All right, welcome everyone. I'd like to
call the meeting to order.
So there are no remote attendance. We
skip
remote attendance.
>> Hang a little second. I just
>> All right. We
Okay.
Just All right. So, we have slight
technical difficulties here at the dis.
All right. So, Veronica, why don't we do
roll call and then I'll check on oral
communications and hopefully we can slot
the rest of this stuff in.
>> Yes. Uh, Council Member Walter
present. Council member Hasco
>> here.
>> Council member Flynn
>> here. Vice Mayor Huy
>> here.
>> Mayor Taylor
>> present.
>> We have a quorum. Thank you.
All right. Does anyone have oral
communications that's not something on
tonight's agenda? In particular, this
section of the agenda, which is
interviews for ASC. So, I only see two
people in the audience and their hands
aren't raised. Let me check online.
All right. So, I see Christiey's hands
up.
» Yes. Um, thanks for listening. I am
hoping to um see that the planning
commission meetings are not cancelled so
the public can ask questions
about different topics in town and get
the answers. I think it would be better
for all rather than sending letters. Um
so that's my request is to get some
feedback on many um items. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Anybody else have oral
communications that are not on the
agenda?
All right. I see no hands in
schoolhouse. I see no hands online.
So with that, why don't we start the
process?
And I apologize. I'm switching between
about five different screens here. So,
um, okay. So, we're here tonight to
conduct interviews and appoint a
commission member for ASCC. We have two
applicants. Um, what I'd like to ask is
that we do this sort of one at a time.
Um, and that if you're not, and we can
flip coins or somebody can decide they
want to go first. Um, the other person
if they just step out of the room while
we do this, that and then you're welcome
to come back. Um, but that would be our
preferred. You're not required to leave,
but that that would be our preference.
So, with that, do you want to go first?
Okay. So, would you mind stepping out?
Great. Thank you.
All right.
I'm going back to different screens.
All right. Do all the council members
have the questions up? Okay, great. Um,
I apologize. I was hoping to get these
printed, but um so what what I'd like to
do is we'll just divide them up. I was
thinking maybe one and two could go
together and then we can just take the other um four qu four four questions
after that and that would give us an
even number.
So does anybody have a strong feeling
for doing questions one and two which is
just sort of a basic intro? All right,
you got it. Please.
>> It's finally I got it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you come up to
» questions or no?
>> I think you'll you can interject it as
part of the questions. How about that
>> because you'll see what the first
question is. Tell us about yourself. So
it'll be perfect. So right Mary go
ahead.
>> Hi. Uh nice to see you this evening. uh
these are all formulated questions uh so
that uh it's an equal interview process.
So the first two questions can be
combined very nicely. The first is can
you tell us about yourself?
>> Myself
>> and why you are interested in serving on
the ASC and what background or skills
you bring that would contribute to your
role as an ASCC member. Okay, that
pretty much is my paper or your paper.
>> Okay, I just want to say thank you for
considering my application to to be a
member of the ASC. And I was told that
Laura Russell, our old planning
director, suggested that we disband our
ASC when she was here, that our town no
longer had much say or input with
building projects. I myself believe that
our ASC should stay as strong as
possible and I think that we can still
have plenty of input in how our rural
character is preserved during the future
developments.
And about me, um, in my younger years,
my husband and I lived in Redwood City
and I came out here every day to work as
a telephone repairman, repair person,
excuse me. Um, I fell in love with the
quietness and ruralness and vowed that I
would live here one day. And luckily, a
few years later, we were able to move
here and raise our kids in this great
rural area rather than in a highly urban
city. And while living here, I have I
have had a number of horses and have
spent numerous hours enjoying all of our
town's trails. And I actually served on
and was also the chair of the trails and
paths committee for many years until I
had to quit due to some health problems.
Uh, I am in very invested in keeping
Portola Valley as rural as possible. And
having been a realtor in Portullah
Valley, Woodside, and the surrounding
cities for 20 years, I'm well aware of
the many uh people who only want to live
in cities where they have the
walkability to Starbucks and stores and
restaurants. And on the other side of
the coin are the people who wish to live
anywhere other than a crowded city and
love the ideal of our uh ruralness, the
dark knights, and our small town
character. Um, we can't allow this
environment to fade away. And al though
although I'm sure I have a lot to learn,
I have many I've done many remodels on
my home since I bought my first one in
19 uh 74 and I have been the general
contractor for my remodels and also
while building the ADU at my current
home. So I'm familiar with what goes on
in the building pro process.
Um, see,
just one of the things that I look also
towards is seeing the devastation of the
Tubs fire after my sister's house burned
down. I'm concerned for our residents
safety and I believe we need to be on
top of how and where buildings are going
to be situated in in future developments
in order to diminish additional fire and
evacuation danger for us all. And I want
you to know that I am a full-time
resident of Portola Valley and being
retired, I have the time and
availability for in-person ASC meetings
and the necessary site visits for
prospective building projects. Having a
passion for Portulla Valley, I think I
would be an asset to our architectural
and site control committee and I hope
you will consider me for this position.
>> Great. Thank you. Rebecca, do you want
to take question three?
>> Sure.
Are you prepared to dedicate the time
needed to review materials, attend site
visits, and stay engaged over a
multi-year term?
>> Yes, completely. And that's why I like I
said, I'm retired, so I have the time
and the availability to do all this.
>> Great. Thank you. Judith, you want to do
four?
>> Uh, any other conflicts of interest or
situations that might limit your ability
to end the meeting?
>> No, I don't think so.
Thank you,
Helen. Number five,
you might want to turn you back on.
>> Yeah,
got too many things we're shuffling
today.
>> After tipping over drinks, I'm a little
cautious.
Um, question number five. How familiar
are you with the town's municipal code
and design guidelines, particularly as
they relate to architectural and site
plan review?
And it's got a second section. How would
you use those standards along with the
submitted plans, reports, and data to
make well-reasoned
decisions on applications, including
determining whether to recommend
approval, denial, or conditions?
>> Okay. I I totally understand that I'm
not totally up to all the codes and
everything that I need to be, and I'm
totally have the ability to learn, and
I'm willing to learn. Um, and I will
apply all of our codes to whatever
process and whatever um
perspective developments that need to be
done. I will apply our rules to it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Can I ask follow question or not yet? Or
how are we going to
>> What I was going to do is just stay with
these questions. I'll do the sixth one
and then I was just going to open up to
ask a couple follow.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Okay. So then the last of our sort of
you know stock questions um how do you
approach um acting in good faith and
upholding your fiduciary responsibility
to the community especially when your
findings may conflict with other
commissioners or face public opposition.
Well, I think the whole point is do
following the rules of the town and the
laws of the town and
hopefully work out things with anybody
that um has a problem with it so we can
come to a decision that
you know follows the rules of the town.
>> Okay. Um and and if it were in conflict
with other commissioners, what what
would your sense be? Well, I would hope
we could talk them out and figure out
what the conflict is about and see um
who is following the rules and who
isn't.
>> Okay.
>> Conflict and obviously somebody is not
following the town ordinances or laws.
So, I would think that we have to come
to a conclusion of what is going to work
for this that you know any certain
project um and that to follow the town
ordinances.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Let me open
it up. Um, are there any other sort of
short questions? I don't want to make
this too long because we want to keep
them. Generally, we try to make sure
both applicants get the same set of
questions. So, we can deviate a little
bit, but let's not go like completely
crazy. Um, Helen, I know you had
something. Would you like to
>> Sure. Am I the only one?
>> No, we'll come back, but I got you on my
left, so
>> So, okay, great. Um,
uh, you said that you were a general
contractor for your projects. I was the
general contractor for them. Yes.
>> So, were you you're not
>> but you're not licensed
>> owner builder.
>> Got it. Okay. And then um what how would
you feel about a conflict with the state
law?
>> A state law?
>> Right.
>> I can't tell you that I know anything
about a state law.
>> And do you have any sense like the state
laws that might over you know state
>> state law?
>> No, sorry. state, you know, state law
about, you know, about um
about permitting situations
around housing
>> about what kind of standing through the
>> So, I'm sorry if I'm not clear. Let me
start over. How um what is your
perspective on the town's
code versus the state code
um around permitting for housing?
I am all for the city the town codes
wherever we can override the state
codes. Um we we're here for a reason in
town. We're not we want to keep it a
rural town and
legally there's not much we can do about
it. We're going to have to follow
whatever the strongest law is. Whoever
has, you know, if the state overrides
our laws, we have to go with it. But I
would do my best to try to work it out
where we can move in the direction of
our town codes.
Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Other questions on this side?
>> Judith?
>> Yeah. Um, so if you think about the
current ASC if you've been listening in,
um, what complimentary
perspectives would you you bring?
Because everyone brings something
different. I want to hear what you think
you would bring.
>> Okay. There's a couple on the ASC and
then Dana is a
>> landscape architect.
>> I am not an architect, but I have a lot
of history with the town and trying to I
my biggest thing would try to keep the
ruralness of the town going and not let
it let it fade away.
>> Okay, other question.
>> I do. Um you had mentioned that Laura
Russell felt that the role for the ASC
was starting to go away. um how would
you recommend that its role evolve
and I kind of um give the context of the
you know the state rules or state laws
are sort of changing a lot on um on the
ability of discretionary um decision-m
so how would you view the ASC's role
evolving in that context
>> I think just taking it to the best of
our ability such as where where
buildings are built maybe we have um
more input of where on a property a
building is built, where you know what
they're made out of. Maybe we the ASC um
has the ability to see things in person
and can um
talk people into working with the town's
rules rather than just what they can do
with stage rules.
» Okay.
Any other questions, Mary?
>> Yeah. Um
how how do you think you would deal with
the frustrations of being in a situation
where you can't do can't can't change
things but
>> but also uh in the context of being
having given a lot you know having
you're going to actually there are there
are certain things you have to do like
disclosures and legal stuff that you
feel that you end up feeling like you're
giving a lot uh and in in in return you
don't necessarily get a lot of return.
How do you feel that will affect you as
far as your
>> as far as me?
>> Yes. As far as your your satisfaction
with your role.
>> Okay. I myself will work as hard as I
can to get done what I think needs to
get done. Um just for just for an
example the sewer, you know, system deal
that I've been going through. I mean,
I've gone through the HCD numerous
times, uh, just to see if we can get
what I want done, and obviously now we
can't. So, you mean when you've gone as
far as you can and you can't get, you
know, a better answer, then you have to
deal with what you got.
Good.
Okay. Anything else? No. Okay, Ellen,
thank you. Thank you very much.
Appreciate your time.
>> Right. Thank you.
when if you go out the door, would you
mind, you know, telling Sonia we're
ready for her?
» Uh, you know, that's up to you. I mean,
you're welcome to come back in for the
discussion if you want or you can come
home and we'll let you know. So, what
whatever you'd prefer. We're
>> One thing I would like to reiterate is
that I am a full-time resident and I am
available all the time where
I believe the other applicant has a
home, you know, in different places. So
I don't know that you're here all the
time, but my availability and you know
is 100%.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
Hello and welcome.
» So, we've got six questions that we sort
of condense the first two. So, there'll
be, you know, we'll rotate among the
different council members. Um and then
after that we'll ask a few open
questions. Um and you're certainly
welcome to ask a few questions of us as
well. So we'll open up again. Should we
just do the same order? Right. So Mary,
it's on you.
>> Welcome. Uh can you tell us about
yourself and and why you're interested
in serving in the ASC and and in that
context, what background or skills do
you bring that could contribute to your
role as an ASCC member?
And I'm Sonia Dylan. Thanks for having
me here. I live on Grove Drive. I've
lived here since 1990. I've seen a lot
of changes in this little town.
We used to have a town hall, city hall
around here. And a little cute little
place. And my background is I have a
degree in arts and also I'm a CPA. So
understand a lot of details and I worked
with architects. I was a advisor to
architecture program at Stanford and
also at Tokyo University and I've lived
in Japan
and in Paris and a little bit in London.
So I have exposure to many architecture
programs and out of deep interest in
arts and architecture. I got involved in
these universities. The and I used with
my foundation I used the whole
architectural design chet when we did at
my poll house. We had all Stanford
student come and compete for a design
charette to challenge that they had to
design my little ADU many many years ago
to host artist for our foundation. And
we had five six professors from
different universities came to help them
do that design. And then we did similar
things in Japan in India. In India, we
hosted a design cheret on public
toilets.
And in Japan, it was about
sustainability in architecture. And then
we went and designed a old school for a
residence program that was destroyed
with the 2011 tsunami.
And then I brought many architect
professors and structural engineers to
UNESCO to do similar conferences. So you
can see my passion in architecture. Um
and then
just also very passionate about details
and how to deal with people. And in my
tax and accounting practice, it's a lot
about estate and trusts and foundations.
And I just came by I was a little bit
late because today there was a
conference at Stanford on charitable
giving. So we talked about death and
taxes. That's a se sensitive issue. And
so I feel about getting somebody's home
designed is a very personal and a
sensitive matter to be on AAC. Not only
you are helping people
design something very sustainable and
fitting to pull valley, but it's also
very personal thing for people. So one
needs to bring that together in a very
collaborative way and listening to
recent AAC meetings it talks a lot about
how state is asking for the review to be
very uh objective not subjective and
that's where I think collaboration will
make so much different I have gone
through my own plans here more than once
so I know how you know you're designing
a home you're designing it maybe once in your lifetime
and the architect is selling you an idea
of a dream. And if we are not there with the family early on and we after
they have invested so much of their
imagination into building this dream
with the architect and also spend a lot
of money on it then to tell them what is
okay or not okay is very adverse role.
If we are there early on, I understand
we are starting to do preliminary
liaison work. I think that will make a
whole difference.
And then I feel to get our maintaining
our road idea for this town by focusing
on fire issues where we can guide people
not to have just these huge tall hedges
that in a row but little cluster of
things and using local the native plants
which are probably much more fire
resistant. So applying these kind of
design ideas and helping them along.
Sometimes the architects are not from
here. They're not familiar or often I
know architecture work people have a
certain style they do. They're not
always so flexible to think what pull
valley needs are. So if we can educate
our
uh our neighbors, I think we'll have
much more pleasant relationship of this
design planning. And a lot of people who
come to live in Pulla Valley, they could
live in Atheertton, they could live in
Las Hills, but they're attracted to this
look. And so I think it's a very easy
way to convince people how to bring
designs that will be such an easy cell
for A to approve if we were there with
them from the very beginning. So that's
sort of my little way.
» Thank you Rebecca.
So, are you prepared to dedicate the
time needed to review materials, attend
site visits, and stay engaged over a
multi-year term? Um, I know you've moved
back permanently now. So, maybe you
could just talk about whether what your
what you anticipate your availability.
Thanks.
>> I have moved back to also build my
practice. So I will be here a lot and
estate and tax is similar detail work as
ASC and probably ASC will take me away
from doing taxes and estate planning. So
it's a nice way for me to stay fresh.
>> Thank Judith.
>> Uh so do you have any conflicts of
interest or other situations that might
inhibit your ability to attend most
meetings? just kind of what what else do
we need to know about that?
>> I'm not not an professional architect. I
just love architecture.
>> But there's no uh your for example
Stanford is going to come up potentially
because there's people that have some
affiliations in town that might be
applicants. I don't I don't know if you
>> I'm not affiliate to Stanford. I
wasending.
>> Yeah. And no other affiliations. Okay.
That's really what that question's
about. Thank you.
>> Okay, now I understand.
>> Yeah,
>> Mary.
>> Uh, no. It's I my question.
>> Oh, did you You're right at the
beginning. My apologies. Just I'm just
kind of in a It's been It's been a long
day already. My My apologies.
>> Longer day.
>> Yeah, it's going to be a longer day, but that's a different story.
>> Okay. This is two twoprong question, so
it's a long one, too. How familiar are
you with the town's m municipal code and
design guidelines particularly as they
relate to the architecture and site plan
review and second portion of the
question how would you use those
standards along with the submitted plans
reports and data to make well-reasoned
decisions on applications including
determining whether to recommend
approval denial or conditions
>> having lived in this town for 35 years
and Having gone through those approval
processes
I can tell you from my lot of personal
experiences a lot of the time people are
not familiar if we guide them it's very
easy cell to explain people how to get
what they dreamed of building in this
town if I understood your question
>> let me just make sure like first the for
I'll ask the first p portion first how
familiar are you with the town's
municipal code and design guidelines.
>> I have I have gone through getting my
whole house redone. So I had to take
>> I'm sorry I couldn't
>> I understand the uh the town's rules
because I have had my house redone.
>> Okay. And the second portion then of the
question, thank you for the first
portion. How would you use those
standards
um when making a decision?
>> And that's where I would say most of the
time I think the challenge comes people
were not familiar with things at the
level they needed to be and it's the
architect who's guiding them and that's
where the conflict comes. If if we are
there from the beginning even we can
guide the architect and so the dreams
can be built according to town's idea.
» Great. Thank you.
All right. Then the last one of our sort
of fix set. Um how do you approach
acting in good faith and upholding your
fiduciary responsibility to the
community especially when your findings
may conflict with other commissioners or
face public opposition?
I say that question again please.
>> So this question is you need to act in
good faith. Um and it may be that when
you do you're going to be in conflict
potentially with other commissioners or
um the public might be in opposition to
what your uh your position is. How would
you deal with that?
>> On that I can come to my role as being
on board of governance in especially
familyowned businesses. You constantly
have to walk that line and you have to
stay very objective. At the same time,
you have to make a point where you are
solid. And when it's not that critical,
don't don't
put too much stress on it. If it's
critical, you take a stand and people
know what you stand for and objectively.
>> Okay. Um, follow on questions.
Judith,
>> I'll ask the same one I asked last time,
which is I if you've been watching the
ASC, you've seen the different
perspectives they already bring. What
would be your special perspective that
you would bring to that body?
Um I have lot of experience with
architecture globally and how new
materials are being used and how
sustainability in architecture is such a
great play. For example, I've worked
very closely with Kangokuma who is the
architect who designed the Olympic
stadium in Japan. He's famous and he
sort of he's famous for using wood and
he created a beautiful building in Japan
just with bamboo.
>> Mhm.
>> And it's so aesthetically
so minimal and just blends into the
forest behind it. It's that that kind of
soft touch patch which is so so great
for for Pollola Valley that you you are
living with the nature. Another example
is there's a I organized Stanford
students to go and see Isha Jingu
shrine. That's the main shrine in Japan
for shin. This is like
of Shinduism. But it's a tiny hat
and tiny hat represents a huge stature
and you can only get in there permission
of the agriculture ministry because it's
under them
and every 20 years they rebuild that
little hut.
But the size of the structure is very
small. But it's the procedure and the
process of going through that ritual
building is where it has its meaning.
And they have a whole forest where they
plant trees 100 years in advance and
they will leave for that little hut.
It's these kind of things of a lot of
our neighbors will be happy to leave a
legacy and leaving a legacy of Pollola
Valley stays Polla Valley is a beautiful
legacy. When you come on Alpine Road,
the Sun forget when I used to work for
Cisco, I still remember I would write I
would forget Cisco.
Those are early days of Cisco. So you
need it for
and that's sort of if I'm getting on the
tending but this is sort of my
>> Thank you
Rebecca question.
>> Yeah. Um how would you recommend that
the ASC evolve in its role?
I think we need to be collaborative
as
the state is pushing on many of the
things and how can we do an objective uh
review while maintaining the ideals that
we want to maintain of Polla Valley. We
have to be extremely collaborative. We
can also use the ideas what are
necessary for fire safety again that can
be very objective but can still achieve
the goal of what we want petrole to be
and I feel it will be such an easy sell
people who buy to live here they want
that look
>> otherwise they can a place in African
it's such an easy sell if we just go
with that mindset and explain to to the
people who are about to design. So they
feel like they come to A to start their
design process not to get policed at the
end
and then we don't need to have architect
coming with other we won't need that
Mary
>> well I'll try for my uh previous
question um there there's certain amount
uh frustrations in this position as that
you've described which is that you're a
person who's used a fair amount of
success and things move in your
direction when you ask them to. Uh that
won't always be the case here. Uh how do
you think you would deal with the
frustration of being
putting yourself out in this way and how
would it personally how would you
personally cope with it?
If if people know you are your position
is very transparent, you build trust. If
your position is not very transparent
and very
you have an objectical reason that where
you're reaching and you can explain your
logic,
you build trust.
It's it's not so difficult build that.
Thank you. If
>> if you're honest about your ways and
it's and you're also willing to listen
to others point of view, sometimes maybe
their point is better. So you don't have
to stay in your position unnecessary.
>> We are all here. We are all here to do
something out of pleasure. We have
plenty of other things to do.
» Thank you, Ellen.
>> Thank you. Um, what would you do if you
were on ACC, ASCC, excuse me, and um,
the town code, municipal code was in
conflict with the state code.
» The state code,
» right, thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Um, Katherine, do
we have public comment here or Okay, so
this would be the time. All right. So,
that's the end of our questions. Um,
you're welcome to stay or leave. That's
your choice. Um, what we'll do is take
public comment. Then we'll discuss it
among ourselves. We'll make a decision
and we'll let you know one way or
another. So, your choice whether you
stay or if you want to, you know, let
us, we can let you know um through a
phone call or email or whatever. So,
thank you for coming. Thank you for
applying.
» All right, so with that, I'm going to
open up public comment.
And the first person is Nan Chest
and you there
not muting. All right. Well, there we
go.
>> Yes,
>> we got you. Yep. Yep. You're there. Go
ahead.
>> Okay. probably loud and clear. Okay.
>> Loud and clear.
>> Yeah. Council members, thank you all for
the opportunity to speak. I urge you to
appoint Ellen Vernaza to ASCC
because first, she has a deep
understanding of Pollola Valley's
fundamental values and she has worked
hard to preserve the rural feel of the
town. She's had committee experience as
chair of trails and paths,
so she understands town procedures. She
is a quick study and she'd come up to
speed rapidly on town ordinances and
state codes that she'd need for working
on ASC.
She's had valuable firsthand experience
constructing buildings here in Portola
Valley.
And finally, I think it's important for
ASC commissioners to understand the
interplay between natural hazards and
here talking about mainly fire and
earthquake, flood, landslide, not
between natural hazards and our built
environment. Ellen is a very strong
advocate for safety.
I appreciated her having taken the time
to attend one of the geological safety
committee meetings a couple of years ago
when we were first discussing evacuation
for wildfire following an earthquake.
Ellen offered several important
observations that we later incorporated
into our thinking and the final report.
I think Ellen's unique experience and
perspectives would make her a very
valuable member of ASC.
Thank you.
Nan. Lesie,
» good evening and thank you for taking my
call. I'm calling in support of Ellen's
nomination to ASCC.
Ellen has deep long-term roots in this
community and a deep understanding of of
how this community works. She's well
respected within the community and knows the community. As the former
chairs of the chair of the trail
committee, she has a deep understanding
of the infrastructure um and town
process as well. Ellen has a reputation
for delivering results, indicating that
she could hit the ground running in this
position.
She brings a different perspective as
well to ASCC. As one on the other side
of the table in front of the architect,
the landscape architect who are already
on the committee. We have those
positions. Ellen fills a unique niche.
Um she squares the circle, if you will.
Her recent ADU buildout provides a rich
experience of the Bullah Valley consumer
experience involved in building in the
current climate.
In addition, I've worked with Ellen on
other projects, and I know her to be a
person who can manage a prodigious
workload and produce results with a
cheerful continence. Even when things
are getting a little bit hairy, she's
usually the one to make a joke or
lighten the mood and just keep on
plowing on. She's also a pleasure to
work with. So, I respectfully request um
advancing her nomination to the ASCC
position. Thank you so much for
listening to my thoughts.
>> Thank you, Leslie. Rita,
» good evening. Thank you for taking my
comment. I also support Ellen Bernaza in
her quest to become a member of Pollola
Valley's ASC. I bought my property in
2009 and attended many ASC and planning
meetings before I had to then attend my
own for my build. with our current
members on the ASC. I personally feel
that Ellen would be a great addition to
that group.
She has been very active in the
community, has been on other committees,
and even ran for town council, which is
an example of how close she feels to
uplifting the continued care of our
community, just like all of you up there
on the dis. So, I really appreciate her
stepping up to being part of this group.
um you know like she had said in her
opening uh you know Laura Russell said
that oh there's going to be no need for
ASC in the future with all these state
rules but there is uh a real need for a
continu a continued community presence
and views and the past couple of years
without having meetings or people having
to be recused for one thing or another I
feel that her addition will have more
meetings that we desperately need
with all of the builds that are coming
up and, you know, bring us more of a
community what we're trying to do and
move things forward. So, thank you for
listening.
>> Thank you, Reena.
All right, with that, I don't see any
hands in the schoolhouse. I don't see
any other hands online. So, I'm going to
close public comment and bring it back
to the council for discussion.
would like to go first.
Ellen, would you mind?
Are
>> we starting? We're starting with
comments.
>> Are we starting with questions? I'm
sorry.
>> So, this is decision time. This is
>> Do you want my vote right now? What are
you asking?
>> I mean, you So, you can talk about what
you thought you heard and what you
thought is important. Um, and where
you're leaning. That's probably the best
way to go at it. Um so uh so I will say
you know both candidates are strong. Um
I am concerned um obviously people don't
always understand the situation that the
town is in dealing with the state. Um
and so that uh you know that was part of
the reason that I asked about the
conflict with the state. um you know and
Ellen said you know um she would
override the state code
um
which you we we can't do right um and
you know we really love Katherine but we
really need to make sure that we don't
spend too much time with you
so so not to make light of it but I
really you know we can't afford lawsuits
um so that actually, you know, that
really concerned me. Um,
so I actually think I would go with
Sonia um because of her deeper
understanding of our of of our municipal
code. While I strongly believe Ellen
could learn, um, I do appreciate that um
that Sonia already is more familiar with
it. So that's where I'm leaning. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Mary.
Well,
I think we're extremely lucky to have
two really talented uh u candidates. Um
I think both of them grasp the situation
uh very well. Um and both have their own
way of communicating um their their
grasp. Um, I um was very impressed with
Sonia that uh she she totally got it
about how you got to get them early and
uh talk them through it or else and
that's the way to get what we want out
of our community. That's the that's the
it's the non-legalistic way of
approaching this is actually having
people who commit in their design early
enough to actually get it uh get it
right. uh and I I totally um see that
her qualifications and her perspective
are valuable to the town. So um I think
that uh she will be a long-term a
wonderful asset as she spends more time
in our town and and gets to know us
better. Uh Ellen has u a very very long
uh she's she but one of the things we've
lost um and that we discuss having lost
is our um historic perspective. Uh and
um
we we we need both historic perspective
and um modern concepts coming forward.
