Ronald G Eastman
20 October 2022
Portola Valley Town Council,
Members of the Planning Commission,
Planning Director Laura Russell
765 Portola Rd
Portola Valley, CA 94028
Thank you for listening to my comments last night at the 10/19/2022 Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed rezoning of 4370 and 4394 Alpine Rd.
I am writing you today specifically in regard to 4370, and the proposal to rezone it as mixed use. In my comments to you yesterday I explained that I and all the other Nathorst Triangle residents that I’ve spoken with are uniformly worried that the increased building density and traffic, which would result if that plan is enacted, will be profoundly negative.
The request I made last night—one which, I’m sure, many of my neighbors would agree with—is that if you are going to rezone 4370 Alpine, rezone it as Residential-Multi-Family, 6 HU/ac, because if the whole purpose of this exercise is housing, then we should be building housing, not unneeded retail.
In response to my request, I was told that this could not be done because it would make the current use of the property non-compliant. Whether that is, in fact, a problem for the Town is something an attorney would have to answer (it didn’t appear to be a problem when the AHHEC was discussing rezoning Nathorst Triangle single family residences from R-E to multifamily), but here is a simple work around which avoids potential future litigation: the Town passes an ordinance specifically written for 4370 Alpine to be “up-zoned” to Multi-Family-6 (or however it will be referred to as), allowing the owners to “opt-in”, if they so choose, to convert the property from A-P to Multi-Family 6 HU/ac. Conceptually, this is no different that the “Opt-in” proposal that is already in the Draft Housing Element, allowing owners of single family parcels in Portola Valley to “opt-in” to have their properties rezoned multi-family. In that context, I believe Opt-in is a horrible idea, but here it does make sense because it both solves our immediate need to get RHNA credit while not forcing the Town to take hasty action which both the property owners and the Town may later (or sooner) regret.
The beauty of this approach is 1) the property is not automatically rezoned 2) if the property is rezoned, it will be the property owner’s decision (it’s not a government taking), 3) the Town still gets the credit it needs for fulfilling its RHNA quota, and 4) 4370 Alpine Rd either remains an office building, or it becomes 6 HU/ac multi-family (but not both).
Going further, I don’t see why this approach couldn’t be used for all of the privately owned parcels that are proposed in the Draft HE to be rezoned.
For instance, this approach would negate the need for the Town to immediately make the stables at Glen Oaks non-compliant through rezoning, particularly if it is going to take several years for Stanford to move forward with their development plans. Let it be the land owner’s decision to rezone, just as it will be their decision (and not the Town’s) to redevelop their properties to build housing—and yet the Town still gets the housing credits.
Most importantly, this strategy could buy us the one thing we don’t have a lot of at the moment, which is time, and in that respect, it is similar to the Sunrise Proposal put forth by Nicholas Targ & Craig Taylor.
I urge you to give this idea serious consideration.
Thank you.
Ron Eastman
From: [email protected]
To: Town Center
Subject: New Entry on Town Council Comments Survey
Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:28:47 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: Comment on an Agenda Item for Town Council Meeting Date & Time: 10/24/2022 4:28 PM
Response #: 208
Submitter ID: 6804
IP address: 2600:1700:a460:3f70:80a0:7ee2:f91d:97a
Time to complete: 4 min. , 54 sec.
Survey Details
1. First and Last Name
Bruce roberts
2. Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)
3. Organization ( Enter name of organization, business, or non profit if you are submitting comments on their behalf.)
Resident
4. Street address ( will not be publicly displayed)
5. City
Pv
6. State
Ca
7. Zip Code
94028
8. Date of Meeting you are submitting comment for.
10/26/2022
9. Agenda Item number or name
Electrification of utilities
10. Comment
There is no way the state or PGE will have adequate electrical supply or transmission grid in place by 2035 for all ev cars let alone replacing mat gas in our homes. This matter needs to be shelved until maybe 2042 to see what’s we are or, at the least, made as a suggestion to owners only. Cost to upgrade is prohibitive to seniors on fixed incomes like me.
11. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.
Thank you,
Portola Valley, CA
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
From: Thomas
To: Town Center; Melissa Thurman
Cc: Kari Chinn; Laura Russell
Subject: safety element
Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:23:33 PM
“Joint Committee” that is scheduled to meet on October 26, PV Town Council, and PV Town staff:
Please do not approve or endorse the draft Safety Element. Town residents should have appropriate time and opportunities to review drafts and make recommendations. For example, the apparently current notion of using an inappropriate fire-hazard map seems untoward, based on the content of the map and on processes that may have led to or be leading to adopting the map. - Tom
Thomas J. Buckholtz