves when we are already facing a serious lack of water, operating under water use restrictions and with no guarantee that our rainfall numbers will dramatically increase in the future. More information on how Cal Water reached this conclusion would be helpful.
Thank you for considering my comments.
1 Dylan Parker
From: Town Center
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 10:26 AM
To: housing
Subject: FW: Housing Element example / city of San Mateo From: Kristi Corley
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2022 2:15 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element example / city of San Mateo
Hi all,
Thought you might be interested.
Kristi
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/87532/San-Mateo-2023-2031-Housing-Element---DRAFT?bidId=
1 Dylan Parker
From: Arianna Nuri
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Laura Russell; housing
Cc: Ana Ruiz; Brian Malone; Susanna Chan; Jane Mark; Joshua Hugg; Jared Hart; Tina Hugg Subject: Midpen Comments re: Housing Element Update
Attachments: Midpen Comment Letter_TPV Housing Element Update 2023-2031.docx.pdf Good Afternoon, Ms. Russell,
On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, we respectfully submit the attached comments regarding the Town of Portola Valley’s Draft Housing Element, which we also uploaded to your Housing Element Public Comment portal.
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,
Ari
Arianna Nuri (she/her)
Planner I
[email protected]
650.625.6559 (direct)
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022
650.691.1200 (office)
openspace.org
From 50 to Forever: Caring for the land that cares for us – By creating Midpen 50 years ago, our community prioritized clean air and water, healthy habitats for diverse native plants and animals, ecosystems that are resilient to the effects of our changing climate, and places for people to connect with nature – that's what Midpen provides in perpetuity. Celebrate with us all year long >
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
2 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
3 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
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
1 Dylan Parker
From: Maria Cristina
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Town Center; housing; Craig Hughes
Cc: Maria Cristina
Subject: PV and California Open Space
As an old-time resident, I was trying to understand why the definition of Open Space was expanded to include fertilized, watered and expensive-to-maintain grass athletic playing fields. Below is what I found re: zoning.
I bring it up now since it may be that future open space is a parking lot for high density living situation. Am I the only one who remembers Joni Mitchel? That aside, I love our natural open spaces which encourage a variety of wildlife and provide most of us with a calm and restful environment.
As I listened to many meetings of the Ad-Hoc Housing and Planning Committees, I was surprise that there was not more emphasis on exchanging town sports fields for housing. I know this is not a popular opinion among young parents, but many generations survived on less and are no worse for it. We are entering a time with requirements that leave no solution as a good solution. And so we must compromise for our generation and future generations. Please do not convert our open lands or to anything less that the promise of an open future.
Questions:
*Why is not more consideration given to the Town Center land and away from our Alpine Road gateway?
**Why is our Town giving more to the funding and ease of creating ADU and JADU's?? To help with state requirements, our town is asking much of our residents.
As residents, I think we need to ask more of our Town, including some flexibility and lower fees as we more forward.
In appreciate of your work, but with hope for long term open spaces in our future. I hope to be around a long time and look to our future with positive light. In order to create more diversity in our community, I hope we don't lose sight of those things that matter in the long term. Diversity is one, and open space is definitely another.
Chapter 9-24 - Residential and Open Space Zoning Districts
SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIONCOMPARE
VERSIONS
9-24.010 - Purpose of Chapter
2 SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIONCOMPARE
VERSIONS
This Chapter lists the uses of land that may be allowed within the residential and open space zoning districts established by Section 9-20.020 (Zoning Districts Established). It also determines the type of Land Use Permit approval required for each use and provides the general standards for site development. (§ 5, Ord. 1085, eff. January 6, 2006)
9-24.020 - Purposes of Residential and Open Space Zoning Districts
SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIONCOMPARE
VERSIONS
Different residential zoning districts are intended to provide a range of housing types that are affordable and attractive, in well-designed residential neighborhoods. Open space zoning districts maintain community open space resources for purposes ranging from conservation, to preserving community land use options. Requirements for the land uses allowed in the residential and open space zoning districts, and standards for development project site planning, design, residential density, and minimum parcel size are found in Sections 9-24.030 and 9-24.040, respectively. The purposes of the individual residential and open space zoning districts and the manner in which they are applied are as follows:
A.