But uh as far as historic perspective,
Ellen's pretty much grew up here uh with
the town and has gone through a lot of
changes in multiple houses, etc. Um and
uh represents the can represent the
historic perspective, which we we don't
want to lose. Um
she gets it. uh and nobody's going to
let her uh break the law in her position
on the SECI. I don't think we have to
worry about her her uh single-handedly
being able to get us to in trouble. Um
but uh I I feel that Ellen at this time
in her life u this is an ideal
opportunity for her uh and um both from
the town's point of view bringing more
of the bringing a deep historic
perspective and and the the uh return of
her energy
um
and her desire to really be able to give
to the town right now. Um, so I would
support Ellen.
>> Thank you, Judith.
>> Sure. Um, we are indeed very fortunate
in this town. Every time we come up to
interview people, I'm kind of blown away
with their background and their their
energy. So, I thank them both. Um,
you know, we've got an interesting uh
opportunity here, but when I think about
what does the ASCC actually
need right now, and I think there's a
lot of work to do, and that's going to
be pretty continual. uh things like
objective standards be being renovated
and developed, things like
reimagining a process where candidates
can not be surprised and before they get
too far in the the process. All of that
is going to take a lot of discussion and
rethinking and different perspectives.
So, at the end of the day, I also will
support Ellen. Um, I think she um she
said she'd follow rules and she's not an
attorney. So, I think um that she wants
to override the state. Uh at the end of
the discussion, she said if if the state
trumps, the state trumps. I'm
paraphrasing there. That's what I heard.
But at the end of the day, that's a
lawyer's call and legal advice needs to
be brought to bear. We can't avoid that
and I wouldn't want to avoid that. um
she's visible and at a lot of the town
council and other uh committee uh
meetings and weighing in and following
up with, you know, her own endeavors to
figure out HCD and her ADU rules. I
admire that and um clearly is in a
position to put in the hard work and has
done already. So, I would um support
Ellen.
>> Thank you, Rebecca.
Um I agree that we are fortunate to have
two candidates um apply for this. Uh we
have had problems finding enough people.
Hence we've had an opening for over a
year. Um I would say both have similar
dedication to Portola Valley. Both have
lived in this town the same time. Both
have understood um the changes in Porta
Valley. Um both have seen that. Both
have lived through it. both have the
same historic perspective.
Um
but um I don't think there's any
question in my mind um to support the
candidate that has the most
understanding both of our municipal code
um as well as some of the challenges the
ASC has um going forward um in terms of
how do you deal with a discretionary
body that the state is taking away our
ability to do discretionary decisionm
um and there was only one candidate that
really understood that and went into
depth about that. Um, and that would be
Sonia. Um, Sonia also brings with her a
unique perspective of having worked with
multiple architects all over the world
and I think it's really important to be
able to bring that into our town. It's
such a unique ability. Um and to be able
to synchronize that uh perspective from
how how traditional building is has been
happening in in uh Japan for example. Um
to bring that that um perspective to
Portulla Valley where we are trying as
much as possible to maintain this this
similar kind of ideals of of creating
buildings that that um live within our
natural surroundings.
um
making them it's one of the key points
of our design guidelines is really
making our building subservient to to
our land and to our space and she gets
it. Sonia gets that. Um while I uh
realize that Ellen is very dedicated and
you know is willing to step in there and
get going. it was clear and she said so
herself very many times that she doesn't
have any background in our codes in our
municipal but she's willing to learn and
I appreciate very much her offer of that
but um being able to step on the ACC and
be productive uh day one is is really
important given how much stuff is coming
before us and to have someone who has um
both the qualifications and the
perspective and and has the the artistic
views and the artistic background um and
the aesthetic background around and and
understands how important it is as the
ASC's role will start evolving
um to understand that we need to get
ahead of that. We need to start working
with architects and applicants very
early in the process so that we can
guide them to create a collaborative um
uh and beneficial organization
commission instead of a an argumentative
one. Um I think there's no question I
support Sonia
Thank you.
So, as my fellow council members have
said, we are blessed with two great
candidates. I wish I could just pick two
and that would be the easy solution. Um,
since I think they both bring
interesting qualifications to the
position.
I think when I think about ASC and
particularly what I see coming up um of
the next year or so, we've got objective
standards. Um there there are a number
of different
sort of collaborative issues as well as
sort of helping get these objective
standards moving forward which I think
are going to be critical given the
current state laws. So I'd say I want to
be careful. I say reluctantly I will
support Sonia but not because I'm
reluctant about Sonia but that I think
we have two really good candidates. Um
and so it I find this decision hard. So,
it's the decision. I'm reluctant, not the candidates. So, with that, I
would entertain a motion.
>> I would like to entertain a motion to uh
appoint Sonia Dylan to the ASC.
>> And I'll second that.
>> All right. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed.
Okay. N. All right. So, we have a vote
three to two. Do we need anything else,
Katherine? you're reaching for your
>> I just want to make sure the clerk
recorded the vote since it wasn't yet by
roll call but um the the vote is
recorded as three to two. Um nope
nothing else needed. Thank you.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. So then um if
you will let So well Sonia's here so
she'll know but if you'll still formally
let her know um and you'll also let
Ellen know as well and tell her how much
we appreciate her um coming. So thank
you. All right, with that I'm going to
close this session and we have four
minutes to the next one.
So, take a quick break. Grab a bite to
eat, whatever you need. Thank you.
» Welcome. Good evening. Um, I'm going to
call this meeting to order. This is the
Porto Valley Town Council. I'd like to
start with roll call.
Council member Walter present.
>> Council member Hasco here. Council
member Flynn here. Vice Mayor Hufty
>> here.
>> Mayor Taylor
>> present.
>> We have a quorum.
>> Thank you. All right. First thing on the
agenda, we have presentations and
proclamations. So the first proclamation
is a proclamation for mental health
awareness month. I have a short
statement I was asked to read. So
tonight, I am proud to proclaim May 2026
as mental health awareness month in
Portola Valley, joining a historic
countywide commitment to treat mental
health, sorry, mental well-being is a
foundational public good for every
generation. This year's theme, mental
health is ours, reminds us that while
13% of our local adults and over a
quarter of our youth face significant
emotional distress, we can overcome
these challenges through collective
action and community support. By
increasing awareness and ending the
stigma today, we honor our
responsibility to ensure that all
members of our community, from our youth
to our seniors, have equitable access to
the resources they need to thrive. So
that's my opening remarks on mental
harness mental health awareness month.
And then the second piece is we have a
presentation by um Scott Granite. And
Mary, I'd let you introduce him.
>> Well, it's my great pleasure to
introduce uh Scott. He and I practiced
together somewhere between 20 and 30
years at the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation. Uh I can say that uh he has
a deep and personal commitment to
community well-being and mental health
and has put himself and his life on the
line to make sure that everybody has a
fair chance at recovery and and at
healing. uh he he understands
um what community can offer and and uh
my my uh my hope is that he'll give us
some guidelines on how we can be a more
caring, compassionate, and healing
community
um
with understanding being the basis of
the whole thing. So, welcome Scott and
thank you for coming because uh you are
a very special person.
» And Scott, you're you're welcome to
either the podium or the table,
whichever you prefer.
>> Well, I think I'm okay at the podium
since I'm here already.
>> You got it.
>> Okay. Well, thank you. Uh boy, you
couldn't have a more charming place to
have a city council.
I was really pleased when Mary reached
out to me and asked me to do this. Now,
I will be speaking specifically about
obsessivempulsive disorder tonight. Um,
that's I've dedicated much of my career
uh to working with OCD and related
disorders, which I'll mention in a
little bit. Um, but I'm really I'm not
here representing myself. I really think
I'm more representing the OCD community.
um a founding board member and former
president of OCD San Francisco uh which
is a one of 35 or so affiliate
organizations connected to the
international oation
uh based in Connecticut. I'm sorry. They
used to be based in Connecticut. Now
they're based in uh in Boston. Uh and
they truly are international in helping
people from uh from around the world.
When I when Mary first asked me to do
this, um the timing really couldn't have
been any better uh or worse depending on
how you look at this. Um
the International OCD Foundation puts
out a quarterly news. And the and I've
brought some with me. I'm going to leave
them here for you all. Um but the cover
story uh for this one is America's OCD
Care Crisis,
which is really important for people to
understand. And the reason they they put
it that way is that they re they did a
study on OCD and found that there are 10
million Americans live with this
disorder and about half a million uh
children uh who live with OCD. Now keep
in mind with OCD um you know generally
people are first show symptoms uh and
two periods really one around the ages
of 8 to 10 and then another area is
around the ages of like 19 to 26. So the
early early adult years it's pretty
uncommon to see somebody first develop
symptoms of OCD uh later in life like
past 40 perhaps. I mean it can happen
but it doesn't happen that way.
I'm part of a Facebook group of
therapists u who treat OCD and related
disorder. And one of the things that one
of the therapists made special note of
is how important it is to educate people
about OCD and try and have people
understand that OCD just isn't about
handwashing and checking doors. Uh I
mean that sort of is in the, you know,
the public domain. And I think that's
what most people think about when they
think about OCD. And granted, those are
probably the most common forms of OCD.
But OCD exists in a lot of in a lot of
other ways. And I won't go over, you
know, over all the ways that it may
exist. Um, but I did make some some
notes just to mention that there are a
very common form of OCD is what's called
harm OCD. Uh, where people may have
intrusive thoughts that they're going to
cause some harm to themselves or maybe
to other people. An example of this is
often where people may be driving, they
hit a bump in the road, you know, bump
in the road and feel like maybe they've
hit a person or an animal and have to
then travel, you know, maybe circle the
block to make sure there's nobody there.
Now, and a very important part of OCD is
to recognize that the thoughts that
people are having are all intrusive.
They don't want these thoughts. Uh
they're very painful thoughts to have
and they're really very different than
who these people who they are. And what
I mean by that is that some people have,
you know, the sexual obsessions, you
know, where they have thoughts about
maybe, you know, doing things to young
children or animals even and and
obviously it's all very it's all very
disturbed and that's a very important
part of it. I mean, as a clinician who
treats OCD, I can tell very easily the difference between somebody
who's a pedophile, you know, versus who
somebody has OCD and worries about being
a pedophile. They're two very different
things. the person with OCD is sort of
tortured by these unwanted thoughts that
they're that they're having. Uh there's
also what's called existential OCD. You
know, people who sort of obsess over the
meaning of life.
Just right OCD is another form. Let's
say you're walking down a sidewalk and
you pass a leaf or a piece of paper or
something. People with this form of OCD
may have to stop and then just sort of
take a look at what they see, identify
it, be, you know, clearly identify what
it is before they can move on. Um,
there's sensory motor OCD, uh, which is
a really tough one. Sensory motor is
when people pay attention to
normal physical sensations such as
swallowing or their heartbeating or
blinking or and and have to think about
it every time it occurs. So, if you can
imagine in sitting here tonight and
thinking about every time you blink, you
probably haven't even given that a
thought tonight, but you probably have
blinked se many times already today, but
can imagine having to think about it
every time every time it happens.
There's relationship OCD where the focus
of attention is on is on relationships.
Um, often times it could be somebody
who's married, you know, really loves
his wife, let's say, and is tortured by
thoughts of wondering if that's really
true. So, this is just sort of a
snapshot of the many different ways that OCD can show up. And I think it's
just important to recognize that again,
it's much more than what we typically
see on in TV shows. Um,
okay.
So, one of the reasons why like mental
health awareness is so important and
events like this is so important is that
when it comes to OCD, people on average
go seven years before they actually get
a diagnosis. So, they may see therapist
after therapist and people who and see
therapists who don't really recognize uh
that they have obsessivempulsive
disorder. In this study that was done by
the International OCD Foundation, they
found that 75% of people with OCD never
actually receive a diagnosis. I mean,
that's just a astounding. 95% never
receive appropriate care. I mean, to
think at this day and age that that
number exists is just is just really
outrageous. Um, and we know that there's good therapy out there. I mean
there's you know treating again without
going in tremendous detail you know
treating OCD is very much very unlike
other disorders uh it's not the
traditional talk therapy it's not trying
to find out in somebody's background
what led to them developing OCD because
we know that OCD is primarily a
neurochemical problem in which certain
you know functions in the brain aren't
operating properly and so the therapy
has nothing to do with traditional talk
therapy it's all exposure therapy Y um
and so it's cog a form of cognitive
behavioral therapy called exposure and
response prevention therapy and it's
known to make for the same changes in
the brain that medications can make. Um
it's just a matter of seeing a therapist
who knows who knows how to treat OCD.
Now having said that the best treatment
of OCD is truly known to be a
combination of medication um and
cognitive behavioral therapy
specifically exposure and response
prevention therapy.
There are some people who uh do very
well without taking medication. That's
fine. But in my opinion, most people who
have a more moderate to severe way
probably do need to be taking
medication.
One of the things that many people with
OCD are faced with though is that there
can be a tremendous amount of shame in
living with this disorder. Um especially
if you're somebody who has what's called
sort of the taboo obsessions, you know,
like about sex, about, you know, about
children, about harm. A lot of people
have religious obsessions. Um, and so
that shame too often prevents people
from from getting the help that they
need. And again, that speaks to the
importance of events like uh like this
here today
with the our group OCD San Francisco. Uh
we've been around for about uh well,
it's probably more than 30 years now. Uh
what we can offer is that we do refer
people to local support groups. Uh these
support groups are all uh peerrun and
they're free so there's no there's no
cost. Um I used to run some of them. I'm
not running them uh any of them
currently.
Um we have a referral line or a um a
phone line where people they contact us
either by email or by phone and we can
help them uh with referrals to uh
clinicians in in the area. Uh we also
have a annual OCD walk, excuse me, which
is typically around Lake Merritt in
Oakland and this year that's coming up.
I think we decided on uh sometime in in
October. It's a great event. It's one
it's our really the only fundraiser we
do each year and it's sponsored along
with the International OCD Foundation.
Each year we also sponsor an event with
Stanford University. Um uh uh once a
year there's the OCD awareness week. Um,
and that's typically in the fall and
each fall we have an event on the
Stanford campus uh with CD group that
does a lot of a lot of research. Uh, so
if you're interested in that, I can
certainly tell you more about that. Um,
and let's see if that was anything else I wanted to mention. Um,
oh, with the IOCDF again, the
International OCD Foundation, of course,
their, you know, their mandate is to
help people with OCD and their families.
However, they also talk about really OCD
and related disorder. Uh, so it really
isn't just OCD. The other disorders that
are considered related one being body
dysmorphic disorder uh is which when the
focus of attention the obsessional focus
is on how somebody looks. So it can look
a lot like OCD since there's a lot of
obsessive thinking and a lot of
compulsive behaviors. Uh but because
it's about physical appearance it's body
dysmorphic disorder. Uh there's also
hoarding disorder. Hoarding has gotten a
lot of attention in recent years. uh
it's only very recently that hoarding
was um given its own diagnosis. Years
past it was just it was part of OCD. Uh
but now it has its own diagnosis. And
the other two disorders that are on um
in this category are tricky.
Trickotillamania is the compulsive hair
pulling and the skin picking disorder
also called excoriation.
Um both of those trickotillamania and
skip skinpicking fall under the heading
of what's called body focused repetitive
behaviors. Um in which also include like
biting your fingernails or chewing the
you know the your gums in your mouth or
whatever. Uh so a lot of behaviors fall
into that category. So it's just
important to know that with the OCD
Foundation we're not just talking about
OCD itself. We're also talking about
other disorders that are related uh to
OCD.
So, that's really what I have prepared
um for tonight. I'm really happy that
you all could uh join us, but um if
there's time for questions, if you want
to ask any questions, I'm happy to take
some questions. And by the way, as I
said, I'll leave these newsletters here.
Um these are it's really very
informative. I should mention that the
International OCD Foundation has a
wonderful website. If you just go to
iocdf.org, org. They've got a ton of
information regarding everything you
could possibly think about regarding
OCD. Uh they also have an annual
conference. They have two actually. Uh
there's the one that's in person and
each year it's in a different part of
the country. This year it's going to be
in Seattle in uh July. Um two year two
or three years ago was in San Francisco
and I assume it's going to come back
here within a few years. And we also
have an online conference. people who
can't uh attend the conference uh then
they can participate in the online
coming up in the fall. Also, with the
in-person conference in Seattle, there
will be a streaming uh much of it will
be streaming as well. So, if people
can't make that, they're certainly
welcome to attend online. So, thank you
all very much. I feel like I ran through
a bunch of information. Um but any
questions, I'm happy to answer.
>> Well, thank you, Scott. That was an
informative presentation. You kind of
gave us a glimpse into OCD. Um, are
there any questions from the council?
So, I think that was helpful. If you
could leave the newsletters in the back,
that way we can pick some up and public
>> on their way out. Um, usually if we have
any other comments from the public, it
usually comes when I get to oral commun.
» Okay, sounds perfect. Great. Thank you.
very much.
>> Thank you all for having me.
>> Thank you, Scott. I I picked up your workbook and I couldn't
put it down. It was quite a problem. But
any rate, it's it's quite engaging.
>> I didn't want to advertise myself, but
now that Mary mentioned I did write a
board.
>> All right. Thanks again.
>> Yeah.
» All right. Well, again, thank you,
Scott. So, I'm going to move on to the
town manager report.
Yes, Darcy Smith, town manager. Keep it
quick. So, I have exciting news, which
is that the re-imagined Portola Valley
Post was mailed and hopefully delivered
this weekend. We do have some extra
copies. Thank you. Uh hopefully more
people take the survey. There's a link
down here. We've only had 33 responses
and I think we sent out over 2,000 of
these. So, I'm hoping someone maybe in
the audience will scan the QR code. It asked only a few questions that I
think the fastest one did it in a
minute. So, it's not one of those 30 or
40 question surveys. And we will
continue this. So, I'm open to ideas. I
hope to work with like the conservation
committee, which I see a representative
in the audience, emergency preparedness
committee, other committees um to
provide press because some of them as
part of the budget wanted to mail their
own postcard. So, this is much more
fiscally responsible, but look for the
next one in early July. This weekend, we
have the horse fair, which is put on,
but our by our amazing trails and paths
committee right here at Town Center
starting at 10:00 a.m. And this is
exciting.
Lots of horses. We also have the SAD
Blitz coming up in May. And then I've
included a few dates here. And moving
forward, we'll make sure you know about
these dates early on in in the
newsletter.
Audits, another hot topic. We are
working through the audits. There's four
here and we've gotten one completely
done. We have a finance committee
meeting next Tuesday at 4, but this item
has been deferred from the finance
committee review. They'll be looking at
the budget in case that interests you.
Um, and so we continue to work on these
and I'll update the dates as we have
them. We are still working on the
22 23 audit and again working through
that. Then we'll move on to 23 24 and 20
for 25 and we'll bring those to council
when they're ready. And that concludes
my short report. Thank you.
>> Thank you Darcy. Um can I just for
people who don't know what the sod
lists, do you want to explain that more
clearly?
» I don't actually know what it is.
>> I know it has a great name. goes on for
three days and I think it relates to
soding.
>> Well, no.
>> Okay.
>> It's it's sudden oak death.
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah.
>> So, it's basically it's it's basically a
survey to understand, you know, what's
our exposure is to sudden oak death in
the community.
>> Great.
>> So,
>> and more specifically, Yeah.
>> And there'll be I mean, when we get
closer, there's going to be more
information.
>> Correct. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Thank you. But I think we're
looking for citizen uh citizen
scientists to be able to sample and
carry on. So it will need some uh
outreach.
Okay. So then let me move on to oral
communication. So this is an opportunity
for the public to comment um on anything
that they've heard so far tonight or on
anything that's not on the agenda. So
this is not for things that are on the
agenda. Once we get to those agenda
items, you can comment. But this is not
on the agenda or if it's one of the
previous presentation. So if you would
come up to the mic
but so let why don't I I picked him
first and then I I didn't see you I
apologize but but I'll get to you. You
next um and if you could just you know
tell us your name and then
>> Hello everybody. So my name is Joseph
Costa. not currently a resident of
Portulla Valley, but my family and I
want to be. And we're looking um at a
property on Alpine Road, 3510 Alpine
Road, uh which is immediately adjacent
to the Stanford project that's going on
in the city now, which is a great
concern to me purchasing that property.
So, I don't know if this is the proper
forum for that. Um, but I just wanted
to, you know, maybe get feedback on, you
know, the plan that they have and how
they're being controlled that they
follow it and, uh, with removal of
trees, etc. Cuz my the property that in
question shares a pretty long property
line with them and the house is pretty
close to that property line. And um, so
before we move forward with that, I
wanted to make sure that the proper
controls were in place um, that secures
my investment basically. So that's my
question.
>> Yeah. And this is generally public
comment rather than questions. But what
I would recommend is if you reach out to
the planning director, I think that they
can give you an overview of the project.
Um.
>> Okay.
Good.
>> And he'll also, you know, be able to
give
>> he he is a she. It's s
>> Okay. Okay. Okay.
>> Yeah. I mean, I've done my research. I
just want to make sure there's, you
know, what's in place to make sure they
don't do what they're supposed to do and break the rules.
>> Sure. Yeah. Like I'd recommend just
schedule an appointment, Sarah.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. All right. Next, please.
» Uh I'm Bob Bower and I'm a member of the
Porto Valley School District, uh trustee
and serving as clerk. And I'm here today
because I want to inform you of a couple
of things. The first one is that we're
having a candidate night for the two
candidates running for county
superintendent and that's a very
important uh position for our school
district and our local community and our
kids. It's on Monday night and I would
first of all welcome you. It's both
going to be virtual as well as in person
and there will be a recording thereafter
and if the town would consider including
some communication about it even after
the event where the video will be posted
I think it will help our voters in our
community but the most important reason
I wanted to come today is to address the
issue with the Hawthorne's property uh
and in particular um address the fact
that the consideration that's been given
to date has not involved the school
district at all our we have depended on
our former trustee uh Gary Hanning who
has been a member of the trails
committee forever it seems and has done
a wonderful job. the two options that
came out did not consider what was
agreed to when that occurred. And then
in particular, I want to make the town
aware that the school district, first of
all, I'm I'm addressing as a person
because we haven't taken up the matter
until tomorrow night. And so, the timing
just didn't work. But tomorrow night,
I'll be proposing and discussing this
matter. And I really want to invite that
the district work together closely with
the town. Our superintendent has reached
out to the town manager just this week.
So there hasn't been a lot of time to do
this, but I think it's very important
that we together um as you know because of the options
that are now going forward in the two
options are access on Portulla Road
where over a hundred of our kids pass by
twice a day. Both of those significantly
compromise their safety. Um, MidPen
is going there and an agent I want to
read what I wrote because of the time,
but um um we as an agency bear direct
responsibility for the safety of the
children traveling to and to and from
school and among that legal
responsibility is for students in route
to school to be working with our active
partners in local agencies and
jurisdictions in evaluating and
addressing the school crossing safety.
In particular, I want to make the the current council aware that we
share cost for the crossing guard at
Portola and Alpine Road. And that uh in
my experience means that we have a
shared legal responsibility for the
safety of the people who are being uh
attended to at that crossing. Um that
means that we both have an exposure
should any harm happen to the children.
And it's something that needs to be
considered under the the current SQA
activity that's going. There's a
responsibility that all affected agency
be consulted during the EIR process. And
we believe the school district should be
formally recognized as coordinating
agency in the EIR even though there's
been no outreach on their behalf so far.
Um,
>> and I'm going to have to ask you to
start wrapping it up. We're a little
over time.
>> Thank you. I'm sorry. So, um, I'm
confident that the school district
wishes to work very carefully with you.
I can only make a personal statement,
but I've spoken to the superintendent
and other members of the, uh, of the
community, and I'm proposing that we
take responsibilities and look at the
options together and work on whatever
access solution is ultimately proposed
that puts the safety of our children in
our community first. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
All right. Is there anyone else in the
schoolhouse that have oral
communications? All right. Seeing none
in the schoolhouse. Um Christie, go
ahead.
>> Yes, thank you. I have four questions.
Um the first one is we received a letter
from HCD and I understand our town has
written a letter back that has not been
made public either letter and I believe
in the past
the public has been better informed. So
I don't know how we're able to get up to
date with where we stand with HCD and
I'm interested in learning. Uh the
second thing is uh I'd like to be able
to attend both meetings, mid pen open
space district and the council or the
planning commission meetings which both
start on Wednesdays at 7:00. So, I'm
hoping this council can come to
u a compromise in that their last
meeting was at five o'clock and I was
able to listen to both. And I think this
is so important to the town that I'm
asking you to compromise with them and
get them to understand that we cannot be
on two meetings at once and listen
thoroughly. Uh we want to speak at both
meetings. So listening to it later does
not work for us. Um I do think that Mid
Pen needs to come and do an open session
in our town council room as they did at
the beginning of this project um a
couple years ago. Many of the residents
are unaware that the parking lot across
from Robert's number nine and number 10
at Alpine Road and Portullah Road at
would cause a four-way stop.
uh and uh the safe routes to school. We
want to understand what's going to
happen with Alpine Trail. It's of
extreme importance to the safety of
children, uh horses, pedestrians
alike.
And last but not least, the Stamford
Wedge. If there is going to be traffic
issues there, we want to be fully
informed and understand that process.
um they put out a nice process for their
uh their students on their campus, but
we're not seeing uh as much here. Um and
we have places to go. We have doctor's
appointments. We need to know and be on
time as well. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Christie. And Sarah, we
haven't submitted a letter back to HCD
yet. Is that correct? Yeah. So, the
reason you haven't seen anything is
because there nothing has been
submitted.
All right. Is there anybody else? Nobody
in the schoolhouse. Nobody else online.
So, I'm going to close oral
communications
and move on to the consent agenda. So,
again, I'd like to open the consent
agenda up to public comment. Is there
any public comment on this consent
agenda?
All right, Rita, go ahead.
Hi, thank you for taking my comment. Um,
in just looking at the warrant list, uh,
there's about $250,000
on this warrant list for contractors.
