Portola Valley council reviews housing-element amendment, moves Dorothy Ford Park off sites list and favors 20'to'25 units/acre

The Portola Valley Town Council on Dec. 4 received a staff presentation on a proposed housing-element amendment that would remove the vacant portion of Dorothy Ford Park from the town's sites inventory and add three alternative sites: Village Square (884 Portola Road), Christchurch (815 Portola Road) and a Fogarty-owned Skyline parcel north of 19501 Skyline Boulevard.

Steve McCarras, the town's special planning and building projects manager, told the council that feasibility analysis found creek and scenic setbacks and the irregular shape of Dorothy Ford's developable area constrained the realistic capacity of that site (previously described as up to about 50 units). "We are proposing to remove the vacant portion of Dorothy Ford Park and add two new sites" and to revise unit counts at Christchurch, McCarras said.

Staff proposed the Village Square scenario include 20 very-low-income units plus five area-median-income units (25 total) and a change in land-use/zoning from commercial/community commercial to a new mixed-use high-density designation. At Christchurch, staff said preliminary review suggested roughly 0.75 acres of developable land and proposed replacing six AMI units with 14 very-low-income and one AMI unit (15 total). The Fogarty/Skyline parcel was identified with roughly 0.8 acres potentially able to accommodate 16 very-low-income units.

Darcy Smith, the town manager, and McCarras said staff had met with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). McCarras reported that HCD viewed the proposed 20'to'23 dwelling-units-per-acre range as narrow, saying HCD is comfortable with 20'to'25 and commonly sees 20'to'30 in other communities. "They may request changes," McCarras said of HCD review, which HCD has up to 60 days to complete after formal submittal.

Council members asked for clarifications about income-band definitions and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) trip-generation thresholds during Q&A. Smith explained that HCD defines "moderate" income at 80'to'120 percent of area median income (AMI) and that "above-moderate" is above 120 percent; she also said staff would assess trip-generation and required transportation demand-management measures depending on project specifics.

Members of the public spoke during the designated public-comment period. Aaron Askey urged preserving Dorothy Ford Park "as recreational space serving residents and surrounding community members in perpetuity," and asked the town to consider rezoning parks and open space as dedicated to those uses. A conservation-committee member said the three alternative sites "could, taken together, replace Ford Park in the housing element" and argued they stand a better chance of being built. Several residents also urged attention to town infrastructure and access issues.

During council discussion, members praised staff work and debated whether to leave the mixed-use-high-density range at 20'to'23 or expand it to 20'to'25 to align with HCD comfort. Council member Craig argued in favor of 25 to avoid HCD pushback; others, including Council members Helen and Mary, said they were comfortable with a 20'to'25 range but would not favor going higher without further analysis. The mayor summarized the council's direction as broadly supportive of 20'to'25 dwelling units per acre and told staff that provided the guidance needed to finalize materials for HCD submittal.

No adoption or formal changes to the housing element were made at the special meeting. Staff said the next steps are to post a public-review draft for the minimum seven-day period (to be extended if posted over a holiday) and to return to the planning commission and town council in January (staff mentioned Jan. 14 or Jan. 28 as possible dates) to consider authorizing submission to HCD. Staff also noted an RFP referenced in the program is currently anticipated for January 2026 if needed.

The council moved to adjourn by roll call; the motion carried with unanimous "aye" votes and the meeting ended.