News

Portola Valley: Town begins public meeting process for Stanford housing project

Renderings of the Portola Terrace project that's on the Stanford Wedge property. Courtesy Stanford University.

Portola Valley kicked off a series of meetings to review Stanford University's proposed 39 housing units of housing on part of 75 acres of university property often referred to as the "Stanford Wedge" during a three-and-half-hour Planning Commission study session on Wednesday night.

During the two years since the project was initially proposed, residents — some of whom were among the more than a dozen people who spoke during a public comment period of the meeting — have cited potential traffic jams and fire hazards as reasons to oppose the development. More than 60 members of the public attended the online meeting.

Stanford, which has revised plans for the development several times, resubmitted plans on Nov. 20 to develop 27 single-family, two-story residences designated for Stanford faculty and staff, and 12 rental units in three, two-story buildings that would be available for below market rate clustered on approximately 7 acres at 3530 Alpine Road.

Stanford wants to develop land along Alpine Road to house its staff and others. Courtesy Stanford University.

The project, dubbed Portola Terrace, would mostly be located between Westridge and Golden Oak drives, which is the flattest portion of the site, according to a report staff prepared for the meeting. Since the early 1990s it has been designated to allow multi-family housing for employees or staff affiliated with the university.

The Planning Commission received a slew of comments both in favor and against the project via email before the Wednesday meeting, along with public comments during the meeting.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Commissioner Nicholas Targ recused himself from the item since he is a Stanford employee. Vice Chair Anne Kopf-Sill also recused herself since she lives close to the site.

During the meeting, resident Nan Shostak, a retired geologist, said residents of the proposed homes could be put in danger during an earthquake since the project lies directly on top of the Hermit Fault line. The damage caused by earthquakes can also heighten the risk of sparking a wildfire, she noted. She said this should be examined before development plans are considered further.

Resident Rita Comes said she is concerned there could be indigenous artifacts and burial sites under the proposed development.

Resident Dave Cardinal, who lives nearby the project, said although he has mixed feelings about the project, overall he supports it. He said that he sees three main pros of the project: more Stanford families living in town, better management of the property if there is a development on it and the potential that the additional residents could spur more transit in town.

Resident Helen Wolter said the project would help create more market-rate housing in town and her preference is for people who work in town to secure those units, especially for teachers.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

"When the average housing price (in Portola Valley) is $3 million, people (who work in town), can't afford to live here," she said.

In February, a group of more than 300 residents signed a letter to the town demanding that Stanford withdraw its proposal, mentioning concerns about the addition of housing would cause a traffic jam on two-lane Alpine Road in the event of a fire emergency and fire hazards on the property itself. Woodside fire district officials have also expressed concerns that the property around the land that would be developed would be consistently difficult to clear of fire hazards.

Portola Valley Neighbors United, incorporated in January 2020 "to help our local community preserve and enhance its small, rural open space character," and co-founded by council candidate Mary Hufty, has come out in opposition to the project.

With state housing mandates could require the town to build 200 to 300 new housing units in the next decade, the council has also been weighing the concept of adding housing while also preserving Portola Valley's treasured rural character and not creating more wildfire risk in the process.

In November, council members Craig Hughes and John Richards penned a letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments following a council discussion on the state Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, stating that the town will remain highly susceptible to wildfires and that it would like to engage "on the sensibleness of significant numbers of new homes in high-fire danger areas." They also said that, as the smallest staffed city in San Mateo County, "it is improbable that there would be an ability to hire enough staff to ensure a transparent and equitable entitlement process for any future applicants" if the draft state methodology is implemented.

In contrast, resident David Beaver voiced support for the project in a Jan. 8 email to the Planning Commission. He noted that Stanford owns the property and in our system they have a fundamental right to use it as they see fit, within town and state laws.

"We all need more housing, affordable or un (affordable)," he wrote. "I believe the traffic impact will be minor compared to the number of cars already on Alpine Road (which I know well as someone who already has to pull out onto Alpine). I will passionately stand up against the expected 'This will change the character of our community!!!!' arguments. Every house in Portola Valley was at one time a change to the character of our community."

Portola Valley residents Susan Light and Edward Kovachy wrote to the Planning Commission in February that they were "sorry to hear of all the organized money going into stopping this project."

