OSC letter to Council 1
20 April 2026
To: Mayor Craig Taylor
Vice Mayor Mary Hufty
Council Members Rebecca Flynn, Judith Hasko, and Helen Wolter Town Manager Darcy Smith
From: The Portola Valley Open Space Committee (OSC)
Subject: Recommended actions on the Hawthorns
We are writing to alert you to significant environmental impacts associated with the Hawthorns Area Plan (Plan), which is now one Board decision away from starting the CEQA process (Figure 1).1
We consider elements of the Plan unacceptable and in violation of the Hawthorns Conservation Easement. We recommend the following actions:
1. Town Manager: a) formally convey the Town’s concerns to Midpen, and b) advise Midpen to submit a preliminary application to the Town for a conditional use permit.
2. Town Council: a) quickly secure legal representation for engagement with Midpen, including the possibility of Town acquisition of Hawthorns, and b) facilitate this by increasing the cap on the Town Manager’s discretionary use of the Open Space Fund.
A lot is at stake for Portola Valley. A major concern is that the Plan’s two parking lot options are in the scenic hillside southeast of Alpine Road and Alpine Trail, adjacent to the Town’s busiest crosswalks and intersection—Alpine Road and Portola Road (Figures 2 and 3). The hillside is a mix of meadow and oak woodland. It is a prominent feature of the Alpine Road Scenic Corridor, which is now recognized in regional planning as a Priority Conservation Area. Both of the Plan’s parking options are scaled for 50 cars and would entail: removal of significant trees; substantial cut and fill; and construction of a roadway, a permeable concrete surface, retaining walls, and a screening berm upslope from Alpine Trail. These impacts would violate the Conservation Easement2 and would dramatically degrade the Town’s safe and scenic buffer along a heavily used trail and major road. One OSC member said it would be a travesty. The grantee of the Conservation Easement, the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST),3 has not enforced the Conservation Easement’s restrictions. 1 At the March 17, 2026 meeting of the Midpen Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee, the Plan was advanced to the Midpen Board for their meeting on May 13, 2026. Figure 1 provides a timeline. See also the videorecording of the meeting, especially timestamp 1:30:34−1:32:15. 2 Highlighted text of Appendix A to this letter (the Conservation Easement) includes restrictions on tree removal (p. 5), prohibits grading and other actions that would “clearly degrade the scenic and natural character of the Real Property” (p. 6), and specifies that a parking lot for public access should be in the Improved Portion of the property (p. 8, and Recital B, p.1). 3 The Conservation Easement for the Hawthorns (Appendix A of this letter) was granted to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) in 2005 by Frederick Woods, III. It states his intent to preserve the natural, scenic, historical, and open-space values of the Hawthorns in perpetuity. Midpen accepted the property in 2006 and officially finalized the transfer in 2011. At the time, this was Midpen’s largest-ever private land gift. See OSC letter to Council 2
The bigger picture is that the entire Hawthorns property is a unique asset for Portola Valley.
In addition to its diversity of natural habitats, there are visible legacies of the region’s agricultural past, and structures that likely merit state and national recognition for their historic quality.4 Appendix B of this letter describes how all these elements are woven together in a manner consistent with the conservation values of Portola Valley and the Historic Element of the General Plan. The Open Space Committee considers the Hawthorns so significant and “right-sized” as Town Open Space that acquisition should be considered.
Right-sizing should apply to every aspect of the Hawthorns. Providing sufficient parking for public access to Hawthorns is as much a goal for the Town as it is for Midpen. Residents are all too familiar with the consequences of inadequate parking at Midpen’s Windy Hill Open Space. The question is how much parking is needed for a 79-acre parcel with a 1.5- mile loop trail, and how those needs will change with greater use of e-bikes, ride services, and future modes of travel. Residents and committees have suggested parking arrangements—either inside the Hawthorns property or outside it—that would meet the needs for parking while protecting open space.
Action is needed now by the Town of Portola Valley. If the Midpen Board approves the draft Hawthorns Area Plan as a project description for CEQA at its meeting on May 13, the Town should engage with Midpen before the CEQA process begins, saving time and taxpayer dollars relative to waiting until a CEQA document is completed. This requires immediate Town action to obtain legal representation, focused equally on both Midpen’s Hawthorns Area Plan and the potential acquisition of Hawthorns by the Town. To facilitate this, we recommend increasing the cap on the Town Manager’s discretionary use of the Open Space Fund.
Respectfully,
The Portola Valley Open Space Committee:
Carter Warr, Chair
Jackie Magno, Vice Chair
Nona Chiariello
Terry Lee
Delle Maxwell
Betsy Morgenthaler
Gary Nielsen
“Property Acquisition” on p. 2 of:
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210518_HawthornsPublicAccessPlan_R-21-65.pdf.
