[0:06] All right, welcome everyone. I'd like to
[0:08] call the meeting to order.
[0:11] So there are no remote attendance. We
[0:14] skip
[0:15] remote attendance.
[0:17] >> Hang a little second. I just
[0:20] >> All right. We
[0:23] Okay.
[0:26] Just All right. So, we have slight
[0:30] technical difficulties here at the dis.
[0:32] All right. So, Veronica, why don't we do
[0:36] roll call and then I'll check on oral
[0:38] communications and hopefully we can slot
[0:40] the rest of this stuff in.
[0:42] >> Yes. Uh, Council Member Walter
[0:47] present. Council member Hasco
[0:50] >> here.
[0:51] >> Council member Flynn
[0:52] >> here. Vice Mayor Huy
[0:55] >> here.
[0:55] >> Mayor Taylor
[0:57] >> present.
[0:57] >> We have a quorum. Thank you.
[1:00] All right. Does anyone have oral
[1:02] communications that's not something on
[1:05] tonight's agenda? In particular, this
[1:07] section of the agenda, which is
[1:09] interviews for ASC. So, I only see two
[1:13] people in the audience and their hands
[1:14] aren't raised. Let me check online.
[1:27] All right. So, I see Christiey's hands
[1:29] up.
[1:36] » Yes. Um, thanks for listening. I am
[1:39] hoping to um see that the planning
[1:42] commission meetings are not cancelled so
[1:45] the public can ask questions
[1:48] about different topics in town and get
[1:50] the answers. I think it would be better
[1:54] for all rather than sending letters. Um
[1:57] so that's my request is to get some
[2:00] feedback on many um items. Thank you.
[2:05] >> Thank you.
[2:09] >> All right. Anybody else have oral
[2:10] communications that are not on the
[2:12] agenda?
[2:14] All right. I see no hands in
[2:15] schoolhouse. I see no hands online.
[2:19] So with that, why don't we start the
[2:21] process?
[2:24] And I apologize. I'm switching between
[2:25] about five different screens here. So,
[2:28] um, okay. So, we're here tonight to
[2:30] conduct interviews and appoint a
[2:32] commission member for ASCC. We have two
[2:36] applicants. Um, what I'd like to ask is
[2:39] that we do this sort of one at a time.
[2:41] Um, and that if you're not, and we can
[2:43] flip coins or somebody can decide they
[2:45] want to go first. Um, the other person
[2:47] if they just step out of the room while
[2:49] we do this, that and then you're welcome
[2:51] to come back. Um, but that would be our
[2:53] preferred. You're not required to leave,
[2:55] but that that would be our preference.
[2:58] So, with that, do you want to go first?
[3:02] Okay. So, would you mind stepping out?
[3:04] Great. Thank you.
[3:08] All right.
[3:09] I'm going back to different screens.
[3:18] All right. Do all the council members
[3:19] have the questions up? Okay, great. Um,
[3:22] I apologize. I was hoping to get these
[3:24] printed, but um so what what I'd like to
[3:26] do is we'll just divide them up. I was
[3:29] thinking maybe one and two could go
[3:30] together and then we can just take the other um four qu four four questions
[3:36] after that and that would give us an
[3:38] even number.
[3:40] So does anybody have a strong feeling
[3:42] for doing questions one and two which is
[3:45] just sort of a basic intro? All right,
[3:47] you got it. Please.
[3:49] >> It's finally I got it.
[3:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you come up to
[3:56] » questions or no?
[3:58] >> I think you'll you can interject it as
[4:00] part of the questions. How about that
[4:04] >> because you'll see what the first
[4:05] question is. Tell us about yourself. So
[4:07] it'll be perfect. So right Mary go
[4:09] ahead.
[4:10] >> Hi. Uh nice to see you this evening. uh
[4:15] these are all formulated questions uh so
[4:18] that uh it's an equal interview process.
[4:21] So the first two questions can be
[4:23] combined very nicely. The first is can
[4:25] you tell us about yourself?
[4:27] >> Myself
[4:28] >> and why you are interested in serving on
[4:30] the ASC and what background or skills
[4:33] you bring that would contribute to your
[4:35] role as an ASCC member. Okay, that
[4:38] pretty much is my paper or your paper.
[4:40] >> Okay, I just want to say thank you for
[4:42] considering my application to to be a
[4:44] member of the ASC. And I was told that
[4:47] Laura Russell, our old planning
[4:48] director, suggested that we disband our
[4:50] ASC when she was here, that our town no
[4:53] longer had much say or input with
[4:55] building projects. I myself believe that
[4:58] our ASC should stay as strong as
[5:00] possible and I think that we can still
[5:02] have plenty of input in how our rural
[5:04] character is preserved during the future
[5:05] developments.
[5:07] And about me, um, in my younger years,
[5:10] my husband and I lived in Redwood City
[5:11] and I came out here every day to work as
[5:14] a telephone repairman, repair person,
[5:16] excuse me. Um, I fell in love with the
[5:18] quietness and ruralness and vowed that I
[5:20] would live here one day. And luckily, a
[5:22] few years later, we were able to move
[5:23] here and raise our kids in this great
[5:25] rural area rather than in a highly urban
[5:27] city. And while living here, I have I
[5:31] have had a number of horses and have
[5:32] spent numerous hours enjoying all of our
[5:34] town's trails. And I actually served on
[5:37] and was also the chair of the trails and
[5:38] paths committee for many years until I
[5:40] had to quit due to some health problems.
[5:43] Uh, I am in very invested in keeping
[5:46] Portola Valley as rural as possible. And
[5:48] having been a realtor in Portullah
[5:50] Valley, Woodside, and the surrounding
[5:52] cities for 20 years, I'm well aware of
[5:54] the many uh people who only want to live
[5:56] in cities where they have the
[5:58] walkability to Starbucks and stores and
[6:00] restaurants. And on the other side of
[6:01] the coin are the people who wish to live
[6:03] anywhere other than a crowded city and
[6:05] love the ideal of our uh ruralness, the
[6:08] dark knights, and our small town
[6:09] character. Um, we can't allow this
[6:12] environment to fade away. And al though
[6:15] although I'm sure I have a lot to learn,
[6:16] I have many I've done many remodels on
[6:18] my home since I bought my first one in
[6:20] 19 uh 74 and I have been the general
[6:23] contractor for my remodels and also
[6:25] while building the ADU at my current
[6:27] home. So I'm familiar with what goes on
[6:29] in the building pro process.
[6:32] Um, see,
[6:35] just one of the things that I look also
[6:38] towards is seeing the devastation of the
[6:39] Tubs fire after my sister's house burned
[6:41] down. I'm concerned for our residents
[6:43] safety and I believe we need to be on
[6:45] top of how and where buildings are going
[6:47] to be situated in in future developments
[6:50] in order to diminish additional fire and
[6:52] evacuation danger for us all. And I want
[6:55] you to know that I am a full-time
[6:56] resident of Portola Valley and being
[6:58] retired, I have the time and
[7:00] availability for in-person ASC meetings
[7:03] and the necessary site visits for
[7:05] prospective building projects. Having a
[7:07] passion for Portulla Valley, I think I
[7:09] would be an asset to our architectural
[7:11] and site control committee and I hope
[7:13] you will consider me for this position.
[7:16] >> Great. Thank you. Rebecca, do you want
[7:18] to take question three?
[7:20] >> Sure.
[7:22] Are you prepared to dedicate the time
[7:24] needed to review materials, attend site
[7:27] visits, and stay engaged over a
[7:29] multi-year term?
[7:30] >> Yes, completely. And that's why I like I
[7:32] said, I'm retired, so I have the time
[7:34] and the availability to do all this.
[7:38] >> Great. Thank you. Judith, you want to do
[7:39] four?
[7:40] >> Uh, any other conflicts of interest or
[7:43] situations that might limit your ability
[7:45] to end the meeting?
[7:46] >> No, I don't think so.
[7:48] Thank you,
[7:50] Helen. Number five,
[7:55] you might want to turn you back on.
[7:57] >> Yeah,
[7:59] got too many things we're shuffling
[8:01] today.
[8:02] >> After tipping over drinks, I'm a little
[8:04] cautious.
[8:06] Um, question number five. How familiar
[8:09] are you with the town's municipal code
[8:12] and design guidelines, particularly as
[8:14] they relate to architectural and site
[8:16] plan review?
[8:18] And it's got a second section. How would
[8:21] you use those standards along with the
[8:24] submitted plans, reports, and data to
[8:27] make well-reasoned
[8:29] decisions on applications, including
[8:32] determining whether to recommend
[8:34] approval, denial, or conditions?
[8:36] >> Okay. I I totally understand that I'm
[8:39] not totally up to all the codes and
[8:41] everything that I need to be, and I'm
[8:43] totally have the ability to learn, and
[8:45] I'm willing to learn. Um, and I will
[8:49] apply all of our codes to whatever
[8:52] process and whatever um
[8:58] perspective developments that need to be
[9:00] done. I will apply our rules to it.
[9:05] >> Okay. Thank you.
[9:06] >> Can I ask follow question or not yet? Or
[9:08] how are we going to
[9:09] >> What I was going to do is just stay with
[9:10] these questions. I'll do the sixth one
[9:11] and then I was just going to open up to
[9:13] ask a couple follow.
[9:14] >> Great. Thank you.
[9:15] >> Okay. So then the last of our sort of
[9:16] you know stock questions um how do you
[9:19] approach um acting in good faith and
[9:22] upholding your fiduciary responsibility
[9:23] to the community especially when your
[9:25] findings may conflict with other
[9:27] commissioners or face public opposition.
[9:31] Well, I think the whole point is do
[9:33] following the rules of the town and the
[9:35] laws of the town and
[9:38] hopefully work out things with anybody
[9:40] that um has a problem with it so we can
[9:43] come to a decision that
[9:46] you know follows the rules of the town.
[9:51] >> Okay. Um and and if it were in conflict
[9:54] with other commissioners, what what
[9:56] would your sense be? Well, I would hope
[9:58] we could talk them out and figure out
[9:59] what the conflict is about and see um
[10:04] who is following the rules and who
[10:06] isn't.
[10:07] >> Okay.
[10:07] >> Conflict and obviously somebody is not
[10:10] following the town ordinances or laws.
[10:12] So, I would think that we have to come
[10:14] to a conclusion of what is going to work
[10:18] for this that you know any certain
[10:20] project um and that to follow the town
[10:23] ordinances.
[10:24] >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Let me open
[10:26] it up. Um, are there any other sort of
[10:29] short questions? I don't want to make
[10:30] this too long because we want to keep
[10:31] them. Generally, we try to make sure
[10:33] both applicants get the same set of
[10:35] questions. So, we can deviate a little
[10:37] bit, but let's not go like completely
[10:38] crazy. Um, Helen, I know you had
[10:40] something. Would you like to
[10:41] >> Sure. Am I the only one?