"We need more housing, ideally affordable housing," they said. "I believe this can work and the objections can be dealt with. I'm afraid that most of the people objecting are looking for excuses because of classic NIMBY (Not in My Backyard). Know that many of us do support this project."

John Donahoe, director of Planning and Entitlement at Stanford's Land, Buildings and Real Estate office, said the adding housing would help the university recruit and retain faculty and staff. Top-tier educators and researchers often like Stanford "until they start to look at housing prices" in the Bay Area, he said.

Plan specifics

The homes would be painted in muted colors and be all-electric, zero net energy producing, according to a presentation prepared by Stanford for the meeting. The homes would include fire-resistive exterior materials: metal roofs, cement fiber siding and stucco.

There would be fire-resistant landscape materials, a fire-safe surface for a play area in the development and underground power lines. There would also be a 200-foot fire break buffer at the homes and a fire maintenance road would be built.

A preliminary Woodside Fire Protection District review indicates that the proposed plans, including all roadway widths, materials and circulation design details are conditionally accepted.

The remaining land, approximately 64 acres, would be preserved as open space and is not eligible for development in the future. Alpine Rock Ranch, a horse boarding facility with stables, occupies a portion of the property and would be removed as part of the proposal.

Stanford wants to develop land along Alpine Road to house its staff and others. Courtesy Stanford University.

A new public recreational trail approximately 1.2 miles in length and 6 feet in width would be constructed along the western edge of the development area, connecting to the existing horse trail along Alpine Road. The entire site would be subject to a vegetation management plan to address fire safety.

Project background

A map of the Stanford Wedge. Courtesy Stanford University.

The area where the projects sits has been zoned for residential use since the 1960s, according to Stanford's presentation for the meeting. Stanford first submitted a pre-application for the development in July 2019. It submitted a formal application in September 2019 and has revised its plans several times.

Commission Chair Craig Taylor noted that reviewing building projects in town can at times "seem long and arduous," but having everyone participate in that process is "what makes Portola Valley special."

This is just the beginning of the public meeting process for this project, which will include numerous meetings of the town's committees and commissions, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A draft environmental impact review (EIR) should be released for review in the spring.

View of video of Wednesday's meeting here.

The next study session on the topic will come before the Architectural and Site Control Commission on Jan. 25 at 4 p.m. on Zoom. No final decisions will be made at these January meetings; there will be numerous upcoming meetings on the project as it moves through the town's commission and committee review process.

The proposed plans and supporting materials are available on the town's website. More information can be found on Stanford's website.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Portola Valley: Town begins public meeting process for Stanford housing project

by / Almanac

Uploaded: Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 11:46 am

Portola Valley kicked off a series of meetings to review Stanford University's proposed 39 housing units of housing on part of 75 acres of university property often referred to as the "Stanford Wedge" during a three-and-half-hour Planning Commission study session on Wednesday night.

During the two years since the project was initially proposed, residents — some of whom were among the more than a dozen people who spoke during a public comment period of the meeting — have cited potential traffic jams and fire hazards as reasons to oppose the development. More than 60 members of the public attended the online meeting.

Stanford, which has revised plans for the development several times, resubmitted plans on Nov. 20 to develop 27 single-family, two-story residences designated for Stanford faculty and staff, and 12 rental units in three, two-story buildings that would be available for below market rate clustered on approximately 7 acres at 3530 Alpine Road.

The project, dubbed Portola Terrace, would mostly be located between Westridge and Golden Oak drives, which is the flattest portion of the site, according to a report staff prepared for the meeting. Since the early 1990s it has been designated to allow multi-family housing for employees or staff affiliated with the university.

The Planning Commission received a slew of comments both in favor and against the project via email before the Wednesday meeting, along with public comments during the meeting.

Commissioner Nicholas Targ recused himself from the item since he is a Stanford employee. Vice Chair Anne Kopf-Sill also recused herself since she lives close to the site.

During the meeting, resident Nan Shostak, a retired geologist, said residents of the proposed homes could be put in danger during an earthquake since the project lies directly on top of the Hermit Fault line. The damage caused by earthquakes can also heighten the risk of sparking a wildfire, she noted. She said this should be examined before development plans are considered further.

Resident Rita Comes said she is concerned there could be indigenous artifacts and burial sites under the proposed development.