Uh, call me crazy, but I thought we were
trying to tighten our belts. So, that's
a4 million. And uh and it would be
really nice to know how much of that
money are we then getting back in, you
know, maybe from Stamford or from people
building homes or something. That number
just sitting out there by itself, you
know, for um lawyers fees, $90,000. for
cotton shers. Uh the go guy 30,000 for a
SCSG
uh contractor that was about 79 80,000
and another 50,000 for a good city.
That's a that's a lot of money for a
town that has no money. Um so how much
of that money are we getting back? And
uh if that can be updated, even if you
can't answer me now, answer the public
now. If we could get that information
before next Tuesday's meeting in case
it's not shared since they're going to
only talk about the budget, it'd be
really nice to understand how much of
that money are we getting back. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Rita. All right. Anybody else
in the schoolhouse? I don't see any
other hands online, so I'll bring it
back to the council. Um, does anybody
want to pull any of the consent agenda items?
>> I want to pull the warrant list.
>> Okay. Anything else?
All right. So, we're going to I'm
looking for a motion on 6 A and B.
» Motion to approve.
>> Second.
>> Okay. All in favor?
>> I.
>> All right. Then moving on to 6C. Judith,
go ahead.
>> Yeah. It's a pretty specific question
about the sheriff's contract payment,
and it's on page 17.
I understand this 1.1.03
million to be paid. In some places it's
referencing fiscal year 2526, but then
there's a parenthetical
January 1st to June 30th. So I'm not
sure if that h what is it covering?
>> It's covering the second half of fiscal
year 2526. So January 1st through June
3rd.
So the full year.
>> So this is the second payment. They bill
us in two installments. This is the
second installment
>> in equal installments.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. That that's all I needed. Thank
you. Okay.
>> And Tony, is there any comments on
anything that Rita asked? I mean, and no
is an okay answer for now. I just if you
had any immediate
>> Yes. As been explained in previous
times, any charge by the consultants to
fund 701 is funded by Apple. Perfect.
Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> Hang on. I actually have a question too
on the
>> Oh, go ahead.
>> Thank you, chair.
>> Thank you, mayors. Um,
could I just get clarification? As long
as we pulled this item. I was going to
email you later. Um, for the Sanonteo
Sheriff, there are there we have uh fund
202 and fund 203 and department 210.
Just curious what the different funds
and why it's not coming out of one pot.
is we allocated costs with the budget.
So half part of the costs were covered
by the public safety sales tax which is
fund 202. We have the cops grant which
is fund 203 and then we had the
remaining funds of ARPA which is fund
225 and that's the $50,000. So ARPA's
ARPA funds are completely spent. Uh but
the rest is what we get in annual
aotments from our public safety sales
tax and our cops grant. So, we split the
cost. Well, we allocate some of the cost
of the sheriff's contract to these
funds.
>> Great. Okay. Thanks so much. Thank you
for following that out. I appreciate
that. Thank you.
>> I have a follow-up question on 701.
Sorry. Uh 701. I'm just looking at it.
Uh it's it says uh on say the second
line, it's uh 51320
CSG consultants. It says 10171. It
doesn't uh separate out what
>> there's another there's a report that
says checks by fund report.
So if you go to fund se all the checks
that are cut out of fund 701 those are
the those are covered by c u applicant
deposits.
You have a check register report. You
have a paid invoices report. Then you
have a check by fund report.
So Mary, do you mind if we move on and
you could check check with Tony later?
>> Okay. All right. So I would entertain a
motion um for 6C.
>> So moved.
>> Have a second.
>> Second.
>> Thank you. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Thank you. 6C's have been approved.
Thank you, Tony.
All right. Moving on to seven, the
public hearing. So I formally open the
public hearing. What do I have to say
spe special words here or just moving
into
>> Right. Actually we're going to take the
item as as normal and then when it's
time for public comment you will open
the public hearing.
>> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
So Brandon and Sarah, welcome.
Is that after yours?
» Whenever you're ready. We're ready. All
>> right. Good evening. Good evening, town
council. So, I'm Sarah Cors, the
planning and building director for the
town of Porto Valley, and I'm joined
here tonight with Brandon Ducas, who is
our senior contract planner. So, I'm
just going to kick it off with a very
quick introduction for tonight. So,
we're introducing kind of three
different zoning code amendments. So,
there's a couple different topics that
are lumped together in one ordinance.
And so, going back to why this is before
you today. So when I talk about the ADU
and JADU ordinance um so it's all in one
ordinance but I'll talk about this topic
first and then one. So with the J AUs
and J ADUs, there has been our adopted
housing elements and within our housing
elements, there is a program 7-8 that
provides some clear guidance about um
updating the town's ADU ordinance to
regularly comply with state law. And it
also kind of identifies some other
specific implementation actions and a
time frame for that as well. Um, so when
we're looking at the ADU and JADU aspect
of the code amendments, you know, we're
looking to make sure that it's in
compliance with best practices and also
best practices related
compliance with the state law. So then
moving on um with the emergency shelters
and de development indemnification
ordinances, those are kind of the two
other pieces of this sort of bundled
zoning code amendment. Um there is a
housing element program 8-3 that
provides specific guidance for uh
related to the emergency shelters and
then we also have guidance to update the
town's municipal code consistent with
state law and best practices again kind
of related to all of them but especially
for the indemnification as well. So we
have that kind of guidance that led us
here tonight to do some updates to our
zoning code again to make sure we're
complying with state law and best
practices. So with this time frame, we
originally brought this forward to
planning commission in February for a
study session. We received some of their
feedback and made a few edits according
to planning commission's direction and
we brought it back to them just this
past month in April for their formal
review and recommendation. So planning
commission did have some debate on um
the indemnification piece of the zoning
code amendment and so they decided to
sort of split it apart into two separate
resolutions. So that's what you saw in
your packet. There's two separate
resolutions that they voted on. So the
first one included information for
identification. That was a 4 to1 vote.
And then the other resolution included
the ADU and JADU language as well as the
emergency shelters language for the
zoning code amendment. And that was a 5
and0 vote from planning commission. And
so now we're here tonight in May in
front of town council for your formal
review and consideration for potential
adoption.
So at this point I'm going to hand it
back over to Brandon. He's going to walk
us through a little bit more detail
about what's before you.
>> Good evening, council. Uh again, Brandon
Ducas, um contract senior planner with
uh kind of kind of going over the actual
code updates. So, kind of the brief
overview for the ADU and J8U. We're
looking to rescend our existing
standards which are contained in chapter
183640B,
which is uses permitted in all zones.
that's very interesting or it's
accessory uses, sorry. Um, and it's kind
of in a weird location. So, we are
proposing as kind of a best practice to
create a new chapter since we do
anticipate having to update this
regularly since the state is always
changing the rules on this for us to
make it easier and have a very
self-contained chapter with all these
standards.
And so kind of the background to this,
you know, the the state law and intent
is really to remove barriers, streamline
approvals, and incomplete uh increase
housing capacity. Our current standards
are non-compliant. They were last
updated, I believe, in 2019. They are no
longer compliant. Since 2021, we've had
12 new bills that have been passed
changing the regulations for ADU law. We
did receive an HCD non-compliant letter
back in 2023. They reminded us um last
year that we had still not replied to
that and that we need to update that.
And to kind of guide staff's
development of this, you know, staff
made use of HCD's handbook, which they
did just re release a new updated
version in March. Um, additionally, we
reviewed their technical assistance
letter. So, local agencies are required
to submit their ordinances to HCD for
review. HCD then sends you a letter back
telling you what you got wrong. And we
extensively review those, especially
those that were issued this year to
understand the guidance that HCD is
providing and saying yes or no, what can
you do? Um, and that will kind of go
throughout when we're talking about the
different standards and it led staff to
why we're recommending what we
recommending is based off of that
guidance and that is you know HCD's
interpretation which is a fair
interpretation of the law and you know
I'll let Katherine kind of expand more
on the legal side of that. Um but that's
kind of guiding this conversation and
why we've made the recommendations that
we have moving forward which were
supported by the planning commission. So
one of the big things and this is new
this year is how HCD and the state law
has been amended to really look at how
the what's called 66314 which are going
to be units that are created per local
ordinance and units 66323 units which
are state exempt units. Those are the we
have to approve well and we'll get into
a little more technical on that but
those are the you know the conversion of
existing space that's the 800 square f
feet and those are the multif family
ones those we always have to approve we
can't apply any additional standards
outside what the state sets
within so the big picture is 66314 that
is the authorizing language that says a
city may adopt an ordinance that
regulates ADUs and it does have a lot of
language where it says you can apply all
these standards but further down it
further restricts what we can and cannot
do and it says you uh if you adopt an
ordinance your ordinance can only do
these things or only have these maximum
standards
and HCD's new interpretation and how the
state law is worded is that you are
allowed your stateex exempt ones the 663
323 units no matter what. And then you
are still allowed a 66314 unit per our
ordinance or if we do not adopt an
ordinance per what's authorized under
that section if we do not have an
ordinance. So that results in the
possibility of having three ADUs plus a
JADU on a site and that has been you
know HCD's new position that's in their
guidance their technical assistant
documents on this is how that works and
so that really comes to that
conversation of the number of ADUs
permitted. So this next table is just a
very high level of all the standards,
right? I know there's a lot of
information on here.
>> Hi chart.
>> Yes. And it kind of divvy ups kind of
the different conversations.
I highlighted a couple sections where
there is a little bit of a policy
discretion where staff recommended and
worked with the planning commission to
have the recommendation that you have
before you. for example, the 1,200
square feet, the zero parking based off
of best practices. But that is where you
do have some limited policy discretion
on to influence that number, not by very
much. And we'll kind of go through that
in the next couple slides.
Um so that is uh just briefly is your maximum size and this is only in
regards to attached ADUs and detached
ADUs. Conversion ADUs do not have a a
size restriction not besides whatever
the existing building that they're
converting. Uh same with multifamily
ADUs since those are authorized under
66323
they are only uh prescribed those
minimum standards of a 4ft side and rear
the height limitations that's it we
cannot restrict the size of those
multifamily ADUs the conversion and
detached so where we have a little bit
of discretion is in the attached ADU or
the detached ADU and
so the State laws requirements are for
attached ADUs, you can restrict it up to
50% of the primary dwelling except that
you have to allow at least 800 square ft
for a studio or onebedroom or 1,000
square ft for a two or more bedroom. For
a detached ADU, it is just the straight
850 or 1,000 square ft. And then for
conversion ADUs, again, there are no
maximum size, you know.
This was the original language staff did
have in the study session that we went
to um city coun or I'm sorry planning
commission with and there was a
discussion uh of the commission kind of
going back and forth on this number you
know is the thousand okay but we allow
1500 now under our current ordinance and
they directed staff to kind of evaluate
that and come forward with a proposal.
staff did come back and that's where we
just recommended the flat 1200. That
makes it very simple for everyone. It's
not as big as we currently allow under
our ordinance, but it is within reason.
Additionally, the 1,200 under HCD's
guidelines is kind of the default for if
you don't have an ordinance. That is in
their handbook is if you don't adopt an
ordinance, 1,200 square feet, 4 foot
side and rear setbacks. That is the
standard. if we don't adopt one
uh for the size requirements kind of
moving into multif family again um those
sections um since they're and I I didn't
update the correct uh code citation but
uh since those are permitted for 66323
there is no size maximums there now
going to the setback discussion and
we've heard this discussion the the
planning commission had a lot of
concerns with this of the 4foot foot
side and rear setback. And there was,
you know, the questions of, well, if we
allow bigger or we gave them in addition
to what's allowed by state law, can we
enforce additional setbacks? And in the
state guidance and per government code
section 66314 and E7,
we cannot. It says in no other basically
in no case can you impose more than a
4ft side and rear setback. We can have
other setbacks um for units built
towards our ordinance such as hey you
need to be set back on a primary
structure six feet as long as we don't
restrict an ADU that's at least 800
square f feet and that's going to be 66
uh 321
and I know I'm quoting a lot of
government code sections because they
all kind of work together and point back
to one another
for The parking staff did recommend no
parking and the reason is with the
addition of the two highlighted areas
which are part of more recent
legislation. Um
it it creates a situation where most
often no parking will be required. So
where an accessory dwelling unit is part
of a proposed or existing primary
residence or existing structure, we
cannot enforce parking. That's a lot of
the ADUs we are actually seeing.
Additionally, when a permit of an
application for an accessory dwelling
unit is submitted with a permit to
create a new home, we cannot apply
parking as well. Again, that is a large
number of the ADUs that we are seeing.
So, more often than not, parking is not
required. There would be very limited situations where we could
require parking and th those aren't even
it's just a parking spot. We can't say
as a garage. It is just identify a
parking spot and most often here in
Pollola Valley, they do have the
driveways. They already have space for
parking. Um, this again doesn't restrict
an applicant from proposing this.
They're more than welcome to propose
parking, but we as a jurisdiction
have limitations on what we can require.
And so for our proposed objective design
standards, I I I know one of the
questions is, well, what if we don't
adopt an ordinance, if we don't adopt an
ordinance and just default to state law,
we don't get to apply these at all. So
we could have the,200 square foot ADUs.
They don't need to meet LRB. They don't
need to meet lighting, landscaping, none
of our, you know, AMFA. None of that
still applies.
We can apply those for the 66314 units
as long as we do not restrict the unit
to less than 800 square feet. And so
that is how that and for example the
design standards that we have don't
affect size. So meeting LRV meeting
exterior lighting meeting landscaping
won't have that impact. And so that is
why we are proposing these. And these
were existing standards in the ADU
ordinance that we did carry over. So
they are not new standards. They are the
standards that we have existing that are
objective and that we can continue to
apply. And staff does recommend
applicants even currently since we don't
have a compliant ordinance. We do still
recommend that they comply with our
design standards. It's just we cannot
require them to.
So staff did um make some minor
revisions to what was in your packet um
just based off of some of the feedback
that we heard and just to ensure
clarity. So one of them is on the review
period is cleaning up the the header to
explain you know an ADU on a lot with an
existing um dwelling and what about a
ADU accompanying a new dwelling like
it's an undeveloped lot. just to make
those headers a little more clarified
and consistent.
Additionally, we updated kind of the um
pathology section clarifying um kind of
a a single ADU that uh meets our
ordinance, not the you know the two ADUs
that you're granted above is permitted
and then adding in the conversation
regarding 66312.
That is the language that specifically
says you cannot apply standards that
would limit a a unit to under 800 square
feet even per your own ordinance. So
that and the next couple slides we had
that language kind of baked into
different standards. We instead decided
to just include it at the very beginning
to make it clear and not have that
necessarily repetitive language
throughout.
And then uh staff has also uh identified
a minor um edit that we needed to do for
the uh adjusted maximum floor area. So
in our multifamily zones, we do have you
know u floor area ratio and also the
coverage area ratio. So adding those in
just as citations again the ADUs do
count towards that. They can't
necessarily exceed unless it would
prohibit what's the state has authorized
again that 800 square foot or those
stateex exempt units.
And then the last one was a minor edit
just to ensure the correct citation of
the government code section, the
specific standard that we are citing
there.
And then kind of moving on to emergency
shelters. As Cara kind of discussed at
the beginning, it is to implement our
housing uh element program 83 to comply
with state law AB2339.
So this is one of those that the state
has told us we need to make the edit.
There isn't a default necessarily like
we default to state law. We do need to
make the edit. It is also consistent
with our housing elements. So that edit
is necessary for those reasons. Um and
HCD will be looking at that. So we want
to make sure we get that done. And then
the indepthification, this is again the
language um kind of codifying the town
standard indepication policy which we
were applying kind of as a condition of
approval. But I think concerns with the
um Stanford project kind of brought this
up and Katherine kind of created a
policy that uh addresses best practices
to codify it within our um ordinance.
And so just kind of briefly want to go
over the options this evening that the council has before. You are able to
introduce the ordinance as it was
proposed. Introduce the ordinance with
specific revisions that are made as part
of the motion. You can not introduce the
ordinance and and basically deny it or
you can continue the item with specific
staff direction on the amendments that
you'd like us to make to bring that back
to you at a future meeting.
So, the recommendation is for staff to
uh or is for the council to introduce
the ordinance and um with the um
revisions that were included as part of
that updated A and staff is available
for any questions at this time.
>> Great. Thank you, Brandon.
So, before we start with questions, um
the one thing I want to remind council
is this is not a study session tonight.
So, this is not an opportunity to open
this thing up, you know, wide open. Um,
I think if we have specific things to
and Bren, if you can go back to that
last slide.
So, if if we have, you know, some
specific revisions and we think we can
make them as part of the motion, you
know, that's where we need to direct
this. So, I' I'd like to ask us as we go
through this tonight that we keep this
in mind that we're trying to accomplish
one of these four things. We're not
trying to rewrite the entire ordinance.
Like, that's not what's before us
tonight. We may want to do that in the
future, but that's not what's before it
tonight. So, with that, um I'd like to
start with questions. I know Rebecca had
a long response, you know, where she's
actually outlined her responses in the
um the PDF basically of the ordinance,
but Rebecca, do you have other questions
sort of of the presentation? We're
obviously going to have a robust
discussion as well, but would you like
to start?
» Thank you. Um I appreciate all the hard
work on this. Um, so I had some
questions about uh parts of it that
didn't comply with the state law and I
noticed in the latest version that you
sent out at noon or one o'clock today
that you've corrected all of those
points that I uh brought up. So I very
much appreciate your um making those
changes to the draft. Um so one of my
fundamental questions is that um and I
I'd like to get your um agreement that
my understanding of of the code is
correct. Um if we look at 66314 which is
as you said is sort of the foundational
um section of the code about um about
the fact that the town the the state
gives the town legal authority to um
establish objective requirements for um
those ADUs
um as distinguished from the 66323
um ADUs where we have very little say.
So, you know, if you look at 66314B,
I mean, it it goes into that point. It
says that the state the town is allowed
to impose objective standards such as
but such as that include but are not
limited to parking, height, setback,
landscape, architectural review, and
maximum size. Um, so my question for you
is where in our ordinance in this draft
do we I is it stated that the town has
um that ability to set those objective
standards and I'm most particularly
concerned about is the setback one um
given that this says that we can set
setbacks for all ADUs except 663231s
where in our ordinance
Are we allowed to do that? Where have
you specified that? That's part of the
ordinance.
>> So that that is built into our
standards. However, you look at
>> Brandon, make sure you speak close to
the mic. It it really have to be right
in front of you. Yeah.
>> All right. So, you know, looking at
66314 B1, it does specifically say those
standards. However, later in 66314D
it says we can require accessory
dwelling units to comply with all the
following. So that is kind of a list
that further restricts that above
statement and HCD specifically points to
in for example the setback issue the 4
foot side and mirror specifically points
to subsection 7 um that no setback shall
be required for existing living space or
accessory structures or structures
constructed in the same location same
dimensions as an existing structure that
is converted to an accessory dwelling
unit or to any portion of an accessory
dwelling unit. and a setback of no more
than 4 foot side and mirror shall be
required for an accessory dwelling unit
that is not converted from an existing
structure or new structure constructed
in the same location and the same
dimensions as the existing structure. So
in the HCD guidelines, that is what
they're pointing to to say yes, we say
you can do setbacks except 4 foot side
and rear only. Where we are applying
setbacks, for example, is the front
setback. We do require that they meet
that as long as we're not limiting an
800 foot unit. That's consistent with
66312 where that 800 foot thing comes
into play. We can require, for example,
if we wanted to add a setback between
structures,
you know, between like the main house,
it would have to be on the same lot,
between structures on the main lot. We
could say, hey, you need to be 6 foot
from that except that if it if it
prohibits a unit of at least 800 square
feet. So that is kind of the the
justification HCD has provided on why we
cannot impose higher sided rear setbacks
but there are other setbacks that we
could apply in those specific cases. Um,
can I know we disagree completely on
that interpretation and I understand
that HCD um you're taking um your
direction from HCD's interpretation of
this, but can we both agree on the fact
that D7 is one of the worst written um
portions of this law period? to think
they intended it to be two separate
bullet points and somebody made an
absolute oopsie and deleted something
because it was not. Yes, I completely
agree with you. It is not wellward and
we see that throughout this ordinance
that is a part of the legislaturator's
action was to actually give HCD the
power to interpret implement and
supplement the standards in this chapter
which is very unusual. You know
supplement standards that are in state
law you almost never see. So that is a
very unique position and that is why
staff is defaulting to the language that
HCD is the guidance that they are
providing because the legislature
specifically in the ADU law has given
them that authorization.
Um, so one of my other questions is, um,
just some background. To be honest, um,
this project did start with the letter
essentially from HCD about our current,
um, our current ADU ordinance back in
2023 and said that we needed to update
it to the current laws. Um, we obviously
had a lot of turmoil in the department
and tons of changeover. So, um, I
actually went and and took that on as a
project because there was no progress,
you know, we had no staff to do any
progress on this. I wrote an and I wrote
an ADU ordinance for the town and
submitted it back in August and I
followed um the template that HCD
provided actually. So they have created
a template for an ADU ordinance and I
followed this ordinance followed this
and it's a it it obviously was out of
date because this was really from 2023
2024 time period but um a lot of it
hasn't changed um even though there's
been a ton of new ordinances in reality
that's just little pieces that have
changed. So one of the um I did want to
say that one of the I I I have a I'm
coming to a question. One of the
portions on here that is best practices
is the inclusion of actual code
references for each section. So my
question is why do you not want to
follow HCD templated you know best
practices of including the actual code
reference?
>> So that template is interesting because
we did receive it from the
representative of HD but HCD oh I'll get
a little closer. Sorry. Um, we did
receive that from the representative for
HCD. However, speaking to some other
ones, it's in process. There is no live
document that's available. So, I I
cannot speak to whether that is actually
HCDs or that was that individual
reviewers
guidelines. Um, it is a few years out of
date. There has been more clar even
though the state law necessarily hasn't
the exact sections haven't been updated.
HCD has been issuing newer guidance
based off of other bills. I I think
we've included references where we felt
it's the most relevant adding in the
citation of like 663 uh you know the the
state exempt units 66323 units adding in
the citation for uh 66312
uh where we felt it is the most
appropriate. We do site at the very
beginning the entirety of it. So, you
know, this is what we're trying to do.
We're implementing this. Um,
additionally, I mean, we we're we can
work with adding more, but the only
problem is, and this happened a few
years ago, a lot of jurisdictions did
that and then the state completely
reumbered the entire section. That means
we would have to go back through and
reumber everything. And a lot of best
practices have been not to include it.
you have the reference at the big
beginning so that you don't have to go
back and fix every single one all the
way through again if they happen to
rechapter this or reumber anything. So
that was kind of a big change that
happened right around 2023 2024 time
frame when they did that reumbering. Um
I think that that document there I think
includes it right after the re
>> so but it was about that same time
frame.
>> Okay, thank you. Um so
one of the things that concerns me about
this ordinance is that it really doesn't
protect our design guidelines
um because they are discretionary
because they are not written in a manner
that's objective. Um so because we have
not been able to work on transferring
those into objective requirements.
Um
there's nothing codified into this new
um ordinance that would that would
include the eventual production of these
objective requirements for design
guidelines. Um, I had suggested some
language um in I don't know where it is
um that allowed for that potential
future um
future aspect so that we wouldn't then
have to go and have a new ordinance um
because it would already be set in
there. It was um Oh, it was under
objective design standards number
six. Sorry,
ADC. Um 182560
number nine. Yeah, number nine,
objective design standards. So, I had
recommended that we put something like
the town may in the future review,
adopt, amend, or repeal objective design
requirements to implement additional
uniform standards or criteria that
supplement or clarify the terms,
references, and standards set forth in
this chapter. I mean, I don't even
remember where I got this from. I I must
have gotten it right out of either our
current ADU ordinance or something from
HCG. So, is there a reason not to
include that sort of caveat that would
allow us to then just slot in our new
objective requirements once we have
them?
>> I I expect that the HCD would be like,
well, what are these standards? Because
they're reviewing the ordinance. They
want to know, are we actually applying
objective standards? So, if we did
something like that, you would have to
send your objective standards to speed
because now you've made them a part of
your ADU ordinance. So, and one thing
with that, when we do do objective
design standards and we do want to apply
them, we don't have to completely redo
the ADU ordinance, instead we can amend
just that section to incorporate those
objective design standards, but every
time we do amend it, we are technically
supposed to send it back to HCD. So,
that's why by reference, if you do it by
reference, you're going to have to send
the entirety of your objective design
standards to HCD for their review and
approval. Um, so that's why best
practice and that's why a lot of
jurisdictions have it as a standalone
chapter now and that was the thinking
behind that.
>> Have what is a standalone chapter?
Sorry.
>> KDU ordinance.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Because technically if you have it
within your ordinance and you tweak
anything a little bit, you might have to
send it back to HCD. So that's why the
best practice is have it be its own
standalone chapter and kind of
self-contained so that you don't have
this. Well, you referenced this, so we
need to see that now, too.
Um so my other concern is just
protection in furthering this sort of
idea of protecting our our natural
surroundings and our um
you know our traditional heritage of how
we developed and one of the things that
was taken out of our um existing
ordinance is just the purpose and
intent. So I put it I had suggested we
put it back in and that included um
comments like just just having a little
list of create new housing units while
respecting the existing character of the
town encourage adherence to the town's
base zoning setbacks objective
requirements and design guidelines while
recognizing all legal rights granted by
the code you know ADU code um support
the development of ministerial approved
ADUs and JADUs provide housing that
respond residents changing needs needs,
household sizes, and increasing housing
costs and provide accessible housing for
seniors and people with disabilities and
then promote provision of affordable
housing for people who work in town. So,
is there a reason not to include that
kind of message to sort of preface the
whole ordinance so people really
understand that we value, you know, that
how our town has developed and we want
to um encourage people to adhere to it
while recognizing that they they have an
enormous amount of
>> I I think it's just trying to streamline
as much as possible so that HCD doesn't
necessarily come back with comments.