[10:43] >> No, we'll come back, but I got you on my
[10:46] left, so
[10:46] >> So, okay, great. Um,
[10:50] uh, you said that you were a general
[10:52] contractor for your projects. I was the
[10:54] general contractor for them. Yes.
[10:56] >> So, were you you're not
[10:58] >> but you're not licensed
[11:00] >> owner builder.
[11:01] >> Got it. Okay. And then um what how would
[11:05] you feel about a conflict with the state
[11:07] law?
[11:08] >> A state law?
[11:09] >> Right.
[11:09] >> I can't tell you that I know anything
[11:11] about a state law.
[11:13] >> And do you have any sense like the state
[11:15] laws that might over you know state
[11:19] >> state law?
[11:20] >> No, sorry. state, you know, state law
[11:23] about, you know, about um
[11:27] about permitting situations
[11:29] around housing
[11:31] >> about what kind of standing through the
[11:34] >> So, I'm sorry if I'm not clear. Let me
[11:36] start over. How um what is your
[11:40] perspective on the town's
[11:43] code versus the state code
[11:47] um around permitting for housing?
[11:51] I am all for the city the town codes
[11:54] wherever we can override the state
[11:57] codes. Um we we're here for a reason in
[12:01] town. We're not we want to keep it a
[12:03] rural town and
[12:06] legally there's not much we can do about
[12:08] it. We're going to have to follow
[12:09] whatever the strongest law is. Whoever
[12:11] has, you know, if the state overrides
[12:13] our laws, we have to go with it. But I
[12:15] would do my best to try to work it out
[12:18] where we can move in the direction of
[12:20] our town codes.
[12:22] Okay. Thank you.
[12:24] >> All right. Other questions on this side?
[12:26] >> Judith?
[12:27] >> Yeah. Um, so if you think about the
[12:30] current ASC if you've been listening in,
[12:34] um, what complimentary
[12:36] perspectives would you you bring?
[12:39] Because everyone brings something
[12:41] different. I want to hear what you think
[12:42] you would bring.
[12:43] >> Okay. There's a couple on the ASC and
[12:47] then Dana is a
[12:48] >> landscape architect.
[12:50] >> I am not an architect, but I have a lot
[12:52] of history with the town and trying to I
[12:55] my biggest thing would try to keep the
[12:57] ruralness of the town going and not let
[12:59] it let it fade away.
[13:02] >> Okay, other question.
[13:04] >> I do. Um you had mentioned that Laura
[13:06] Russell felt that the role for the ASC
[13:09] was starting to go away. um how would
[13:12] you recommend that its role evolve
[13:16] and I kind of um give the context of the
[13:21] you know the state rules or state laws
[13:23] are sort of changing a lot on um on the
[13:27] ability of discretionary um decision-m
[13:30] so how would you view the ASC's role
[13:33] evolving in that context
[13:35] >> I think just taking it to the best of
[13:37] our ability such as where where
[13:39] buildings are built maybe we have um
[13:42] more input of where on a property a
[13:45] building is built, where you know what
[13:47] they're made out of. Maybe we the ASC um
[13:50] has the ability to see things in person
[13:52] and can um
[13:57] talk people into working with the town's
[14:00] rules rather than just what they can do
[14:03] with stage rules.
[14:08] » Okay.
[14:10] Any other questions, Mary?
[14:14] >> Yeah. Um
[14:16] how how do you think you would deal with
[14:18] the frustrations of being in a situation
[14:20] where you can't do can't can't change
[14:24] things but
[14:25] >> but also uh in the context of being
[14:28] having given a lot you know having
[14:31] you're going to actually there are there
[14:33] are certain things you have to do like
[14:35] disclosures and legal stuff that you
[14:39] feel that you end up feeling like you're
[14:40] giving a lot uh and in in in return you
[14:45] don't necessarily get a lot of return.
[14:49] How do you feel that will affect you as
[14:52] far as your
[14:54] >> as far as me?
[14:54] >> Yes. As far as your your satisfaction
[14:57] with your role.
[14:58] >> Okay. I myself will work as hard as I
[15:01] can to get done what I think needs to
[15:04] get done. Um just for just for an
[15:08] example the sewer, you know, system deal
[15:11] that I've been going through. I mean,
[15:12] I've gone through the HCD numerous
[15:14] times, uh, just to see if we can get
[15:17] what I want done, and obviously now we
[15:20] can't. So, you mean when you've gone as
[15:23] far as you can and you can't get, you
[15:24] know, a better answer, then you have to
[15:25] deal with what you got.
[15:29] Good.
[15:31] Okay. Anything else? No. Okay, Ellen,
[15:34] thank you. Thank you very much.
[15:36] Appreciate your time.
[15:37] >> Right. Thank you.
[15:38] when if you go out the door, would you
[15:40] mind, you know, telling Sonia we're
[15:42] ready for her?
[15:46] » Uh, you know, that's up to you. I mean,
[15:48] you're welcome to come back in for the
[15:49] discussion if you want or you can come
[15:51] home and we'll let you know. So, what
[15:52] whatever you'd prefer. We're
[15:54] >> One thing I would like to reiterate is
[15:56] that I am a full-time resident and I am
[15:59] available all the time where
[16:01] I believe the other applicant has a
[16:04] home, you know, in different places. So
[16:05] I don't know that you're here all the
[16:07] time, but my availability and you know
[16:10] is 100%.
[16:11] >> Okay.
[16:12] >> Thank you.
[16:42] Hello and welcome.
[16:47] » So, we've got six questions that we sort
[16:50] of condense the first two. So, there'll
[16:52] be, you know, we'll rotate among the
[16:54] different council members. Um and then
[16:56] after that we'll ask a few open
[16:58] questions. Um and you're certainly
[16:59] welcome to ask a few questions of us as
[17:01] well. So we'll open up again. Should we
[17:04] just do the same order? Right. So Mary,
[17:07] it's on you.
[17:08] >> Welcome. Uh can you tell us about
[17:11] yourself and and why you're interested
[17:13] in serving in the ASC and and in that
[17:16] context, what background or skills do
[17:18] you bring that could contribute to your
[17:20] role as an ASCC member?
[17:24] And I'm Sonia Dylan. Thanks for having
[17:26] me here. I live on Grove Drive. I've
[17:28] lived here since 1990. I've seen a lot
[17:32] of changes in this little town.
[17:35] We used to have a town hall, city hall
[17:38] around here. And a little cute little
[17:42] place. And my background is I have a
[17:47] degree in arts and also I'm a CPA. So
[17:51] understand a lot of details and I worked
[17:54] with architects. I was a advisor to
[17:57] architecture program at Stanford and
[17:59] also at Tokyo University and I've lived
[18:02] in Japan
[18:04] and in Paris and a little bit in London.
[18:07] So I have exposure to many architecture
[18:10] programs and out of deep interest in
[18:14] arts and architecture. I got involved in
[18:17] these universities. The and I used with
[18:20] my foundation I used the whole
[18:22] architectural design chet when we did at
[18:25] my poll house. We had all Stanford
[18:28] student come and compete for a design
[18:33] charette to challenge that they had to
[18:36] design my little ADU many many years ago
[18:40] to host artist for our foundation. And
[18:44] we had five six professors from
[18:47] different universities came to help them
[18:50] do that design. And then we did similar
[18:52] things in Japan in India. In India, we
[18:55] hosted a design cheret on public
[18:59] toilets.
[19:01] And in Japan, it was about
[19:03] sustainability in architecture. And then
[19:06] we went and designed a old school for a
[19:10] residence program that was destroyed
[19:12] with the 2011 tsunami.
[19:15] And then I brought many architect
[19:18] professors and structural engineers to
[19:21] UNESCO to do similar conferences. So you
[19:24] can see my passion in architecture. Um
[19:27] and then
[19:30] just also very passionate about details
[19:33] and how to deal with people. And in my
[19:37] tax and accounting practice, it's a lot
[19:40] about estate and trusts and foundations.
[19:44] And I just came by I was a little bit
[19:46] late because today there was a
[19:48] conference at Stanford on charitable
[19:50] giving. So we talked about death and
[19:52] taxes. That's a se sensitive issue. And
[19:56] so I feel about getting somebody's home
[20:00] designed is a very personal and a
[20:02] sensitive matter to be on AAC. Not only
[20:06] you are helping people
[20:09] design something very sustainable and
[20:12] fitting to pull valley, but it's also
[20:15] very personal thing for people. So one
[20:17] needs to bring that together in a very
[20:20] collaborative way and listening to
[20:24] recent AAC meetings it talks a lot about
[20:28] how state is asking for the review to be
[20:31] very uh objective not subjective and
[20:34] that's where I think collaboration will
[20:36] make so much different I have gone
[20:38] through my own plans here more than once
[20:41] so I know how you know you're designing
[20:44] a home you're designing it maybe once in your lifetime
[20:48] and the architect is selling you an idea
[20:51] of a dream. And if we are not there with the family early on and we after
[20:58] they have invested so much of their
[21:00] imagination into building this dream
[21:03] with the architect and also spend a lot
[21:05] of money on it then to tell them what is
[21:08] okay or not okay is very adverse role.
[21:13] If we are there early on, I understand
[21:15] we are starting to do preliminary
[21:18] liaison work. I think that will make a
[21:21] whole difference.
[21:23] And then I feel to get our maintaining
[21:27] our road idea for this town by focusing
[21:31] on fire issues where we can guide people
[21:34] not to have just these huge tall hedges
[21:37] that in a row but little cluster of
[21:40] things and using local the native plants
[21:44] which are probably much more fire
[21:46] resistant. So applying these kind of
[21:49] design ideas and helping them along.
[21:51] Sometimes the architects are not from
[21:53] here. They're not familiar or often I
[21:56] know architecture work people have a
[21:58] certain style they do. They're not
[22:01] always so flexible to think what pull
[22:05] valley needs are. So if we can educate
[22:08] our
[22:10] uh our neighbors, I think we'll have
[22:13] much more pleasant relationship of this
[22:16] design planning. And a lot of people who
[22:19] come to live in Pulla Valley, they could
[22:21] live in Atheertton, they could live in
[22:23] Las Hills, but they're attracted to this
[22:26] look. And so I think it's a very easy
[22:28] way to convince people how to bring
[22:32] designs that will be such an easy cell
[22:35] for A to approve if we were there with
[22:37] them from the very beginning. So that's
[22:39] sort of my little way.
[22:44] » Thank you Rebecca.
[22:49] So, are you prepared to dedicate the
[22:51] time needed to review materials, attend
[22:53] site visits, and stay engaged over a
[22:56] multi-year term? Um, I know you've moved
[23:00] back permanently now. So, maybe you
[23:03] could just talk about whether what your
[23:04] what you anticipate your availability.
[23:06] Thanks.
[23:07] >> I have moved back to also build my
[23:09] practice. So I will be here a lot and
[23:14] estate and tax is similar detail work as
[23:18] ASC and probably ASC will take me away
[23:20] from doing taxes and estate planning. So
[23:23] it's a nice way for me to stay fresh.
[23:28] >> Thank Judith.
