From: [email protected]
To: Town Center
Subject: New Entry on Town Council Comments Survey
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:43:49 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: Comment on an Agenda Item for Town Council Meeting Date & Time: 08/08/2023 3:43 PM
Response #: 20
Submitter ID: 7069
IP address:
Time to complete: 1 min. , 18 sec.
Survey Details
1. First and Last Name
Karen Askey
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.)
Not answered
4. Street address ( will not be publicly displayed)
5. City
PORTOLA VALLEY
6. State
CA
7. Zip Code
94028
8. Date of Meeting you are submitting comment for.
08/09/2023
9. Agenda Item number or name
Housing Element
10. Comment
see upload
11. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.
Karen Askey - Comments re HCD's Response to HE.pdf
Thank you,
Portola Valley, CA
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Dear Town Council Members and Planning Staff -
To say that we are all disappointed with HCD’s response to our Housing Element (HE) is an understatement. It baffles the mind that our state government is forcing its municipalities to spend thousands of laborious hours and multi-millions of dollars when this same time and money could be aiding and impacting our housing issues in a more effective and direct manner.
It is also quite bothersome that HCD shifted reviewers AND is weighting comments from non-residents who don’t understand our community over us (specifically Kevin Burke and David Kellogg). Think Sisyphus - We are pushing that boulder up the hill, only to have it roll down again, over and over…..
I am in favor of pushing back on the state and aligning ourselves with like communities, as some other residents have mentioned. Let’s explore these options.
But given we MUST respond to HCD, I would like to share my ideas as we develop our next version of the HE.
In a cover letter, I would like to see PV provide additional background to better educate HCD on our specific community. Let’s help HCD know what we know:
1. Let’s make it clear that while PV has acres and acres of open space, it is not Town-owned.
● Let’s explain who the big land owners are: Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Stanford University, and Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) (once estate issues have been settled). We must show that the MidPen and POST land is open and free to all, serving a region far greater than PV. Let’s also show that much of the Stanford land is difficult to develop, and Stanford’s desire is for faculty housing, not affordable housing. ● We must present the map of town-owned land found here, and discuss each site and why it is not feasible to build, be it slope, seismic, fire safety issues, dedicated open space or other:
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12841/6369697998781700 00 ● With respect to Dorothy Ford Park & Open Space, we should explain the history and how the donor of funds to purchase that land had a verbal agreement with PV that it was for open space, and we are reneging on that gift to satisfy HCD. Once parkland disappears, it is gone forever.
2. Let’s make it clear that buildable, privately-owned vacant lots are close-to-none, and provide a map for those lots. (Perhaps these lots can be identified in our HE for potential SB9 development.)
3. Let’s make it clear that PV has spent well over $500,000, besides the countless hours to develop an HE. And that this money, along with the hundreds of millions spent by other municipalities, could have been directed to the purchasing and repurposing of existing property, or in subsidizing housing for our low-income population.
4. Let’s make it clear that PV exceeded its RHNA quota in the previous cycle, primarily with ADUs. While we don’t have exact data, Many of these ADUs are rented to tenants with lower income levels and work in the community. HCD rules are limiting our full potential with ADUs/JADUs in this new cycle.
5. Let’s make it clear that the safety of our residents is our top priority. We are being forced to focus on the HE before understanding and completing our Safety Element.
Resident safety should always come first. HCD needs to understand why much of our land is not safe to develop, be it fault lines, high fire danger zones, soil liquefaction, evacuation issues and other criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN HCD COMMENTS: In addition to clarifying and increasing education about PV, HCD has created a moving target for us. Therefore, we should also make changes in this new round of our HE.
● Replace the Opt-In Program with SB9 Units. As you recall, the Opt-In Program was very controversial with many residents. Given that HCD is now requiring that we may not cap the number of units in the Opt-in program and we must complete the rezoning within 3 years, we should use SB9 units in its place. We can use the same criteria to identify potential parcels as required by HCD. Given the minimal number in our plan (12), this is very realistic.
● Increase the number of ADUs/JADUs and list JADUs separately. On page 8, Section 5, regarding Goals, Priorities, Metrics, & Milestones, HCD states, “Additionally, the element identified majority of its RHNA at the edges of the Town. These conditions and circumstances warrant significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increasing housing choices and affordability throughout and beyond the Town, including in lower-density neighborhoods. The element should be revised with aggressively numeric targets and geographic targets throughout the Town, including lower-density neighborhoods. Examples include creating more housing choices and affordability in single-family neighborhoods beyond complying with law (e.g., SB 9, ADUs), targeting affordable housing funding, homesharing programs, more than one junior accessory dwelling unit (per single family structure, enhancing capacity, affordability, and housing choices on religious institutional sites beyond the RHNA and other alternative land use strategies.”
HCD has opened the door for us here - JADUs are a new element in the Housing Plan, but certainly not new to Portola Valley. JADUs, by its nature of less than 500 square feet and a part of an existing home, are deemed to be low-income. We have tremendous opportunity here as there are many existing PV homes with JADUs, or existing set-ups that would require minimal modifications. With incentives for permits and legal conversions, we can easily add these units to our plan. This will require strong resident communication and educational programs, which volunteers may help with. ● Consider identifying the site for Dorothy Ford Park & Open Space as a Senior’s Community. HCD has indicated we need to supply more information about various special needs populations, including Seniors (page 1, item 2). HCD is also encouraging, “multi-family, single-room occupancy (SRO) units” (page 7, Item 2). As PV has many older, long-time residents who may prefer to stay in the community, this could be a win-win for both existing residents and new members to the community. A senior’s community would also have less car travel, traffic and parking issues. ● Utilize the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) to purchase land. Town-owned land provides greater control over the development of housing projects. The town should let HCD know that we will actively pursue lot purchases with the intent to develop affordable housing (or perhaps replace Dorothy Ford Park & Open Space with a new site). Some of the AHF should also be used to incentivize the conversions of existing structures and rooms into permitted ADUs/JADUs.
● Thoroughly investigate remodeling our existing Town Center land and the property adjacent to Town Center. Our General Plan indicates that future development should be near Town Center, and our biggest piece of Town-owned property is the 11+ acres known as Town Center. While daunting, it may make sense to “remodel the site” to accommodate housing. And we should actively be pursuing opportunities for the land directly adjacent to Town Center, although currently tied up in estate issues with POST. There may be an opportunity for a land swap or other use (like a dog park).
● Develop stronger requirements for developers contributions for affordable housing, infrastructure and community recreational facilities. We know that more development will stress our existing infrastructure and resources. Developers need to make greater contributions, both financially and in development, to subsidize the community needs.
In closing, PV should amend its HE site inventory plan given HCD’s new comments and demands. Although we all wish our HE had been accepted by HCD, we must continue to work hard and create the best outcome for both existing and new residents.
Thanks,
Karen Askey