The proposed project by Stanford University to develop the property they own in PV between Westridge and Golden Oak is controversial and complex. I’ve been following along the best I can, and thought it might be useful to post my “Cliff’s Notes” (or perhaps what could be called a summary) of my understanding of where we are. I hope they are useful to some, and welcome notes about what I’ve missed (certainly something) or have gotten wrong (always):
My Notes on the “Stanford Wedge” project, in case they of use to others:
* Stanford University is proposing to build housing on the 70-ish acres it owns between Westridge and Golden Oak along Alpine Road in Portola Valley.
* We (PV) would like more and more affordable housing options in Portola Valley for people who work here, or who just want to live here.
* Stanford is proposing building (relatively) high-density housing for faculty and staff in roughly the most-level and accessible (6-7 acre) area of the site, including 12 units of Below-Market-Rate “work force” housing alongside 27 single-family homes.
* With this proposal the other 90% of the site would be left as open space, with a vegetation management plan, and a new fire road for access as needed.
* This is in lieu of some number (2-3 dozen?) more typical Portola Valley homes being spread out across the entire site (subject to steep slope rules, etc.) that Stanford is presumably entitled to build as the land owner.
* It will be between $13M-$23M less expensive for Stanford to develop the property this way instead of as large houses and lots. So legally, this is a “concession” from us (PV) by granting them the right to build smaller, more tightly packed houses.
* However, it is also likely that Stanford will realize a lot less money for selling the smaller, higher-density, lots (or ground leasing them, as the case may be). So the lower construction costs aren’t exactly a give-away, but a change in plans. But the dense approach means that Stanford get more affordable housing, which it desperately needs to attract and retain young faculty and staff.
* It appears from all evidence that the owner/occupants of the houses will pay property tax on the fair market value of their homes (including the land), like Stanford faculty do in Palo Alto, but there is some skepticism about that and it needs to be verified.
* Stanford currently pays less than $3K/year property tax on the land, so any development would certainly result in a major gain in revenue for our School District and our town.
* This project will clearly impact the view from Alpine Road, Westridge, Minoca, and maybe Golden Oak.
* Putting a couple dozen homes there would also impact views, by an unknown amount.
* The homes would be built to a stringent modern standard when it comes to fire safety. There is a lot of debate on how safe they would be, and our Fire Marshall has taken a position that appears to oppose development. But that was a couple years ago, and I don’t know if it is consistent with the current plan.
* Fire spreads uphill, so there is reasonable concern that if something started on the developed portion of the property, it could spread and impact nearby homes (N.B.One of which is ours:)) Fire models don’t show that as likely, but it can’t be discounted.
* Stanford is proposing an aggressive defensible space plan, and will be undergrounding the wires along their property. (Frankly, until this proposal was floated, they didn’t do a great job of managing the vegetation on the property, so having faculty living there and having signed off on a plan might be a good thing).
* There is concern that the additional (roughly 50 total) cars could create traffic problems.
* At rush hour Alpine Road moves about 650 cars per hour. During the recent evacuation drill, cars were able to exit at a rate of over 1,000 cars per hour.
* In the case of a fire evacuation, roughly 7500 cars would need to leave via our evacuation routes. 50 additional cars near the exit obviously doesn’t make things faster, but if there is traffic control there, doesn’t seem to materially change evacuation time.
* Portola Valley has been issued a number of 253 new housing units by RHNA, that we are potentially required to add to our housing stock over the next several years.
* There is some hope that either political winds will change or that pleas to the relevant agencies based on our high-fire danger areas, will help to reduce that number. It is in any event likely to be larger than many residents want.
* There is no evidence that adding another 50 cars near an exit to town will materially worsen our evacuation time, and some to suggest that adding a similar number of cars deeper into town (in an effort to accommodate RHNA) would be worse.
* Adding those units will either require a great number of ADUs and/or some different kinds of housing than we have typically had before.
* The town’s General Plan, written by some amazing and foresighted individuals, clearly doesn’t foresee Portola Valley becoming home to developments like Stanford has proposed. However, it isn’t clear if we can or should “turn the clock back.” I didn’t know many of the town founders, but I did know Bill Lane (in addition to being a Father of PV, he was a major Stanford donor). I wonder what he would have said, and my personal opinion is that he would have been supportive of the need to accommodate changing needs and changing times.
* There is some concern about trails. But I don’t know enough to sort it out, but guess that if there is a unified town position on it, it can be accommodated.
* There has been a lot of acrimony about “who did what to who.” There’s a strong case that Portola Valley reached out to Stanford about the property. Maybe brilliant, maybe not. But if we are faced with a large RHNA number, then having options is a good thing. Either way, we’re where we are now.
* NOTHING is nearly settled and there are a ton more meetings and reviews. (Reminder to self to take a deep breath now and again).
* There seem to be some mixed feelings about whether it would be a benefit to Portola Valley to have a few dozen more families in town. Concerns have been expressed about their impact on the school system and town services. This probably needs to tie back to the property tax question.
* Some of us are enthusiastic about using a chance at having some leverage with Stanford as a way to push for improved mass transit (e.g. a shuttle running around the loop). A gentle reminder to skeptics is that it might not only be for residents, but would also be helpful for those looking to patronize or work at local businesses. One reason it is hard to get people to work here is that they need a car.
* As frighteningly long as this post is, I’m sure I’ve missed things. Let me know what I need to add to my understanding. And I’m sure I’ve interpreted some of these issues differently than others. Happy to learn about when I’ve done that, as well, Thanks!
*** We all live here, and I know that we all want what is best for our beloved town. We’ll be stronger if we can find a way to work together on issues that concern us all. — Dave Cardinal