I am a "right thinking" resident, and I do NOT want high density housing in the main residential parts of Portola Valley, which is mostly where the Town owned land is. This is a small town, and the fact is, not everyone can live here. I don't know why people seem to think that simply because they work in a given location, they also are entitled to live in that same location. I have never lived in the same town in which I've worked, nor has my husband. Most people commute. It's a fact. I agree 100% that commuting from Hayward is harsh. Was there no possibility of this town worker living in another community on the Peninsula? Redwood City, Belmont, San Mateo, Pacifica, all are less expensive than our immediate 5 mile radius. Destroying the Nathorst Triangle hills with high density housing was the worst idea ever. We live here for our rural character and open space. We will not let that be destroyed by high impact, high density housing.

Thank you for the new ad hoc committee for their time and committment. I will happy to meet with them and share my own experience and share the testimonies of other teachers and healthcare providers to show how constituents of Portola Valley and neighborhood communities are being pushed out because we uphold the code of ethics, abide by the rules, obey our laws and demonstrate excellence. We are being replaced by out of state professionals who knowingly and/or unknowingly, willingly and/or unwillingly are following the orders of the administration, do follow the code of ethics nor demonstrate the proper professional conduct, violate our education laws, healthcare laws, government laws, labor laws...........or as San Mateo Law officer Warren explained it because they come from countries where that is normal.
Council members from all neighborhood communities are now convincing constituents we need more affordable housing, mental health services, health services, free solar panels, and even legal defense ....all paid by the tax payers, but not for the tax payers and not for our families. The increased taxes, the increased traffic and the unhealthy lifestyle by unfair competition are pushing long time residents out of this community...obviously to fulfill the political agenda and gain voting power, all at the interest of some stakeholders. Just like I have suggested to our new major I wlll be happy to share facts that disclose what is really going on in our community disguised by false advertisement and lack of media coverage.
thank you,
Caroline Vertongen

please correct the typo:

we are being replaced by out of state professionals who do not uphold the code of ethics and do not demonstrate professional conduct .....

Does anyone know what happened to the plan a few years ago to build affordable housing at the Buck Meadows site? I grew up in PV, would love to continue working and living there, but it is not an affordable option for 90% of us. More information is needed about any dense project. Commuting is awful from long distances, and isn't helping reduce our carbon footprint. What if we added a smaller scale project and a Samtrans bus twice a day?

The town sold four parcels it owned at Buck Meadows, and meant for below-market housing, for about $3 million in 2011 or 2012.

The Town Council planned to use that money to buy the site of a former plant nursery at 900 Portola Road, but canceled its plans when county officials discovered soil contamination on the site. Neighbors on Wyndham Drive staunchly opposed the council's plans to build around eight small homes there.

The Windmill School subsequently bought the nursery site, had the soil cleaned and now plans to build a preschool there.

The land at Buck Meadows was to be allocated to allow development of one single-family home, with the rest preserved as open space.

The $3 million the town acquired after selling the Buck Meadows properties is in the bank. One task before the new ad hoc committee is to figure out options for using that money toward building affordable housing.

The formation of this committee is a step in the right direction in fulfilling the town's obligation to provide affordable housing. The Nathhorst Triangle proposal lost only by about 32 votes--it had been scaled back from high density to moderate density. Perhaps a couple of small developments on Alpine and/or Portola Roads close to shopping are the most desirable locations. I hope the housing would be open to people such as plumbers, electricians, and artists as well as teachers and town employees. This type of housing will enhance the quality of life in our town.

The referendum that overturned the rezoning of Nathhorst Triangle properties (Measure H) was won by the opponents 52.16 percent to 47.84 percent (1,133 votes to 1,039), a margin of 94 votes, according to county Elections Office records for the November 2005 election.

Growing up in PV & Woodside in the 50's many large properties and estates had small cottages on the grounds for housekeepers, stable hands, nannies and groundskeepers. Now we call them guest houses. Do these few that still exist qualify as part of the affordable housing plan? Has anyone considered putting a few of the "little houses" recently advertised on a site for service people?