Resident Dave Cardinal, who lives nearby the project, said although he has mixed feelings about the project, overall he supports it. He said that he sees three main pros of the project: more Stanford families living in town, better management of the property if there is a development on it and the potential that the additional residents could spur more transit in town.

Resident Helen Wolter said the project would help create more market-rate housing in town and her preference is for people who work in town to secure those units, especially for teachers.

"When the average housing price (in Portola Valley) is $3 million, people (who work in town), can't afford to live here," she said.

In February, a group of more than 300 residents signed a letter to the town demanding that Stanford withdraw its proposal, mentioning concerns about the addition of housing would cause a traffic jam on two-lane Alpine Road in the event of a fire emergency and fire hazards on the property itself. Woodside fire district officials have also expressed concerns that the property around the land that would be developed would be consistently difficult to clear of fire hazards.

Portola Valley Neighbors United, incorporated in January 2020 "to help our local community preserve and enhance its small, rural open space character," and co-founded by council candidate Mary Hufty, has come out in opposition to the project.

With state housing mandates could require the town to build 200 to 300 new housing units in the next decade, the council has also been weighing the concept of adding housing while also preserving Portola Valley's treasured rural character and not creating more wildfire risk in the process.

In November, council members Craig Hughes and John Richards penned a letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments following a council discussion on the state Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, stating that the town will remain highly susceptible to wildfires and that it would like to engage "on the sensibleness of significant numbers of new homes in high-fire danger areas." They also said that, as the smallest staffed city in San Mateo County, "it is improbable that there would be an ability to hire enough staff to ensure a transparent and equitable entitlement process for any future applicants" if the draft state methodology is implemented.

In contrast, resident David Beaver voiced support for the project in a Jan. 8 email to the Planning Commission. He noted that Stanford owns the property and in our system they have a fundamental right to use it as they see fit, within town and state laws.

"We all need more housing, affordable or un (affordable)," he wrote. "I believe the traffic impact will be minor compared to the number of cars already on Alpine Road (which I know well as someone who already has to pull out onto Alpine). I will passionately stand up against the expected 'This will change the character of our community!!!!' arguments. Every house in Portola Valley was at one time a change to the character of our community."

Portola Valley residents Susan Light and Edward Kovachy wrote to the Planning Commission in February that they were "sorry to hear of all the organized money going into stopping this project."

"We need more housing, ideally affordable housing," they said. "I believe this can work and the objections can be dealt with. I'm afraid that most of the people objecting are looking for excuses because of classic NIMBY (Not in My Backyard). Know that many of us do support this project."

John Donahoe, director of Planning and Entitlement at Stanford's Land, Buildings and Real Estate office, said the adding housing would help the university recruit and retain faculty and staff. Top-tier educators and researchers often like Stanford "until they start to look at housing prices" in the Bay Area, he said.

The homes would be painted in muted colors and be all-electric, zero net energy producing, according to a presentation prepared by Stanford for the meeting. The homes would include fire-resistive exterior materials: metal roofs, cement fiber siding and stucco.

There would be fire-resistant landscape materials, a fire-safe surface for a play area in the development and underground power lines. There would also be a 200-foot fire break buffer at the homes and a fire maintenance road would be built.

A preliminary Woodside Fire Protection District review indicates that the proposed plans, including all roadway widths, materials and circulation design details are conditionally accepted.

The remaining land, approximately 64 acres, would be preserved as open space and is not eligible for development in the future. Alpine Rock Ranch, a horse boarding facility with stables, occupies a portion of the property and would be removed as part of the proposal.

A new public recreational trail approximately 1.2 miles in length and 6 feet in width would be constructed along the western edge of the development area, connecting to the existing horse trail along Alpine Road. The entire site would be subject to a vegetation management plan to address fire safety.

The area where the projects sits has been zoned for residential use since the 1960s, according to Stanford's presentation for the meeting. Stanford first submitted a pre-application for the development in July 2019. It submitted a formal application in September 2019 and has revised its plans several times.

Commission Chair Craig Taylor noted that reviewing building projects in town can at times "seem long and arduous," but having everyone participate in that process is "what makes Portola Valley special."

This is just the beginning of the public meeting process for this project, which will include numerous meetings of the town's committees and commissions, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A draft environmental impact review (EIR) should be released for review in the spring.

