Portola Valley

I emailed the Portola Valley staff to point out that the Fogarty property (a replacement for the Ford Field site), which is supposed to accommodate 50 units of farmworker housing, wouldn't qualify for funding because it's not close to transit or schools. I recommended that the Ford Field site remain on the site inventory, as it is less than a mile from a grocery store and 2 miles from Stanford.

​

The interim planning & building director called my efforts "inappropriate and misguided."

Portola Valley established an Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee to identify locations for affordable housing. Specifically they seek alternatives to the Dorothy Ford Park site, identified for 50 homes in the Housing Element, which locals oppose. The Committee unanimously recommended the Fogarty site instead. Where Ford is close to amenities, Fogarty is isolated. The Committee even stated "HCD may not like Fogarty because it doesn't have sewer, services, stores, schools, etc." Officials assert to HCD that this is an innocent fact-finding mission, that they would not move forward with changing sites without working with them. There is substantial distance between the farm-land they cite to and the area at issue.

HCD told them that they didn't do their re-zoning correctly, but only required small changes. They should get re-certified soon.

​

- Which city(s) are you monitoring, and which chapter(s) if any are you coordinating with?

    - Portola Valley 

- Do you know if your city committed to a rezoning?

    - Yes, committed 

    - What is the deadline for this rezoning?

        - Self imposed deadline: May 2024 

- What policies did your city commit to enacting? (If no, ask if any city-owned sites are on the site inventory.)

    - Overlay Zone 

        - Allow people to allow MF housing in SF neighborhoods at request of individuals 

- If rezonings or policies have been introduced, do you know what the timelines and local processes are for passing? What progress has been made?

    - No, because Wednesday meeting not yet occurred 

- When are the upcoming public hearings or housing element updates?

    - Wednesday March 20th planning commission meeting to look at zoning regulations 

County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.

Three general policy changes were discussed:

​

1. Rezoning: previous draft relied on rezoning primarily in the North Fair Oaks to meet the county's RHNA affordable quota. Housing advocates provided public comment urging the board to expand rezoning to also include higher opportunity neigborhoods. Supervisor started the conversation in firm support for this effort, and Pine and Corzo backed him up. Mueller suggested the Board not weigh in on the issues and essentially let the planning department work it out, which was met with criticism

​

1. Tenant protections: Corzo and Pine have been working on a tenant protection ordinance to strengthen just cause standards and explore options of a rental registry, etc. Advocates called on the county to incorporate these updates into the housing element. The county attorney provided clarification to the board that the housing element would have supremacy over an ordinance, and any future ordinance would need to comply with the element. The board generally agreed that since the ordinance is already in the works, there was no need to further slow down the element drafting process by incorporating tenant protections

​

Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense." 

​

The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that. 

https://sanmateocounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=998929&GUID=0D46FA6C-A477-4001-8780-87E9B4ED1E73&G=1088EC25-A43A-408F-A57C-73C0A70269AB

It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws

Most resident comment involved complaints about the new mixed-use zoning classification, a relatively new strand of complaint. Lots of familiar bitching about fire danger, evacuation routes and state's heavy-handed regulation instead of local control. 

William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him. 

​

Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).

​

Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments). 

Portola Valley’s planning and building director Laura Russell mentioned to the town’s Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee that she had raised with HCD the issue of counting existing ADUs that were built without permits as new units in the 2023-31 Housing Element. A number of Portola Valley residents have advocated a town “amnesty” program in the Housing Element that would allow existing ADUs without permits to upgrade to building code and then be counted for the next Housing Element cycle. 

Ms. Russell indicated that she had raised the issue with the female HCD reviewer who is handling all Housing Elements for San Mateo County. That HCD staffer did not have an answer and was checking with others in her office for a ruling. 

Whatever decision HCD makes on the Portola Valley question seems likely to be applied more broadly to the Housing Elements of other jurisdictions. 

If the goal of Housing Elements is to create new housing, then counting existing “illegal” ADUs clearly does not add housing units to the inventory. 

The Town of Portola Valley residents are against multi family housing - and repeatedly have spoken up concerning this issue.  The council and Housing Element Committee are pretty supportive of more housing - but it will hard to pass due to the public's anti- housing stance.  There have been multiple PRA requests and ligation against the town due to the process - any YIMBY voices supporting this effort would be helpful. 

Fire safety is and will be a huge NIMBY issue in Portola Valley, but the fear is legitimate but exaggerated