The gift was supported by a $2 million endowment for ongoing stewardship. See “Budget” on p. 3. of https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180627_FYI_HawthornsHistoricComplexReuseUpda te.pdf. 4 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf OSC letter to Council 3
Figure 1
Figure 1. Screenshot from the videorecording of the March 17, 2026 meeting of the Midpen Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee. The timeline from March 2026 until Implementation is discussed beginning at timestamp 1:30:34 of the videorecording.
OSC letter to Council 4
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic Parking Design Options 9 and 10 from Midpen’s Hawthorns Area Plan, pp. 36-37 in the Agenda Packet for the March 17, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. The Committee approved advancing Options 9 and 10 to the full Midpen Board. Contour lines indicate 1ft intervals: faint contours are the existing topography; dark contours show topography post-construction. Parking would have two phases, but the grading would happen in phase 1. A dashed red line is added and shows the approximate boundary between the “Unimproved Portion” left of the line, and the “Improved Portion” on the right (see Conservation Easement, Appendix A, p. 1 and p. 8).
OSC letter to Council 5
Figure 3. Schematic section diagrams for parking Option 9 and Option 10. These section diagrams illustrate the approximate cut-and-fill necessary to create the proposed parking lanes, drive aisles, and visual screening for parking Options 9 and 10. Green text and arrows have been added to draw attention to the existing grade, for comparison with the proposed final topography after cut-and-fill. The “approximate 60'” width of the parking lot and drive aisle was used to scale the two panels for direct comparison.
After these section diagrams were created, Midpen modified the parking schematics to substitute hammerhead turnarounds (shown in Figure 2) for circular turnarounds. The hammerheads would extend farther upslope on the hillside than is represented in these two panels.
Source: pages 18 and 19 of
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=26420&repo=r-5197d798 Figure 3
See
Part
6 i.
Note: Yellow highlighting and comments and underlines in red have been added.
Source: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/
files/20180627_FYI_HawthornsHistoricComplexReuseUpdate.pdf Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 1
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 2
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 3
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 4
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 5
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 6
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 7
See
Recital B
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 8
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 9
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 10
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 11
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 12
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 13
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 14
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 15
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 16
Appendix A, Cons. Easement, p. 17
Appendix B, p. 1
Appendix B. Hawthorns—an integration of open space, agricultural, and settled areas In 2005 Frederick Woods III granted a Conservation Easement to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) for the Hawthorns, a property he grew up on and inherited from his parents, Frederick N. Woods, Jr and Frances Newhall Woods. Midpen accepted the property in 2006 and officially finalized the transfer in 2011. At the time, this was Midpen’s largest-ever private land gift,1 and it was supported by a $2 million endowment for ongoing stewardship.2
Frederick Woods III’s intent was to preserve the natural, scenic, historical, and open-space values of the Hawthorns in perpetuity.3 His intent would be honored by recognizing how those four values are interwoven in the landscape, together with identifying an historic structure that is a potential candidate for preservation.
Interwoven Landscape: Open Space and Agriculture
The open space and historic agricultural areas of the Hawthorns are woven together in conformance with natural landforms and water resources, typical of Portola Valley’s past.
For example, without modifying the natural topography, extensive orchards were possible when cultivation began at the Hawthorns. A 1930 aerial photograph shows orchards stretching to much of the property’s perimeter (Figure 1).4 A hillshade image derived from 2020 LIDAR reveals ground surface patterns suggesting that, prior to 1930, orchards and olive groves covered more than one-third of the property (Figure 2). These records align with the HRA’s findings that the property transitioned from horticulture to livestock after the Woods family purchased it in 1916.5 Today, ecological succession from orchards to oak woodland is occurring (Figure 3). The pastoral landscape is becoming ever more a conservation gem.
While the landscape is ecologically interwoven, it is legally divided by three assessor’s parcels and two Conservation Easement parcels (Figure 3). The two Conservation Easement parcels are significant because they have somewhat different restrictions.
Alignment with the Historic Element of the Town’s General Plan Based on the Historic Resources Assessment of the Hawthorns (HRA)6 and other documents, the Hawthorns is singularly aligned with the objectives of Portola Valley’s Historic Element to preserve, protect and enhance historic resources and to promote 1 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210518_HawthornsPublicAccessPlan_R-21-65.pdf , p. 2 2 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180627_FYI_HawthornsHistoricComplexReuseUpdate.pdf p.3. 3 Hawthorns Conservation Easement, Recital C.
4 This photo precedes the earliest photos reviewed for the HRA. https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf, Endnote 49, p. 121. 5 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf. p. 74 6 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf Appendix B, p. 2
public appreciation of them.7 The HRA concluded that “the property is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district because it retains landscape features and structures that reflect the social, agricultural, and architectural history of San Francisco Peninsula estate property in the late 19th century.”8 In the Town’s Historic Resources Inventory, the Hawthorns is the only entry listed for both historic structures and natural features.9 The Hawthorn house is “the first architecturally designed house within the present town boundary.”10 The olive trees may be the only remaining examples of olive groves in Portola Valley.11 These unique features argue for preservation of both landscape and structures.
