08-26-2026 Public Comment_Sp.

August 25, 2026 Mayor Craig Taylor Vice Mayor Mary Hufty Council Members Rebecca Flynn, Judith Hasko, and Helen Wolter Town Manager Darcy Smith Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Town Council’s 8/26/26 special meeting. I am writing to urge you to take a strong stand and say “no” to MidPen’s plans to overdevelop the Hawthorns. Their plans would harm our Town and MidPen’s contiguous neighbor, Portola Valley Ranch. Here are specific concerns that I ask you to consider. MidPen sees the Hawthorns and Windy Hill as one big connected parcel, and this explains their otherwise mystifying insistence on overdeveloping the Hawthorns, including the over-sized parking lot. One just needs to look at the name: Not “The Hawthorns Open Space District”. Rather, “The Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve”. This, despite the fact that the Hawthorns property is NOT connected to the large Windy Hill Preserve. They want to use the Hawthorns to solve their problem of insufficient parking at Windy Hill, which causes overflow onto Portola Road. MidPen has said as much. They have publicly stated that people will be able to park in the Hawthorns lot and then walk from there to Windy Hill. This is almost certainly why they want a 50-car parking lot. All this would do is transfer overflow parking at Windy Hill into overflow parking onto roads adjacent to the Hawthorns (Alpine Road) or near the Hawthorns (Portola Road). Further, the planned parking lot at the Hawthorns creates numerous issues along the Alpine Road corridor and the nearby school and businesses. MidPen can and should come up with other solutions to their Windy Hill issue and not transfer the problem onto the Hawthorns or Alpine Road. MidPen clearly intends through their overdevelopment to attract more people to the Hawthorns than it can reasonably accommodate. The donor’s intent (as shown in the Conservation Easement) was that there be a light touch in developing the Hawthorns. Hence, all the prohibitions and conditions in the Easement that MidPen is ignoring. MidPen and the PAWG, however, have stressed making the Hawthorns attractive to people far far beyond the Hawthorns and Portola Valley area. The oversized parking area is not a light touch. Mid Pe n points out in its just-published Frequently Asked Questions that the Hawthorns demand is expected to be moderate [not light] given that it is near Highway 280 and to nearby Town trails. (Page 6 of FAQ) But MidPen does not provide any historical or trend analysis to support this self-serving analysis. 1234 MAIN STREET ANYTOWN, STATE ZIP (123) 456 -7890 It also says in its FAQ (page 5): “MidPen serves 770,000 constituents in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, and most must drive to MidPen preserves. Preserve visitors also come from the broader Bay Area region beyond MidPen’s jurisdictional boundaries.” This is absurd as applied to the Hawthorns: why would hikers from such distant locations regularly travel past the many parks and preserves closer to their homes to hike here, on this small preserve? MidPen’s desire to attract more and more visitors to the Hawthorns is not reasonable for its size. And if MidPen’s job is to be a steward of the environment, it should NOT be building parking lots, but rather should be encouraging alternate forms of transportation. And, as the Town Council is aware, Portola Valley would have to deal with all the problems that an over-sized parking lot would create: An increased heavy traffic load on Alpine Road; added Town services, thereby exacerbating existing fiscal problems; safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists; adverse impacts on school children; degradation of the Alpine Corridor; and choking of the Alpine Road evacuation route (an evacuation route for about 30% of the Town’s residents) if there is a natural disaster such as a fire or earthquake. MidPen wants to use Portola Valley Ranch’s internal trails to connect to its outside trails. It has been MidPen’s goal from the start to use the Ranch’s trails for a connection to new trails at the Hawthorns and to the trails on the Windy Hill Preserve. They have referenced in particular their desire to use Sweet Springs Trail in Portola Valley Ranch. This trail becomes Deer Path Trail, and from there these trails meander onto all the other PVR trails. MidPen cannot do this. It is illegal. MidPen cannot have access to Portola Valley Ranch trails or property. PVR residents have been loud and vocal in opposing this. MidPen has never disavowed their aggressive approach and goal. The Ranch is a separate, legal, real estate entity from the Hawthorns, with a fence marking the boundary between the two. The President of the PVR Homeowners Association has told