[23:29] >> Uh so do you have any conflicts of
[23:31] interest or other situations that might
[23:34] inhibit your ability to attend most
[23:37] meetings? just kind of what what else do
[23:40] we need to know about that?
[23:43] >> I'm not not an professional architect. I
[23:46] just love architecture.
[23:49] >> But there's no uh your for example
[23:52] Stanford is going to come up potentially
[23:56] because there's people that have some
[23:58] affiliations in town that might be
[24:00] applicants. I don't I don't know if you
[24:02] >> I'm not affiliate to Stanford. I
[24:04] wasending.
[24:05] >> Yeah. And no other affiliations. Okay.
[24:07] That's really what that question's
[24:08] about. Thank you.
[24:09] >> Okay, now I understand.
[24:11] >> Yeah,
[24:12] >> Mary.
[24:13] >> Uh, no. It's I my question.
[24:17] >> Oh, did you You're right at the
[24:19] beginning. My apologies. Just I'm just
[24:20] kind of in a It's been It's been a long
[24:22] day already. My My apologies.
[24:24] >> Longer day.
[24:25] >> Yeah, it's going to be a longer day, but that's a different story.
[24:28] >> Okay. This is two twoprong question, so
[24:32] it's a long one, too. How familiar are
[24:34] you with the town's m municipal code and
[24:37] design guidelines particularly as they
[24:39] relate to the architecture and site plan
[24:42] review and second portion of the
[24:45] question how would you use those
[24:47] standards along with the submitted plans
[24:50] reports and data to make well-reasoned
[24:52] decisions on applications including
[24:55] determining whether to recommend
[24:57] approval denial or conditions
[25:00] >> having lived in this town for 35 years
[25:02] and Having gone through those approval
[25:05] processes
[25:07] I can tell you from my lot of personal
[25:09] experiences a lot of the time people are
[25:13] not familiar if we guide them it's very
[25:16] easy cell to explain people how to get
[25:20] what they dreamed of building in this
[25:22] town if I understood your question
[25:26] >> let me just make sure like first the for
[25:28] I'll ask the first p portion first how
[25:31] familiar are you with the town's
[25:33] municipal code and design guidelines.
[25:36] >> I have I have gone through getting my
[25:39] whole house redone. So I had to take
[25:42] >> I'm sorry I couldn't
[25:43] >> I understand the uh the town's rules
[25:47] because I have had my house redone.
[25:50] >> Okay. And the second portion then of the
[25:52] question, thank you for the first
[25:54] portion. How would you use those
[25:57] standards
[25:59] um when making a decision?
[26:03] >> And that's where I would say most of the
[26:06] time I think the challenge comes people
[26:08] were not familiar with things at the
[26:10] level they needed to be and it's the
[26:13] architect who's guiding them and that's
[26:16] where the conflict comes. If if we are
[26:20] there from the beginning even we can
[26:22] guide the architect and so the dreams
[26:24] can be built according to town's idea.
[26:30] » Great. Thank you.
[26:33] All right. Then the last one of our sort
[26:36] of fix set. Um how do you approach
[26:38] acting in good faith and upholding your
[26:40] fiduciary responsibility to the
[26:41] community especially when your findings
[26:44] may conflict with other commissioners or
[26:46] face public opposition?
[26:49] I say that question again please.
[26:51] >> So this question is you need to act in
[26:55] good faith. Um and it may be that when
[26:58] you do you're going to be in conflict
[27:00] potentially with other commissioners or
[27:02] um the public might be in opposition to
[27:05] what your uh your position is. How would
[27:07] you deal with that?
[27:09] >> On that I can come to my role as being
[27:11] on board of governance in especially
[27:14] familyowned businesses. You constantly
[27:17] have to walk that line and you have to
[27:20] stay very objective. At the same time,
[27:22] you have to make a point where you are
[27:25] solid. And when it's not that critical,
[27:28] don't don't
[27:31] put too much stress on it. If it's
[27:33] critical, you take a stand and people
[27:35] know what you stand for and objectively.
[27:39] >> Okay. Um, follow on questions.
[27:43] Judith,
[27:43] >> I'll ask the same one I asked last time,
[27:45] which is I if you've been watching the
[27:48] ASC, you've seen the different
[27:50] perspectives they already bring. What
[27:52] would be your special perspective that
[27:54] you would bring to that body?
[27:57] Um I have lot of experience with
[28:01] architecture globally and how new
[28:04] materials are being used and how
[28:09] sustainability in architecture is such a
[28:11] great play. For example, I've worked
[28:13] very closely with Kangokuma who is the
[28:16] architect who designed the Olympic
[28:18] stadium in Japan. He's famous and he
[28:22] sort of he's famous for using wood and
[28:25] he created a beautiful building in Japan
[28:29] just with bamboo.
[28:32] >> Mhm.
[28:33] >> And it's so aesthetically
[28:37] so minimal and just blends into the
[28:40] forest behind it. It's that that kind of
[28:44] soft touch patch which is so so great
[28:48] for for Pollola Valley that you you are
[28:52] living with the nature. Another example
[28:54] is there's a I organized Stanford
[28:59] students to go and see Isha Jingu
[29:01] shrine. That's the main shrine in Japan
[29:03] for shin. This is like
[29:06] of Shinduism. But it's a tiny hat
[29:11] and tiny hat represents a huge stature
[29:14] and you can only get in there permission
[29:17] of the agriculture ministry because it's
[29:19] under them
[29:21] and every 20 years they rebuild that
[29:24] little hut.
[29:27] But the size of the structure is very
[29:29] small. But it's the procedure and the
[29:32] process of going through that ritual
[29:35] building is where it has its meaning.
[29:40] And they have a whole forest where they
[29:43] plant trees 100 years in advance and
[29:45] they will leave for that little hut.
[29:47] It's these kind of things of a lot of
[29:51] our neighbors will be happy to leave a
[29:54] legacy and leaving a legacy of Pollola
[29:57] Valley stays Polla Valley is a beautiful
[30:01] legacy. When you come on Alpine Road,
[30:03] the Sun forget when I used to work for
[30:06] Cisco, I still remember I would write I
[30:10] would forget Cisco.
[30:12] Those are early days of Cisco. So you
[30:14] need it for
[30:17] and that's sort of if I'm getting on the
[30:20] tending but this is sort of my
[30:23] >> Thank you
[30:25] Rebecca question.
[30:26] >> Yeah. Um how would you recommend that
[30:29] the ASC evolve in its role?
[30:34] I think we need to be collaborative
[30:37] as
[30:38] the state is pushing on many of the
[30:40] things and how can we do an objective uh
[30:45] review while maintaining the ideals that
[30:48] we want to maintain of Polla Valley. We
[30:52] have to be extremely collaborative. We
[30:55] can also use the ideas what are
[30:57] necessary for fire safety again that can
[31:00] be very objective but can still achieve
[31:04] the goal of what we want petrole to be
[31:07] and I feel it will be such an easy sell
[31:10] people who buy to live here they want
[31:12] that look
[31:14] >> otherwise they can a place in African
[31:18] it's such an easy sell if we just go
[31:22] with that mindset and explain to to the
[31:26] people who are about to design. So they
[31:28] feel like they come to A to start their
[31:32] design process not to get policed at the
[31:35] end
[31:36] and then we don't need to have architect
[31:39] coming with other we won't need that
[31:45] Mary
[31:48] >> well I'll try for my uh previous
[31:49] question um there there's certain amount
[31:52] uh frustrations in this position as that
[31:55] you've described which is that you're a
[31:56] person who's used a fair amount of
[31:58] success and things move in your
[32:01] direction when you ask them to. Uh that
[32:03] won't always be the case here. Uh how do
[32:06] you think you would deal with the
[32:08] frustration of being
[32:12] putting yourself out in this way and how
[32:15] would it personally how would you
[32:17] personally cope with it?
[32:21] If if people know you are your position
[32:25] is very transparent, you build trust. If
[32:29] your position is not very transparent
[32:30] and very
[32:33] you have an objectical reason that where
[32:36] you're reaching and you can explain your
[32:38] logic,
[32:40] you build trust.
[32:43] It's it's not so difficult build that.
[32:49] Thank you. If
[32:49] >> if you're honest about your ways and
[32:52] it's and you're also willing to listen
[32:54] to others point of view, sometimes maybe
[32:56] their point is better. So you don't have
[32:58] to stay in your position unnecessary.
[33:02] >> We are all here. We are all here to do
[33:05] something out of pleasure. We have
[33:08] plenty of other things to do.
[33:13] » Thank you, Ellen.
[33:14] >> Thank you. Um, what would you do if you
[33:18] were on ACC, ASCC, excuse me, and um,
[33:23] the town code, municipal code was in
[33:25] conflict with the state code.
[33:32] » The state code,
[33:38] » right, thank you.
[33:42] >> All right. Thank you. Um, Katherine, do
[33:45] we have public comment here or Okay, so
[33:48] this would be the time. All right. So,
[33:50] that's the end of our questions. Um,
[33:52] you're welcome to stay or leave. That's
[33:54] your choice. Um, what we'll do is take
[33:57] public comment. Then we'll discuss it
[33:59] among ourselves. We'll make a decision
[34:00] and we'll let you know one way or
[34:02] another. So, your choice whether you
[34:04] stay or if you want to, you know, let
[34:06] us, we can let you know um through a
[34:08] phone call or email or whatever. So,
[34:10] thank you for coming. Thank you for
[34:12] applying.
[34:18] » All right, so with that, I'm going to
[34:20] open up public comment.
[34:23] And the first person is Nan Chest
[34:36] and you there
[34:44] not muting. All right. Well, there we
[34:48] go.
[34:48] >> Yes,
[34:49] >> we got you. Yep. Yep. You're there. Go
[34:51] ahead.
[34:51] >> Okay. probably loud and clear. Okay.
[34:53] >> Loud and clear.
[34:55] >> Yeah. Council members, thank you all for
[34:57] the opportunity to speak. I urge you to
[35:00] appoint Ellen Vernaza to ASCC
[35:03] because first, she has a deep
[35:05] understanding of Pollola Valley's
[35:07] fundamental values and she has worked
[35:09] hard to preserve the rural feel of the
[35:11] town. She's had committee experience as
[35:15] chair of trails and paths,
[35:18] so she understands town procedures. She
[35:20] is a quick study and she'd come up to
[35:22] speed rapidly on town ordinances and
[35:25] state codes that she'd need for working
[35:28] on ASC.
[35:30] She's had valuable firsthand experience
[35:33] constructing buildings here in Portola
[35:35] Valley.
[35:37] And finally, I think it's important for
[35:41] ASC commissioners to understand the
[35:43] interplay between natural hazards and
[35:46] here talking about mainly fire and
[35:49] earthquake, flood, landslide, not
[35:52] between natural hazards and our built
[35:54] environment. Ellen is a very strong
[35:58] advocate for safety.