Some of those while are, you know, yes,
those are our purposes, they can be a
little more well, respect the town's,
you know, character. That's subjective
and they're going to look at that even
though it's in the policy or in the
purpose. They may look at that and be
like, how how are you enforcing that?
doesn't make sense. I think where
we have the leeway to do that is
actually with how the public interacts
with our documents. Most of the public
does not come into and read our
municipal code. they get our handouts
and I think that is where we emphasize
that hey yes here's what you're allowed
but we encourage you we recommend that
you do this that is where we I think
have the ability to include stuff like
that hey we want you to respect you know
the the town's character and here's some
guidance on how you might be able to do
that and we provide that as part of our
handouts but not in our code our code
needs to be very kind of the objective
streamlined. This is what you're
allowed. And then our handouts can be
more of that
providing more of the guidance and the support and encouragement to still
meet our our design standards as a town
because that is important. You know,
that is one of the unique things about
Pulla Valley. And I think that is where
we have that ability. I I worry that
adding it into our ordinance will get
HCD looking at it closer.
Um so that you know and I don't know if
Katherine has any further comments or
Sarah kind of like you know on that
point.
>> Uh thank you summarized it nicely that
the council has discretion to add a
purpose. Um but I think Brandon provided
an alternative for consideration that um
some of that that could also go in a in
a handout. Um so it's really just a risk
analysis about sort of how whether this
would flag HD's scrutiny.
Um
so um if we go back to 66314
and um a it actually allows
municipalities to designate areas within
the jurisdiction where accessory
dwelling out dwelling units are
permitted. The converse is that is that
we I I the converse is I assume that we
can also designate areas where they're
not permitted. Is that the case? Is that
I mean without going is that's kind of a
yes or no I guess because I have I want
to add a little bit more to that.
>> Yes. But there's limitations on what we
can do.
>> Okay. And recognizing that we have to
allow 66323
uh ADUs regardless. Um, is there a a
reason not to ban uh 66314 ADUs, for
example, in Craig's neighborhood, the um
Woodside Highlands? Um,
I mean, it obviously will have little
impact in terms of uh people not
building ADUs because they can still
build three, you know, essentially three
ADUs with the 66323s, but at least they
wouldn't be able to build four because
it would block that. Um, is there a
reason not to include that? Not to kind
of have an uh some areas that are where evacuation where traffic is
already at a at a a safe a tremendous
safety issue to just sort of give that
impression to the community that, you
know, if you're buying a house in that
neighborhood where that, you know, it's got some issues with traffic and
safety. Is there a reason not to to
block off some areas?
And this is where HCD's guidance kind of
comes into play. So, you know, further
down going into D of that same section,
it says we have to allow it on property
zone single family. So, this is really
kind of more of the caveat on well, do
you want to expand it into other zoning
districts is what that is really at
least the guidance documents seem to be
pending. We still do have and this even
applies to 66323 units where we can make
case by case specific findings the
building official if there is a risk to
fire life safety. And so that was
actually one of the changes from the
planning commission version to your
version that you saw that um the um
commission brought up specifically um
council member Karen. uh she brought it
up focused on that and so staff did add
that as that caveat there because that
is where we feel that is kind of the max
we can do without raising the eye of HCB
since that is I mean that is a very much
a consideration fire safety fire safety
evacuation flood unstable soils is
another example I think that's where she
was focused on is well we have an
ordinance that says you can't build
these structures in these type of soils
ACD's guidelines says you can only do
that by a case by case basis. You cannot
do a blanket ban in a section if it's
zone single family and authorizes
residential uses. So that is where that
language came from and try to address
exactly your concern.
>> So my actually next question was
completely relevant to that next portion
and I did notice it and it is somewhat
vague. Um,
I know that HCD has come back and said,
um, we can't use a fire safety as a
reason to to ban ADUs, which is a little
amazing to me. But um
my question is it you know one of the
edits I also recommended was to expand a
little bit more on this public health
and was to actually specify directly um
that you cannot build an ADU within a
earthquake setback. You cannot build an
ADU within on unstable soils. You cannot
build an ADU you know whatever whatever
these I have a bunch of lists there
because you're not allowed to build a
house either in those areas. So, this
was just a restatement of the reality is
because um I I'm just wondering why
would we not kind of put that emphasis
into the into the system and why instead
have this sort of vague notice
>> and so
this actually came up really relatively
relevant. So, in reviewing some of the
comment letters uh to San Diego
specifically, San Diego said, "Hey, our
fire department says you have to have
five foot setbacks in these situations,
they put it in the ordinance." State
came back and said, "That's all good.
That's building code. You cannot make
that a zoning requirement."
So, nothing in our zoning requirements
mitigate or negate the building code
requirements. So the building code which
is where you know earthquake setbacks
kind of all that comes into play that's
where that gets applied but we can't
apply it as a zoning standard and that
was what HCD said. So that's why we're
keeping that broad that is just that
that's very similar to the authorizing
language in the um government code
regarding hey you can make this finding
for public life safety. So that's why
it's purposely broad is we're just
trying to get to that because if we get
specific, HCV will flag it and say you
can't have that as a zoning standard.
That's a building code standard.
So could you explain a little bit the
process of people um submitting a um
planning application for an ADU that
happened to be a little too close to a
earthquake fault or was happened to be
on some of the soil where it's banned. I
mean one wouldn't want somebody an
applicant to get that far along. So can
you kind of explain a little bit the
thinking of how we preempt that? Um,
>> a lot of this, a lot of the ADUs do come
in through general inquiry first and so
the staff planners do try to work with
them and we try to flag these higher
level, hey, did you think of X, Y, and
Z? Um, and provide that guidance. I
think that's also where we add a lot of
those disclosures in our handouts. We
can say, hey, did you check are you in
an unstable soil? You need to consider
that because you might have to change
your foundations or you have to relocate
it. Are you in an earthquake zone?
That's where we can highlight those is
through that process.
ADUs are different where there is not a
distinct planning permit than building
permit. Planning reviews as part of the
building permit. And so those
considerations are being handled by
geology by building by engineering and
not planning. Planning realistically
when we're viewing ADUs we're looking
are you at the 4ft side and rear
setbacks. If you're over 800 square
feet, is AMFA a concern? Are you meeting
our objective standards that we can
apply? That is what we're focused on.
Those other considerations, unstable
soils, that's going to be geology will
make the comment. Hey, you're in
unstable soils. You either need to move
it or you need to provide a solution
that addresses the concerns with the
unstable soil. You know, one of my uh
colleagues that in building says if you
have enough time, money and energy, you
can make anything work for the building
code purposes, right? And so that is
where those concerns are caught and
those are reviewed by those departments.
>> Okay. Um and then to switch over to the
parking issue, um as you said, we are
allowed to require one parking space per
ADU for the 66314s.
and you gave a bunch of reasons for why
it just wouldn't be
there was kind of no point because there
it would be so few properties. Um, so
are you saying you gave a bunch of
examples of the types of applications
you're coming in and the one you didn't
mention was just
an existing property that decides to add
an ADU.
So in
>> in in in most cases that one may require
parking um in those cases. Yes. So we
could apply that to that. That's not as
often that's not the one that we're
getting the most. A lot of them are the
conversion that we're getting and so
that's why I brought that up. Yes, that
would be one of the situations somebody
builds a new dash building. Um, you
would be required to provide one parking
space unless they meet one of the other
criteria. One thing to keep in mind is
per how we have the standards. So, if we
do require parking, let's say, hey, we
require parking. They're like, oh, I
need to build a second driveway. And
that's going to trigger grading. If we
say parking's required, that goes to
that part of like the site improvements
where you have to follow our normal
process in excess of what's the minimum
necessary permit that unit. They then
could minister add a second driveway to
provide the parking that's required for
that unit and that could involve rating
that exceeds the thresholds that we
have, but we have to ministerally still
approve that. So by actually not
requiring parking, we're hoping kind of
that site improvement side where hey, if
you want to provide parking, you want to
provide that second driveway, sure,
you're going to ASC or you're going to
planning commission. So it's kind of a
weird roundabout way to get there, but
that's why we're only permitting what
you need to get that unit.
And but you have but you do include if
somebody wants to um have parking on
their site, they they're required to
follow our ordinance which requires a
carport. So do you feel that that you don't well I guess you don't feel
that that's a problem with six uh I
66311
maybe which says um
>> where would I find 6631 maintenance? Uh
>> that's isn't that the state code?
>> It's the state code. State code. It it's
where the intent of the legislature is
that you don't um
>> uh so that you don't create something
that's so arbitrary, excessive, or
burdensome so as to unreasonably
restrict the ability of homeowners to
create accessory dwelling units. So to
me, um
you know, I'm not going to I just wanted
to get your feedback that you don't feel
that it's burdensome to require someone
to create a carport.
So we have that standard to kind of also
reflect there are some setbacks for
parking and things that in that section.
you know the this uh 66314
10 which talks about parking basically
says yes you can provide parking but it
cannot exceed you know one parking space
per accessory dwelling unit or per uh
bedroom whichever is less and these
spaces may be provided um tandem on the
driveway and so that is kind of where
could request just a driveway space even
though it says may be provided
the the guidance documents are saying
that if they request that you have to
grant that. So it's may they they have
the applicant has the option to provide
it in the driveway not that we have the
option to require them to
>> okay and I guess my my other main major
question going back to the 1,200 square
foot. So we're not required to allow
1,200 square foot. And given that your
interpretation is that we have to allow
4 foot setbacks for every ADU, which I
take issue with that interpretation, but
you know, I can't do much about that.
Why would we as a town allow 1,200
square foots if they could be placed at
4 feet from the property line? Why not
stick to the maximum that we're required
to for by the code which is 850 or 1,000
square ft? Why open that up to why why
allow it? I mean, I'm not against 1,200
square feet. You know, I I just don't
want them four feet from property line
if I don't, you know, if we're not
required to have that. So why so
>> this came as a result of the study
session with so the original uh proposal
was the 850 and a,000 the planning
commission had that conversation like
hey do we think they brought up how our
existing ordinance does allow 1500 are
we penalizing people you know are and
kind of had that robust discussion about
that and they kind of provided direction
to staff is like hey look at it and
maybe find a middle they they were
feeling some of the members on the
commission were feeling maybe that was a
little too restricted. We want to
encourage ADUs and by restricting them
that small we're not encouraging that
and there was other members that were
like well that's that's big that's a
giant unit 4T from the property line
kind of that same concern. Um and when
we came back the planning commission did
review that and did recommend the 1,200.
So this is definitely a discussion, you
know, the council we can kind of hear
from the council. We we know the
language that we could replace it with
and staff can definitely provide that as
a recommendation if you want it to go
with a minimum. But based off of the
feedback that we got from the planning
commission, that's why we move forward
with
>> And then um
>> so my um next question is about the
fees, the fee section and stuff. Could
you speak a little bit to who actually
has the authority
um to set these to make these
determinations about um
uh not so much the fees but the um
connections to the utilities um with
separate connections versus um not
separate connections. Um I realize that
66323 you can't you you can't require
them. Nobody can can require them I
think to have a separate connection if they don't want it but for obviously
for the 66
31 6314s you know the normal ones
somebody has jurisdiction to allow um to require a new or separate utility
connection directly between the ADU and
the utility. So could you speak to that
because that's the wording that you put
in into this.
>> The utilities generally do have that
authority. They they have their
authorizations to require that under
this ordinance. And I know there has
been some conversations on exactly who
when. There is also situations where
even a 66323 unit does have to require
utility. For example, A80 Ridge, which
was that, you know, um, house, new house
with an ADU, they did have to provide or
P Gen required them to have a separate
utility connection because they were
being built with primary house. So, that
is an example even though it's a 66323
unit, that does still trigger P& has the
right to say, yes, we want you to have a
separate meter or the sewer district, we
want you to have a separate meter in
line. um those authorities are kind of
left with the utilities. We are
including it because it's in the statute
and other jurisdictions have tried to
leave it off and HCD has said in their
comment letters, you don't have this,
you're not compliant with state law. So
that even though we don't have the
authority, we are doing that to kind of
just address that comment from HCD
saying, hey, you need to have this in
your ordinance. And on that note,
there's quite a few sections within the
ordinance that are not included in here.
Um, so is was there can you discuss a
little bit the discussion of why you
left off like the whole thing about um
selling ADUs or um you know a lot of the
last stuff at the very end of the of the
um of the ordinance was just not
included. So the sale of the or uh sale
of the ADUs, there are some explicit
requirements that we have to allow for
the separate sale of it. However, it's
an opt-in process outside of those
specific exceptions. Um and we were not
proposing to allow ADUs to be sold
separately except for where the state
requires us to. and the state has um
allowed just by reference those. So
that's why that language was not put in
um
for that specific example.
>> And then for the education fees, that
one was also left out. Was there a
reason why chose not to include that?
>> Again, reviewing through their
documents, they did not call out the
jurisdiction for not having that in. Um
we can we can add that in and add that
language there. Um but you know we'll we
feel confident enough moving forward
without that inclusion because we have
not seen that call out in their guidance
documents when it wasn't.
>> So you don't really feel like uh
residents and architects should be
informed of all the fees they're going
to face so that we don't end up with
another westbay sanitary district
debacle. One of the uh conversations um
staff has had and in other jurisdictions
what we do is we have a handout that
lists all the fees that possibly could
apply to their project and I think that
is definitely something we need because
there are there are other fees that do
apply and help kind of give them a
picture of that upfront as part of those
documents. I I think that is something
we should do anyways because we do just
we you know we discuss the utility fees
but we don't clarify what they are and
this is who is the fee who or who owns
the fee so who's applying the fee and
how to contact them and if possible we
can say this is their calculations for
their fees. So that is something that
staff has kind of discussed and want to
include as part of our handouts to help
guide them specifically for that.
>> And um given the extreme bandwidth
issues right now and the amount of work
that the planning department has, do you
have a sense of when the community would
be able to anticipate receiving those
all these extra handouts and that
actually guidelines that describe this?
You know the one thing I you know really
is once we have this locked down we can
start moving forward. We have examples
from other jurisdictions that do this
quite well and staff is has those kind
of ready. We just need to know what our
ordinance is going to be and what our
standards are going to be so we can
update them. And you know Sarah can
definitely discuss more the capacity um
and how quickly we expect we can get
those out. I think at the moment, you
know, as we're seeing issues with some
of our processes or communications,
we're trying to do that more immediately
with people in the system or applying
now and that's informing either our
permit tech or reviewers to make sure
that they provide that information. The
best way that this update will happen is
when we're through implementing our new
permitting and lensure software. Uh so
that is a huge project that you may for
have forgotten that there was a budget
>> midyear budget approval for that and so
we're heading into into implementing
that project which will be a huge lift
and that will be an overall overhaul of
uh the whole kind of permitting process
and so with that we would be automating
a lot of things and it would be
integrated into the application process
or the information provided online for
people and to me I know that this is an
important thing of when someone goes in
to apply to be aware of all the things
that they might face or all the other
different organizations or agencies that
have, you know, review authority over it
or other fees over their um permit or
their project as well. So that I think
we're tracking a lot of these things and
then making sure that we're
incorporating this um kind of all
included within this permitting update.
So that I would say this would track
together with launching the whole permit
system. Um, if we can do other peacemeal
updates, we will, but I would really
just try to make sure we're getting all
the information and then once we're
launching, we're launching that and all
that information should be available.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I guess my last
question is, um,
when I went through this and redlined
it, um, there was just a lot of areas
that I felt were not, um, I found it
unclear. There was just a lack of
specificity and there was just a little
bit of, um, yeah, lack of clarity. if
you will, and I put in some verbiage in
some cases, you know, or I asked
questions about things um whether it
would be important to provide some
clarity, whether it's the appeal
process, whether it's
um the process of of if your project
gets is told that you're um don't have
all the materials or your you know um
whether or not an ADU will be considered
at the same time or will not be. you
know, there's just a little bit of um un
vague vagueness, if you will, in there
that I think causes confusion. So, um
did you have a chance at all to review
my um suggestions and um to understand
those kinds of areas where there where I
felt where I found the the ordinance to
be a little overly vague.
>> Yeah, I know. You know, I work with uh
Katherine and kind of um one of her um
staff members, Nardos, to review that.
And you know we we did have multiple
meetings to kind of discuss what we saw
and urged and and try to identify I
think one of them for example the shall
or may in regards to processing an
application. So, if you submit an ADU
and a new house, the the town may delay
the um the approval of the ADU to when
the house is finally approved through
its normal process. And you know, staff
feels the flexibility is nice to have. I
mean, we can in in practical, yes, we
are delaying the approval of the ADU
till the house is done. Um I I
personally cannot envision in a
situation where we wouldn't do that, but
having the flexibility is useful for
staff if a unique situation did occur
where we're like actually that that
makes sense in this case. Um and so
that's why staff didn't address that
one. I think um some of the concerns
were like calendar days versus days
versus business days. And Katherine can
kind of speak to this where I guess my
in my understanding is that when the
state says days, they mean calendar
dates and that's established as law in
for the state code, it's only when they
specific specifically call out business
days. So we we felt since that was
already an assumption and assumed under
state law that we did not need to
provide that clarification. Um, but of
course we're happy to hear if council
does want us to add that in, we can
clarify all those points. Um, but and I don't know if there's any other
examples, but we did analyze those and
try to include, for example, with that
exhibit A that you got, what we felt we
could and was really the most relevant
and then leave up the other ones to kind
of more the decision from the council.
Would you like us to address those kind
of more minor clarification? Is that a
concern with everyone and and move
forward?
>> So, those are all my questions for the
ADU ordinance. So, I'd like to just pass
it off to them. I do have some questions
for the, you know, the
um indemnification one, but I think we
should stay my feeling.
>> Okay. That that would be great. Let's do that. I don't mind splitting up
the conversation between sections. Um
Helen, do you have comments or not
comments? Sorry. Do you have questions?
We're still there question.
>> Hi, thank you. Um
let me get
um
just for clarific I have some um
clarification questions.
Um, again, utility because of the situation we're
having with the West Bay Sanitary
District. Um, would we not include
just to be really clear,
we we would not include the the
because we have so many different
agencies.
Is there any reason not to include the
names of the agencies that over with
jurisdiction over because I think that
people think that we over
you know have jurisdiction over
sanitation and over you know Pen
obviously has electrical and G you know
like so
the thought there is that in our again
and I know I keep defaulting to the
handout s that's where we can be very
specific in including that language in
our municipal code. What if that
jurisdiction changed their name or what
if there is a handover of authority or
we get split in authority there there's
kind of those whatifs. So being more
generic tends to be the better path in
those specific cases. But being very
specific on our handouts because our
handouts staff can fix. we don't need to
come back up to council to fix those
where if it's in our ordinance, we would
and that could create just unnecessary
work
>> for staff to have to come up for those
really minor things.
>> So, and um in terms of the um without
even naming them that we could clearly
state, you know, electrical, gas,
sanitation is overseen by other
agencies, right?
>> Yeah. If we want to do something a
little more generic in that way, yes, we
can say, you know, or the governing or
the the local agency that oversees these
utilities and and kind of make it more
clear on that way. Yes, we can
definitely look at that and include
something like that if you know that is
council's direction.
>> Okay.
Um in terms of undergrounding of um
uh utility connections
um
my you know Cal
the letter that was sent to planning
commission on February 4th 2026 by
CalHDF
claims that undergrounding is
um not permissible requirement.
Um
and they my understanding is Cal HDF is
like a legal uh advocacy group well who
will sue us and they did send us a
letter. Um
so can you speak to the undergrounding
situation? There it is on page four or
five of their letter. Um,
you know, it says the town may not
impose such undergrounding requirements
on sections. Again, it's the 66323 ADUs.
Um,
and this specifically exempts such ADUs
from all local requirements.
So, it does look like,
you know, so if you could speak to the
undergrounding situation.
>> Yeah, just give me one second. I want to
pull it up so I can read the exact
>> right. And maybe it is with the I'm
gonna forget the other um
and um it's the and maybe it's under uh
66314.
But because we have, you know, we did
get a legal letter not from HCD but from
a different group who also sues um I'm
curious about this section
and so with and I just clarify we're
going to be discussing section I think
it's under utility connection so E5 so
when there is a proposed utility
connection between them. We um they have
to underground it. And so again, we are
not specifying that if you have to
underground
uh if there are other ways for you to
provide that utility connection. And
this is where it gets a little
unique. So in most cases, the utility
connection generally goes directly
through the existing service. It's a sub
panel on the house or it's tied into the
existing houses.
Um, this would only be in the cases
where they are proposing that direct
connection. We're not requiring them to
do that direct connection, but if
they're proposing it, we are requesting
that they underground, for example, the
electrical line. And so that is, and
Katherine, you can correct me if I'm
wrong, in our interpretation of the
state law, that is consistent with the
provisions because we are not requiring
them to underground. But if you propose
to do utility connection or if you
propose to do that, you're not required
to do the direct utility connection
except in very certain situations,
right?
Um
in most other situations, you're not connecting directly to the
utility. You're directing through the
existing system and those were not
requiring the underground data.
>> When you say existing system, are you
talking about the primary residence?
Yes. And so what this is really focused
on and and this is saying a separate
utility interaction directly between the
utility and the unit. So if you are
providing a separate meter for the ADU
and you are running a new power line
from PG&'s pole to the house or to the
ADU. If you propose that, you're not
required to in most situations to do
that. If you propose to do that, we do
want you to undercut it.
And does this uh follow does this follow
state law? I mean obviously like you
know for fire reasons I like things
undergrounded but again I don't want the
town to you know like so um
>> it's similar to the parking situation.
If you elect to provide parking besides
it being in a garage, we can still
require additional standards like it
needs needs to be outside the setbacks,
it needs to be on concrete, you can't
have it be on, you know, dirt. We can
still apply those standards because it's
more like they're opting into that.
>> So, I mean, in when I built my ADU, I
went off a I have a separate meter and
uh I was require and I was required to
underground. it was extraordinarily
expensive. So my you know um the
trenching is heinously expensive. Um and
because of the the uh configuration of
the electrical poles, it made much more
sense than coming off the primary. Um,
so and then to see Cal HDF say that this
is not permissible, but you're saying
you're asking, but it does look like the
verbiage says shall be placed
underground,
right? So this is why I'm like
>> kind of Catherine, I don't know.
>> I'll see if So I think the legal issue
is whether this is excessively
burdensome. Um, and that's that's what
we talked about too with the with the
parking. Um and the reason that we as
staff don't believe we would trigger
that is because the um applicant would
be opting in to the decision to
underground. It would not be required.
Um all that said, this is a policy
decision for council. Um there was I
think a fair amount of discussion at the
planning commission about this this
provision and this is ultimately reflect
their recommendation, but this is a
policy decision.
>> Okay.
Thank you. Um next question. Um
adjusted maximum floor area. Um
just to be clear, 66323
can be up 4T up against a fence and not
count towards the overall. Is that
correct?
So with how we have the wording for the
AMFA and the the similar requirements is
that the ADU does still count, but we
have to minimally allow either the 663T3
units and the you know the 66314 unit up
to 800 square feet. So if they propose
le let's say they are 800 square f feet
below AMFA and they propose two ADUs.
They propose one under the state exempt
the 800 square foot um you know uh 66323
unit. They can do that. They are now at
maximum AMF. They still can um apply for
an ADU under 66314 which is our
ordinance but they only get 800 ft. they
don't get the 1,200 because they are
only allowed to exceed the AMFA the
maximum necessary to facilitate at least
800 square feet. So we do still have it
counting. One one other impact of this
is let's say you do do these units, you
are now above AMFA, you can't do an
addition to your house because you have
already exceeded it. So any future
additions would be prohibited at that
point. And so that's why that is worded
this way is so that people don't
necessarily take advantage of that. If
we don't count all those ADUs towards
AMFA, you could they could build all
those and still do the additions to the
houses and we get a lot more structures
than what we intend for or more square
footage than we intended for.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um
in terms of the height limits um I find
the height limits um confusing.
Um has there did planning commission has
anyone talked about the height allowable
changing at all? Am I the only one
raising this question?
I actually believe um council member
Finn did in one of her comments kind of
like hey can't we just do this uh in
regards to height but we what is
proposed is the default in state law
those are the height limits we can
require um I think one of the way places
that the council could provide policy
discretion is if we want to allow the slightly greater height our base
zoning that back or I'm sorry, our base
zoning height does allow uh 28 or 30 in
certain situations depending on where
you are. Um that's higher than the 25.
You could we could default to that if
that is the guidance. We just left in
the language that was in state law in
regards to height.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um
okay. Um in terms of landscaping and
this was per the ADU handbook of March
2026.
Um and this my guess
um so this seemed updated. I did not get
to compare the see uh today's version.
So this is last night's version.
Um
but this was from guidance from HCD of
March 2026.
Um
in terms of
a local like can open space or
landscaping requirements be used to
limit the size. So landscaping cannot it
according right cannot be
a limiting factor.
>> That is correct.
>> Right. Um, I would also note that we're
moving into zone zero regulation and so
and zone zero is not included anywhere
in this discussion.
Um, and so again, this is kind of that
discussion we had earlier where zone
zero is a building and fire code
requirement. So that is still applicable
and applies, but we cannot have it in
our zoning ordinance.
>> Right. Okay.
Um,
it's okay.
And
okay, let me just make sure. I think
those are all my questions, but um, let
me just double check.
» Yep. Okay. Thank you. That's all my
questions.
>> Thank you, Helen. Mary,
>> uh, oh, I think my question has probably
already been answered, but I'm going to
ask it again anyway because I don't
completely understand. Uh, there's a
policy choice about having this one
having a parking place on some of these
and you decided not to do it as a as a
policy. Uh, I'm having a very hard time
understanding.
We're trying to get cars off of the road
right into onto lots. Uh it doesn't
matter whether it's on dirt or or on
grass or whatever, but it's better that
it be out of the street so people can
exit and evacuate. What
I is the net going to be there less less uh cars in the street or is it I
mean is this because you think it's some
kind of reverse thinking we're having to
do that we can possibly avoid an SP9
because we've made it more attractive to
people to do this. I I'm I'm really lost
in the morass of contradicting uh
approaches to simple problems.
>> So for the parking in specifically there
are then in many cases for the ADUs that
we are seeing we cannot require parking.
>> Yeah. No, I got that. But there's one
case where we can't. We can't.
>> Okay. So we realize we have all very few
options. But why do we why would we
choose not to take an option that we
have? It was for simplicity sake really
is just it simplifies the number of
standards that we do have
>> and and it seems like that is the is it
not true that that is the most likely
situation where they would say oh well
it's required to have a parking place
we'll have a parking place I mean it's
not it's not like this is going to be a
handy a person who absolutely can't live
without it
>> and and this is where it kind of
conversation where and also not
requiring the parking. If somebody
proposes the parking, we can still go
through our process. There's a great
example of an ADU. They're on a very
large lot. They're putting their ADU
kind of all the way in the back corner.