OS (Open Space) District. The OS zoning district is intended to provide for the conservation of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources, to preserve and enhance environmental quality, and to provide for the retention of the maximum number of future land use options while allowing reasonable and compatible uses on open lands in the City that have not been altered to any major extent by human activities. The maximum density for residential uses is one primary dwelling unit for each 40 acres. (1)(2)
B.
RE (Residential Estate) District. The RE zoning district is intended to provide for a custom-designed residential environment with very large lots, houses of an individual style, and a distinct single-family neighborhood image. The minimum lot area in this zoning district is one acre and the maximum residential density is one dwelling per lot. (1)(2) C.
RVL (Residential Very Low Density) District. The RVL zoning district is intended to provide for a semi-rural singlefamily residential environment with relatively large lots. The minimum lot area in this zoning district is 20,000 square feet, and the maximum residential density is one dwelling per lot. (1)(2) D.
RL (Residential Low Density) District. The RL zoning district is intended to provide for a suburban single-family residential environment with a range of parcel sizes, but with generally low density and some clustering of parcels. The residential density in this zoning district may range from 2.1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The maximum density is one dwelling per lot. (1)(2)
E.
RM (Residential Medium Density) District. The RM zoning district is intended to provide for a suburban single-family residential environment with a range of parcel sizes and some clustering of parcels. The residential density in this zoning district may range from 3.6 to 5.0 units per acre. The maximum density is one dwelling per lot. (1)(2) F.
3 RMod (Residential Moderate Density) District. The RMod zoning district is intended to provide for moderate density detached single-family or multi-family dwellings. The residential density in this zoning district may range from 5.1 to
10.0 units per acre. (1)(2)(3)
G.
RH (Residential High Density) District. The RH zoning district is intended for areas of more compact multi-family residential developments, such as townhouses, garden apartments, and other multiple-unit dwellings.
The residential density in this zoning district may range from 10.1 to 20 units per acre. (2) SOURCE: https://library.municode.com/ca/simi_valley/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9DECOSIVAMUCO_CH 9-
24REOPSPZODI#:~:text=Open%20space%20zoning%20districts%20maintain,preserving%20community%20land%20 use%20options.
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Melvin E. Gaines, Assistant Town Manager
DATE: July 13, 2022
RE: Council Priority Update Process
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council add five existing Town efforts to the Council Priority Efforts list and approve the proposed Council Priority reporting process.
BACKGROUND
Since Fiscal Year 2015-16, the Town Council has undertaken a priority-setting process that consists of the Council identifying high-level strategic priorities with specific efforts that support those priorities over the fiscal year. This selection of top priorities has been an effective way of directing resources, aligning staff efforts, and communicating clearly about the Town’s areas of focus. Council priorities guide the Town’s budget development and Town Council’s appropriation of budget resources and are a tool that the public can use to understand the Council’s focus and track progress on meeting those goals.
On March 23, 2022, the Town Council adopted the FY 2022-23 Council Priorities (Attachment 1). The FY 2022-23 Council Priorities include five strategic priorities that each have corresponding actions or projects. In total, the five FY 2022-23 Council Priorities include 30 Council Priority Efforts (Actions/Projects/Programs). • Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness: 11 Actions/Projects/Programs • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: 1 Action/Project/Program • Land Use Projects and Programs: 5 Actions/Projects/Programs • Sustainability: 5 Actions/Projects/Programs
• Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements: 8 Actions/Projects/Programs
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Town staff and volunteers provide many services and fulfill various tasks beyond those identified as Council Strategic Priority Efforts. Services like Town property maintenance, code enforcement, accounting, payroll, responding to public requests, current planning, facilitating public meetings, and permit issuance are essential to Town operations and represent the majority (80-plus percent) of staff work. Were Town operations compared to an iceberg, the Council Strategic Priorities would represent the section of the iceberg that is visible above water, while most of the essential services that the Town provides supporting day-to-day operations, like the underwater portion of an iceberg, are typically unnoticed when the Town is operating well. Service enhancements and modifications to day-to-day operations, like the FY 2022-23 Council Priority Effort to transition IT service from the City of Redwood City, are often identified as Council Priority Efforts as they are non-routine.
