Portola Valley residents complain to council about Stanford housing proposal

Daily Post Staff Writer

Some Portola Valley residents are upset that a proposal by Stanford to build 37 homes near the Alpine Inn on Alpine Road is moving forward despite the project not yet appearing before the town council.

“We are distressed that this project has not been stopped and that our interests are not being listened to,” resident Mary Hufty told the town council on Wednesday night.

Hufty is part of a group called Portola Valley Residents United, who have sent at least four letters to the town about the project.

The council voted 3-0 on Wednesday (May 27) night to send a letter to the group responding to some of the claims it has made about the project and the town’s handling of it.

Mayor Jeff Aalfs was recused from council’s discussion because he has worked with Stanford in the past year. Councilwoman Maryann Derwin was absent.

The project would consist of 27 single-family homes for faculty and three apartment buildings with 12 low-income apartments. The buildings would be on 7.4 acres of the 75 acres that make up the wedge.

Town Manager Jeremy Dennis said the project has not gone before council and that the town’s employees cannot hold up a project because they think it is bad.

Right now the project is receiving scrutiny from town employees in preparation for an environmental review.

Of the six residents who spoke Wednesday night, five were against the project.

Resident Kristie Corley said she wants to attend any meetings convened by those doing the environmental review.

“I don’t want to be informed later by the EIR. When you’re out looking at biology on the site, can we go and walk with you?” Corley said.

Only resident David Cardinal seemed to be in support of the project, saying the town needs more housing.


  1. Before Portola Valley allows any more growth, they should consider how they’ll fight a wildfire like the one that destroyed Paradise, California. Come up with a plan to evacuate everyone in a hurry, and then see if Stanford’s development fits your safety goals.

  2. ”Save the Wildlife corridor ” Portola Valley residents are no different than David Chauvin, the Minnesota Police Officer who stifled George Floyd to death. A group of not in NIMBYs who would prefer to keep Portola Valley the way it is by stifling its development. It’s ok for people of color or working people to provide services as long as they go home to our communities come night time that unless we’re babysitting. Personally, Portola Valley could use some diversity and allowing Standford to continue with its development. It’s just a start.
    In San Mateo County,
    We are in dire need of more housing. I think Portola Valley is an excellent fit for this project or any other project that will house lower-income working people. Hint @ Alta Housing. Other cities and townships like Colma across our county have made progress to make way for housing. Interestingly, we have a group of people that is more interested in saving the environment than housing people. It has reignited a centuries-long conversation around racism in America and the horrendous ways white privilege communities often treat the working-class people of color. I’m, One hundred percent sure that in Portola Valley, not a single home has never rented under the San Mateo County Housing Development Section 8 Program. Hopefully, someone can prove me wrong.

Comments are closed.