They want to do a separate driveway, but
it's up a steep hill. If we say that ADU
requires parking, the grading on that
hill will have to be ministerial, even
though it would normally trigger
planning commission. So, we're that. So,
that's kind of that way. The other way
is a lot of our sites that um are having
these ADUs where they do trigger
parking, they actually tend to have a
large enough like roundabout area that
they're, you know, on their law or near
their garage that they're just showing
here's where my parking is going to go.
So, often there's already existing space
on site. I I I think there's going to be
a lot less situations where we do not
have space on site that is already
usable as a parking space because we do
often require guest parking spaces and
so those have been kind of utilized for
that reason. However, again, it is a
policy discussion and if the council
does feel like we should add that back
in, staff is more than happy to add it
back in.
And is that something we can do tonight?
>> Yes, I I can quickly draft the wording
right now just to align with state law
and I can read it into the record and
you guys can make that as part of your
motion if
>> and and can we do the 850 ft too.
I
>> if that is a a desire of the majority of
the council. Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. And strategically. I mean I'm
willing to think strategically if I have
to, but I'd much rather think logically.
Uh so uh strategically is that a
mistake? I mean is there a mistake
there?
I I think, you know, we hear the concern
a lot with, you know, these ADUs, where
they're located, the impacts to our
natural environment, and that aren't
being reviewed by the planning
commission and city council or, you
know, um planning commission or
>> the the uh the
you're saying it would then go to the
ASC
>> because we're not requiring it. It's an
I if it's required, we have to process
it ministerally. If it's not required,
we can say your our normal.
>> So that's the strateg.
» Thank you, Mary. All right. Helen tells
me she had one more short question and
then I'll go to you Judith. Sorry.
I wanted to double check that the 1,200
square f feet would also apply for as I
recall previously the uh for parcels
over 3.5 acres.
>> So how we have it currently written it
applies regardless of parcel size
>> only 1,200 square f feet. Mhm.
>> We we do not have that kind of bonus
situation that the code currently has
because it tied it to additional
setbacks that again HCD has said we
cannot do.
>> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you Judith.
>> Okay. Um all right. I'm going to start
generally and then I'll get down into um
specific questions. Uh, first I want to
know what the legal authority of the HTD
handbook is.
I'll I'll take a stab at that. Um, so I
would put that in the context of HCD
statutory authority under that code
section Brandon referred to at 66313.5
um which reads the department meaning
HCD uh may review, adopt, amend or
repeal guidelines to implement uniform
standards or criteria that supplement or
clarify the terms, references and
standards set forth in this chapter.
meaning the the ADU chapter. So they are
acting pursuant to that authority.
>> Are they law?
No, they're not law. Um
they are guidelines. So I would say
that's different than law. Uh but you
know in if uh you know if a court were
to review them, they would certainly be
considered you know by the court in in
interpreting statuto language.
But they haven't they've gotten the
ability to fill in the gaps, so to
speak.
>> Yes, the legislature gave them the
ability,
>> but the legislature they might be
filling in gaps that the legislature
didn't intend like like it's it can be
arguable whether or not every single
guideline
is going to be filling the gap. And
>> yes, that is a guideline. That's right.
And you know, I suspect if you know, in
theory, if if HCD gets it wrong, the
legislature always has the opportunity
to step in every legislative session and
change the statute and make it clear
what
>> Okay. Um, and then the the other large
picture item is the risk of not having
an ordinance. You covered that. There's
a I got to be honest, there's a lot of
information that came in in the last 24
hours. So if I'm repeating myself,
that's why or or repeating what asking
you to repeat, that's why. Um the risk
of having no ordinance seems to be that
some of the stuff that can be given
effect in our current ordinance
would just not it would be completely up
to the state with gaps that where we
currently have a little plug or two that
we can apply. Is that essentially it?
Yes. And I can go into more detail if
you would like me to.
>> No. No, that's okay. The other benefit
of having the ADU ordinance sooner
rather than later
um is to enable staff to start doing
things that can help applicants
understand
like like all these materials you're
saying you could get going on. So to me
it does seem that time is of the essence
in a way, right? We want we have the HCD
letter that we'd prefer not to have them
looking at this and seeing a delay and
then we want the staff to actually be
enabling uh buildouts, right?
>> Yes. And currently staff is having to
default to state law because that is
what the
>> Yeah.
>> state law says, but being able to
actually enforce some of these objective
design standards when we can, you know,
is
good.
>> Okay. All right. Now, we're going to go
to my more line item questions. Um, this
isn't to challenge it. It's just to
remark to the public. If some if a
complete application is not approved or
denied within 60 days, the application
is deemed approved. How are we doing on
meeting that 60-day timeline? Is it like
something to be afraid of or are we
managing to get those things done? So,
ADUs
and so the the 60 days is up when it's
in review and we do work with applicants
if there are multiple reviews.
Technically, if they haven't still
address the issues, we're supposed to
deny them and make them reapply and pay
the fees.
>> We're not forcing applicants to do that.
We are saying, "Hey,
>> we will continue the review, but you are
still deficient." So, we are still
providing them the comments within the
time frames required. That's that's all
I'm really getting at is we're not do we
have a bigger process issue if we are
skimming skipping through the 60 days
and not able to process but it sounds
like you're you're engaged enough that's
not an issue. Thank you. All right. Um,
so to summarize the the 4 foot setback,
it is a policy decision that the council
can discuss today whether it's 850,000
where where we're able to do anything
about it. Um, or 1,200
>> in regards to the uh size. Yes. You said
setback. I just wanted to clarify for
the size. Yes. Yeah,
>> you have you have that discretion on the
1,200 850 for the one and
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, that can be a later
discussion. Um,
there's this odd language in 42 about 8
detached ADUs, etc. Does that actually
even apply in our town? Like the the
eight multifamily unit ones? Like I'm
just trying to gauge whether to focus on
that given I personally believe we ought
to be be getting something through our
system sooner rather than later. So is
that something that's likely to apply to
us?
>> So we do have some properties that do
have existing multif family.
>> Okay.
>> Yes, that would apply.
>> Okay. All right. Then I'll do my
homework.
>> Uh
>> period.
Sequoa.
>> Yep.
Okay.
Site improvements. That was helpful. Oh.
Um
page 44. Uh there's this you have the
site improvements. Then you have the
objective standards.
So ADU shall comply with the following
objective standards.
Oh, and then it's 323 units that it's
encouraged not. So, were these already
literally in our existing code like
before we couldn't enforce them? Okay.
So, you're not doing anything to
optimize that at this point? Yeah, I
think we did some minor clarification on
the landscaping, but yes, otherwise
because the landscaping just referenced
the landscaping guidelines and those are
too or the design guidelines which are
too subjective but we kind of specified
it to the approved plant list which is
objective. So that was the only
clarification otherwise everything else
is what is already being applied.
>> Okay. So I can't plant a rose bush
>> near my plant list. So, no.
As part of your ADU, no.
>> Okay.
All right.
>> I Okay.
The emergency shelter. Um, I don't know
if I don't think we're going to have a
separate discussion of that. The outdoor
smoking area, is that literally out of
state law?
» I believe it it it is. And I will look
to
>> I got to believe it is cuz I can't imag
Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Uh charter.
Okay. I we're going to come back on the
indemnity, right?
So I'll stop there. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Judith.
Okay. I've just got some I think fairly
simple questions. Um did mostly
clarification just to make sure I got my
head around everything that's come at
us. So you said three ADUs. Can you just
explain that a little bit? Like how do
you get three three ADUs and the um AFMA
applies?
You can get up to 800 over, but that's
it, right? So how do you get three?
What's what's where do the three come
from?
>> So you would get under So you get two of
them from the units authorized under
66323. So that is a conversion ADU. So
converting existing part of your house,
converting an existing garage, an
existing pool house is a common one that
we see. You get to convert that
directly. That usually since it's
already figured into the AMFA, it
doesn't really impact as much. Then you
can do the detach 800 square foot ADU
per section 66323.
So those are your first two. Then uh
with the clarification that HCD has
provided, you do still get one unit
consistent with our local ordinance
which is 66314
and we can still apply AMFA except that
we can never restrict a unit less than
800 square ft. So that's where you can
get So if somebody does it correctly,
you would or incorrectly, however you
want to look at it, you get your two
state exempt, you're already way over
AMFA. You can still get your 663T1. It
just will be 800 square f feet.
>> Okay.
All right. Um,
so that's Yeah. So I think I get the
ADUs. It seems complicated that
somebody's doing all that, but but it's an interesting way all these things
fit together. Um, so on the 1,200 square
foot, as I understand, if we allow that,
then we get to apply objective standards
and we get to apply setbacks like a
front setback, not not side and rear.
Um, so and and setbacks between
buildings.
>> Yes, currently staff has not proposed a
setback between building and the current
ordinance, but that is something we can
if the council directs us to, we can
include.
Okay, because the Yeah, one of the
questions I was going to the next
question I was going to ask is a fire
safety question. Um I mean typically you
want to have 10 feet that may already be
in our fire regs. I don't know. Um
because as I understand from this
conversation, what you're saying is
they're zoning and then layered on top
of that is building and fire and if
they're more restrictive, they win.
>> That's correct. Because the fire and
building code are seen as being adopted
from the state building and fire code.
they over they they control more and can
be more specific on those specific
standards where zoning we cannot. Okay.
Um so if we talked about
and the design standards the objective
standards we have now you were listing
um you said LVR I wasn't quite sure the
acronym
>> uh light reflectivity val
you know I know what it is I just didn't
know what the acronym was but thank you thank you everybody so um
>> I have the same problem
>> do those only apply if we have an
ordinance
Yes.
>> Okay. So, if we if we just defaulted to
nothing, these wouldn't apply.
>> That would be correct.
>> Okay. Um, and if we defaulted to
nothing, would the AFMA apply?
>> So, we are clarifying on the AMFA.
I think there could be an argument.
Well, actually, no. If we default to
that, no, we would not. um per HCD's
guidance, 1,200 square f feet is the
what we would have to allow as a default
for if we don't have an ordinance.
>> Okay.
>> So, we would not be able to restrict it
to the 800. Um but I'm trying to think
if there's any other clear guidance on
that, but to my understanding, that's
the default is the 1,200. AMFA would not
apply in that case.
>> Okay? because I'm what I'm really trying
to get at is the advantages of having an
ordinance versus just defaulting to the
state. So, that's really where I was
trying to go with that. Um, and I know
the direction we gave you was to just
update our ordinance to state standards.
So, I appreciate you've done that and
I'm trying to understand what in
addition we're getting out of that. So,
um, so I I think that's helpful. Um, so
let me stop with questions there. Um,
then we've got the two more parts. um
that we need to cover and then I think I
can go to public comment. I did want to
ask the council like are you okay if we
go through the two more parts, take
public comment and then maybe take a
break.
>> What are the two more indemnity and what
>> the indemnity and the um emergency
shelters.
>> Okay,
>> those those are the two two pieces we
haven't discussed. I mean you you
actually jumped into
>> but I think Rebecca still said she
wanted and I asked her to wait. So, I
just want to make sure if anybody has
comments on those two that we or
questions on those two we
>> Yeah.
So, um so with that, let me go to
those two. So, Rebecca, you had
something that you wanted to
>> Yeah, please.
>> Okay. Well, quickly on the um emergency
shelter, I had the same concern that
Judith had about the outdoor smoking
area. It says the outdoor smoking area
may be screened by vegetation.
Um, I had put in a little note about it
complying with fire code. Um, I know I I
I'm understanding now that that's more
of a building thing. Um, so we would be
able to then
>> um through the building process code
have, you know, make sure that we're not
somehow creating a fire hazard.
>> Yes, that is mine and I'll default to
Katherine because Katherine helped write
that that update. So I'll let Katherine
chime in.
>> But yes, that that is the same concept
that would apply that code would
prevail. Okay. And should I move on to
indemnification?
>> Yeah, please cover both of those.
>> So for the indemnification, um
it I I kind of want to understand my
role as a c and the role of the council
members in terms of who are we supposed
to be protecting the most? I mean is it
just the town or do we have any
responsibility towards protecting our
residents um in this situation? So when
we ask for an indemnification for an
applicant that comes for a project
um well I would say let's see we are u
obviously being mindful of residents um
but while at the same time being
protected of the town um the town is
currently requiring identification of
applicants uh so this is essentially
codifying existing practice and I think
the as um Brandon mentioned the main
reason this caught um our attention and
my attention was that during the um
negotiation of the conditions of
approval for the Stanford project. Um
Standard pointed out that we had no
statutory authority to require the
indentification.
>> We do or we didn't.
>> We did not at the time. We still don't.
Um so that's the purpose of of adding
this to our code. They did end up
indemnifying the town. Um that is part
of the condition of approval. Uh but
this is essentially intended to uh
codify existing practice and we do all
of these things that are in this uh
proposal. We're we're asking for we're
currently asking applicants to do
reimbursement of public records acts. Uh
so that is actually new. Um thank you
for pointing that out. Uh we do not
currently do that. Um but this is sort
of with the with the mindset of uh
saving costs for the town and a lot of
times that these projects do actually
result in um expensive uh public records
act requests brought by um neighbors or
other interested parties. uh that are
solely about um and that
>> are we not allowed in by law to charge
for P requests in general just general P
requests?
>> No, we are not allowed to charge for
that because I'm just a little Yeah, I
it's very open-ended. So, you know, say in a situation that um there's some
huge controversy and we make the the
front pages of the Wall Street Journal
again and all of a sudden, you know, the
75 uh reporters decide that they're
going to do a P request to get
information about whatever this
controversial project is. So, then we're
saying that that applicant of the
controversial project has to pay for all
those PR requests. So, I it just I mean
it's very open-ended. I mean, it could
go on for years, right? And somebody
would get a bill 20 years from now
because I mean there's no guard rail,
you know, what are the guardrails on
this?
>> Yeah. I mean, again, this is, um,
this is based on another jurisdictions,
other jurisdictions language. And so,
um, I have not heard of that situation
coming up, but I'm mindful of what you
say. And, you know, one option would be
if you want to provide some guide rails,
you could change the shall to May. um
may reimburse the town or maybe may be
required to reimburse the town or you
could strike it all together if that is
the the council's preference um
regarding the P reimbursement
and then um so what what happens in a
situation where it's the town's
negligence
for for in in something in in how they
approved a planning or one of our
contractors screwed up or you know it it
just seems
we're forcing the applicant to take on
that um responsibility.
So, this did come up at the planning
commission. There was a um a discussion
amongst two of the commissioners who had
two different views on this on this
question. Um ultimately the um the
commission uh decided not to carve out
an exception for uh gross negligence or
willful misconduct by the by the town.
um which is consistent with other
indemnification provisions throughout
the municipal code. This isn't the only
place where this would arise. Um there
are some specific um indeidentification
provisions that are not generally
applicable like this one would be. Uh
but the standard approach throughout the
MUN code is tracks this language um and
does not carve out an express exception
for gross negligence or willful
misconduct by the town. Now, as a
practical matter, if there was um and
not saying there ever would be, but
gross negligence disable misconduct by
the town, um there would certainly be
the applicant would just refuse to
indemnify and that would just be another
part of the litigation. Uh I imagine,
>> but when does the indemnification
happen? At the end of the project, you sign something or um it essentially
happens during the conditions of
approval. Um for most projects, the
planners might have additional
information on that. Um but then you
know most of the times there these
projects do not result in litigation.
But if for example this the the Stanford
project after it was approved the the
town received um a lawsuit regarding you
know California you know SQA and the ER
was not compliant etc. Um at that point
Stanford would be required to indemnify
um the town for any litigation costs in
defending that SQA litigation. That's
when this comes up kind of.
>> And then I was confused about why we
would be requiring the applicant to pay
for the defense with the council of the
town's choosing. Maybe you could just
kind of explain the process here, you
know. Um I I don't I I kind of gotten I
don't quite follow how defense is cho in what situation a
defense is then chosen by the town. What
would be a scenario that this comes into
play? Uh so if there is litigation
challenging a project that the town
approves,
uh generally the the litigation would be
brought against both the town and the
applicant. Uh so the applicant would
have their own attorney and they'd be
defending the lawsuit. Um the that what
this language is saying is that the town
doesn't have to use the applicant's
attorney. They could hire their own
attorney to defend the town. So there
might be different nuance in terms of
the defense that the town would want to
have its own counsel. Um and so this
would provide that the town has the
authority um the right to choose their
own attorney.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Have a practical example.
>> Oh, thank you. Please
>> Westridge. There was a conflict with our
existing town attorney where we had to
bring in outside counsel to help us
through that process. So that would be
another case of that is there if there
is a conflict of interest, the town is
able to get its own attorney, its own
separate attorney to defend the
>> Thank you, Rebecca. Ellen, do you have
anything on these two? Great. Thank you,
Mary.
>> Nope.
>> Thank you, Judith.
>> Yeah. Um,
so if I read this right,
this could even be
a town employee
that brings a slip and fall suit
relating to a project. So it's not third
party indemnity. Is there intended to be
a limit to a third party suit?
Yes.
>> Uh this is intended for third party
suits against the town.
>> And is the language derived from
precedent we've already used exactly in
town or is it derived from several
>> several other jurisdictions um that have
similar type of indemnity provisions?
>> Yeah. And then um
so say the public records act is
alleging some inappropriate
process
in the course of handling the project on
the town's part. We're we're still going
to require them to
um reimburse for the P request on that.
Uh so the the P um
uh request does that results in cost
staff costs to collect documents um
sometimes outside uh document um
uh servers are are services are
required. Um the intent is to capture um
reimbursement for hard costs um and
staff costs related to P requests,
right? But but my point here is that the
public records act exists for
transparency as a public policy, right?
Like let's find out what actually
happened, what communications actually
happened. the the the balance to me is
public transparency and the right of the
public to call out into the public
sphere what's been going on in process
within the town. if we're the source of
a problem here, it it just seems
it could be punitive under some
circumstances if I'm thinking about it
right to, you know, maybe maybe the
person as a result of a P actually
was right. Something was bad with the
process. We're now saying that the
applicant,
regardless of who did what, has to
reimburse those hard costs. Um, so I'm
just trying to think about the the
balancing of the policies here. Um, one
policy is we're we're trying to save
money and PAS are expensive versus the
transparency. Is that kind of a way of
looking at it? Because it's hard to get
really nuanced with this.
>> Yeah, I think that is a good way to look
at it. Um, and I think those are those
are good points in terms of policy
considerations about whether to move
forward with that um part of this
ordinance. Um,
>> you know, the council might decide that
it wants to narrow it, um, to, uh, you
know, optional reimbursement. Um,
wouldn't require the town to seek
reimbursement, but that maybe they're in
certain situations. Um,
>> or, you know, like we discussed with the previous question, if this
isn't the direction the council wants to
go at this time, that also would be fine
and it could strike this portion of the
ordinance.
>> Okay, that that was my question. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, Judith. Um, I don't have any
questions on these, so I'm going to
close the council questioning. And is
everybody okay if I open it up to public
for questioning and then we take a break
after that?
>> Okay, great. Um, all right. So, I'd like
to open it up for
>> And this is a public hearing. So, you
are opening the public hearing.
>> Thank you. I'm I am now opening the
public hearing. Thank you. And and I can
we but we can start this and then we can
exit and use the bathrooms, etc.
>> Yeah, I'd recommend closing the public
hearing once you finish with the public
comments.
>> Thank you. Take a break.
>> Got I got the word. Okay. So, I'm now
opening the public hearing. Thank you.
Um, are there any public comments?
So, looking in the room, I see a hand.
Please come to the microphone. Welcome,
Judith.
» Thank you. Um, this is comments as well
as questions. Is that accurate?
>> Uh, it's comments.
>> It's comments.
>> It's not. There's no Yeah.
>> Very good.
>> Sorry. That's just the sort of the
limits the limits on our hours. Um,
virtually every application for a new
home or major remodel has had an ADU in
the last years and now we may be looking
at uh them all having two or three
ministerally approved. The town has the
right, obviously we've been talking all
night to to adopt objective criteria to
be applied equally to all applications.
Process of creating such standards was
started several years ago. Um some
committees uh submitted some proposals
that were sent to planning department
and then because of everything that went
on in town this all stalled and more or
less disappeared. Um
this draft version as we talked about
does not include some of the protective
restrictions that we could reasonably
place and ministerally apply. So I'm
very concerned that
um this is all being done tonight that a
first reading is being dispensed with
instead of instead of the normal usual
process which exists for the reason
exactly of a little more timely
consideration of some of the things that
have been brought up tonight. My
specific concerns have to do with
no surprise uh protecting the native
environment here. So trails are one of
the things that come up. It seems to me
that that senior planner said that we
could um put objective criteria about
the distance between the two houses. Is
there any reason we couldn't put an
objective universally applied
restriction that says it has to be a
certain distance from a trail that the
4-foot thing What if the 4ft thing and
the trail goes like this? Is the 4-foot
setback allowed to encroach on a trail?
And doesn't that seem like very
objective criteria that should be able
to be put to be put down? These are
existing easements. Uh does the 4 foot
um able to sort of violate the easements
that we have. Um so that's one of my
concerns that I think needs to be looked
at a little more detail. Um I think the
parking issue I don't have a specific
comment to makecept that obviously if
cars if you're writing something that
encourages cars to be spilling out on
the street that's that's enormously
uh contradictory of what we're trying to
have the town feel like. Um the scenic
corridor issue is one that is not really
addressed. There are lots in town along
the scenic corridor where they have put
their address on the street that goes
off either Portolo or Alpine that makes
their frontage on the scenic corridor
their side yard. Are people going to be
able to put two or three ADUs 4 feet
from their property line on our scenic
corridor? Isn't there not something
that's an objective standard that
applies to any applicant that we could
include there?
>> I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it
up.
>> Okay. That that's my main thing. I have
grave concerns about adopting this
ordinance tonight. I think you need to
take the time to deserve at least a
second reading and and come up with some
language to address some of these really
important things.
The worst thing that happens is we go
back to doing what we've been doing for
the last year and a half, which is using
the state ordinances. We don't have
these nice little things we want to add,
but we also don't have these other
important ones. And that's maybe one or
two houses, one or two projects. So,
don't don't get steamrolled into going
fast fast because it's hard to fix it if
it's not right.
>> Thank you. Um I I did want to just make
one clarification. When we say we're
waving a first reading, that means
something very specific. It means we
didn't read that entire like 50 pages
into the record. It doesn't mean we
skip. This is basically the first. It
will come back to us after this. So
there's not a skipping of the first.
It's just reading as a very specific
literally Katherine would sit here and
read every word until we were done. And
we that's what we say we're waving it.
» It's not No, this is I mean this will
come back to us.
>> Yeah. that although Craig just to
support the question and ask for
clarification there was the request on
the slide said adopt this so I want to
>> fair enough but it but it is coming back
I mean just that's why I wanted to
clarify so it right it will come back to
us as and likely come back to us as a
consent agenda but it will come back to
us
>> it comes back for a second reading but
just to make sure I'm folks are clear um
the second reading is like you say a
consent item and so the substantive
discussion
um does typically take place, you know,
at the introduction, the first reading.
» Okay. Any other hands in the
schoolhouse? I don't see any. Any other
hands online?
Okay. I don't see any. All right. Oh,
thank you.
One day, I'm gonna be ahead of her, but
Okay. Hi, Christie. Go ahead, please.
>> Wow.
I'm surprised you that because I really
do have a right to talk.
>> Oh, for sure. No, no, it was just I was
about to close it. You got your hand up
just in time. So, thank you.
>> Okay. Um
All right. I believe this topic should
have been a steady session and a call
out to the whole community to let them
know this is really important to our
community. And if you only have 10
people here, 10 people out of 4,500
people know about it. So, I do think
that we should have we should take our
time and go slower with this important
document.
I think the add-ons in the future,
description, fees, definitions,
education should have been added to this
document so we can see it in its
entirety. So the town has the right to
make objective requirements po uh
parking height
um of the ADU setback um max size and
then I noticed is it true that the ASC
will be pulled out of the
um ability to make comments such as
light spill where the where the window
should be where the dot where it's
placed on the um
on the parcel. Um can you add 300 ft? We
want to notice our neighbors in this
town because we are polite and we want
to do that because we feel it's
important. Can you please answer that
tonight? Um
let's see. I understand that the ADU law
is ministerial, but I think that's
important to still inform and educate.
We live in the WOOI which is wildland
urban interface which is the fire chief
said he'll be burning you know canyons
and woodside and really trying to clear.
So if we live in the WOOI what what
should we be thinking more of? Is that
why houses were further apart in the 9
by9 um area that we live? Corner
parcels. I have heard nothing about
corner parcels and what are the
guidelines going to be? Please discuss
patios and if they're allowed outside
the ADU. If I build an ADU, I want a
patio, not dirt. Um,
did you take ASC out of the ADU process,
light, spill, trees, location? It looks
like Woodside with ADUs, if they have
one bedroom, they are allowed to have
one parking place. So, I'd like to see
that discussed more. I think selling an
ADU should be added and put back in.
that is of interest. The second um sheet
the fees and explanation should be
attached as a entire document. And if we
have 4 foot side and 4 foot back, but I
want to do the setback at the normal,
would I get the carrots perks bonus of a
higher ceiling or uh a deck outside the
ADU? Looks like that was um taken away.
And then I'd like to see
>> So Christie, I'm going to have to ask
you to close it out.
>> Pas strike uh that people should pay for
them because we feel that we're already
paying for them. And if we need
something research, we're not
professionals like you. We can't find
things like you. We have to ask the
clerk to find them for us. So I am
really appalled by the fact that you
want me to pay per page per. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Christie.
All right, before I close the public
hearing, are there any other public
comments?
All right, I see no one in the
schoolhouse. I see no one online. So,
I'm now going to close the public
hearing
and we will take a short adjournment,
five minutes. Does that work for
everybody? Um, and then we'll come back
and have discussion.
Veronica, you want to start?
>> Thank you.
All right, welcome back everybody. Thank
you.
Okay, so before we start, um, a couple
of questions came up that that I would
like to hear the answers to. Um, just to
capture, we had the trails question, the
notification question, and the scenic
corridor question. Could you just speak
to them briefly?