[36:00] I appreciated her having taken the time
[36:03] to attend one of the geological safety
[36:05] committee meetings a couple of years ago
[36:07] when we were first discussing evacuation
[36:10] for wildfire following an earthquake.
[36:13] Ellen offered several important
[36:15] observations that we later incorporated
[36:17] into our thinking and the final report.
[36:21] I think Ellen's unique experience and
[36:24] perspectives would make her a very
[36:25] valuable member of ASC.
[36:28] Thank you.
[36:30] Nan. Lesie,
[36:37] » good evening and thank you for taking my
[36:38] call. I'm calling in support of Ellen's
[36:42] nomination to ASCC.
[36:45] Ellen has deep long-term roots in this
[36:48] community and a deep understanding of of
[36:51] how this community works. She's well
[36:53] respected within the community and knows the community. As the former
[36:59] chairs of the chair of the trail
[37:01] committee, she has a deep understanding
[37:03] of the infrastructure um and town
[37:06] process as well. Ellen has a reputation
[37:09] for delivering results, indicating that
[37:12] she could hit the ground running in this
[37:14] position.
[37:15] She brings a different perspective as
[37:17] well to ASCC. As one on the other side
[37:21] of the table in front of the architect,
[37:23] the landscape architect who are already
[37:26] on the committee. We have those
[37:28] positions. Ellen fills a unique niche.
[37:31] Um she squares the circle, if you will.
[37:34] Her recent ADU buildout provides a rich
[37:37] experience of the Bullah Valley consumer
[37:40] experience involved in building in the
[37:43] current climate.
[37:45] In addition, I've worked with Ellen on
[37:47] other projects, and I know her to be a
[37:49] person who can manage a prodigious
[37:51] workload and produce results with a
[37:54] cheerful continence. Even when things
[37:56] are getting a little bit hairy, she's
[37:57] usually the one to make a joke or
[38:00] lighten the mood and just keep on
[38:02] plowing on. She's also a pleasure to
[38:05] work with. So, I respectfully request um
[38:08] advancing her nomination to the ASCC
[38:12] position. Thank you so much for
[38:14] listening to my thoughts.
[38:16] >> Thank you, Leslie. Rita,
[38:22] » good evening. Thank you for taking my
[38:24] comment. I also support Ellen Bernaza in
[38:28] her quest to become a member of Pollola
[38:30] Valley's ASC. I bought my property in
[38:33] 2009 and attended many ASC and planning
[38:37] meetings before I had to then attend my
[38:40] own for my build. with our current
[38:42] members on the ASC. I personally feel
[38:45] that Ellen would be a great addition to
[38:49] that group.
[38:51] She has been very active in the
[38:52] community, has been on other committees,
[38:55] and even ran for town council, which is
[38:58] an example of how close she feels to
[39:00] uplifting the continued care of our
[39:03] community, just like all of you up there
[39:05] on the dis. So, I really appreciate her
[39:08] stepping up to being part of this group.
[39:11] um you know like she had said in her
[39:14] opening uh you know Laura Russell said
[39:16] that oh there's going to be no need for
[39:18] ASC in the future with all these state
[39:21] rules but there is uh a real need for a
[39:26] continu a continued community presence
[39:30] and views and the past couple of years
[39:32] without having meetings or people having
[39:35] to be recused for one thing or another I
[39:38] feel that her addition will have more
[39:41] meetings that we desperately need
[39:44] with all of the builds that are coming
[39:46] up and, you know, bring us more of a
[39:49] community what we're trying to do and
[39:51] move things forward. So, thank you for
[39:53] listening.
[39:55] >> Thank you, Reena.
[39:58] All right, with that, I don't see any
[39:59] hands in the schoolhouse. I don't see
[40:01] any other hands online. So, I'm going to
[40:03] close public comment and bring it back
[40:04] to the council for discussion.
[40:08] would like to go first.
[40:11] Ellen, would you mind?
[40:13] Are
[40:13] >> we starting? We're starting with
[40:15] comments.
[40:16] >> Are we starting with questions? I'm
[40:18] sorry.
[40:19] >> So, this is decision time. This is
[40:21] >> Do you want my vote right now? What are
[40:23] you asking?
[40:24] >> I mean, you So, you can talk about what
[40:27] you thought you heard and what you
[40:28] thought is important. Um, and where
[40:31] you're leaning. That's probably the best
[40:34] way to go at it. Um so uh so I will say
[40:40] you know both candidates are strong. Um
[40:43] I am concerned um obviously people don't
[40:47] always understand the situation that the
[40:49] town is in dealing with the state. Um
[40:53] and so that uh you know that was part of
[40:56] the reason that I asked about the
[40:57] conflict with the state. um you know and
[41:01] Ellen said you know um she would
[41:04] override the state code
[41:07] um
[41:08] which you we we can't do right um and
[41:13] you know we really love Katherine but we
[41:16] really need to make sure that we don't
[41:18] spend too much time with you
[41:22] so so not to make light of it but I
[41:25] really you know we can't afford lawsuits
[41:27] um so that actually, you know, that
[41:30] really concerned me. Um,
[41:34] so I actually think I would go with
[41:36] Sonia um because of her deeper
[41:38] understanding of our of of our municipal
[41:41] code. While I strongly believe Ellen
[41:44] could learn, um, I do appreciate that um
[41:48] that Sonia already is more familiar with
[41:50] it. So that's where I'm leaning. Thank
[41:53] you.
[41:54] >> Thank you, Mary.
[41:58] Well,
[41:59] I think we're extremely lucky to have
[42:01] two really talented uh u candidates. Um
[42:07] I think both of them grasp the situation
[42:10] uh very well. Um and both have their own
[42:15] way of communicating um their their
[42:18] grasp. Um, I um was very impressed with
[42:23] Sonia that uh she she totally got it
[42:27] about how you got to get them early and
[42:29] uh talk them through it or else and
[42:32] that's the way to get what we want out
[42:34] of our community. That's the that's the
[42:37] it's the non-legalistic way of
[42:39] approaching this is actually having
[42:41] people who commit in their design early
[42:44] enough to actually get it uh get it
[42:47] right. uh and I I totally um see that
[42:51] her qualifications and her perspective
[42:54] are valuable to the town. So um I think
[42:57] that uh she will be a long-term a
[43:01] wonderful asset as she spends more time
[43:03] in our town and and gets to know us
[43:06] better. Uh Ellen has u a very very long
[43:13] uh she's she but one of the things we've
[43:16] lost um and that we discuss having lost
[43:20] is our um historic perspective. Uh and
[43:25] um
[43:28] we we we need both historic perspective
[43:31] and um modern concepts coming forward.
[43:34] But uh as far as historic perspective,
[43:38] Ellen's pretty much grew up here uh with
[43:41] the town and has gone through a lot of
[43:43] changes in multiple houses, etc. Um and
[43:49] uh represents the can represent the
[43:53] historic perspective, which we we don't
[43:56] want to lose. Um
[43:59] she gets it. uh and nobody's going to
[44:02] let her uh break the law in her position
[44:05] on the SECI. I don't think we have to
[44:08] worry about her her uh single-handedly
[44:11] being able to get us to in trouble. Um
[44:15] but uh I I feel that Ellen at this time
[44:20] in her life u this is an ideal
[44:23] opportunity for her uh and um both from
[44:28] the town's point of view bringing more
[44:30] of the bringing a deep historic
[44:32] perspective and and the the uh return of
[44:36] her energy
[44:38] um
[44:40] and her desire to really be able to give
[44:42] to the town right now. Um, so I would
[44:45] support Ellen.
[44:47] >> Thank you, Judith.
[44:49] >> Sure. Um, we are indeed very fortunate
[44:52] in this town. Every time we come up to
[44:54] interview people, I'm kind of blown away
[44:57] with their background and their their
[44:59] energy. So, I thank them both. Um,
[45:04] you know, we've got an interesting uh
[45:06] opportunity here, but when I think about
[45:09] what does the ASCC actually
[45:12] need right now, and I think there's a
[45:14] lot of work to do, and that's going to
[45:18] be pretty continual. uh things like
[45:21] objective standards be being renovated
[45:24] and developed, things like
[45:27] reimagining a process where candidates
[45:29] can not be surprised and before they get
[45:33] too far in the the process. All of that
[45:36] is going to take a lot of discussion and
[45:39] rethinking and different perspectives.
[45:41] So, at the end of the day, I also will
[45:45] support Ellen. Um, I think she um she
[45:49] said she'd follow rules and she's not an
[45:51] attorney. So, I think um that she wants
[45:54] to override the state. Uh at the end of
[45:57] the discussion, she said if if the state
[46:00] trumps, the state trumps. I'm
[46:02] paraphrasing there. That's what I heard.
[46:04] But at the end of the day, that's a
[46:05] lawyer's call and legal advice needs to
[46:08] be brought to bear. We can't avoid that
[46:10] and I wouldn't want to avoid that. um
[46:14] she's visible and at a lot of the town
[46:17] council and other uh committee uh
[46:21] meetings and weighing in and following
[46:23] up with, you know, her own endeavors to
[46:26] figure out HCD and her ADU rules. I
[46:30] admire that and um clearly is in a
[46:33] position to put in the hard work and has
[46:35] done already. So, I would um support
[46:37] Ellen.
[46:39] >> Thank you, Rebecca.
[46:41] Um I agree that we are fortunate to have
[46:45] two candidates um apply for this. Uh we
[46:48] have had problems finding enough people.
[46:51] Hence we've had an opening for over a
[46:53] year. Um I would say both have similar
[46:57] dedication to Portola Valley. Both have
[46:58] lived in this town the same time. Both
[47:01] have understood um the changes in Porta
[47:04] Valley. Um both have seen that. Both
[47:07] have lived through it. both have the
[47:09] same historic perspective.
[47:12] Um
[47:13] but um I don't think there's any
[47:16] question in my mind um to support the
[47:19] candidate that has the most
[47:20] understanding both of our municipal code
[47:24] um as well as some of the challenges the
[47:25] ASC has um going forward um in terms of
[47:31] how do you deal with a discretionary
[47:33] body that the state is taking away our
[47:36] ability to do discretionary decisionm
[47:39] um and there was only one candidate that
[47:41] really understood that and went into
[47:43] depth about that. Um, and that would be
[47:46] Sonia. Um, Sonia also brings with her a
[47:50] unique perspective of having worked with
[47:53] multiple architects all over the world
[47:56] and I think it's really important to be
[47:58] able to bring that into our town. It's
[48:01] such a unique ability. Um and to be able
[48:04] to synchronize that uh perspective from
[48:08] how how traditional building is has been
[48:11] happening in in uh Japan for example. Um
[48:16] to bring that that um perspective to
[48:19] Portulla Valley where we are trying as
[48:20] much as possible to maintain this this
[48:23] similar kind of ideals of of creating
[48:26] buildings that that um live within our
[48:29] natural surroundings.
