Town Square

Post a New Topic

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

Original post made on Jan 22, 2021

Portola Valley kicked off the process of reviewing Stanford's housing project known as the "Stanford Wedge" with a well-attended Planning Commission study session.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, January 22, 2021, 11:46 AM

Comments (5)

Posted by Notes
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 22, 2021 at 2:05 pm

Notes is a registered user.

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.

Posted by Bigmon78
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 22, 2021 at 3:38 pm

Bigmon78 is a registered user.

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.

Posted by pvrez
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Jan 23, 2021 at 10:45 am

pvrez is a registered user.

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.

Posted by Meg
a resident of Portola Valley: other
on Jan 26, 2021 at 1:48 pm

Meg is a registered user.

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

Posted by Rusty Day
a resident of Portola Valley: Westridge
on Jan 30, 2021 at 2:19 am

Rusty Day is a registered user.

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

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Which homes should lose gas service first?
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 28,082 views

Boichik Bagels is opening its newest – and largest – location in Santa Clara this week
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,746 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,417 views

By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 1,318 views

A cold welcome at PA City Hall; Utilities Dept. public approval score drops; Nine experienced? candidates vie for Eshoo’s seat
By Diana Diamond | 0 comments | 26 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Almanac readers and foundations contributed over $300,000.