.... And so it begins: the sophisticated, professional campaign to find every possible reason to not allow people to live in PV who can't afford 3 acres in Westridge. Rusty wrote about fire this week, someone else will write about each of the issues that he started to beat the drum about.
And if it doesn't go their way, then come the lawsuits.

All this from people whose house is on land that was once rural pasture, and whose cars create traffic on our roads. Rusty, my life and residence is at risk of a fire spreading from your house... "I demand answers!"

I trust our town officials to follow the law and building codes and ensure that this development, if approved, will be safe, well-built, and painted the correct neutral colors. But fundamentally, I accept that the world changes, and we can't pull the drawbridge up around us.

Rusty:
Thanks for a very clear & articulate summary and argument. I am shocked (but not surprised) that Stanford would have the arrogance and hubris to make an application that is so inappropriate. On one hand Stanford is a leader in alerting us to the perils of overbuilding near dangerous spaces in this era of Climate Change. Yet, clearly their rules do not apply to them (when inconvenient). If this were "Ryan Homes" making the application, they would be "laughed out of Portola Valley".

Please do the same with Stanford!

@David B, are you on Stanford's payroll? How anyone can roll their eyes at wildfire risk after our last few fire seasons (which climate change will continue to exacerbate) is beyond me!

Let’s face it. All of Portola Valley is at risk of a major fire. It is very dense with vegetation. It seems to me it’s an effort to keep other people out.

This location clearly is not appropriate for high density housing from a fire and traffic perspectives (next to a blind curve leading into the Westridge Dr. intersection). High density housing does not conform with the character and historical tradition of Portola Valley into which we have invested.

Also, no one will answer the question, "Why is it not appropriate for Stanford to build housing on their campus of hundreds of clear acres?"

The proposed housing is Company Housing that will not be owned by the Stanford employees. This is a terrible situation in that the employees are reliant on Stanford employment for both a salary and housing. If the employee wants to change jobs they lose housing. If their job ends they lose housing. Stanford should pay enough for employees to buy a house and secure their future. We don't need more usurious Stanford housing on the peninsula