MidPen that no connection to Ranch trails could ever be made without our consent. We do NOT consent. MidPen has very recently backed off their immediate plans to use PVR trails. I stress “immediate plans” because MidPen says in their August, 2026 Frequently Asked Questions: “Although the PAWG recommendations included aspirational trail connections to the Sweet Springs and Valley Oak Trails, neither is planned at this time.” [underline is mine] MidPen goes on to say: “If a connection to Sweet Springs Trail is desired in the future and after the Hawthorns Area is open to the public, MidPen would need to explore its viability with the Town and the Portola Valley Ranch community.” [page 5 of FAQ] Parenthetically, concerning the PAWG, I point out that the PAWG itself was created by MidPen, which selected the PAWG to include members from all over the Bay Area. From the start it was aligned with MidPen’s preferred options, including reconfiguring the Alpine Road/Portola Road area and intersection. I say with high confidence that if MidPen tries to encroach on PVR’s trails, many residents will support legal action to stop them. Whatever MidPen’s overtures to the Town might be in the future, MidPen should understand the legal constraints against MidPen encroaching on the trail land owned by the Ranch, and the Town’s obligation to not allow this. To accomplish their overdevelopment, especially their over-sized parking lot, MidPen illegally ignores and illegally violates the specific terms of the Conservation Easement by which they acquired the Hawthorns MidPen has said they have looked to the “intent of the grantor” and that the Easement allows for public access. But they choose to ignore that the intent of the grantor as set forth in the Easement is for public access subject to specifically stated prohibitions and conditions. I know that the Town Council is aware of this and I won’t belabor all the prohibitions; however, here is a quick recap of some major ones that the parking lot would violate: = no cutting down live trees except for safety = staging area that is limited = no grading or topsoil removal = no new structures = nothing but gravel for a parking lot Plus, the Easement allows a parking lot only on the perimeter of the improved portion. MidPen’s planned lot spills well over into the unimproved portion. This is not consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Easement’s words. Many residents have repeatedly asked MidPen to explain why they think their plans do not violate the Easement. MidPen has never answered the question. All they say is that they follow the Easement, and that POST approves of what they are doing. I have read the 11-page Frequently Asked Questions that MidPen just issued, along with their answers. It answers selectively. It never answers this important question, even though we asked it frequently, over and over again. MidPen in the FAQ says that POST, the Easement holder, has the legal authority to enforce and interpret its terms, that MidPen has presented its proposals to POST on consistency with the Easement and will continue to do so as the project advances further. I believe the Town Council is aware of the following, but here is a brief recap: MidPen relies on POST’s statement that what they are planning complies. But when POST is asked how the plans don’t violate specific Easement prohibitions, they give vague non-answers or say to talk to MidPen. This is circular reasoning to evade answering, to evade transparency, and to evade accountability. I spoke directly with POST’s president and attorney to try to get answers to the questions I and many others have asked. In advance of the meeting I sent them a list of the specific Easement prohibi tions MidPen is violating. At the meeting POST offered only vague generalities about the need for public access; they answered not one question about the Easement prohibitions. MidPen wants to facilitate an unreasonable amount of public access. In their view, and apparently in POST’s view, this overrides not only legal limits such as those in the Easement, but also truthfulness as an agency and respect for our Town. Mid Pen’s harmful plans can be opposed by the Town Council, and it is respectfully requested that the Council do so. While the Town may not have standing to take formal legal action against MidPen to enforce the Easement (this is a legal issue that would require opinion of counsel), it can and should use its authority (permitting and otherwise) effectively to oppose their plans that will harm our community. It is respectfully requested that the Town Council take a strong, immediate position, conveying to MidPen and to POST their opposition to its plans to overdevelop the Hawthorns. Thank you for considering this letter, Lana Norris