Council Priorities Reporting
Regular reporting on Council Priorities is fundamental to the Council and the public staying informed of the Town’s progress toward achieving priorities and managing financial and staff resources. At minimum, such reporting should occur biannually. Reporting on routine dayto-day operations is also essential to resource allocation and performance management but may occur less frequently, e.g., annually or biennially.
The Council may desire to receive regular updates on additional Town efforts that are currently planned or underway but not listed as FY 2022-23 Council Priority Efforts. Staff has identified five existing Town efforts related to Council Priorities that could be added to Council Priority Effort list and regularly reported on. Staff seeks Council direction on whether to add these or any additional efforts to the priority list; the desired content of Council Priority updates; the frequency that updates should be provided; and the process(es) for providing updates.
DISCUSSION
Updates on Additional Items
The FY 2022-23 Council Priorities (Attachment 1) include 30 corresponding efforts (Actions/Projects/Programs). These efforts represent about 20 percent of staff’s workload while the other 80-percent consists of numerous services that support day-to-day operations. Staff has identified five existing Town efforts related to Council Priorities that could be added to Council Priority Effort list. The Council may desire to receive regular updates on additional efforts that staff is currently undertaking which are not documented as Council Priority Efforts. The Town Council should identify any such efforts and direct staff to add them to the priority list. If a project is not underway or planned for this fiscal year, the Council should consult staff and consider the workload impacts of undertaking the project before adding it as a project to receive updates on.
The five existing projects that may be added the Council Priority Efforts list include:
Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements • Develop an in-lieu fund policy
• Explore and implement strategies to increase revenue to support increased resource needs
• Annual Financial Audit
Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
• Develop a draft wildfire mitigation matching program in response to the November 10, 2021 Colleagues Memo
Council Priority: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Implement PV Cares
Council Priorities Reporting Frequency, Content, and Process Staff proposes to provide quarterly project progress updates to the Town Council, as follows. • October 2022: Quarter One Report (July 2022 – September 2022) via Council Digest • January 2023: Quarter Two/Mid-Year Report (July 2022-December 2022) via report and presentation at a Council meeting
• April 2023: Quarter Three Report (July 2022-March 2023) via report and presentation at a Council meeting to discuss FY 2023-2024 Council Priorities. • July 2023: Quarter Four/FY 2022-23 Council Priorities Close Out Report via Council Two updates would be made at council meetings: 1) the mid-year update and 2) the quarter three update. The quarter one and quarter four updates would be informational reports provided through the Council Digest. All updates would be added to the Town Council Priorities webpage.
The format of the report could include summary narrative followed by updates for each project, like the following:
...During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, staff began 19 of 30 priority efforts. None of these efforts are completed. 11 projects have not begun...
Table X: Summary of Project Status Count
Projects Completed 0
Projects in Progress 19
Projects Not Started 11
Total Projects 30
Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort: Examine Town project management approaches, identify and implement actions to better communicate project updates to Town council and the public Lead
Department/Staff
Anticipated
Timeline
Status Update Next Steps
Town Manager’s
Office/M. Gaines
July 2022 –
April 2023
In
progress
Presented proposed
approach to Council
7/13/2022.
- Implement council direction.
- Q1 update (10/2022)
- Q2 update (01/2023)
- Q3 update (04/2023)
- Q4 update (07/2023)
The above format identifies lead departments and staff for priority efforts; however, most major projects require contributions from multiple departments/staff members. The anticipated timelines provided would be tentative. Competing priorities and interruptions from other factors may pressure timelines and require adjustments. Descriptions of such adjustments would be provided in the update and next steps fields.
Conclusion
Staff seeks Council direction on any additional Town efforts that regular updates should be provided for, the content and frequency of updates, and the process(es) for providing updates. The Council may direct staff to add the five projects listed in the Updates on Additional Items section of this report and to provide updates in the frequency and format described in the Council Priorities Reporting Frequency, Content, and Process section.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities for FY 2022-23
Wildfire/Emergency
Preparedness
Operational
and Service
Delivery
Enhancements
Sustainability
Land Use Projects
and Programs
Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion
Town of Portola Valley
Council Priorities
FY 2022-2023
The Town of Portola Valley’s Council Priorities were created through careful deliberation of the Town Council with input from the Community, Town Committees, and staff. The five strategic priorities help establish the top projects and guide the Town based on a shared vision for the Fiscal Year 2022-23.