[48:31] um
[48:33] making them it's one of the key points
[48:35] of our design guidelines is really
[48:36] making our building subservient to to
[48:39] our land and to our space and she gets
[48:42] it. Sonia gets that. Um while I uh
[48:45] realize that Ellen is very dedicated and
[48:48] you know is willing to step in there and
[48:50] get going. it was clear and she said so
[48:52] herself very many times that she doesn't
[48:55] have any background in our codes in our
[48:57] municipal but she's willing to learn and
[48:59] I appreciate very much her offer of that
[49:01] but um being able to step on the ACC and
[49:05] be productive uh day one is is really
[49:07] important given how much stuff is coming
[49:09] before us and to have someone who has um
[49:12] both the qualifications and the
[49:14] perspective and and has the the artistic
[49:17] views and the artistic background um and
[49:19] the aesthetic background around and and
[49:22] understands how important it is as the
[49:25] ASC's role will start evolving
[49:28] um to understand that we need to get
[49:30] ahead of that. We need to start working
[49:32] with architects and applicants very
[49:34] early in the process so that we can
[49:37] guide them to create a collaborative um
[49:41] uh and beneficial organization
[49:43] commission instead of a an argumentative
[49:46] one. Um I think there's no question I
[49:48] support Sonia
[49:51] Thank you.
[49:53] So, as my fellow council members have
[49:55] said, we are blessed with two great
[49:57] candidates. I wish I could just pick two
[49:58] and that would be the easy solution. Um,
[50:01] since I think they both bring
[50:04] interesting qualifications to the
[50:05] position.
[50:07] I think when I think about ASC and
[50:09] particularly what I see coming up um of
[50:13] the next year or so, we've got objective
[50:16] standards. Um there there are a number
[50:19] of different
[50:21] sort of collaborative issues as well as
[50:24] sort of helping get these objective
[50:26] standards moving forward which I think
[50:28] are going to be critical given the
[50:29] current state laws. So I'd say I want to
[50:34] be careful. I say reluctantly I will
[50:36] support Sonia but not because I'm
[50:38] reluctant about Sonia but that I think
[50:40] we have two really good candidates. Um
[50:43] and so it I find this decision hard. So,
[50:45] it's the decision. I'm reluctant, not the candidates. So, with that, I
[50:49] would entertain a motion.
[50:52] >> I would like to entertain a motion to uh
[50:55] appoint Sonia Dylan to the ASC.
[50:59] >> And I'll second that.
[51:00] >> All right. All in favor say I.
[51:03] >> I.
[51:05] >> Those opposed.
[51:07] Okay. N. All right. So, we have a vote
[51:10] three to two. Do we need anything else,
[51:13] Katherine? you're reaching for your
[51:15] >> I just want to make sure the clerk
[51:16] recorded the vote since it wasn't yet by
[51:18] roll call but um the the vote is
[51:20] recorded as three to two. Um nope
[51:22] nothing else needed. Thank you.
[51:23] >> Okay, great. Thank you. So then um if
[51:27] you will let So well Sonia's here so
[51:29] she'll know but if you'll still formally
[51:30] let her know um and you'll also let
[51:32] Ellen know as well and tell her how much
[51:34] we appreciate her um coming. So thank
[51:37] you. All right, with that I'm going to
[51:39] close this session and we have four
[51:42] minutes to the next one.
[51:48] So, take a quick break. Grab a bite to
[51:50] eat, whatever you need. Thank you.
[51:55] » Welcome. Good evening. Um, I'm going to
[51:58] call this meeting to order. This is the
[52:00] Porto Valley Town Council. I'd like to
[52:03] start with roll call.
[52:07] Council member Walter present.
[52:09] >> Council member Hasco here. Council
[52:12] member Flynn here. Vice Mayor Hufty
[52:15] >> here.
[52:15] >> Mayor Taylor
[52:16] >> present.
[52:16] >> We have a quorum.
[52:18] >> Thank you. All right. First thing on the
[52:20] agenda, we have presentations and
[52:22] proclamations. So the first proclamation
[52:24] is a proclamation for mental health
[52:27] awareness month. I have a short
[52:29] statement I was asked to read. So
[52:32] tonight, I am proud to proclaim May 2026
[52:35] as mental health awareness month in
[52:37] Portola Valley, joining a historic
[52:40] countywide commitment to treat mental
[52:42] health, sorry, mental well-being is a
[52:45] foundational public good for every
[52:47] generation. This year's theme, mental
[52:50] health is ours, reminds us that while
[52:52] 13% of our local adults and over a
[52:55] quarter of our youth face significant
[52:58] emotional distress, we can overcome
[53:00] these challenges through collective
[53:02] action and community support. By
[53:04] increasing awareness and ending the
[53:06] stigma today, we honor our
[53:09] responsibility to ensure that all
[53:10] members of our community, from our youth
[53:12] to our seniors, have equitable access to
[53:15] the resources they need to thrive. So
[53:18] that's my opening remarks on mental
[53:20] harness mental health awareness month.
[53:24] And then the second piece is we have a
[53:25] presentation by um Scott Granite. And
[53:29] Mary, I'd let you introduce him.
[53:32] >> Well, it's my great pleasure to
[53:34] introduce uh Scott. He and I practiced
[53:37] together somewhere between 20 and 30
[53:39] years at the Palo Alto Medical
[53:41] Foundation. Uh I can say that uh he has
[53:45] a deep and personal commitment to
[53:48] community well-being and mental health
[53:51] and has put himself and his life on the
[53:54] line to make sure that everybody has a
[53:57] fair chance at recovery and and at
[54:01] healing. uh he he understands
[54:05] um what community can offer and and uh
[54:10] my my uh my hope is that he'll give us
[54:13] some guidelines on how we can be a more
[54:16] caring, compassionate, and healing
[54:19] community
[54:21] um
[54:22] with understanding being the basis of
[54:24] the whole thing. So, welcome Scott and
[54:27] thank you for coming because uh you are
[54:30] a very special person.
[54:38] » And Scott, you're you're welcome to
[54:39] either the podium or the table,
[54:41] whichever you prefer.
[54:43] >> Well, I think I'm okay at the podium
[54:44] since I'm here already.
[54:46] >> You got it.
[54:47] >> Okay. Well, thank you. Uh boy, you
[54:49] couldn't have a more charming place to
[54:50] have a city council.
[54:52] I was really pleased when Mary reached
[54:54] out to me and asked me to do this. Now,
[54:56] I will be speaking specifically about
[54:59] obsessivempulsive disorder tonight. Um,
[55:02] that's I've dedicated much of my career
[55:04] uh to working with OCD and related
[55:07] disorders, which I'll mention in a
[55:09] little bit. Um, but I'm really I'm not
[55:12] here representing myself. I really think
[55:14] I'm more representing the OCD community.
[55:18] um a founding board member and former
[55:20] president of OCD San Francisco uh which
[55:24] is a one of 35 or so affiliate
[55:27] organizations connected to the
[55:29] international oation
[55:31] uh based in Connecticut. I'm sorry. They
[55:34] used to be based in Connecticut. Now
[55:35] they're based in uh in Boston. Uh and
[55:38] they truly are international in helping
[55:40] people from uh from around the world.
[55:43] When I when Mary first asked me to do
[55:46] this, um the timing really couldn't have
[55:48] been any better uh or worse depending on
[55:51] how you look at this. Um
[55:54] the International OCD Foundation puts
[55:56] out a quarterly news. And the and I've
[56:00] brought some with me. I'm going to leave
[56:01] them here for you all. Um but the cover
[56:03] story uh for this one is America's OCD
[56:08] Care Crisis,
[56:09] which is really important for people to
[56:11] understand. And the reason they they put
[56:13] it that way is that they re they did a
[56:16] study on OCD and found that there are 10
[56:20] million Americans live with this
[56:22] disorder and about half a million uh
[56:26] children uh who live with OCD. Now keep
[56:29] in mind with OCD um you know generally
[56:33] people are first show symptoms uh and
[56:35] two periods really one around the ages
[56:38] of 8 to 10 and then another area is
[56:41] around the ages of like 19 to 26. So the
[56:44] early early adult years it's pretty
[56:46] uncommon to see somebody first develop
[56:48] symptoms of OCD uh later in life like
[56:51] past 40 perhaps. I mean it can happen
[56:53] but it doesn't happen that way.
[56:57] I'm part of a Facebook group of
[57:00] therapists u who treat OCD and related
[57:03] disorder. And one of the things that one
[57:06] of the therapists made special note of
[57:08] is how important it is to educate people
[57:12] about OCD and try and have people
[57:14] understand that OCD just isn't about
[57:18] handwashing and checking doors. Uh I
[57:21] mean that sort of is in the, you know,
[57:23] the public domain. And I think that's
[57:24] what most people think about when they
[57:26] think about OCD. And granted, those are
[57:29] probably the most common forms of OCD.
[57:31] But OCD exists in a lot of in a lot of
[57:33] other ways. And I won't go over, you
[57:35] know, over all the ways that it may
[57:37] exist. Um, but I did make some some
[57:39] notes just to mention that there are a
[57:42] very common form of OCD is what's called
[57:45] harm OCD. Uh, where people may have
[57:47] intrusive thoughts that they're going to
[57:50] cause some harm to themselves or maybe
[57:51] to other people. An example of this is
[57:54] often where people may be driving, they
[57:56] hit a bump in the road, you know, bump
[57:57] in the road and feel like maybe they've
[58:00] hit a person or an animal and have to
[58:01] then travel, you know, maybe circle the
[58:03] block to make sure there's nobody there.
[58:05] Now, and a very important part of OCD is
[58:08] to recognize that the thoughts that
[58:09] people are having are all intrusive.
[58:12] They don't want these thoughts. Uh
[58:13] they're very painful thoughts to have
[58:15] and they're really very different than
[58:17] who these people who they are. And what
[58:18] I mean by that is that some people have,
[58:21] you know, the sexual obsessions, you
[58:22] know, where they have thoughts about
[58:25] maybe, you know, doing things to young
[58:26] children or animals even and and
[58:29] obviously it's all very it's all very
[58:31] disturbed and that's a very important
[58:33] part of it. I mean, as a clinician who
[58:34] treats OCD, I can tell very easily the difference between somebody
[58:39] who's a pedophile, you know, versus who
[58:41] somebody has OCD and worries about being
[58:43] a pedophile. They're two very different
[58:45] things. the person with OCD is sort of
[58:47] tortured by these unwanted thoughts that
[58:49] they're that they're having. Uh there's
[58:52] also what's called existential OCD. You
[58:54] know, people who sort of obsess over the
[58:56] meaning of life.
[58:58] Just right OCD is another form. Let's
[59:00] say you're walking down a sidewalk and
[59:02] you pass a leaf or a piece of paper or
[59:05] something. People with this form of OCD
[59:07] may have to stop and then just sort of
[59:09] take a look at what they see, identify
[59:12] it, be, you know, clearly identify what
[59:14] it is before they can move on. Um,
[59:17] there's sensory motor OCD, uh, which is
[59:20] a really tough one. Sensory motor is
[59:22] when people pay attention to
[59:24] normal physical sensations such as
[59:27] swallowing or their heartbeating or
[59:29] blinking or and and have to think about
[59:31] it every time it occurs. So, if you can
[59:33] imagine in sitting here tonight and
[59:36] thinking about every time you blink, you
[59:38] probably haven't even given that a
[59:39] thought tonight, but you probably have
[59:41] blinked se many times already today, but
[59:43] can imagine having to think about it
[59:45] every time every time it happens.