View of video of Wednesday's meeting here.

The next study session on the topic will come before the Architectural and Site Control Commission on Jan. 25 at 4 p.m. on Zoom. No final decisions will be made at these January meetings; there will be numerous upcoming meetings on the project as it moves through the town's commission and committee review process.

The proposed plans and supporting materials are available on the town's website. More information can be found on Stanford's website.

Comments

Notes
Registered user
Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 22, 2021 at 2:05 pm
Notes, Portola Valley: Westridge
Registered user
on Jan 22, 2021 at 2:05 pm

The Fire Marshall and Woodside Fire Department has been clear, in writing, that this is a bad spot to develop. I realize Stanford has the right to develop its own land, and also appreciate the majority of the land being left alone. However, let's be really clear---this is definitely going to increase the daily traffic on Alpine Road, which is already congested (and in normal times of not COVID, very busy) due to the medical offices and the people taking Arastradero as a shortcut. Unless, of course, the Stanford staff members ride bikes to work, which is totally doable. Regarding Stanford staff, what makes Stanford think that these houses are going to be desirable to incoming professors? The renderings make them look ugly, very close to one another (do they meet the minimum distance that is required to be between homes for fire safety?), and honestly, quite reminiscent of what lower level teaching staff and grad students refer to as "The Stanford Ghetto" over on Sand Hill. If these houses are going to be built, please make them architecturally interesting without making them stick up out of the trees, and make the place friendly and pretty. Another ugly 70s type development we don't need.


Bigmon78
Registered user
Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 22, 2021 at 3:38 pm
Bigmon78, Portola Valley: Westridge
Registered user
on Jan 22, 2021 at 3:38 pm

The results of current traffic studies that model the traffic from the proposed new higher density units is vital to making an informed decision. The intersection at Alpine and Westridge is challenging now as there is blind curve on Alpine. The Wedge is a tough location for high density housing due to traffic, geology and fire risks. Housing would make much more sense at the Town center on Portola Rd. Relatively flat and more easily developed if we want to add more housing in the town.

Additionally, Stanford has Hundreds of Acres of land!! They need to put housing on their campus not mess up our town.


pvrez
Registered user
Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Jan 23, 2021 at 10:45 am
pvrez, Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
Registered user
on Jan 23, 2021 at 10:45 am

housing for pv workers in one thing, but stanford housing belongs elsewhere. the eucalyptus grove(s) near "the tombs" seems sensible - bike/walk to: campus, caltrain, samtrans, downtown mp/pa, shopping center, and do fire mitigation by removing eucalyptus at the same time. lastly, the term "affordable" in pv is a farce at best.


Meg
Registered user
Portola Valley: other
on Jan 26, 2021 at 1:48 pm
Meg, Portola Valley: other
Registered user
on Jan 26, 2021 at 1:48 pm

Stanford "company housing" is not secure affordable housing. It places employees in a position of servitude. Stanford should pay enough for people to get safe housing so they can grow equity and retire with security. With a living wage, Stanford employees can own their own house. Instead Stanford is following the lead of Right-wing developer's organizations who Virtue-Signal while continuing to offer inadequate wages for people to gain a foot on the equity ladder.
There is no justification for putting neighbors in PV, West Menlo Park and the Stanford employees at a risk of burning up like the victims of the Paradise Fire did all the while saving on wages.

This is the bind that Stanford housing can put children in when employment is ended:

Web Link


Rusty Day
Registered user
Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 30, 2021 at 2:19 am
Rusty Day, Portola Valley: Westridge
Registered user
on Jan 30, 2021 at 2:19 am

Shame on You!
One truly newsworthy event took place at the January 20 meeting of the Planning Commission and the Almanac does not even mention it? What type of "journalism" is that?
Fire Marshall Don Bullard candidly addressed the Planning Commission during the January 20 meeting. He told it and all the attendees that the WFPD has not "signed off" or conditionally approved this project. He explained how and why the Wedge is an extremely hazardous, fire-prone setting for the housing Stanford proposes. He also explained why densely clustering housing in such a hazardous setting only adds to the hazards, and why the Fire District has repeatedly asked Stanford to build elsewhere or, at the very least, dramatically increase the separation between houses and the defensible space around each house.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.