>> Yes. So, for the trails question in
specific,
generally those easements for the trails
will have a no build condition. Those
are enforcable
usually through the building permit. I
cannot specify as a planner through the
zoning code an additional setback from
those. I'm restricted to only the 4ft
side and rear. Oftent times the trails
are on what we refer to as the street
side or the front setback. Um
so you know working with them we would be able to enforce that at the
building permit side as long as that
because that's a private agreement. But
I cannot as a planner I cannot prescribe
additional setbacks beyond that because
again I'm restricted to the 4 foot side
and rear
period. It doesn't necessarily take into
consideration of the easement.
Um the scenic corridor very again very
similar is I can only regulate from
property line. The scenic corridor does
extend into the property line. We can
add it when it affects the front
property because that kind of falls
under the front setback. Again, that
would only apply to the units authorized
by our ordinance. If they want a unit
under 662 uh 32, I can only apply what
state allows me to. There is no front
setback allowance technically for those
units. They could do it at the property
line. We again we encourage people to
set back. We can encourage that but we
do not have a mechanism to require it or
and again 66323 or I'm sorry 66 314
>> yes thank you way too many numbers in my
head that one yes we can enforce that as
part of the front setback requirement
kind of tailored to that if you don't
mind the latitude is the corner lot the
state has clarified they do not
recognize a straight side it is a side
period There is no special caveat when
it comes to ADU law for that. So I only
as a planner I can only look at front
side rear. So a street side is a side
step setback for the purposes of ADU
law. And they actually clarified that at
the beginning of this year in one of
their uh webinars they reinforced that they do not recognize a street
sideyard as a separate thing than a
sideyard.
So I'm not sure I So if you're in a
corner lot, is there a front set back?
>> There's a front. Yes, you have.
>> What defines the front?
>> So that would be to our municipal code
generally we say the shortest distance
that's affronting a street is considered
the front.
>> Okay. So for the examples of you know
along you know Alpine or even along you
know Portola generally if the lot is
deep and following Pollola and it's
short on the side and the main streets
right here that's going to be the front
everything on porta would be the side
then
>> and then uh there was one last question
if you can cl
>> notification there was there was a
request I realize it's not required but
I think there the question was could we
provide notification like is that an
option for us or are we not even allowed
to do that?
>> There is no specific provision that
allows us the ability to do notification
because the idea is that the ministerial
process ministerial process there isn't
public discussion. There isn't this
public input on the item. Um, it is
I'm not aware of any other jurisdictions
that are currently doing that and I
don't know there personally there could
be a way where we could weave it in
there but it can't be from my
understanding we can't require it. We
can't say applicant you're going to pay
us to do the notification. That would
have to be almost a town cost if we're
doing that.
>> Um, and again these are process of the
building permit. They're not a separate
planning permit, which is where we
normally trigger notification is for the
planning permit, not a building permit.
And so we would also have to double
check building code if that's even
allowed there.
>> Okay, great. All right. Well, I just
want to capture those sort of questions
that we kind of got from the public.
>> Somebody triggered one last question for
me, which I think is going to be
helpful. The objective standards. So,
say we were to pass this or or agree
that something should move forward
tonight. We I heard you say no objective
standard like don't build in a reference
to objective standards because HD will
want to see them tonight and we don't
have them like or tomorrow. We don't
have them yet. But there's nothing to
preclude us from developing those, you
know, as soon as it's practical. I I
want your thoughts and then that'll be
enough for me.
>> Yes. And so in kind of when I how I
responded to um council member Flynn is
when those to get developed, we can add
them in. That is the the the easy part
of that. But um I also know Sarah,
there's some other projects that are
coming that that could be wrapped into
and addressed that.
>> Yes. So I want and this is also in
response to the public comment and some
questions we've received throughout the
process. So, our goal with this code
update is to make sure we're compliant
with state law. We currently aren't. And
our goal was to do the minimum we could
to make sure we're getting into
compliance.
It doesn't say we can't do that in the
future is go above and beyond and study,
you know, other objective standards and
other things that have been brought up
tonight. But right now, it really is
looking at what can we do to, you know,
move this forward to come to compliance
with state law. And then Brandon did
point out some of those few moments
where there is a little bit of
discretion or open-endedness. I know he
mentioned the parking, the square foot
size. So there's a few moments where
there is some discretion for discussion.
Planning commission did have discussion
on some of those things that was
incorporated into the the amendments
that are there before you tonight. So
that's where I just want to call that
out. We're looking at how can we come
into compliance with state law.
We were not given direction to study a
lot of these other things and I would
probably you know not recommend deciding
tonight other requirements that probably
do need further study. They probably do
need input from the community. We need
to have further discussion on those. So
that was not our intent tonight. But I
think there is definitely an
opportunity. I think there's a desire
and a need to look at other code updates
maybe holistically within our code or
also updates that can apply to ADUs in
general. So, I am cognizant of that and
I feel like that is a desire from the
community. We've heard from town council
members, from our priority setting
session. We think there is a need to
update our objective design standards,
but to clarify that is not being
proposed tonight. So, it doesn't mean
that that's not a priority in the future
for other updates down the road, but
right now we're really just looking
coming into state compliance.
>> Thank you, Sarah. Can um Brandon, could
you do me a favor? Can you bring your
slides back up and go to that last
slide? Um because as we go into
discussion I want to focus it on you
know this is what we have to decide
tonight just so that we don't get too
far a field.
>> Can I ask a question while he's doing
that? U yes we can go back and do them
over but does that going to trigger a
whole bunch of HCD attention if we if we
do an ordinance? I mean, in other words,
once we get it passed through HCD and
then we come back and say, well, we want
to add something about the character of
the town and all those wonderful things
and fences and whatever it might be, is
that going to be reviewed by HCD and are
they going to give us a hard time?
>> Any any amendment to our ADU ordinance
needs to be reviewed by HCD? So, yes. So
we if we do come back later and add them
in those objective standards to the
ordinance, we would have to
um we would have to route that to HCD.
However, HCD most likely will just look
at what we're proposing as that part of
the amendment. Um they won't necessarily
reopen it unless they find, hey, we
updated state law again and now this
provision's out of compliance. But we're
planning on doing yearly updates anyways
per our housing element because that has
been what's happening is the state's
changing the requirements every year. We should know probably by July if there
are any serious bills that we need to
start planning for for next year and we
can kind of start prepping for that. And
then as part of the other discussions
like Sarah said and kind of the priority
setting from the council, we can maybe
invest and look into those other kind of
caveats if we want to go slightly above
and beyond. The objective standards that
we have in there now were the minimum
that we have or the ones that we had
existing that we could still apply and
so that was the intent.
>> Thank you. Could
>> Could I ask a quick question on timing
and for these options?
>> Um Sure.
>> So, if it were to get approved today or
whatever, I'm not sure which one
>> introduced
>> introduce ordinance as proposed or with
revisions or whatever. Um, say it's with
revisions. What What's the next step?
You said it would come back as a um
consent agenda item. What would be the
timing on that?
>> Yeah. So, it would come back at a second
reading, which generally we try to
schedule at the next uh council meeting.
So that would be on your agenda then on
your consent item as a second reading.
Um and really it's also going to depend
on how specific the revisions are and
what's kind of the timeline because
staff will need to go in and type those
in for you to make sure it's included in
the ordinance. So if it's not the next
meeting, it might be the following
meeting just depending on the scope of
the revisions. We're hoping to keep
those as minimal as possible or as
straightforward as possible so we can
turn it around quicker.
Thank you. All right. So, the reason I
um asked Brandon to bring up this slide
is obviously we're going to go into
discussion, but I would like to focus
the discussion around this list. Like
where do you stand on this list? If
you're as proposed, great. If you're
with revisions, then what um revisions
are you proposing? Um or are we trying
to, you know, not in like you're just
this is the wrong thing to do period.
Let's just default to the state. Or
finally, do we continue this um and give
staff direction and then come back
again? Um and and I think and Katherine,
you need to help me here. If we continue
this item, we still need to keep any
revisions fairly small, don't we? Or we
risk going back and having to have
another public hearing. Is that correct?
>> Well, the last option is actually
another public hearing.
>> Is that effectively what it is? that is
effectively. So you would actually
continue the public hearing. Um and if
you continue it to a date certain then
you don't need to do the renoticing. Um
but depending on the you know extent of
the the requests and the changes um or
the direction you know it probably
wouldn't be the very next council
meeting but might you know need to be
depending on the town manager uh
suggests uh you know a future a future
meeting June July that kind of thing.
>> Right. I I think the question I was
trying to ask is if we continued it and
we wanted to make substantial changes
is can we do that as part of a
continuation or at some point have you
made so many changes that it's not a
continuation anymore because it's
already gone to the planning commission
like when did when would it have to go
back to the planning to come back from
us like when do we sort of like right
now what you have here and this one the
you know these are fairly small I'm
comfortable that these don't go back to
the planning commission but if we made
major changes,
when would we have to, you know, sort of
recycle this or, you know, circle back
around?
>> Yeah. Substantive changes that have not
been considered by the planning
commission do need to go back to the
planning commission. Now, the planning
commission considered, I mean, all of
these options, including repealing and
just going with state law. That was
actually part of their discussion. Um
but you know if um and I'm I'm
struggling to think of an example of
something they didn't consider because
they actually had quite an extensive
conversation but yeah in theory you
there could be a situation where you
need to go back to them.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So with that why
don't we start the discussion. Um
Rebecca do J do you want to go first?
Great. Sure. Please. Um
>> all right. Um I'm gonna go with number
two. Um,
I dislike all of these state imposed AD
restrictions.
They're well intended. They don't fit
us. I've struggled with this for like 15
years. So, with that caveat, um, I want
to thank the planning commission for
giving a lot of focus and feedback on
it. um I they are a body that is
meaningful to the town and they um you
know are very thoughtful. So in general
I I was pretty good with uh where this
came out overall. Um I do want to remind
people that you know we do have this
isn't a one on oneot thing in the way I
look at it at least. I think you know
the near-term objective because it's
important ADUs are just going to be part
of our evolving set of um ordinances
for the foreseeable future every year as
you said. So from my perspective, what's
the what are we really trying to do
here? And for me, I do want to get um
compliant with state law. we don't need
extra hurdles in getting compliant with
whenever HD does get back um to us. Uh I
want to make sure that this is something
we're managing and manage well. Um and I
don't want the tonight I would suggest
that people try not to get you know the
enemy of of
the good is perfect you know like
>> perfect is the enemy of the good.
>> Yeah. Whatever. I've been up a long time
today. Sorry about that. And thank you.
Um, but I think that's really important
for for me in framing it because there
is so much that I would want to try to
do. Most of it's been raised by the
planning commission and my fellow
council members. Um but overall I think
um I I I think we
are um we need to keep it simple adding
as you know I'm not the lawyer on this
but one of my principles is add nothing
that you haven't pressure test tested
for the implications into an ordinance.
you you really need to think of multiple
different ways it could be looked at,
interpreted, and used for and against
you. So, I tend to want to hone it down
and not have directional guidance on
intent, for example. That's just
something I'm going to be particular
about. Um, and um,
in terms of the guidelines, um, super
important to get objective guidelines. I
mean, I I can't understate the
importance of that because pending
projects coming through. Um, the
public's concerned, the applicants are
probably confused. Um, you know, it's
not good to have them hanging out there.
I take your point on there's going to be
a moment when it's feasible and it's not
right now. So, I get that. Um the only
um area where I I do have issue is the
indemnity
and I I would not charge for the P. It's
a sad fact of the matter. They are
overexpensive. They can be abused. But I
personally think the policy of
transparency is really important and uh
we shouldn't be punishing good faith
actors and requests by assuming
nefarious intent. So I would I would not
include the P request in there even
though I acknowledge it's a problem. You
know it can be abused and it has been
you know overused.
Um then in terms of the lack of an
exception for negligence and bad acts um
you know I don't know where in the
spectrum uh professional malfeasence
falls but I am worried about that. I
don't think it's fair for applicants to to have to indemnify us for bad
process bad acts. So that that is very
important to me. Um I think when we're
in good faith processing an application
and things just fall apart and we're
caught in the middle, that's one thing
we should be indemnified for. But if
it's frankly our our inability to get
things right, that that shouldn't be
something an applicant passes on to us.
We always have the ability not to ask
for it if that becomes an issue. But as
again, this is going to be what
applicants coming to Porto Valley
initially getting to know us are going
to see. And I I think if it's like an
over broad ask, it's not going to go
well. So I would want the P out. I would
want an exception for negligence,
recklessness, I would ask you to um
think about what the level there would
be. Um
thank you for all the work and the
explanations. And I I guess the last
point I have is honestly it's it's
simply not fair to ask the council
members to to process lengthy, very
detailed anything the day of. It just
isn't fair. So I would ask us in the
longer term when we're not like tired
and and our eyes aren't blurry to try
and think are there process improvements
that we can make um to avoid that
because I really take this very
seriously. I want to read everything,
but it it can become overwhelming when
it's quite so technical. So, that's a
request. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Judith. Anybody want to go
next?
>> Rebecca, I know you got you thought
about this.
>> So, I'm between number two and number
four.
Um, it's a very difficult um decision to
be honest. I I feel like there's a ton
of stuff that just
could could use improvements and I'm
cognizant of Judith's comment of perfect
the enemy of the good. Um I I understand
some of the implications of not at least
getting our three objective requirements
that are in here in into action
immediately. I I I think that's kind of
important. Um, if we do go with two, I
would want to have um the 851,000
limit for maximum size instead of 1,200
since we don't seem to have any ability
to actually manage setbacks.
Um, in terms of the parking issue, I I I
get very much, you know, you the
consequences you said of of requiring
parking in a situation where someone
would have to do massive um ground
works. Um, in the absence of being able to have
some type of verbiage
where we define which parking is
actually required,
um, I wouldn't want to have it a
blanket. a parking space is required
given that somebody could then, you
know, do a massive project that then
doesn't require ASC approval. So, I
don't know if there's some sort of
language that would say a parking space
is required in your driveway or in an
existing driveway or something like
that. Um, if if something kind of really
tight sort of thing um
was possible, then you know, I think I
would want to have parking. you know, if
it's possible to have, you know, a
parking place is required on your
driveway or on your site. I don't know
if it's feasible without major earth
works or some I don't know. Um I I did
want to touch base back with Helen's um
concern with the f um the Cal Housing
Defense Fund back on this undergrounding
thing because
reading it, it does say that 66323
are not required
to install a new or separate utility
connection directly between the unit and
the utility.
Unless I think it says unless the unit
was constructed with a new single family
dwelling.
So if that is a situation we my
understanding is that then we cannot
require them to be underground. So I
feel that we need to just have a little
caveat there under the section five when you have
when a new or separate utility
connection directly between the ADU and
the utility proposed may not be the perfect word
there but the utility connections will
be placed underground consist 18 da da unless it's a 66323
unit. I mean, I I think to me, I think
that has to go in there. If if if we're
not allowed if we're required if in
there's one situation where we're
required to um
an ADU is required to have this separate
utility, separate connection, you know,
we cannot require it to be underground
for a 66 323. So, I think I would
recommend that you take a look a little
bit at that and that that one needs to
be resolved by the time this were to
come back to us. Um
I did I did want to address the comment
of the legal authority of the HCG
handbook. Um I did go through it again
yesterday and I and I went and
highlighted all the things that I
consider to be incorrect in there. So as
you said, you know, what do you do when
the the information is flat out wrong?
But, you know, take you know, but but
somehow the the the state government has
given HCD the authority to kind of
determine how they interpret the the
law, which
is very generous. Um,
>> Rebecca, can I just ask a quick
question? Is this handbook something
that HCDs approved? Like, is this their
handbook? Okay, so it is. Okay. I just
wanted to make sure. Thank you. Keep
going. All right.
>> Um, let's see. Where was I?
Um,
of course I'm just so concerned about,
you know, we have nothing in this
ordinance that really discourages people
from putting putting ADUs at 4 feet on
the property line. I mean, we have one
little statement saying, you know, we
encourage you to follow base voting and
it doesn't seem like we can put anything
in here really that um
they were totally limited by the way
that they're they're interpreting that
D7 for everything. Even though they say
right up front that we we have the right
to discern setbacks, which to me are
defined as not between buildings, but
from the street or from the side, but um
that they've chosen to define that as
four feet, which is really unfortunate
because,
you know, it makes no sense in our our
area. Um,
I mean, those are my main change
requests, I guess, but I I can't
I I don't know which whe whether I would
rather just continue it. I I don't write
this minute in my head. I'd rather hear
some more feedback whether we you make
those changes. Um,
and
>> well, I think we got your input and then
after
>> I wanted to talk about the
indemnification. I I do agree with
Judith about um the PAS and putting a
little bit more boundaries on the um
Oh yeah, the malfeasants. Yes. Yes. So
coming up with some verb some just
gentle verbiage that would at least give
you know applicants something of
protection.
>> So thank you. Okay Helen.
>> Thanks. Um,
so first I really appreciate everyone's
questions and work on this effort. Um,
you know, the new housing laws are head
spinning, right? We know that. Um, don't
worry, Scott Weiner is running for
Congress. Might slow down.
So,
um, I looked up when the 4-foot setback
law was passed and it was actually
passed in 2020, you know, so some of us
probably didn't notice. Um, we, you
know, um,
and respectfully, the town is still
very, you know, the town has been
allowing these 4-foot setbacks because
it's been state law. Is right.
That's correct. Yes.
>> Right. So, um,
and we're still very rural feeling. Um,
you know, like still the rural town
feeling that we love. Um, I haven't
noticed much difference, right? Um, I
think we have too many parking lots
along our scenic corridor, but they're not ADUs, right?
Um, so what I'm also seeing is 800
square foot
ADUs being built.
You okay? Okay. 800 square f feet being
built and then signed off and then
illegally expanded,
which really worries me, right? And I've
seen that numerous times. Um so and
lastly what because of the way our code
is people can then build a garage as you
know as much maximum square footage is
left in their in their lot. Um which
shows that we care are caring more about
garages
and cars than people than people.
That worries me. So, could you explain
that comment a little bit?
>> Sure. So, let's say I'll use my own
parcel.
I have 6,000 square feet maximum. My
mom's house is 3,000 square feet, right?
I could have built a garage with the
other square 3,000 square ft.
>> Right. But I could only build an ADU up
to,200 square ft.
>> But you could build three of it.
>> Now it's changed. Right.
But before and it still is this way that
I you can use your square feet for a
garage but not for an ADU that was you
know now with three of them right so our
emphasis which environmentally too is to
build these really big houses when
environmentally it's better if you have
smaller houses with less
you know right and we're trying to stay
rural and I get it but we also really
need to think about environmentally our
impact
because smaller houses use less water, a
less gas, less electricity, right? So by
allowing people to have these smaller
options and giving more personal
property rights too, right, to allow
these ADUs some more flexibility, I
think is important.
So, um, so I just needed to bring some
of those points up.
Um, so that's why I would continue to
push for up to 1500 square ft. You know,
I don't, you know, that would be my
personal preference. I also would like
the height to be the base zoning. Um,
because
um, I think the height situation is
confusing, you know. Um uh
>> clarify.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> For the height, you know, we have both
the detached accessory dwelling unit and
then the attached. Are you wanting both
set to the base zoning setback height or
are you wanting just the attached
because that is a little bit different.
Right.
>> Right. Um what you know um by attached
those are generally the J AUS or is that
a is attached not necessarily J AU
>> attached is not necessarily so JADU is
conversion of existing space so it's
already built right
>> right right
>> so it is going to be an attached ADU
under state law is the base zoning
setback or base zoning district's height
or 25 ft whichever is less. I think in
most of our districts we're more than 25
ft. So I guess that's kind of the
question for detached you get 16 or 18
depending on certain situations and you
can go up to 20 if you hit those other
things. So and I guess that's the
question. Do you also want the detached
up to possibly 28 feet? But is that
>> right? Okay. So, and maybe um I just
want I just want the height to be as
simple as possible. Um so that you know
that's and I will let staff or other I'd
love other like I just want it to be
simpler for people to understand it when
they look at our code to have more as
much flexibility as possible. That's my
goal. Um I personally would include the
zone zero. it's it's in the pipeline
like it's going to be state law soon.
So, um I want the utilities to be noted
that the town doesn't have jurisdiction.
Um
and for safety reasons that were and to
allow more flexibility, I would have
requests that two lights at the front
door should be allowed instead of
forcing people because they still have
to be dark sky nights lights, excuse me.
Um, I would have them um the two so that
people do not have to go with their ADUs
to the ASC over a light fixture. So, um,
I know my mom trying to get my mom into
my ADU was really hard because the lack
of light. So, I would respectfully
request two lights at the front door.
Okay. Thank you for your consideration.
Oh, wait. And 1500 square feet. I would
go, you know, um I'm I also heard my
colleague, Council Member Flynn, I
definitely would allow it for larger for
3.5 acres um because um that that was
what our previous code. So, I would
match that and if my other colleagues
would uh be consider consider 1500, I
doubt they would, but I definitely would
do the,200 square feet. So, thank you.
>> Thank you, Helen.
Did you pick one, two, three, four?
>> Two. Thank you,
» Mary.
>> Jeez.
>> Okay, no problem. Uh,
I'm picking two. Uh, the problem is that
specific revisions part. Um, I I I I
liked your your uh indemnification
additions, Judith. That that sounded
right to me. I I did have a legal
question which is I thought gross
negligence always trumped. I thought if
you were grossly negligent, you know,
nothing works. Malpractice, nothing
worked. You're just grossly negligent.
Can't blame it on somebody else.
>> Uh so there's a typical term that's
included a lot of contractual language.
I don't have not seen it in code
language um before but I think we could
go ahead and put it in there uh because
as you say it we would the town would
not be able to get get out of it get the
identification if they had been grossly
negligent. So I don't think it actually
um uh you know hurts the town to put it
in there.
>> Yeah.
>> But does it make a difference
>> in your opinion?
>> No. So we could take it out too because
I thought we already took it out.
>> It's not currently there.
>> Well, let let me clarify. I said bad
acts. I wasn't trying to draft and I
wasn't thinking gross negligence was was
everything, right? Um because if we
really screw up, it's gross negligence
is a very high standard. So I think if
you want applicants to feel like we're
being fair, it it's got to look like
not gross negligence but something less.
That's that's where I was coming from if
I wasn't clear.
>> Thank you.
>> So,
>> okay. Uh specific revisions. Uh you
know, I I think we should go ahead and ask for that extra cart parking
space. Uh,
and I I was actually with the uh 12
the,000 um the 8501000.
I don't mean to be jumping on the uh I I
do know people who tried to build these.
Um and have been very frustrated by
trying to stay under that. Um
and I'm and I I do find it difficult to
understand the line of where the
strategy is working against us and
working for us. Uh so I'm happy to go
along with further discussion on this uh
so we can get this so we can go ahead
and u make this part of the of the
motion. So I'm not helping very much.
Um,
Craig, could I just voluntarily list the
open points that I've heard and I I'm
going to only get some of them because
it might help Mary kind of see if she
wants to weigh in on others because I
>> Well, I I tell you what, why don't you
let me do that? Yeah. You think that
would help her? So,
>> I I think it would help to You're going
to go ahead.
>> Well, yeah, I was going to as well, but
Well, no. I mean, so I think what Judith
is asking is the things that are on the
table right now is there's a a question
of whether we remove the P um being
charged back to the applicant. There's a
question about whether we find some way
to craft the town negligent so that the
applicant's not responsible for town
negligence, not necessarily gross
negligence, but some kind of negligence.
Um Rebecca's um suggested 850 um 101000
um and the parking and then had a
question about whether we could require
undergrounding. Pelen is requesting 1500
um and a um height which is base zone
utilities which is as I understood it
just listing that's electrical and water
etc not specific utilities um and two
lights and then you were saying that you
want to stay with 851000 and the
parking. So I I think that's the summary
that I've gotten so far.
>> Can I add education fees?
>> Um sure.
I don't even know what education.
>> Okay.
>> Do you mean I'm sorry. Do you mean the
impact fees for the education fees?
But they're
» And could I ask I mean so Brandon, could
you speak to what what is this education
fees thing?
Yeah, it's just the authorizing language
that establishes the thresholds for when
education fees can be applied that are
applied by the school district. Um, and
I'm pulling up uh Katherine, what
section did you say it was again? I'm
trying to pull up the exact language.
663
» except so that is for at 500 square feet
which is generally a
studio the size of a studio and most
studios like respectfully don't folks
that live in studios don't usually have
kids around here.
So it it's
my understanding the request is to do
similar like we're doing for the
utilities where we're just saying you
need to follow it. Um even though and
that's definitely something an easy
provision we can just add in we'll just
give the exact citation as it's written
in the the or in the government code.
>> Yeah. I'm just trying to be
comprehensive so that all the utilities
all the every organization that they
have to deal with is at least
acknowledged.
How about u the light the double light
on the
>> Did you get that down there?
>> I did. I mentioned.
>> Oh, good. Great. Okay.
>> So, but now it's back to you. Do you
have anything else you want to add to
your No.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. All right.
» Okay.
>> Didn't we say something? Didn't we throw
something in there about trails? I we we
weren't able to throw anything in about
trails.
>> No. What if there's a trail easement,
you can't build on it, but we can't
require setbacks off of that trail
easement. That's that was the
conclusion.
>> Jesus from those earlier questions would
be the scenic corridor is saying that
that's part of the front setback when it
applies.
>> But again, it's still that caveat that
we can't restrict a unit to under 800
square feet. So, we could add that
caveat in
>> um because the scenic corridor is what
75.
>> Yeah,
>> correct. Y
>> So we could request that as part of the
like front setback discussion, but again
that would only apply to the units
authorized under our ordinance.
>> So that's the up to, you know, 1,200 as
currently proposed. It wouldn't apply to
the state exempt unit,
>> right?
>> How about conservation easements?
That one is a unique one
and I would have to default to Katherine
on how the state law plays with that
because there is not really discussion
in the ordinance of that or in state law
of that
>> nice generally. Well, go ahead.
>> Well, I was I would try to say this
trail then it would it would likely
include a no build provision in the
conservation.