Stanford Wedge and other major projects
Housing Element Update
Design Guideline changes to support home hardening ordinance Provide support to Sustainability and Trails Committees to develop ADU checklists
Preparation work to support zoning code modernization efforts for FY 2023-24
Land Use Projects and Programs
A significant amount of the Town’s resources are utilized to support day-to-day planning, building and engineering efforts. These resources support all manner of development, from small changes to a single-family property to larger multifamily proposals.
Recognition of these efforts, including large land-use proposals, updates to the Town’s Housing Element, and other important work, though this priority demonstrates an important focus to quality and timely service delivery.
Implementation of new/expanded Wildfire Preparedness
Committee recommendations, including exploration of a
permanent funding source for wildfire adaptation/mitigation measures including public and private vegetation management Completion and implementation of the State mandated Safety Element
Implementation of expanded home hardening and defensible space code updates, in conjunction with Woodside Fire
Protection District efforts
Review Woodside Fire Protection District’s updated fire maps.
Support of the resource grant from Community Partners
Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW), including the potential for a Woodside Fire Protection District-wide Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Additional planning efforts, including detailed wildfire behavior modeling (either at the Town or Fire District level)
Implementation of and potential follow up work for the
evacuation study
Launching the Veoci virtual emergency operations center tool, and providing infrastructure support for WPV-Ready, as guided by the Emergency Preparedness Committee
Expanded vegetation management for wildfire mitigation, including targeted trees and the Town’s open space properties Adoption of Fire Code Updates
Further exploration of undergrounding Town utilities
Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
The Town’s location in a wildfire-prone region, and the broadening impacts of climate change result in the potential of a devastating wildfire in Portola Valley. The Town’s continued prioritization of wildfire adaptation and mitigation efforts will continue into FY 2022- 23 and beyond.
Recruiting, hiring, and onboarding staff in Planning and Building and Public Works departments
Supporting Town Council public engagement enhancement
efforts
Adjusting service delivery and implementing COVID responsive operations as necessary
Contracting with and managing necessary consultants to assist with major projects and reduce staff administrative
responsibilities in order to focus on core service deliveries Use of virtual assistant tools (in beta test at the time of this staff report’s publication) to focus limited staff resources on core responsibilities
Explore options to better serve and utilize Town committees and their operations
Examine Town project management approaches, identify and implement actions to better communicate project updates to Town council and the public
Implementing technological and software improvements to increase staff productivity and provide enhanced
communications and greater transparency. This includes:
Operational and Service Delivery
Enhancements
The Town Council has committed significant resource over the last few years to expand on the high quality public service expected by applicants. This priority focuses on a variety of improvements across the organization to build on successful communications efforts, increased project management, and focus on appropriate staffing to support these services.
Climate action plan
Microgrid for Town Center Campus
Solar Panel upgrade for Town Center
Adoption of Green Building Ordinance
Adoption of Sustainability Committee recommendations
including preparing for drought
Sustainability
The Town is a leader in sustainability efforts. Additional efforts are under consideration to continue the Town’s leadership role to ensure that sustainability is always central to the Town’s ethos and high-level project efforts.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Following the creation of a new committee to address race and equity issues, the Town Council continues its commitment to consider diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) when developing ordinances, policies, programs and projects
Implementation of the new cloud-based Energov permit
tracking software.
Adoption of project management tools
Launching Veoci virtual emergency operations center tool Website review and reorganization
Determining the appropriate service model and transitioning IT services from City of Redwood City.
Facility Maintenance – Develop a comprehensive multi-year facility maintenance program.
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Thursday – July 7, 2022
1. July 2022 Town Calendar:
https://www.portolavalley.net/community/town-calendar
2. Sign up for Town E-Notices:
https://www.portolavalley.net/business/subscribe-to-town-enotices
3. Stay Connected with the Town’s Social Media Channels:
https://www.portolavalley.net/community/stay-informed/town-social-media