[59:48] There's relationship OCD where the focus
[59:50] of attention is on is on relationships.
[59:52] Um, often times it could be somebody
[59:54] who's married, you know, really loves
[59:56] his wife, let's say, and is tortured by
[59:58] thoughts of wondering if that's really
[1:00:00] true. So, this is just sort of a
[1:00:02] snapshot of the many different ways that OCD can show up. And I think it's
[1:00:06] just important to recognize that again,
[1:00:08] it's much more than what we typically
[1:00:11] see on in TV shows. Um,
[1:00:15] okay.
[1:00:20] So, one of the reasons why like mental
[1:00:23] health awareness is so important and
[1:00:24] events like this is so important is that
[1:00:26] when it comes to OCD, people on average
[1:00:30] go seven years before they actually get
[1:00:32] a diagnosis. So, they may see therapist
[1:00:35] after therapist and people who and see
[1:00:38] therapists who don't really recognize uh
[1:00:40] that they have obsessivempulsive
[1:00:42] disorder. In this study that was done by
[1:00:44] the International OCD Foundation, they
[1:00:47] found that 75% of people with OCD never
[1:00:50] actually receive a diagnosis. I mean,
[1:00:52] that's just a astounding. 95% never
[1:00:56] receive appropriate care. I mean, to
[1:00:58] think at this day and age that that
[1:01:00] number exists is just is just really
[1:01:02] outrageous. Um, and we know that there's good therapy out there. I mean
[1:01:07] there's you know treating again without
[1:01:10] going in tremendous detail you know
[1:01:11] treating OCD is very much very unlike
[1:01:14] other disorders uh it's not the
[1:01:16] traditional talk therapy it's not trying
[1:01:19] to find out in somebody's background
[1:01:20] what led to them developing OCD because
[1:01:22] we know that OCD is primarily a
[1:01:25] neurochemical problem in which certain
[1:01:28] you know functions in the brain aren't
[1:01:30] operating properly and so the therapy
[1:01:33] has nothing to do with traditional talk
[1:01:34] therapy it's all exposure therapy Y um
[1:01:38] and so it's cog a form of cognitive
[1:01:40] behavioral therapy called exposure and
[1:01:42] response prevention therapy and it's
[1:01:44] known to make for the same changes in
[1:01:46] the brain that medications can make. Um
[1:01:49] it's just a matter of seeing a therapist
[1:01:51] who knows who knows how to treat OCD.
[1:01:53] Now having said that the best treatment
[1:01:55] of OCD is truly known to be a
[1:01:57] combination of medication um and
[1:01:59] cognitive behavioral therapy
[1:02:01] specifically exposure and response
[1:02:02] prevention therapy.
[1:02:04] There are some people who uh do very
[1:02:07] well without taking medication. That's
[1:02:09] fine. But in my opinion, most people who
[1:02:11] have a more moderate to severe way
[1:02:13] probably do need to be taking
[1:02:14] medication.
[1:02:16] One of the things that many people with
[1:02:17] OCD are faced with though is that there
[1:02:20] can be a tremendous amount of shame in
[1:02:22] living with this disorder. Um especially
[1:02:24] if you're somebody who has what's called
[1:02:27] sort of the taboo obsessions, you know,
[1:02:29] like about sex, about, you know, about
[1:02:31] children, about harm. A lot of people
[1:02:33] have religious obsessions. Um, and so
[1:02:35] that shame too often prevents people
[1:02:38] from from getting the help that they
[1:02:40] need. And again, that speaks to the
[1:02:41] importance of events like uh like this
[1:02:43] here today
[1:02:45] with the our group OCD San Francisco. Uh
[1:02:49] we've been around for about uh well,
[1:02:51] it's probably more than 30 years now. Uh
[1:02:54] what we can offer is that we do refer
[1:02:56] people to local support groups. Uh these
[1:02:59] support groups are all uh peerrun and
[1:03:02] they're free so there's no there's no
[1:03:03] cost. Um I used to run some of them. I'm
[1:03:06] not running them uh any of them
[1:03:08] currently.
[1:03:09] Um we have a referral line or a um a
[1:03:14] phone line where people they contact us
[1:03:16] either by email or by phone and we can
[1:03:17] help them uh with referrals to uh
[1:03:20] clinicians in in the area. Uh we also
[1:03:23] have a annual OCD walk, excuse me, which
[1:03:27] is typically around Lake Merritt in
[1:03:29] Oakland and this year that's coming up.
[1:03:31] I think we decided on uh sometime in in
[1:03:34] October. It's a great event. It's one
[1:03:36] it's our really the only fundraiser we
[1:03:38] do each year and it's sponsored along
[1:03:40] with the International OCD Foundation.
[1:03:43] Each year we also sponsor an event with
[1:03:45] Stanford University. Um uh uh once a
[1:03:48] year there's the OCD awareness week. Um,
[1:03:51] and that's typically in the fall and
[1:03:53] each fall we have an event on the
[1:03:54] Stanford campus uh with CD group that
[1:03:57] does a lot of a lot of research. Uh, so
[1:03:59] if you're interested in that, I can
[1:04:00] certainly tell you more about that. Um,
[1:04:05] and let's see if that was anything else I wanted to mention. Um,
[1:04:15] oh, with the IOCDF again, the
[1:04:18] International OCD Foundation, of course,
[1:04:20] their, you know, their mandate is to
[1:04:23] help people with OCD and their families.
[1:04:26] However, they also talk about really OCD
[1:04:29] and related disorder. Uh, so it really
[1:04:31] isn't just OCD. The other disorders that
[1:04:34] are considered related one being body
[1:04:36] dysmorphic disorder uh is which when the
[1:04:39] focus of attention the obsessional focus
[1:04:41] is on how somebody looks. So it can look
[1:04:44] a lot like OCD since there's a lot of
[1:04:45] obsessive thinking and a lot of
[1:04:47] compulsive behaviors. Uh but because
[1:04:50] it's about physical appearance it's body
[1:04:52] dysmorphic disorder. Uh there's also
[1:04:55] hoarding disorder. Hoarding has gotten a
[1:04:57] lot of attention in recent years. uh
[1:05:00] it's only very recently that hoarding
[1:05:02] was um given its own diagnosis. Years
[1:05:04] past it was just it was part of OCD. Uh
[1:05:07] but now it has its own diagnosis. And
[1:05:10] the other two disorders that are on um
[1:05:12] in this category are tricky.
[1:05:16] Trickotillamania is the compulsive hair
[1:05:18] pulling and the skin picking disorder
[1:05:20] also called excoriation.
[1:05:22] Um both of those trickotillamania and
[1:05:25] skip skinpicking fall under the heading
[1:05:27] of what's called body focused repetitive
[1:05:29] behaviors. Um in which also include like
[1:05:32] biting your fingernails or chewing the
[1:05:34] you know the your gums in your mouth or
[1:05:35] whatever. Uh so a lot of behaviors fall
[1:05:38] into that category. So it's just
[1:05:40] important to know that with the OCD
[1:05:42] Foundation we're not just talking about
[1:05:44] OCD itself. We're also talking about
[1:05:46] other disorders that are related uh to
[1:05:48] OCD.
[1:05:49] So, that's really what I have prepared
[1:05:52] um for tonight. I'm really happy that
[1:05:54] you all could uh join us, but um if
[1:05:56] there's time for questions, if you want
[1:05:58] to ask any questions, I'm happy to take
[1:06:00] some questions. And by the way, as I
[1:06:01] said, I'll leave these newsletters here.
[1:06:04] Um these are it's really very
[1:06:05] informative. I should mention that the
[1:06:07] International OCD Foundation has a
[1:06:09] wonderful website. If you just go to
[1:06:12] iocdf.org, org. They've got a ton of
[1:06:14] information regarding everything you
[1:06:16] could possibly think about regarding
[1:06:18] OCD. Uh they also have an annual
[1:06:21] conference. They have two actually. Uh
[1:06:23] there's the one that's in person and
[1:06:25] each year it's in a different part of
[1:06:27] the country. This year it's going to be
[1:06:28] in Seattle in uh July. Um two year two
[1:06:32] or three years ago was in San Francisco
[1:06:34] and I assume it's going to come back
[1:06:35] here within a few years. And we also
[1:06:38] have an online conference. people who
[1:06:40] can't uh attend the conference uh then
[1:06:43] they can participate in the online
[1:06:46] coming up in the fall. Also, with the
[1:06:49] in-person conference in Seattle, there
[1:06:51] will be a streaming uh much of it will
[1:06:52] be streaming as well. So, if people
[1:06:54] can't make that, they're certainly
[1:06:55] welcome to attend online. So, thank you
[1:06:58] all very much. I feel like I ran through
[1:07:00] a bunch of information. Um but any
[1:07:02] questions, I'm happy to answer.
[1:07:04] >> Well, thank you, Scott. That was an
[1:07:06] informative presentation. You kind of
[1:07:07] gave us a glimpse into OCD. Um, are
[1:07:10] there any questions from the council?
[1:07:13] So, I think that was helpful. If you
[1:07:15] could leave the newsletters in the back,
[1:07:17] that way we can pick some up and public
[1:07:20] >> on their way out. Um, usually if we have
[1:07:23] any other comments from the public, it
[1:07:24] usually comes when I get to oral commun.
[1:07:29] » Okay, sounds perfect. Great. Thank you.
[1:07:31] very much.
[1:07:32] >> Thank you all for having me.
[1:07:34] >> Thank you, Scott. I I picked up your workbook and I couldn't
[1:07:42] put it down. It was quite a problem. But
[1:07:45] any rate, it's it's quite engaging.
[1:07:49] >> I didn't want to advertise myself, but
[1:07:50] now that Mary mentioned I did write a
[1:07:52] board.
[1:07:54] >> All right. Thanks again.
[1:07:55] >> Yeah.
[1:08:01] » All right. Well, again, thank you,
[1:08:02] Scott. So, I'm going to move on to the
[1:08:04] town manager report.
