Portola Valley Planning Commissioner recuses herself from housing element discussion due to conflict

After public comment at the start of a Nov. 30 Portola Valley Planning Commission meeting, commissioner Judith Hasko, who was elected to join the Town Council in December, said she needed to make an announcement.

The news? She wouldn’t be taking part in the night’s discussion about the housing element, which the town is racing to modify so it can maintain local control and evade the so-called “builder’s remedy,” because of a potential conflict of interest at two sites the town is planning to upzone.

“It was brought to my attention that I may have a conflict that would preclude me from taking part in the discussion on the housing element items to be discussed this evening,” Hasko said, who is set to join the council on Dec. 14. “Out of caution, given that I am now aware of the need to analyze this, I’m going to recuse myself from the discussion items on the agenda tonight and plan to work with the town attorney (Cara Silver) to determine whether I can participate in future discussions related to the housing element items.”

Hasko explained that she lives on Applewood Lane within 1,000 feet of two Nathhorst Triangle properties, 4370 and the 4394 Alpine Road, that the town plans to upzone as part of its state mandated plans for housing. The two sites could produce up to 23 new housing units. But those weren’t the only items related to the housing up for discussion that evening. Updating its general plan to match with housing element needs, housing element programs and the state’s density bonus law.

Several residents said that they didn’t understand why Hasko couldn’t be part of the discussion. Chair Anne Kopf-Sill clarified that this was Hasko’s individual decision. Hasko was not available for further clarification on why she would recuse herself from the housing element as a whole.

“The town attorney is consulted but it’s important officials be given latitude to make decisions on their own because there are severe consequences if these conflict of interest rules are violated; there’s criminal penalties,” said Town Attorney Silver, who noted it’s reasonable for Hasko to examine her potential conflict of interest. Silver told The Almanac on Monday, Dec. 5, that she and Hasko have had several conversations and no final decision has been made.

Earlier in the year, Nathhorst Triangle residents were vocal in opposing a program that would have rezoned other portions of the neighborhood, some of which are owner-occupied. In the last week, they gathered 80 signatures for a petition to limit the upzoning of the two sites, which they submitted to the town.

In March, former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed – representing Nathhorst homeowners who don’t want their neighborhood upzoned to satisfy state housing requirements – filed a massive Public Records Act request for all documents and communications related to the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee‘s work. Mayor Craig Hughes said one resident went so far as to threaten to bankrupt the town if the housing element wasn’t to his liking.

Residents have opposed any new development in town over concerns about sullying the town’s rural character and increasing safety risk by building more homes in a region that is already at a heightened risk for wildfires.

Hasko’s decision comes in the midst of fast-approaching Jan. 31 deadline for the town to have a compliant housing element approved by the state.

Housing element discussion

Kopf-Sill was frank about the housing element process. She explained that the Planning Commission has three meetings over 13 days to meet this deadline. She said that towns like Woodside are not meeting is because “they have no chance of having a compliant housing element by Jan. 31, so why kill yourselves, right?” (Woodside Town Manager Kevin Bryant said in an email that the town “is working to submit a revised draft to the state by Jan. 31.”)

Los Altos Hills and Atherton also have no chance of a compliant housing element by the deadline, she said. Atherton Town Manager George Rodericks told The Almanac in an email that the town’s intent is to do everything it can to meet the Jan. 31 deadline and officials believe that that “is achievable.”

“They got their comments back and they have to find new sites,” Kopf-Sill said. “That’s the hard part. We have the opportunity to have a compliant housing element.”

The changes that staff made to the draft element, which was initially filed with the state this summer, added “detail to the programs without substantially changing the policies,” noted Planning and Building Director Laura Russell.

For example, the Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan is updated to state that “any residential or mixed use projects constructed along the Alpine Scenic corridor shall be designed to respect the scenic principles set forth in this plan.” It also states that any residential or mixed use projects constructed along the corridor shall provide sufficient setbacks for the town’s use of Alpine Road as a major evacuation corridor.

More on the Nathhorst sites

The town’s plan would allow for six units per acre at 4370 Alpine Road, which could result in nine townhouses, rezoning it from office space to mixed-use residential development. The northwest portion of the site includes a former tennis court and parking area that are not being used. The property owner has also expressed interest in redeveloping the property in a meeting with staff.

The 4394 Alpine Road site is located on 1.18 acres and is currently vacant and consists of a grassy field, next to Linwood Reality. This site will be rezoned from commercial to a new multi-family district that will allow 20 units to the acre, meaning about 23 units could be developed.

The petition started by Nathhorst neighbors outlines certain requests for the future of the 4394 and 4370 Alpine Road sites. They have concerns about three-story commercial and residential structures potentially being built immediately adjacent to homes in Nathhorst Neighborhood. It “would pose (a) significant environmental and safety impact on this neighborhood,” the neighbors said.

“High density rezoning of this area would also have a significant impact on a large portion of Portola Valley residents adding numerous people and cars to an evacuation route at the most busy intersection in town,” they wrote.

Residents behind the petition said they would agree to rezoning 4394 Alpine Road at 20 units per acre of single family residences, either one-story or two-story, with no three story structures. They would also like a 30-foot rear setback for the protection of privacy to existing homes within Nathhorst.

They are against any three-story structures at 4370 Alpine Road and want a maximum of nine units built on the property. They want any structures adjacent to Nathhorst Avenue to be one story. They also sought to preserve all general plan open space from development and preserve and protect the creek. Lastly, they ask for a 50-foot setback from Nathhorst Avenue.

Concerns over the density bonus law

Several residents at the meeting questioned the implications of developers taking advantage of the state’s density bonus law, which entitle developers to build more units than would otherwise be allowed by zone. They urged the town to develop on its own properties to avoid this since it would have control over how big a project could get and told officials to plan for the worst case scenario.

Development projects can qualify for a density bonus ranging from 20% to 50% depending on the proposed project. Only projects that are actually proposed as 100% affordable may qualify for the 80% density bonus.

For example, if a site is zoned for 20 units per acre, a 50% bonus could allow for up to 30 units to be built. To qualify for any density bonus the project must be at least five units; affordable rental units are deed restricted for at least 55 years; affordable for-sale units must be sold to income-qualified owners and subject to an equity sharing agreement.

Nathhorst resident Tammy Cole said the town could be putting their families in danger by sacrificing their privacy and safety by “changing the general plan whenever it is inconvenient with your (the town’s) plan to satisfy the state.”

Peter Draeger, CFO of Draeger’s Markets and a Portola Valley resident, said that town officials are naive if they assume the density bonus law “will not be taken to its extreme by some developer, by somebody who doesn’t care for Portola Valley.”

“The state is going to be very accommodating of what they (developers) want,” he said.

What’s next

The Planning Commission’s next meeting is on Wednesday, Dec. 7. It will review its changes to the element and make a formal recommendation to the council on Tuesday, Dec. 13. In January, the Town Council will review and make necessary adoptions before resubmitting it to the state.

Watch a video of the meeting here.