>> Oh. Oh, yeah. It sure does. the and I
think Katherine this is where we need to
do more research is state law does
prohibit any outright restrictions that
would never allow an ADU so if the con
for an example of the conservation
easement full site that could be an
issue because we can't facilitate an ADU
the state exempt ones so that might be
an example but I I would have to default
and we would have to read the state law
more on that
Okay, thank you. Um, so I guess where I
come down on this is I would prefer the
P stay in, but we use May so that
there's some discretion because I think
there can be if the applicants doing
crazy stuff and they're driving their
neighbors wild, I'm pretty happy to have
them pay for it. On the other hand, I
think it's reasonable that the town can
say or or the council that, you know,
look, this really isn't their fault and
we really should cover it. Um, so I
actually prefer the may versus removing
it. Um, the negligence, I will leave
that to the lawyers. I appreciate Jud's
point, so I'm I'm generally okay with
it. Um, I I just don't want the language
to get too complicated. I want it to be
something people can read, but I get
that. I would go with 1,200. Um, and I
say that because we had, you know, back
when I was on the planning commission,
we had a long discussion about making
these units large enough so that
somebody could move out of their big
residence and move into the small one,
which is actually why we originally
provided the 1500. Um, but given all
this ministerial stuff, I'm a little
uncomfortable because before we had some
more jurisdiction over what they did and
the setbacks and stuff, we don't have
anymore. So, but but I would still go
with,200 since that was recommended by
the planning commission. I I would leave
the parking not required. I think we're
making it too complicated. And I I don't
know if we're going to get the weird
case where somebody wants to grade, you
know, plow something up the hill. But I just it doesn't seem like it affects
enough places because most of these we
have no choice anyway. If people want to
park in the street, there's a bunch of
them. We have zero ability to control
that anyway. So now we're down to, you
know, maybe we can have this for one in
the next 10 years. I I guess I don't
care. I'd keep it simple. So, I wouldn't
go for the parking. Um, the
undergrounding,
I'm neutral. I I don't understand really
what the issue here. I, you know, this
sounds like this is an interpretation of
law. I certainly don't want to get sued.
So, if we think there's a high
likelihood of being sued, then maybe we
should reconsider, but generally, I'd
leave it as is. the educational fees. If
we can put in something short along with
utilities just saying that by the way
there are fees and here are some of
them. I just don't want to get into
enumerating exactly what all the fees
are and who might charge them and and
how they charge them. That seems like
the wrong thing for the ordinance. Um so
that's where I stand on that one. The
lights I'm a night sky guy. I I'm not a
fan. I'd like to find other ways to
solve the lights. So I I don't think I
would go for that. So I think that
covers what my fellow council members
have brought up. Oh, and then there's
the scenic setback that you just
mentioned. I would actually go for that.
Um I think that that's worth putting in.
Like we value that scenic corridor and I
get it's not perfect. It's not a perfect
solution, but it's better than leaving
it wide open. So I I think that's an
incremental value.
And then overall, I would say thank you.
I mean, this has been a great
presentation. I know it's super long and
it's super late, but but you guys have
provided a huge amount of details. So,
thank you. And I would really look
forward to an applicant handout and
these objective standards, and I know
they're not going to happen tomorrow. I get all that, but but I I think those
are what's going to lock this in and
make it so it's back to being what we
think port we as Portola Valley value.
So, so that's going to be key. So, with
all that said,
um
I'm going to make a proposal and then pe
push back. Um
depending on how strongly you feel just to try to get these things blended
together. Um I would recommend the May
and the P. Um and again, I'm I'm open.
This is for discussion. I'm just trying
to put a straw horse out there. So, we
do a May, we do the town negligence,
which is going to need some language.
Um,
I would go for 1,200.
I would go for no parking right now. I'm
not going to go with this Calousing. Um,
I would go with this utilities
being somehow lightly listed.
Um,
and 1500 and then the scenic corridor.
And I think that captures
what I
>> ask a question to Catherine. Yeah. Is it
possible once you guys have the
discussion on this that they table the
item so that we can quickly write the
language that they're specifically
asking? Yeah. You can go on to your next
item and then unt us and then we can
give you that specific language that
you're looking for because I do think it
might take a few moments for us to write
it all out for you.
>> Yeah. Thank you. And I was going to get
back to that like okay if we I f the
first thing is for the council to see if
we can come to a conclusion on a single
thing otherwise you guys will have no
direction and then Katherine the next
question is I if we
basically table this to use a light word
here and then go on to the next item and
come back to this to finish up is that
seem reasonable
>> I think so although I want to be part of
the next item and so Um,
we could take a break. Um, or if you
wanted to perhaps do the end of the
agenda, the council leaison reports if
you want to keep moving on that. Um, I
don't think I'm muted there. Right.
>> But I I do want to be part of the next
item. So,
>> Sure. Yeah. And I know you you need to
be part of of some of the next items.
So, okay. Um, all right. So, let's go
back to this. So, I've tried to put
something on the table. Is this close
enough to let us move forward for
tonight or do people strongly object to
this? Um, I need the Calousing situation
resolved because if that's not to code,
that absolutely has to be corrected. So,
um, whatever time you need to actually
read through that, that absolutely needs
to be resolved. Um, because we cannot
require undergrounding for 66323. So um
if there's language required to change
in there simple then it absolutely has
to be
>> I if you know that is the direction I
think that's easy we can just add in
except for units that are created per
government code section 6 323. So that
is a pretty easy edit for staff if that
is the majority direction.
>> So Rebecca would that be good enough
would be just added that exception.
>> Okay. Um, just to clarify on the zone
zero situation, does that mean the
setback would be five feet? Is that
where you're thinking that's going to go
or would that be a building code thing
if we had you had said Helen, you had
talked about a zone zero?
>> Oh, um, no, that's for around the zone
zero is for around the AUS. Yeah.
>> I'm just wondering if it's four feet
from a wooden fence
>> at the property line, what happens then?
What?
>> So, can I suggest that we not include
that in zoning? it it's part of the fire
vegetation already. So it it we've
already said it's going to get trumped
by them. So I think that was Brandon's
whole point is let's not put things in
the zoning that are building and fire
restrictions and this is a fire
restriction. That's fine.
>> Yeah. Okay. So Okay. So I've got your
undergrounding exception and Brandon
thinks he can do that. Um,
>> in terms and then do we have I mean when
you say you're a dark sky person
recognize that the front lights you
still we still are required to do dark
sky lighting.
>> I understand but two lights is
>> it's like on either side of the door
>> would you have the lumens in each one?
>> I mean because it gets about to me it's
about lumens at the end of the day.
though
>> you could, if I may. For example,
garages, we do allow two, but there's a
restriction on maximum lumens of those
two lights combined. We if the if the
council's interested in that, we could
add that as a same standard for front
doors for ADUs if that's what you're
thinking.
>> Right. But do we have a linen standard
for
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I mean, okay. I I I
>> And the reality is the ASUC has approved
every single one of those for the past
well the entire year and a half or
whatever I was on.
>> Did they do lumen?
>> Okay. All right. So, I added that.
Judith, how how are you on this? I'm
just trying to get us to resolution. I
know it's not exactly what you asked
for, but
>> yeah, I Well, you might prefer to
bifurcate on the indemnity. I'm still
not there. Um, so you you could do what
the planning commission did, and I can
just vote against that. um the 1,200
versus a,000. I get you're you're you're
generally um in the range. I had started
down the route of agreeing with the 850
to a,000 to be honest because so little
is in our our control and and the size
of the buildings 4T up is a different
skeptic. So if if other members were,
you know, on board with a a thousand, I
would go there. But that's, you know,
I'm flexible on that. Um I'm okay with
the scenic setback, no parking required,
whatever the exception for
undergrounding is. So, you know, I'm
largely there. Let me know if I missed
anything. All right.
>> So, we're not no parking.
>> I that's that's that's the proposal. I
just said it it's it it's on the margin
and I was willing to keep it simple to
move us along tonight. Um
>> so I I would like to ask the question if
we went with the 850 1000
do any of the because isn't that state
requirement at that point? Like can do
we still get our objective standards and
the AMFA? Okay.
>> It's just Yes, you still get that for
the uh the units authorized by ours.
>> Okay.
>> It's just it's the you're closer to the
800 limit,
>> right?
>> Which is where we have to start
>> which is the three. Yeah. Got it. Okay.
So, where do people stand? I mean, I
made a proposal of 12.
>> I am fine with 12,200.
>> Okay. So, you're good with 12. I'm good
with 12.
>> And that's is in
>> Can I just ask about the 1,200? If we
didn't have it and we were 1,850 and
someone wanted a 1,200, did they have
any recourse to request it? Can they go
through ASC? Can they come to the T? And
is there any other recourse?
how the state has the the state law
worded is that ADUs have to be processed
in this and with a 4 foot sided rear.
So, and this is where you know we've had
the conversation of well if we allow if
we we can go up to 1500 with the
increased step back but you got to go
through ASC. The state said no if it's
an ADU it's a ministerial process
period. they could technically apply
maybe under SB9 for something slightly
larger than that because SB9 defaults
again back to AMFA but without
necessarily the same size limitations
that we have. So that could be a
mechanism
>> setback.
>> SP9.
>> So might want to use your mic.
>> No reason.
>> Do they have SP? Do SP9s have setbacks?
>> They have. And it's been amended to
setbacks as AD8s.
>> So it's the 4 foot side and rear. We can
still talk.
>> So right
>> another way to get ADUs. And it's funny
because SP9 actually says you it it
almost says you can't do the five units
for ADUs because it limits it to maximum
four. So if they did that they would
actually only get four units. If you do
an SB9, you can only ever have four
units. You don't get the allowance for
the five technically under ADU law.
>> Okay. So
>> so that therefore you're encouraging SP9
lot splits. That's that's the point. And
remember SP has two provisions. You
don't have to do a lot split. Okay.
>> So the first provision is you can have
up to four units in any configuration on
an existing lot. That could be two SP9,
two ADUs or all SP9. And then you have
the option to also do the lot split. So
those are not mutually exclusive.
>> Thank you for that update.
>> Okay. So we got the 1200 on the table.
I've got two people that are okay with
it. What I'm asking is with the rest of
you, I I realize that you might not and
it sounds like there's three of you and
if you tell me that the three of you are
not going to go for 1,200, I will change
it to 850 a,000. I'm just looking for
something that we can all then vote on
and give I mean let let them go right up
the changes and then we can vote on. So
where do you guys stand? Are you willing
to go for 1,200 or you want to stand
firm at the thousand?
>> Is this an auction?
>> Uh no. This this is just a pressure
campaign to decide.
>> To be clear, the the planning commission
ended at a thousand.
>> No. They they
>> the 1200 that's in New York or
>> I thought they said for you to go back
and do something in the middle. I I
remember that. So originally under when
we went up to the commission under the
study session we proposed the 1100 or
the a thousand and 850 the ASC or I'm
sorry the planning commission had the
conversation because they brought up the
1500 right so that's where the in the
middle and then that's when we came back
with 1,200 and they agreed
>> they agreed with that
>> I'd say they provided direction to
because there was interest to go above a
thousand so the direction was to study
that look at what comes closer to
compliance with state law and that's
where we came back with the
>> and and that's why I proposed it because
I heard different pieces but again
>> I just heard different things different
times
>> um
well give me a good argument per
thousand
what's the best argument
>> well it all comes down to that forfeoot
that interpretation in the booklet that
says that you know we have no control
over setbacks. And my big I'm not
against 1,200
or 1500 because I mean a ridge if it if
it wasn't at 4 feet that's where my big
concern is. So we can't put that uh you
know restriction in there. So
>> they just go for an SP9 anyway. So
>> but they are they seem to also have the
forefoot now with SP9. So
>> I guess is it beneficial? Is it that
beneficial is the question. And back
when we were on the planning commission,
we tried to like the 4 foot I remember
passing and then we were trying to give
carrots to put it
>> back more, but that those aren't allowed
anymore from what I understand.
>> So, I mean, I I think we've had the law
for four years. We we haven't had 1,200
foot homes. I mean, have we had anything
right at four feet in in a larger lot,
not in the
>> looking and remembering the report that
we did for the housing element, I think
we had one, 1200 foot unit within the
last three years.
>> And that was only one. And I don't
remember the setback. I don't remember
all of that. And was that yours, Ellen?
>> So, that's mine. And I had a 25 foot
setback.
>> So, and my neighbors hate me.
>> Yeah.
>> Because of it. Sorry.
>> Yeah. That's a different
>> best to work with the applicants to
encourage the largers. It's just when
they submit and propose the four, we
can't say no. So, you know, staff is
working with people to try to encourage
it.
>> And we're doing the best that we can,
but if they propose that four, we just
have to accept it. Sadly,
>> I mean, again, the argument I'm making
for the 12 is that if we want people to
build a reasonable residence, when I've
talked to architects, this is a number
they said, you know, 1,200 you can get a
reasonable place. And you know, if our
worry is it's a 4 foot setback, you
know, another 200 feet in terms of its
impact is not that much. I mean, you've
already got a thousand foot of impact.
The the next 200, I think, in terms of
impact being that close, as much as I
hate it as well. So, I think what we're
hoping is that they're not going to take
advantage of I'm going to build it as
close to the edge as I can, but we can't
control it.
>> You know, at 1200, in what I've seen in
other jurisdictions, you can get a
reasonably sized two to threebedroom.
>> Yeah. Exactly. what is coming in at that
size. Otherwise, it's usually a one or
two bedroom that's usually under the
map. Mostly one.
» I guess I'm okay.
>> I'm okay with it.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. So then I I
take J to J's point. I'd like to split
these two pieces. We can do that right
between the the P and the the
indemnification and um
but in just right in terms of votes. Um
so then on the ADU we've got 1,200
utilities education fee just some light
thing the scenic um corridor the
undergrounding exception and the two
lights with a lumen limit. Is that am I
missing anything? Okay. So I think
that's the marching directions and then
going to the um
indemnification
as a separate
thing just as a separate one. I was
proposing may and some sort of language
that Katherine can come up with to deal
with town negligence. Um, and we're
separating this because Judith may vote
against the may, but
>> I will because and just for the record,
um, if you have a may and an ordinance,
it's what do I do with that? Like, who's
going to be the decider for when it gets
applied? Once you start distinguishing
between one situation and another,
you're at real risk of being perceived
as
having a grudge against somebody.
Recalling how the PAS came up. So, I I
think it's got to be out is is where I'm
coming from. I don't like the fact that
it can be subject to abuse, but there's
a lot of p pieces of, you know, the town
that
we we Well,
you can't you can't uh dictate good good
faith use of tools. This is part of what
we have to make available for
transparency from my point of view. So
that's that's it.
>> Could we put a limit? You're responsible
for the first 10
» 10,000 I think is what she's saying.
>> No, no. First 10
>> first 10 P requests.
>> Oh
god, that's a lot of P requests. But
yeah,
>> related to your application.
>> And I guess my thinking Judith was that
the council
would have the authority to decide the
may and that the public would have the
ability to influence the council on
whether we put that on the applicant and
or the count the town took it on which
is I mean that was what I was thinking
that the may would get.
>> Yeah. I just think it both seeing the
public reaction to past PAs, if you
thought they were worth it or not, it
was very polarizing and I don't think
that's a good thing to set up. Um, and
then the other is the applicant might
not have done anything wrong at all and
yet they're their project is a lightning
rod because someone wants to make it a
big deal. all of a sudden that applicant
has to now fund what could be a
ridiculous amount of P. So I think it
has the ability to be very unfair
and political. So anyway, you hear me?
>> I I appreciate your point. I mean, I'm
>> I'm persuaded enough that if other
people wanted to remove it, I could go
along with that. How that So
>> Okay. Well, so you're saying get rid of
PR like that the town's just going to
pay for like Okay. And how long were you
for that?
>> Okay, so neutral Becca.
Okay, then why don't let's just assume.
>> Okay. So, all right. Um, if we do that
and we get this town, can we just vote
on this as one thing instead of
splitting in two? I mean, is that is
that what you were going to not vote
against? Okay, then I think we've got
one thing we can work on. Great. Thank
you everybody. So, the next step is
we're gonna what what's the proper word
here for tableabling?
>> Uh, well, do you want to take a break or
do you want to uh I think table actually
would be the proper word to table this
item uh while the council proceeds with
um other business. Yeah, I guess what I
was hoping is we could go to the
subcommittee leaison committee and
regional agent reports for instance
>> and just get that done while you guys
are working because you don't need to be
part of that. Yes.
>> Um and then the charter obviously you do
need you're you're front and center on
that. So So can I guess that's what I'm
asking. Can we move to eight and come
back to the come back to a
>> Yes, you may.
>> Okay, great.
>> Can I ask one clarifying question about
the indemnification before we table? Um,
so I I heard uh from Council Hasco that
uh
her preference would be not to use gross
negligence. Um
uh which is a term that we've we
oftentimes use in our contracts. Uh but
again, this is um not typical to have
that exception in the code. And so I
just want to make sure it's tight and so
we don't get into an argument with the
applicant that they're not going to
demnify us because you were
>> you were negligent. And so I I guess I
would I would recommend either gross
negligence or willful misconduct or at
least sole negligent or willful
misconduct.
>> What is soul
>> sole negligence? Uh that would be
basically it's solely the town's
response fault.
>> So you're you're instead of gross
negligence. Uh I I'm wary of
>> I think it's solely solely to the extent
arising out of except to the extent so
arising solely out of the town's
negligence.
>> Yeah, I was that would work. I was
looking at except to the extent such
claim arises out of the sole negligence
or willful misconduct of the town.
>> Okay, great.
>> Okay,
>> perfect.
>> Thanks. We'll take a break or we'll
table this item and we'll be back.
>> Okay, so you guys are going to just go
sort of sit in the back and work
together. All right, great. Thank thank
you very much guys I council and
everybody for working through a very
complicated issue. All right so with
that we're going to table 7A we're going
to skip 7B for right now and we're going
to go directly to eight. Um
so are there in addition to the um
written reports are there any verbal
reports? I have one. Anybody else?
>> I have one as well.
>> Okay. Mary, do you is your Okay, great.
All right, Helen, go ahead.
>> So, um, uh, Vice Mayor and I actually
did work on a, uh, colleagues memo and I
pulled it right before, um, on the
connect Bay Area transportation measure
that will be on the ballot in November.
Um I was hoping that Portal Valley could
potentially get some funding from it. Um and that was what the colleagues
memo was looking at. Um, in a meeting
with Sam Trans that I had on Friday
morning, right before it was due to go
before, um, uh, it became quite clear to
me that Porto Valley is not going to be
eligible because of our lack of public
transportation and 63% of Connect Bay
Area dollars goes to operations, right?
um for example. So um you know the town
we're not going to be able to fill
potholes but we will get cleaner you
know if that we would get indirect
benefits like cleaner air trains to the
Giants games um less congestion on the
road. So but I did not do a colleague
memo because the colleagues memo would
have been pointless. So, um, and the
vice mayor and I did write a colleague's
memo, but
the last minute I frantically emailed
Veronica and Darcy like, "Please do not,
you know, please pull it off the
agenda." So, that's the update on
Connect Bay Area.
>> Okay. Thank So, thank you for the
update. Um and my update was that um
Midpen had a special meeting on
Hawthorne's and I attended Mary was
there Darcy was there um
Nonella was there so you know so we had
regional representation who else I'm
sorry
>> Betsy was there was there yeah of course
>> them up the attorney
>> so anyways we we had pretty good
representation um the meeting was about
whether they were going to start on SQA
um and and basically what they were
going to do SQL on. So what they decided
um and you know as you as you can
imagine this had already gone through
the natural resources committee and
they've been working on this a long time
and the general manager was very much
we've been working on this a long time
we need to keep moving. So that that was
her push. And so in the end, what
they've approved is doing SQA, but doing
full squa on the two options. And so the
two options are what they call option
nine and option 10. Option nine uses the
existing driveway that goes up to the
residence and then sort of turns and
cuts back to the right. And option 10 is
at the corner of Alpine and Portola and
then kind of goes in and turns left. And
then within those options are
um different parking configurations. So
they're looking for a 50 car parking
with ADU and a hammerhead to turn
around. That's one option and that's
true of both of them. And then there's
another option which is sort of imagine
a you know if there's two sets of
parking you know opposing each other
that they only do one strip. So they'd
be sort of roughly 25. Um, and then
another option was sort of a truncated
one where they only sort of it's it's
the same double width, but it's only
half as wide. So, so those are the I
think six options that they were going
to consider. Um, our conversations are
still ongoing with them and will
continue to be ongoing. I'm going to
recommend and I'm going to work on a
colleagues memo. I I that you know we
should create a subcommittee um probably
hire an attorney to help us with the
squa. the I did have some conversations
both with board members um and some of
their planners. I don't think they fully
realize the impact. We still have um
grading and zoning
basic authority. Um and somehow they the
planners sort of gave that light touch.
I mean a couple of count a couple of the
directors asked about it and they didn't
give them in my mind a particularly
clear answer. So I think the the
critical thing is and that's why I'm
going to write this colleagues memo is I
think we need to go back to them and
just say look we're trying to help you
not have a train wreck. So it better
that we talk about this now than later
but you know at the end of the day they
are the lead agency and we are a
responsible agency. Is that the correct
term? Um, and then we heard tonight that
the school district might want to be
involved. So, I will follow up on that
as well. So, I don't want to get too
much into policy here because this is
just a report, but that's the report
from that meeting. So, they did approve
it. Um, but there was two directors that
were definitely like, we sure this is
going the right direction. In the end,
it was unanimous, but I I think they're
missing some information. So, this is a
process that probably won't start in
earnest until this summer, and it's a
year-long process.
So, you know, this this is still we we
still have plenty of opportunity to have
discussion with them and they did say
that they were open to discussion. So,
>> I don't want to well, let let me be
clear. Catherine's firm is conflicted
out and the town needs legal counsel.
So, as part of whatever we do here, we just have to figure that out because
I'm completely uncomfortable going
>> going without legal counsel on that. So,
we'll figure that out.
>> And that was my proposal. The
colleague's memo was to have a
subcommittee get us legal representation
>> for SQA, etc. Yeah. No, 100%. Yeah, this
is this is not just a hey, let's go
chitchat. I mean, yeah, we need some
legal representation. Yeah, 100%. Thank
you.
>> So, I would point out if you're going to
go talk to the um school district with,
you know, Bob Bower, um he said that
they hadn't been consulted.
>> Right.
He was speaking for himself. Um I
would point out two things. First of
all, since Rebecca and I were elected,
we had not been briefed by Mid Pen. Um,
there were numerous public meetings, but
because of the concurrent meeting timing
been, you know, challenging. Um,
obviously Midpin's been working on this
project for like 10 years, so that's an
awkward one. Um they also at some point
my understanding is asked um the school
district to share parking. Um right and
the school district my understanding
according to mid pen
said no.
>> Yeah that's that did come up at the
meeting u and
>> they said it as they weren't interested
but I I don't know how much it was
pursued and and I think we have some
other options as a town to help with
parking. Um, so I think there's a lot of
opportunity to have some discussion and
that really was my purpose in going to
the meeting speaking was
this is great. We love open space. Our
town's founded on it, but let's talk and
they said, "Yeah, we're willing to
talk." So, so I think that we were
opening that dialogue up. That's really
what it was about. So,
>> I just wanted to ask about the SQA
process. Um, it's all about um the
environment, right? Whether trees are
cut down or what what the mitigating
factors are, right? Does it does the
town have any say? Is there an
opportunity within SQA to have the town
have input?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
So,
>> okay. So, anyway, that that's that's all
I have on on that. And again, I don't
want to go too far because it's just a
report. Um, it was an it was an
interesting meeting. I mean it they
clearly they've done lots and lots of
meetings and they think that our
planning staff has you know turned over
and so it's been hard to communicate
with us and and I appreciate those are
legitimate concerns but now we're ready
to open up and have a clear dialogue. So
I think we'll do that
>> and Oh right and they also they did have
the POG.
>> Yeah.
>> And we have had
Karen Botra who's on on this meeting
right now and Helen Quinn and then
there's someone up in Los Angeles.
>> Right. and and Helen was there, right?
Um and it's David
starts
no. Anyway, yeah, David, I know him.
I've met him before. He's he's up in Los
Tranos. Um so, and and David's is this
>> Mir. Thank you. There you go. And
David's position was oh, maybe we can
get connection trails and this isn't,
you know, a mid pen wide thing and we
should, you know, have all this parking.
So, I mean, he's very pro 9 or 10. I
mean, just that that's where that
because he called in to basically give
his opinion. So, anyway, I I think
there's room for conversation here. I
think that's the the main thing I wanted
to report.
>> Okay. Um
>> I had a little report, too.
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead, please. All right.
Um, so I attended the be sensitive, be
brave workshop that was put on for
mental health resources um by the mayor
group from um San Carlos, South City and
Pacifica. They organized it and it was
really quite interesting and part of it
was about it was for mental health for council members and school board
members really what you know just so you
are aware of um the resources and you're
aware of keeping track of your own um
situation as well as um they went
through a bunch of um scenarios
uh of how to kind of show concern for
your fellow council members if you're
seeing them under stress and how how to
communicate that sort of thing. It's
really quite helpful. And if people
would like to have the slides when they
send it, I'm happy to share them.
>> I have one more.
>> Okay. So, yeah, I would say maybe you
can give them to Darcy and then she can
pass them out to us. Yeah. Great. Yeah.
Go ahead, Helen.
>> Um, just a reminder that tomorrow is
bike to work day. I have a CKG meeting
so I can't bike to work but tomorrow is
bike to work day
um because it's up in
Berling Berling St. Carlos. Um
>> yeah yeah yeah
>> um so bike but also May is bike to
wherever day.
>> Nice.
>> The whole month of May.
They just made it
>> bike to school too. Right.
>> Right. Bike to wherever days. pledged to
ride a bike in May.
>> Good. Yeah. Which I think is great
because so many people are working at
home. I was going to say my bike to my
bike to work is like, well, let's see.
I'm going to bike from upstairs to
downstairs.
Yeah. Yeah. No, no. Well, it's Yeah,
except there's a lot of people who are
still working from home. So, so I think
this, you know, wherever days that
sounds like a great idea to get
encourage people get out on their bikes.
So, all right. And anything else under
this agenda item before I close it out?
All right. Well, thank you. Um, I would
suggest we just, you know, turn off the
recording. We can sort of whatever the
table equivalent is and wait for them to
come
on. Oh, you're right. Absolutely. 100%.
Thank that that was my bad. Let me just
do that.