[1:08:07] Yes, Darcy Smith, town manager. Keep it
[1:08:09] quick. So, I have exciting news, which
[1:08:12] is that the re-imagined Portola Valley
[1:08:16] Post was mailed and hopefully delivered
[1:08:18] this weekend. We do have some extra
[1:08:21] copies. Thank you. Uh hopefully more
[1:08:25] people take the survey. There's a link
[1:08:27] down here. We've only had 33 responses
[1:08:30] and I think we sent out over 2,000 of
[1:08:32] these. So, I'm hoping someone maybe in
[1:08:35] the audience will scan the QR code. It asked only a few questions that I
[1:08:39] think the fastest one did it in a
[1:08:41] minute. So, it's not one of those 30 or
[1:08:44] 40 question surveys. And we will
[1:08:46] continue this. So, I'm open to ideas. I
[1:08:48] hope to work with like the conservation
[1:08:50] committee, which I see a representative
[1:08:51] in the audience, emergency preparedness
[1:08:53] committee, other committees um to
[1:08:56] provide press because some of them as
[1:08:58] part of the budget wanted to mail their
[1:08:59] own postcard. So, this is much more
[1:09:01] fiscally responsible, but look for the
[1:09:03] next one in early July. This weekend, we
[1:09:07] have the horse fair, which is put on,
[1:09:09] but our by our amazing trails and paths
[1:09:11] committee right here at Town Center
[1:09:13] starting at 10:00 a.m. And this is
[1:09:16] exciting.
[1:09:17] Lots of horses. We also have the SAD
[1:09:20] Blitz coming up in May. And then I've
[1:09:22] included a few dates here. And moving
[1:09:25] forward, we'll make sure you know about
[1:09:27] these dates early on in in the
[1:09:28] newsletter.
[1:09:30] Audits, another hot topic. We are
[1:09:33] working through the audits. There's four
[1:09:34] here and we've gotten one completely
[1:09:36] done. We have a finance committee
[1:09:38] meeting next Tuesday at 4, but this item
[1:09:41] has been deferred from the finance
[1:09:42] committee review. They'll be looking at
[1:09:45] the budget in case that interests you.
[1:09:47] Um, and so we continue to work on these
[1:09:49] and I'll update the dates as we have
[1:09:51] them. We are still working on the
[1:09:55] 22 23 audit and again working through
[1:09:57] that. Then we'll move on to 23 24 and 20
[1:10:00] for 25 and we'll bring those to council
[1:10:03] when they're ready. And that concludes
[1:10:05] my short report. Thank you.
[1:10:08] >> Thank you Darcy. Um can I just for
[1:10:10] people who don't know what the sod
[1:10:12] lists, do you want to explain that more
[1:10:14] clearly?
[1:10:18] » I don't actually know what it is.
[1:10:22] >> I know it has a great name. goes on for
[1:10:24] three days and I think it relates to
[1:10:26] soding.
[1:10:27] >> Well, no.
[1:10:29] >> Okay.
[1:10:29] >> It's it's sudden oak death.
[1:10:31] >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah.
[1:10:33] >> So, it's basically it's it's basically a
[1:10:35] survey to understand, you know, what's
[1:10:38] our exposure is to sudden oak death in
[1:10:40] the community.
[1:10:41] >> Great.
[1:10:42] >> So,
[1:10:43] >> and more specifically, Yeah.
[1:10:44] >> And there'll be I mean, when we get
[1:10:46] closer, there's going to be more
[1:10:47] information.
[1:10:47] >> Correct. Yeah.
[1:10:48] >> Yeah. Thank you. But I think we're
[1:10:50] looking for citizen uh citizen
[1:10:53] scientists to be able to sample and
[1:10:55] carry on. So it will need some uh
[1:10:58] outreach.
[1:11:01] Okay. So then let me move on to oral
[1:11:03] communication. So this is an opportunity
[1:11:04] for the public to comment um on anything
[1:11:08] that they've heard so far tonight or on
[1:11:10] anything that's not on the agenda. So
[1:11:12] this is not for things that are on the
[1:11:13] agenda. Once we get to those agenda
[1:11:15] items, you can comment. But this is not
[1:11:17] on the agenda or if it's one of the
[1:11:18] previous presentation. So if you would
[1:11:22] come up to the mic
[1:11:27] but so let why don't I I picked him
[1:11:29] first and then I I didn't see you I
[1:11:30] apologize but but I'll get to you. You
[1:11:32] next um and if you could just you know
[1:11:34] tell us your name and then
[1:11:37] >> Hello everybody. So my name is Joseph
[1:11:38] Costa. not currently a resident of
[1:11:40] Portulla Valley, but my family and I
[1:11:43] want to be. And we're looking um at a
[1:11:46] property on Alpine Road, 3510 Alpine
[1:11:48] Road, uh which is immediately adjacent
[1:11:51] to the Stanford project that's going on
[1:11:54] in the city now, which is a great
[1:11:57] concern to me purchasing that property.
[1:11:59] So, I don't know if this is the proper
[1:12:01] forum for that. Um, but I just wanted
[1:12:04] to, you know, maybe get feedback on, you
[1:12:07] know, the plan that they have and how
[1:12:08] they're being controlled that they
[1:12:10] follow it and, uh, with removal of
[1:12:13] trees, etc. Cuz my the property that in
[1:12:16] question shares a pretty long property
[1:12:18] line with them and the house is pretty
[1:12:21] close to that property line. And um, so
[1:12:24] before we move forward with that, I
[1:12:26] wanted to make sure that the proper
[1:12:27] controls were in place um, that secures
[1:12:30] my investment basically. So that's my
[1:12:33] question.
[1:12:35] >> Yeah. And this is generally public
[1:12:37] comment rather than questions. But what
[1:12:38] I would recommend is if you reach out to
[1:12:41] the planning director, I think that they
[1:12:43] can give you an overview of the project.
[1:12:45] Um.
[1:12:45] >> Okay.
[1:12:46] Good.
[1:12:47] >> And he'll also, you know, be able to
[1:12:49] give
[1:12:49] >> he he is a she. It's s
[1:12:54] >> Okay. Okay. Okay.
[1:12:57] >> Yeah. I mean, I've done my research. I
[1:12:58] just want to make sure there's, you
[1:13:00] know, what's in place to make sure they
[1:13:02] don't do what they're supposed to do and break the rules.
[1:13:06] >> Sure. Yeah. Like I'd recommend just
[1:13:08] schedule an appointment, Sarah.
[1:13:09] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:13:10] >> You're welcome. All right. Next, please.
[1:13:15] » Uh I'm Bob Bower and I'm a member of the
[1:13:18] Porto Valley School District, uh trustee
[1:13:21] and serving as clerk. And I'm here today
[1:13:24] because I want to inform you of a couple
[1:13:26] of things. The first one is that we're
[1:13:27] having a candidate night for the two
[1:13:30] candidates running for county
[1:13:31] superintendent and that's a very
[1:13:34] important uh position for our school
[1:13:35] district and our local community and our
[1:13:37] kids. It's on Monday night and I would
[1:13:40] first of all welcome you. It's both
[1:13:42] going to be virtual as well as in person
[1:13:44] and there will be a recording thereafter
[1:13:46] and if the town would consider including
[1:13:48] some communication about it even after
[1:13:50] the event where the video will be posted
[1:13:53] I think it will help our voters in our
[1:13:55] community but the most important reason
[1:13:57] I wanted to come today is to address the
[1:13:59] issue with the Hawthorne's property uh
[1:14:01] and in particular um address the fact
[1:14:04] that the consideration that's been given
[1:14:06] to date has not involved the school
[1:14:08] district at all our we have depended on
[1:14:11] our former trustee uh Gary Hanning who
[1:14:14] has been a member of the trails
[1:14:15] committee forever it seems and has done
[1:14:17] a wonderful job. the two options that
[1:14:20] came out did not consider what was
[1:14:22] agreed to when that occurred. And then
[1:14:25] in particular, I want to make the town
[1:14:27] aware that the school district, first of
[1:14:29] all, I'm I'm addressing as a person
[1:14:31] because we haven't taken up the matter
[1:14:34] until tomorrow night. And so, the timing
[1:14:36] just didn't work. But tomorrow night,
[1:14:38] I'll be proposing and discussing this
[1:14:39] matter. And I really want to invite that
[1:14:42] the district work together closely with
[1:14:44] the town. Our superintendent has reached
[1:14:46] out to the town manager just this week.
[1:14:49] So there hasn't been a lot of time to do
[1:14:50] this, but I think it's very important
[1:14:52] that we together um as you know because of the options
[1:14:58] that are now going forward in the two
[1:15:00] options are access on Portulla Road
[1:15:02] where over a hundred of our kids pass by
[1:15:05] twice a day. Both of those significantly
[1:15:08] compromise their safety. Um, MidPen
[1:15:13] is going there and an agent I want to
[1:15:16] read what I wrote because of the time,
[1:15:17] but um um we as an agency bear direct
[1:15:21] responsibility for the safety of the
[1:15:22] children traveling to and to and from
[1:15:25] school and among that legal
[1:15:27] responsibility is for students in route
[1:15:29] to school to be working with our active
[1:15:32] partners in local agencies and
[1:15:34] jurisdictions in evaluating and
[1:15:35] addressing the school crossing safety.
[1:15:38] In particular, I want to make the the current council aware that we
[1:15:44] share cost for the crossing guard at
[1:15:46] Portola and Alpine Road. And that uh in
[1:15:50] my experience means that we have a
[1:15:52] shared legal responsibility for the
[1:15:54] safety of the people who are being uh
[1:15:58] attended to at that crossing. Um that
[1:16:02] means that we both have an exposure
[1:16:04] should any harm happen to the children.
[1:16:05] And it's something that needs to be
[1:16:07] considered under the the current SQA
[1:16:10] activity that's going. There's a
[1:16:12] responsibility that all affected agency
[1:16:14] be consulted during the EIR process. And
[1:16:17] we believe the school district should be
[1:16:19] formally recognized as coordinating
[1:16:21] agency in the EIR even though there's
[1:16:24] been no outreach on their behalf so far.
[1:16:27] Um,
[1:16:28] >> and I'm going to have to ask you to
[1:16:29] start wrapping it up. We're a little
[1:16:30] over time.
[1:16:31] >> Thank you. I'm sorry. So, um, I'm
[1:16:35] confident that the school district
[1:16:37] wishes to work very carefully with you.
[1:16:39] I can only make a personal statement,
[1:16:40] but I've spoken to the superintendent
[1:16:42] and other members of the, uh, of the
[1:16:44] community, and I'm proposing that we
[1:16:47] take responsibilities and look at the
[1:16:49] options together and work on whatever
[1:16:51] access solution is ultimately proposed
[1:16:54] that puts the safety of our children in
[1:16:56] our community first. Thank you.
[1:16:59] >> Thank you.
[1:17:02] All right. Is there anyone else in the
[1:17:04] schoolhouse that have oral
[1:17:05] communications? All right. Seeing none
[1:17:07] in the schoolhouse. Um Christie, go
[1:17:10] ahead.
[1:17:12] >> Yes, thank you. I have four questions.