The amount of mis (dis?) information about below market rate housing in PV is striking. I certainly hope our new Ad Hoc Committee will engage in fully transparent, honest discussion, as Mr. Warr has advocated. One wonders why we need a new Ad Hoc Committee on below market rate housing: we had an Ad Hoc Committee on below market rate housing that put out a comprehensive and sensible report on what, in their view, Portola Valley ought to do (this committee was created on the heals of yet another Ad Hoc Committee on below market rate housing). Why a third committee, are the recommendations of the last one not valid? Not appealing? It would seem the answer is the $2.8M burning a hole in our Town’s pocket (more on that below).

A few observations about the very concept of below market rate housing in the first instance, our Town’s specific legal obligations, and the history of our Town’s undertakings related to below market rate housing:

- We all have empathy for those in search of housing at a price they can afford. I believe we would also agree that we ought to be focused on how things might improve for the largest number of people on a sustainable basis. The best way to improve local housing opportunities for the largest number of people working in this area is to allow the free market to operate: Silicon Valley firms surely won’t pay employees that which is required to entice employees to work in this area if the government/tax payers are willing to foot the bill for them. And for those who no longer work, we can hope that they can either afford to stay in their homes, sell them for a profit and move into something more desirable, or find a privately offered below market unit (decreasing regulations around private second units is a great idea and one the Town is already pursuing – thank you ). As a last resort, some of us may need to move (certainly none of us can expect a guarantee that we can live in PV until we are put six feet under).

- Artificially reducing the cost of housing via public subsidy results in tremendous gamesmanship by and between governments and developers, does not provide a long term, sustainable solution to the problem of housing costs, and worst of all, results in subsidized housing only for a very few lucky lottery winners (who may or may not currently reside in or be employed in PV). The law prevents discrimination in the selection of the “lottery winners.” To those who might dream we will be able to ensure that any units built by our Town will be sold to our beloved PV teachers or firefighters, be advised this is unlikely to happen, and beware that many of our teachers do not wish to live in the same town in which they work.
- The Town of Portola Valley does not have a legal obligation to undertake the construction of below market rate housing. Full stop. This is contrary to much of what one reads on these pages. Gov’t Code Section 65000 et seq requires, inter alia, that our Town create and update a “housing element” and engage in planning consistent with the housing element, not employ zoning that would effectively ban below market rate housing throughout our Town, and require private developers to sell 15% of their units at below market rates or pay an ‘in lieu fee.” The law does not require municipalities to become developers.

- The Town’s efforts to develop below market rate housing (as opposed to encouraging or permitting private residents to have below market rate units on their own property) have proven to be, ahem, rather disenchanting. This history is replete with back room dealing, dishonesty in public session, closed session meetings in violation of the Brown Act, declarations that entire neighborhoods were full of NIMBYs for daring to question high density housing in their community. Query whether this continues: “Wyndham Drive staunchly opposed the council's plans to build around eight small homes there.” There were never going to be just eight small homes, though even that bucolic sounding number would in fact be high density for PV. And note the density bonus permitted in the construction of below market rate housing would have permitted that number to be closer to 32 units, a topic no councilmember wished to discuss on the record. Ever.

A proposal: if our community wishes to assist our community’s teachers and firefighters and the like, certainly a noble goal, why not simply use either existing funds, raise funds privately, or create a new optional parcel tax to provide a yearly housing stipend/bonus to all such employees in PV. If memory serves, Bill Lane once created such a fund on behalf of PV teachers. Perhaps the $2.8M already in hand our “in lieu” fund from the sale of the Blue Oaks lots could be slated for such use (though knowing how the law of housing works, there is surely significant red tape around these funds). This would
(i) provide improved housing options for the greatest number of people actually working in PV in critical-service roles,
(ii) spread the benefits equally amongst such employees rather than have a small handful of lucky winners reap all the benefits,
(iii) allow such employees the freedom to choose exactly where to live (i.e., they could use the funds to purchase a home in another nearby town with more homes to their liking and not in a high density “low cost” housing area unless they so chose), and
(iv) eliminate the potential for unsavory gamesmanship involved in building below market rate housing in PV.

[Post removed. Please comment on the topic rather than on other posters.]