Yet, the future of the historic complex is uncertain. Midpen recognizes the property’s historic values but “has neither the public directive, internal capacity, nor available funding to manage, restore or rehabilitate historic structures and therefore has typically relied on partners to undertake preservation of historic resources on their lands.”12 In 2025, after several potential partnerships failed to materialize, Midpen decided to move ahead on the open space portion of the property and defer the historic area.
A priority for preservation: the Garage
Of the four historically significant buildings—the Lower Barn, the Cottage, the Main House, and the Garage13—we identify the Garage as the best candidate for preservation. The Garage is a 2,200 sf structure with a 1,100 sf attic apartment.14 The HRA raised the possibility that the Garage was designed by renowned California architect Julia Morgan but lacked supporting documentation.15
Evidence supporting a Julia Morgan connection for the Garage has increased. Julia Morgan expert Dr. Karen Ann McNeill identified a newspaper report which is, thus far, the only published evidence linking Morgan to the design (Figure 4); it dates the Garage to 1918. In addition, Town Historian Nancy Lund has viewed Garage drawings owned by Fred Woods IV that substantiate Morgan’s role. Both Nancy Lund and Karen McNeill have indicated they believe the Garage is indeed a Julia Morgan structure. With its modest size and design by Julia Morgan, the Garage may be a viable candidate for obtaining enough philanthropic support to preserve the structure.
7 https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1986/635393271701670000, Section 2508. 8 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210518_HawthornsPublicAccessPlan_R-21-65.pdf , p. 3 9 https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1986/635393271701670000, Sections 2517 and 2521; Hawthorns entries are listed for further consideration. 10 https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1986/635393271701670000, p. 22 11 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf, p. 15 12 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf p.2 of Introduction. 13 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210518_HawthornsPublicAccessPlan_R-21-65.pdf, p. 3 14 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf, p. 95 15 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2013.10.31.Hawthorns_HistoricResourceStudy.pdf, p. 47- 48 Appendix B, p. 3
Figure 1. 1930 aerial photograph of Hawthorns. Dashed yellow lines outline areas where cultivation is visible in this image; dashed red lines show where the 2020 hillshade image (Figure 2) suggests a surface-terrain legacy of pre-1930 cultivation that is not apparent in this image. Figures 1 and 2 are scaled and aligned for direct comparison.
Comparing Figures 1 and 3 indicates that woody cultivation (perhaps olives, stone fruits, apples or grapes) was more extensive in 1930 than is visible today. Comparing Figures 1 and 2 suggests woody cultivation was yet more extensive at some time prior to 1930.
Image source: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/report/report.php?filed_by=C-1025 Appendix B, p. 4
Figure 2. 2020 Hillshade (terrain) image. Dashed yellow lines roughly outline areas where cultivation is visible in the 1930 photo (Figure 1) as well as in this image; dashed red lines indicate where the ground surface in this image suggests a fingerprint of cultivation not apparent in the 1930 photo (i.e., cultivation preceded that photo). If cultivation also occurred outside the dashed yellow and red lines, it may have been erased from the surface terrain by plowing, grazing, etc. Figures 1 and 2 are scaled and aligned for direct comparison. LiDAR source: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/64806 Appendix B, p. 5
Figure 3. Schematic of internal boundaries of Hawthorns. The Conservation Easement lists three assessor’s parcels that constitute the Hawthorns. It also divides the Hawthorns into two Parcels (1 and 2, also known as “improved” and “unimproved”), which only partially align with the assessor’s parcels. (See Exhibit B within the Conservation Easement.) An Historic district outlined by Midpen is included here (see https://www.openspace.org/what-we-do/projects/hawthorns-historic-complex) but some Midpen documents outline the historic area in other ways, e.g. with a circle.
Note, where boundaries coincide, they are offset to make all of them visible, so these lines are not precise.
Appendix B, p. 6
Figure 4. Page from Building and Engineering News
in 1918 referencing a contract for a “One and onehalf-story concrete and frame private garage with living rooms” designed by architect Julia Morgan for
Mrs. E. W. Newhall to be constructed in Menlo Park.
Mrs. Edwin White Newhall was the mother of Frances
Newhall Woods.
The year of the contract was 2 years after Frances
Newhall married Frederick Nickerson Woods, Jr. and
purchased the Hawthorns. According to the HRA (p.
47), “the Newhall family (particularly the parents of
Frances Newhall Woods) had a history of working
with famed early California woman architect, Julia
Morgan.”
One of the connections to Julia Morgan is that the
architect designed a brick garage-plus-apartment
adjacent to the Newhall home on Pacific Avenue in
San Francisco. The structure apparently was built for
E. W. Newhall, Jr. and his wife (brother and sister-inlaw of Frances Newhall Woods), but Frances and Frederick Woods, Jr. lived there for a period.
Frederick N. Woods, III, who granted the
Conservation Easement, was the son of Frances
Newhall Woods and Frederick N. Woods, Jr.