>> I Yeah, it's it's a long meeting. So,
um, is there any public comment on
agenda item number eight? So, there's no
one left in the schoolhouse. Anybody
online have any comments on the reports?
Excuse me. Okay, I see no public
comments. So now I'll close this out.
Thank you for reminding him. All right.
So Veronica, if you can just turn off
the recording, then we'll just wait
until they come back and then we'll
restart 78. Oh,
okay. All right, great. Yeah. Yeah,
probably. Well, it's good. I'm I'm ready
for that. It's like, go ahead. Yeah, it
was all good. So, all right. Thank So,
thank you. We'll we'll be back shortly.
All right. Welcome back everybody.
So, we have our little subcommittee
here. They're they're back and they
hopefully have some new language.
» So, go ahead. What do you got for us?
>> Oh, I see how it is. This is going to be
like an eyesight test. Okay.
>> Totally. I'm just zoom in for you guys
too to make sure I
>> Yeah, thank you. I appre
>> if you would like us to save this as a
PDF and send it to you.
>> No, just No, just
>> I would like that.
>> Can we Can we just read this and keep
going?
>> Oh, no. You mean right now? Oh, no.
>> Yeah, right now. Just Oh, no. Just keep
going. Just go do it.
>> So, uh we'll start going through the ADU
ordinance. Um I didn't further up. Nope.
So with the utility connections, we
added in that also clarifying that
utility connections are subject to the
review and approval by the appropriate
utility agency. Right?
>> That was something you know we heard
from you all.
>> Good enough.
>> Additionally
>> for you so before you go. So that was
your so good enough. Okay. Great. Next.
>> We we also added the
>> we'll get the education one. We also
added the except for ADUs permitted
pursuant to government code section
66323
when a new or separate utility um
connection is proposed. So that should
cover us with the the cow um housing
defense fund.
We did add this in just because of how
we added the school fee in. We added a
little clarification and I think this
was something we heard as well is the
connection fees and capacity charges. We
just added these fees are assessed by
the utility agency. be
>> very clear, these are not our fees.
>> Um, and that's just to align with the
wording that we use for the school fees,
>> which include the language straight from
the um, California government code. And
then again clarifying that these fees
are assessed by the school district.
>> Awesome.
>> I can't see them at all.
>> I just want to make sure
>> if you have um, I'm sharing my screen on
the Zoom T. So if you're logged in,
>> I'm gonna try and I'm gonna try and
computer too. Yeah.
I can zoom in a little bit more too if I
>> Thank you. There. That's much better.
» Okay, keep going.
>> Okay.
» Wow, we're on page four. I'm feeling
great about this.
>> All right, so for
door, uh, since I we can only apply it
as far front setback, that's where I
have included it. So this uh the front
setback is the same as the underlying
district including the required scenic
corridor setbacks and then that's we're
still adding in the clarification about
the six
that was the existing language.
>> Okay. And then for exterior lighting, we
did leave kind of the you need to follow
those requirements except that the
primary entrance of the ADU may have one
or two fixtures which shall be limited
to a total lumen count of 1,125.
That's consistent with the garage. I did
have one question. Do you want that
extended to J80 primary entrance for J8?
>> No, I don't. But that's a thousand
lumens. That's a lot of lumens.
>> That's that is authorized for the two
lights on,
>> right? But they're but they're 20 feet apart. We're talking
about something that's five feet or six
feet apart. So
» So
for the lights that are at a an
entrance, I think most of the times the
lumens are around 4 to 500.
um that that that's kind of like the max
that we ever see. That's going to be
generally like a 10 cent bulb in that
fixture. Um but there's also a whole
range that it changes to high. So if we
want to specify a lower number, you
know, we definitely can.
>> Why don't you keep going? I'll I'll come
up with something.
>> Well, also does that assume that it's
the the downward trajec?
>> Yeah. So they would still have to so all
we're doing is adding the exception
instead of one light you have to with
that maximum lumen you still have to
comply with outdoor lighting and if you
want me to revise this to explicitly say
that I can that as well but
>> well isn't that what that section
reference does then
yeah okay then no need for more
» so that would be it for the ADU
ordinance and then I will scroll But
I'll let Catherine discuss theations.
» And what was the number you put on the
lumas? That was 11
>> right now. I just matched what is for
the garage which is 1,125.
>> Okay. I mean I that's like 75 watt
equivalent. I can probably live with
that.
I mean people
>> split between two.
>> Okay. I guess I don't, just for the
record, I hate making this stuff up and
I hate lights that are too bright in
town because they only go get brighter
and nobody puts their shades up and all
of that. So,
>> I I'll bite the bullet on this one, but
I really don't like winging it. Um, you
know, if if I could, I would reduce it a
little bit, but
>> Well, to what? I mean,
>> like twothirds. I mean, I don't know. If
you're telling me that's 75, I don't
want it to be unusable.
>> I think this is also one of those
situations where you can re-review that
number as part of the objective design
standards. When that kind of comes
through, you might want to reook at
lighting and change those numbers
anyways. Maybe not use lumen. So that
>> if we did that later, would we have to
change this?
>> You would update it, but you could
update it. It's in the objective design
standard section anyways, which you
would want to update when you do
objective.
>> Oh, it is. Okay.
>> All right. Got it. Thank you. Okay.
>> And then the other thing is I mean what
if we made it lower? We've made 750 now.
And if it wasn't enough, we up it later.
>> So how do people feel? Let's just make a
I mean I'm with you. I hate this sort of
doing on the fly. But we got an option
to fix this in the future. So I'm
willing to move forward. So
>> it's your it's your problem. I'll get it
right.
>> I know. I'm trying to remember like what do we have? Thank you.
>> Um, what do we have currently allowed?
How what lumens other than the garage
like at the front door? Does anyone know
in our current code?
>> I have to read it and I have it pulled
up. So, a moment.
I don't know if they're
» optimal outdoor lighting requires a
balance of brightness and purpose
generally ranging from 12 to 1300 plus
lumens. So that's a
bit of a range.
>> Well, 12 is really low.
>> Oh, I know. I'm not proposing that.
That's just for a point of reference
since I know nothing.
I and it might be in the design
guidelines. So I might have to pull
those up where that lumen restriction is
in the code. The only explicit lumen
restriction is on the garages. So I
would I would have to pull up the design
standards to double check if there's
another restriction there.
>> Okay. Well, what what do we want to move
forward on? We just leave for now.
>> I put it a little lower, but but I don't
feel that strongly. I mean
>> 900 just
Oh my god.
>> I'm just making it lower than 1100.
>> Change.
>> Yeah.
» Not it's it this is a substantive item
so it's not really a typo or you know
technical correction. Um
though if there's I guess if the council
direction is if there's a I don't know
if we can give clear council direction
what the intent is perhaps we could
do some research between now and then
and just make
>> so if I can repeat bad info from AI um
key recommendations include 100 to 200
lumens for paths 50 to 300 for landscape
accents 300 to 700 for security and 700
to,300 for flood lights.
>> Take what of that what you will.
» Security like your three to seven.
>> Yeah. Three to 300 to 700.
>> Uh 50 to 300 for landscape.
» Not per light. That's
>> okay. Okay. What we have right now is
1100.
>> We got the design guidelines.
>> Yep.
>> I can read the language in there. So,
for a fixture type, it focuses more on
where the light's going to be. If it's
an overhead fixture, the maximum lumens
for a single fe uh fixture is 350.
>> Um,
and then for a low height is 225 and a
stair step is 50.
>> Okay. How about two times 350? 750 700.
Great.
>> Good. All right. Thank you. Great. And again, we can re if we get it wrong,
we'll revisit it later.
>> Yep. Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, you'll make that
fix.
>> Yep.
>> You want to just do that while we're
watching you type? And
>> I'm just gonna add a note for right now.
Okay. And I will
>> Fair enough. Yeah. Now, I'm Yep. Yep.
>> You guys don't have to watch.
>> No, I know. Me. Yeah, me too. That's what I was thinking, too. So,
we're on board. All right. What's next?
I think indemnification is next. Is that
right, Brandon? All right. So, while
Brandon's scrolling down. Oh. Oh, yes.
So, we um struck the cost reimbursement
from the title um struck the um and
shall reimburse the town for cost and
vis response to P requests. And then
scroll down a little bit more. Uh we
carved out an exception here to this
section 020
indemnity required to say the
applicant's duty under this section
shall not apply to the extent such
claims arise out of the sole negligence
or willful misconduct of the town, its
agents, officers and employees.
>> Okay, you good with that?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, great. And that's it, isn't it?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, so
was a a quick clarification that we
couldn't remember on the parking
>> conversation. I know we said no parking.
>> Okay.
>> Did you want say when they do provide
parking, you just want to put it in the
driveway? Because I know that was kind
of the discussion and I don't think we
had it clear
>> if if the applicant voluntarily provides
a parking space, it must be on an
existing
>> driveway.
Is that any problem with our
doing that?
No, I just wanted to make sure I asked
that question because that conversation
came up.
>> Yeah.
>> Um the only the only time that's going
to be an issue is the fire truck
turnaround, but again that's fire code
and they still have to be fire code. So
that would not be
>> necessarily an issue. And the state law
does say they can provide it as tandem
in driveway which they're focused on
like small lot. So that would literally
be right outside the garage door.
>> I think he is just not requiring a a
carport. I mean, I wouldn't have a
problem actually with having them park
in the dirt personally, but um
>> what I mean, do we need to say anything
more? Just not speak to this and you
know, when we go to revise this and we
come up with our, you know, objective
design standards, maybe we'll know more
then.
>> The thing about if you do put anything
in, you have to um uh conform with
whatever our ordinance is for parking
and that's a pretty substantial
ordinance there.
>> Got it. So either we have to say what I
put in there was you have to provide a
10 by 20 foot space but um
>> Okay,
>> but I mean it's up to
>> All right. Well, any of any other
opinions? Does anybody feel strongly? Um
so Brandon, do you have a recommendation
here? I I think what Rebecca's saying is
should we reduce it from something that
seems, you know, substantial
to just making it, you know, if you're
going to have parking, it's big enough
to park a car in.
>> Yeah. We can say either within an
existing
on the existing driveway or in a design
asphalt
area
>> pre-existed. I I would be happy not to
be paved per I would love it to be
permeable but
>> so we can say I think that would be the
simplistic
>> one okay
>> is that Sarah I want to know what you're
thinking
>> sounds like we might need a bit more
thought on this um than deciding
>> yeah
now
>> maybe
Yeah, I think that makes sense. Because
again, you can if we don't t get it
tight, it
>> I'm with you. So, Rebecca, you you okay
with that? Okay, great. Then let's do
that. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. I'm just trying to keep everybody's
requests honest. Okay, then that's it,
right?
>> Okay.
>> All right. So,
>> have a motion.
>> Yeah. So,
please go ahead. I move that the town
council adopt ordinance number 2026-455
um as amended approving the town zoning
code title 18 of the portal valley
municipal code to add regulations
related to accessory dwelling units
junior access accessory dwelling units
and dimmification of town and emergency
shelters by adding chapter 1825 Five
uh
standards for access accessory dwelling
units ADU and J AUS junior excuse me and
junior accessory dwelling unit in
chapter 1882
indemnification of town we struck out
cost reimbursement right and by amen
amending section 1836.040
040
accessory uses and determining the
project is exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
>> Do I have a second?
>> Well, are we adopting it? Like was that
>> I want to make one clarification. I know
you're That was excellent. Um there but
you're actually um introducing it. So I
would strike the word adoption and
reduction instead.
>> Okay. And we should reference the as
amended by staff as presented.
>> Yeah.
>> Correct.
>> Yes. As amen as amended by staff.
>> Okay. Do we have a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you. All in favor?
>> I I.
>> Any opposed? Okay. Great. Thank you very
much for your hard work.
I'd like to close 7A and move on to 7B.
So, who's presenting for 7B? Yeah, I
know. It's quarter after 11.
» Yeah.
» Okay. We have already got a hand raised.
So, I will be I have just
eight slides. So, let me go
fast. And I'll just I guess I'll just go
back. But, uh, Brandon, this is his last
meeting with the town. So,
>> he's taken a permanent planning manager
job at the city of Union City, which is
a promotion. And if tonight was any any
evidence, you will do great things in
your career. You are exceptional
planner.
>> Thank you. have had an absolute pleasure
for the last year and a half working for
Valley and contributing with different
projects brought up and I I know you
guys are in good hands here with Sarah
coming on board your new senior planner
that you guys have hired. I I know you
guys will be through things and thank
you for the opportunity.
>> Thank you.
>> And and and I just want to echo that. It really has been a pleasure and
particularly given we have you here at
11:20 on your very last night doing
this. So, so yeah, you you are you are
our hero tonight. So, thank you again.
We really appreciate it. Yeah. Drive
safe.
>> Good luck.
>> All right, Darcy.
>> Okay, Darcy Smith, town manager, joined
by Katherine Angberg, town attorney. And
we had a lot of help from Lauren Tarpe,
an associate at Katherine's firm
and Tony, who left a long time ago. So,
we're here tonight with the public
hearing on your town charter, but how we
got here, many years of work um working
on your number one priority, which is
finility and long-term viability. A lot
of work has been done, will continue to
be done. One highlight is that our user
free study is coming to the next
meeting. So, again, we we work on this
stuff every day and you know, we live
and breathe it. Um,
so you know the black line, I like to
show it just every meeting. So you know
it's the black line of doom. Um,
nothing's changed over the last three
weeks. Um,
we have been trying to
address the structural deficit. Um, but
it's looming
and we've been continuing our community
conversation. So I think you know we
sent out the Pulla Valley Post. We're
running the survey which will go through
June. One thing I wanted to mention
around community feedback is that the
town staff, me and Tony met with all all
the committee chairs that chose to join
us. We got a pretty good turnout. I
think about 13 of them came and we had
great conversations with them. Um and
we've heard from the community about
their three priorities. I think you know
them. I mean, in addition to fiscal
stability, which is number one, but
there's a huge interest in disaster
preparedness,
ensuring we're protecting our town
autonomy for the conversations you just
had tonight, right, around zoning and
land use decisions. When we have that ability to make local decisions, we
want to preserve it. Um, and it and our
analysis last year, community survey
showed that 60% are highly interested in
this charter approach.
So
yeah and and supportive of a taxation
measure. So I think you know the
difference between a general town and
charter town but you know why we are
here why we're doing this is local
control over what the state has defined
of municipal affairs but as you know
number one is to the ability to adopt
taxes that are otherwise not allowed or
not a charter and specifically the real
property transfer tax and that's
important. All that revenue would go
entirely to
so 26% of California cities have
charters. So we're not unique and we
have many neighbors in the Bay Area that
have charters. Um and I've been out
talking to our my peers and many are
working on this right now.
So at the last meeting you directed the
preparation of what we would describe as
a brief two pages. Very proud of that
narrowly focused charter uh modeled
after the St. Helina model that would
authorize the transfer tax but otherwise
keep the town subject to gen the general
state laws that exist. This will keep
the process simple and streamline and on
schedule and
um what there's a lot that the charter
will not touch and will not do and I
just want to make sure we're clear about
that. It won't change the town's form of
government, the council mayor and their
terms. Um won't alter the municipal code
or existing law. will not affect any
public contracting or prevailing wage
rules. That's important. Will not change
any local election procedures and will
not limit any changes to this in the
future through council or voter options.
So, here's our path to the November 3rd,
2026 ballot. So, we are embarking on a
series of public hearings and more
meetings. Um, this is number one today
and we do have a pretty big gap because
there has to be at least 30 days between
this public hearing and the next one.
So, if this proceeds tonight, we would
move to the next meeting on June 24th.
And then both meetings in July will be
occupied with the ballot measure work um
to meet the filing deadline of August
7th. And then if the voters vote with a
50% plus one majority vote, it would go
into effect January 1st.
And
that's actually all. Hold on. Just Oh,
hold on. We have the public hearing. And
again, we have the St. Helena model. We
have um omitted what was questioned last
time by the council about a specific
form of government. Article 4. We didn't
include that. We just determined that it
doesn't we don't need to specify the
form of government in the charter since
you're not changing it. Um, so again,
the town charter's
attached with two pages. We will accept
any comments. This is not like the
introduction and second reading. So
you're free to make comments and changes
tonight. You're free to make comments
and changes at the next meeting in June.
Um and then with that all you need to do
is hold the public hearing open close
the public hearing put and that is all
tonight. Yes. Tonight sorry tonight.
Yeah.
>> Got it. Okay. And and I wanted to make
the point that I mean this is St. Helia
St. Helena's
charter that we're modeling not their
real estate transfer tax.
>> Correct. And that's one thing that I'm
concerned is I think people conflate
those and they had a I believe a an
overly complicated real estate transfer
tax that we are not adopting.
>> So this is just their charter. So with
that, is there any questions for staff?
Judith?
Yeah, this is nice and simple, but um I
need a little explanation on the
paragraph 100 and in particular because
we were trying to aim for plain vanilla.
Um there is a sentence that starts in
particular and you know we're we're
making it specific for a transfer tax.
Um so I have that the first question is that needed?
what's the benefit of it?
» I I would want to go back and think
about that. Um, and I Yeah, the goal was
certainly to make it as absolutely
simple as possible. Um, I thought that
there was some clarity in actually
stating the purpose of this charter so
there wasn't some confusion around, oh,
you know, the town actually wants to um
collect some other type of tax. Uh, and
I believe this language actually was
also in um both Elserto's and
>> okay
>> uh St. Helena's um charter language, but
um I think that's a good question and I
mean since we're going to have another
public hearing, I guess I'd like the
opportunity to think about that a little
bit more. Yeah, because some public
comment was assuming that was already
rolling along and this was to your
point, Craig,
like that's where we're all headed and
this is it and this is step one and we
still have to have more discussion of
step two. So tying it to the this one
approach seems premature, but if there's
a benefit, I'm more than happy to hear
about it in the future.
100. And then the second question
is um
the the second question is the last
sentence here. In the event of a
conflict between the charter and the
general law, is it understood what the
general law is? And is it absolutely
clear that we we can completely
supersede it? um is just good
housekeeping to make sure I like the
principal. I just want to make sure it's
enforcable. So, I'll leave that with you
to think through and I have no other
questions.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Um sort of Oh, sorry.
>> No, no, no. Please go ahead.
Along the same lines that Judith was
asking about, um, does this constrain us
from in the future having a different
type of tax, considering a different tax
like a, I don't know, second home tax or
something like that because we've kind
of put this into our charter for a real
estate property tax. Does it constrain
us in any way? I mean the sentence
before says that we have the right to
imposition levy and collection of such
taxes but does by putting the only the
real estate property tax in there does
that constrain us from
considering other taxes?
So all other taxes can be that I think
the town might consider could be um
passed whether you're a charter city or
a general law charter town or a general
law town. Uh, so this would not
constrain that ability, but I think it
also is related to um Judith's question
about whether we really need it um
because it it could sound constraining.
So I I will give that some thought and
you know when they come back for a
second public hearing have a
recommendation about whether um we need
the example of the real property
transfer tax um to to avoid you know
confusion that somehow that's limiting.
Can can you clarify your statement of
being able to assess a tax as a general
law, city? I thought the whole point is
that we can't uh we can't assess the
real property transfer tax. What about a
second home tax? Is that a is that
something we need to be a charter town
for? Even
>> I No,
>> it's allowed under general law.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, okay.
Same with sales tax or the parcel tax
option. Those could all be um you know
if passed by the voters uh could could
be assessed by a general law town.
And if I just follow on is the reason
the real estate transfer tax special is
it's already in general law but it's a
small a lower number because we are we
already have a real estate transfer tax.
It's just a lower number.
>> Correct.
>> Yeah. Okay. So Mary, did you have any
questions for staff? Okay. Helen. Um,
can I obviously like as we're dealing
with Mid Pen and they've had all of
these public meetings,
I am concerned, you know, it's 11:30 at
night, we've got five people online or
whatever, right? That that that the town
is not aware fully aware of what's going
on. So, I'm very like I'd very much like
clarity on what the council what we can
like I know we're not supposed to
advocate right legally. Um,
but can like could the town do like a
popup at Roberts kind of thing during
the week or something to help do
outreach like to help let people know
what's going on kind of thing?
So,
>> and can I add to that? I mean, are we
restricted from advocating? I know once
it's on the ballot, we are. So, after
August 7th, we are, but between now and
then, are we?
>> So, it's a little fuzzy, but there's
never any prohibition regarding
providing information. And I think the
example provided here popup um would
beformational.
uh the FBC which enforces these rules
about no campaigning um with use of
public funds um does not always draw a
super bright line um at the point of
place placement on the ballot. So you know I recommend being cautious and
mindful that to avoid use of public
funds for advocate. Now if you want on
your free time do some advocating that's
fine.
>> Perfect. And so for instance like at
farmers market or something if we were
to set up and say like information this
is what's going on that's okay to do.
>> Yeah. And I would I would encourage you
to use the Portell Valley Post as a good
source of information. The back the
front has information about our
priorities which this is focused on as
well and then the back has the
information and the back has the date of
this meeting and again it went out to
every house
in Porta Valley.
>> Yeah. So,
>> okay. Just I want to make sure like
think like trying to get clarity of what
we could do or not do
>> and and send those questions to us
offline, but yeah, this would be a good
place to start and we have some extras
if you want to hand some out and we can
also do the table at the farmers market
or at Roberts. That's a good idea.
>> Thank you.
>> Can I ask another kind of question? Can we if someone has a pro or con to
it? Are we is it part of information to
provide the other side of it or is that
starting to get into advocacy?
» I guess I might want a little bit more
examples of the of the pro and the con.
Um we certainly can inform people that
we have the public hearing process and
please come. Uh we welcome all views. Um
I don't think we're going to be putting
out pros and cons with use of public
resource. even if it's balanced, it's I
don't I don't think we're going to do
that. Um, so
but if you have any other examples,
happy to. No, I'm just thinking in terms
of if we were set up outside here at the
farmers market to provide information
and someone said, "I hate taxes."
What, you know, what would we be allowed
to say in terms of why this is needed or
whatever?
>> The red, the black line,
>> well, the black line and what the
finance committee has gone through. I
think we can speak to all that. That's
all in the public record. So,
Ellen, anything else? Okay. Um, so then
the only question I have, um, so the
Jarvis initiative, which is trying to
limit this, um, if that were to pass,
then our issues, as I understand it, is
if ours is certified first, then we have
some short period,
>> two years, and if we're certified after,
then it's null and void at the gecko. or
do we still have two years?
>> Uh, it would be null and void at the
get-go. And I will say um I am doing
some research um with staff to on the
specific dates that we can expect
certification of our results. I mean, I
think normally we wait and have a
regular council meeting to certify those
results, but we might actually schedule
a special meeting the next day. Um so
we'll at the next opportunity we'll have
some more um information about the
specific timing of election results.
Okay. And just so that you probably
know, uh, the Howard Jarvis
ballot measure has qualified as my
>> understand it's qualified. Yeah. I mean,
there's still a question of whether
it'll get pulled and whether to
negotiate and a bunch of other stuff,
but but at the moment it's qualified is
my understanding.
>> And the negotiations are not going well.
>> And do they have to have 50% plus one or
twothirds?
>> Well, for for us to pass
>> No, theirs. Jarvis,
>> I think it's 50.
Good question.
They would say it's 50% plus one, but my
understanding is there's some there's
some effort in the legislature to force
a um a twothirds on theirs.
>> Okay. All right. Any other questions?
We're not into discussion yet. All
right. So, it's now time to open the
public hearing. So, I will open the
public hearing. There's nobody in the
schoolhouse. We have five people online.
Does anybody have comments?
I'll give people a moment to raise their
hands.
All right, seeing no hands, I'm going to
close public comment.
So, what else do we need to do tonight
in terms of this item?
» Uh I think I have sufficient direction
in terms of the questions regarding the
charter language itself.
>> Okay. And I think we have some direction
in terms of providing information to the
community about the public hearing
process and the charter.
>> Great. And and it's my hope back to this
sort of question of how how we're going
to get information out to the public. I
I'm already starting to work on sort of
a PowerPoint that I'd like to take out
to the community. Um which just shows
the stuff that we've talked about the
finance committee. It just, you know,
shows our expenses and our revenues, but
it also talks about why we're a town and
talks about the general plan. And I I'm going to be willing to talk to
anybody, you know, any 10 people who
want to invite me. I I will go.
>> So, I would I don't know if you'd be
willing to share your slide deck, but
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm not done with it
yet, but yes, when I have a finished
deck, I Yeah, I think I can do that. I
probably have to do in a public meeting
or something, but I'm I'm happy to share
it.
>> You can provide a one-directional email.
>> There you go. Fine. One directional
email. I I'll give it to Darcy and she
does that.
There there is a process point here
though um because it is in every all of
the council members interest to provide
the information when the opportunity
arises and keeping it as consistent as
you know reasonably possible makes
sense. So I mean if I if I come up with
a different set of talking points if I
hear people asking questions in a
certain way I'm not sure how to handle
that. like do I do I
put it for reaction to Darcy and
Catherine
and just for their information and they
can give input on whether it's accurate.
Like I'm not quite sure how to do this
and I want to be very deliberate about
not not emphasizing things in
inappropriate ways. So, what what is
maybe you can get back to us on if we've
got like maybe Craig's talking to
broader points and I know the audience I
want to give an update to has, you know,
a different angle. I'm just going to
want to be consistent if I can be and
like let me know how that might be
achieved.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Will there be a Q&A? Are we going to
have a section on the website or what's
the
>> I think we already have a Q&A on the
website, but should be off that
community engagement page, but we're
continuing to build it all the time. And
I would say if you get questions, send
them to me one one way only to me and
then I can add them or add them to my
we're sending out another postcard and
then the next quarterly newsletter. So,
it would be helpful for me to know what
kind of questions we're getting so we
can ensure we get the information out.
>> Yeah. No, that seems great. I'd say,
yeah, if we get questions, let's send
them to Darcy because getting an FAQ up
so that they're all there and then we
can all refer to it as well so that when
we go out to talk to people, we're all,
you know, given the same answer. So,
okay, great. Um, so we've closed public
hearing. We've dealt with this item. I
think there's nothing else to do. Is
that Am I missing anything? All right.
So I would entertain a motion.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
All in favor? I. All right. Good night.
Thank you everyone. I know it's been a
long night. Um, excellent work.