[1:17:15] Um the first one is we received a letter
[1:17:18] from HCD and I understand our town has
[1:17:21] written a letter back that has not been
[1:17:23] made public either letter and I believe
[1:17:27] in the past
[1:17:29] the public has been better informed. So
[1:17:33] I don't know how we're able to get up to
[1:17:35] date with where we stand with HCD and
[1:17:38] I'm interested in learning. Uh the
[1:17:41] second thing is uh I'd like to be able
[1:17:44] to attend both meetings, mid pen open
[1:17:47] space district and the council or the
[1:17:51] planning commission meetings which both
[1:17:53] start on Wednesdays at 7:00. So, I'm
[1:17:56] hoping this council can come to
[1:18:00] u a compromise in that their last
[1:18:04] meeting was at five o'clock and I was
[1:18:06] able to listen to both. And I think this
[1:18:09] is so important to the town that I'm
[1:18:12] asking you to compromise with them and
[1:18:15] get them to understand that we cannot be
[1:18:18] on two meetings at once and listen
[1:18:20] thoroughly. Uh we want to speak at both
[1:18:23] meetings. So listening to it later does
[1:18:25] not work for us. Um I do think that Mid
[1:18:29] Pen needs to come and do an open session
[1:18:31] in our town council room as they did at
[1:18:34] the beginning of this project um a
[1:18:38] couple years ago. Many of the residents
[1:18:41] are unaware that the parking lot across
[1:18:43] from Robert's number nine and number 10
[1:18:46] at Alpine Road and Portullah Road at
[1:18:49] would cause a four-way stop.
[1:18:52] uh and uh the safe routes to school. We
[1:18:57] want to understand what's going to
[1:18:58] happen with Alpine Trail. It's of
[1:19:01] extreme importance to the safety of
[1:19:04] children, uh horses, pedestrians
[1:19:08] alike.
[1:19:10] And last but not least, the Stamford
[1:19:13] Wedge. If there is going to be traffic
[1:19:15] issues there, we want to be fully
[1:19:17] informed and understand that process.
[1:19:21] um they put out a nice process for their
[1:19:25] uh their students on their campus, but
[1:19:29] we're not seeing uh as much here. Um and
[1:19:35] we have places to go. We have doctor's
[1:19:37] appointments. We need to know and be on
[1:19:40] time as well. Thank you.
[1:19:42] >> Thank you, Christie. And Sarah, we
[1:19:45] haven't submitted a letter back to HCD
[1:19:47] yet. Is that correct? Yeah. So, the
[1:19:49] reason you haven't seen anything is
[1:19:50] because there nothing has been
[1:19:51] submitted.
[1:19:53] All right. Is there anybody else? Nobody
[1:19:54] in the schoolhouse. Nobody else online.
[1:19:57] So, I'm going to close oral
[1:19:58] communications
[1:20:01] and move on to the consent agenda. So,
[1:20:04] again, I'd like to open the consent
[1:20:06] agenda up to public comment. Is there
[1:20:08] any public comment on this consent
[1:20:10] agenda?
[1:20:12] All right, Rita, go ahead.
[1:20:16] Hi, thank you for taking my comment. Um,
[1:20:19] in just looking at the warrant list, uh,
[1:20:22] there's about $250,000
[1:20:24] on this warrant list for contractors.
[1:20:27] Uh, call me crazy, but I thought we were
[1:20:29] trying to tighten our belts. So, that's
[1:20:32] a4 million. And uh and it would be
[1:20:36] really nice to know how much of that
[1:20:39] money are we then getting back in, you
[1:20:42] know, maybe from Stamford or from people
[1:20:45] building homes or something. That number
[1:20:48] just sitting out there by itself, you
[1:20:50] know, for um lawyers fees, $90,000. for
[1:20:54] cotton shers. Uh the go guy 30,000 for a
[1:21:00] SCSG
[1:21:02] uh contractor that was about 79 80,000
[1:21:06] and another 50,000 for a good city.
[1:21:09] That's a that's a lot of money for a
[1:21:11] town that has no money. Um so how much
[1:21:14] of that money are we getting back? And
[1:21:17] uh if that can be updated, even if you
[1:21:19] can't answer me now, answer the public
[1:21:22] now. If we could get that information
[1:21:24] before next Tuesday's meeting in case
[1:21:26] it's not shared since they're going to
[1:21:28] only talk about the budget, it'd be
[1:21:30] really nice to understand how much of
[1:21:33] that money are we getting back. Thank
[1:21:35] you.
[1:21:36] >> Thank you, Rita. All right. Anybody else
[1:21:39] in the schoolhouse? I don't see any
[1:21:41] other hands online, so I'll bring it
[1:21:42] back to the council. Um, does anybody
[1:21:44] want to pull any of the consent agenda items?
[1:21:48] >> I want to pull the warrant list.
[1:21:51] >> Okay. Anything else?
[1:21:54] All right. So, we're going to I'm
[1:21:56] looking for a motion on 6 A and B.
[1:22:02] » Motion to approve.
[1:22:04] >> Second.
[1:22:05] >> Okay. All in favor?
[1:22:07] >> I.
[1:22:09] >> All right. Then moving on to 6C. Judith,
[1:22:13] go ahead.
[1:22:13] >> Yeah. It's a pretty specific question
[1:22:15] about the sheriff's contract payment,
[1:22:18] and it's on page 17.
[1:22:21] I understand this 1.1.03
[1:22:26] million to be paid. In some places it's
[1:22:30] referencing fiscal year 2526, but then
[1:22:33] there's a parenthetical
[1:22:35] January 1st to June 30th. So I'm not
[1:22:40] sure if that h what is it covering?
[1:22:44] >> It's covering the second half of fiscal
[1:22:46] year 2526. So January 1st through June
[1:22:49] 3rd.
[1:22:50] So the full year.
[1:22:52] >> So this is the second payment. They bill
[1:22:53] us in two installments. This is the
[1:22:55] second installment
[1:22:56] >> in equal installments.
[1:22:58] >> Yes.
[1:22:59] >> Yeah. That that's all I needed. Thank
[1:23:00] you. Okay.
[1:23:02] >> And Tony, is there any comments on
[1:23:05] anything that Rita asked? I mean, and no
[1:23:07] is an okay answer for now. I just if you
[1:23:08] had any immediate
[1:23:10] >> Yes. As been explained in previous
[1:23:12] times, any charge by the consultants to
[1:23:16] fund 701 is funded by Apple. Perfect.
[1:23:20] Thank you. Appreciate it.
[1:23:21] >> Hang on. I actually have a question too
[1:23:24] on the
[1:23:24] >> Oh, go ahead.
[1:23:25] >> Thank you, chair.
[1:23:26] >> Thank you, mayors. Um,
[1:23:29] could I just get clarification? As long
[1:23:31] as we pulled this item. I was going to
[1:23:32] email you later. Um, for the Sanonteo
[1:23:35] Sheriff, there are there we have uh fund
[1:23:39] 202 and fund 203 and department 210.
[1:23:43] Just curious what the different funds
[1:23:45] and why it's not coming out of one pot.
[1:23:49] is we allocated costs with the budget.
[1:23:52] So half part of the costs were covered
[1:23:54] by the public safety sales tax which is
[1:23:56] fund 202. We have the cops grant which
[1:23:59] is fund 203 and then we had the
[1:24:01] remaining funds of ARPA which is fund
[1:24:02] 225 and that's the $50,000. So ARPA's
[1:24:06] ARPA funds are completely spent. Uh but
[1:24:08] the rest is what we get in annual
[1:24:10] aotments from our public safety sales
[1:24:12] tax and our cops grant. So, we split the
[1:24:15] cost. Well, we allocate some of the cost
[1:24:18] of the sheriff's contract to these
[1:24:19] funds.
[1:24:20] >> Great. Okay. Thanks so much. Thank you
[1:24:22] for following that out. I appreciate
[1:24:24] that. Thank you.
[1:24:26] >> I have a follow-up question on 701.
[1:24:28] Sorry. Uh 701. I'm just looking at it.
[1:24:31] Uh it's it says uh on say the second
[1:24:35] line, it's uh 51320
[1:24:39] CSG consultants. It says 10171. It
[1:24:43] doesn't uh separate out what
[1:24:45] >> there's another there's a report that
[1:24:47] says checks by fund report.
[1:24:50] So if you go to fund se all the checks
[1:24:52] that are cut out of fund 701 those are
[1:24:54] the those are covered by c u applicant
[1:24:57] deposits.
[1:25:03] You have a check register report. You
[1:25:05] have a paid invoices report. Then you
[1:25:07] have a check by fund report.
[1:25:10] So Mary, do you mind if we move on and
[1:25:12] you could check check with Tony later?
[1:25:15] >> Okay. All right. So I would entertain a
[1:25:18] motion um for 6C.
[1:25:22] >> So moved.
[1:25:23] >> Have a second.
[1:25:24] >> Second.
[1:25:25] >> Thank you. All in favor say I.
[1:25:28] >> I.
[1:25:28] >> Thank you. 6C's have been approved.
[1:25:31] Thank you, Tony.
[1:25:33] All right. Moving on to seven, the
[1:25:35] public hearing. So I formally open the
[1:25:39] public hearing. What do I have to say
[1:25:40] spe special words here or just moving
[1:25:42] into
[1:25:43] >> Right. Actually we're going to take the
[1:25:44] item as as normal and then when it's
[1:25:47] time for public comment you will open
[1:25:48] the public hearing.
[1:25:49] >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
[1:25:54] So Brandon and Sarah, welcome.
[1:26:18] Is that after yours?
[1:26:24] » Whenever you're ready. We're ready. All
[1:26:25] >> right. Good evening. Good evening, town
[1:26:28] council. So, I'm Sarah Cors, the
[1:26:29] planning and building director for the
[1:26:31] town of Porto Valley, and I'm joined
[1:26:32] here tonight with Brandon Ducas, who is
[1:26:34] our senior contract planner. So, I'm
[1:26:37] just going to kick it off with a very
[1:26:38] quick introduction for tonight. So,
[1:26:41] we're introducing kind of three
[1:26:43] different zoning code amendments. So,
[1:26:45] there's a couple different topics that
[1:26:47] are lumped together in one ordinance.
[1:26:50] And so, going back to why this is before
[1:26:52] you today. So when I talk about the ADU
[1:26:55] and JADU ordinance um so it's all in one
[1:26:57] ordinance but I'll talk about this topic
[1:26:59] first and then one. So with the J AUs
[1:27:02] and J ADUs, there has been our adopted
[1:27:05] housing elements and within our housing
[1:27:08] elements, there is a program 7-8 that
[1:27:11] provides some clear guidance about um
[1:27:14] updating the town's ADU ordinance to
[1:27:16] regularly comply with state law. And it
[1:27:20] also kind of identifies some other
[1:27:22] specific implementation actions and a
[1:27:24] time frame for that as well. Um, so when
[1:27:27] we're looking at the ADU and JADU aspect
[1:27:29] of the code amendments, you know, we're
[1:27:31] looking to make sure that it's in
[1:27:33] compliance with best practices and also
[1:27:35] best practices related
[1:27:38] compliance with the state law. So then
[1:27:40] moving on um with the emergency shelters
[1:27:43] and de development indemnification
[1:27:46] ordinances, those are kind of the two
[1:27:47] other pieces of this sort of bundled
[1:27:50] zoning code amendment. Um there is a
[1:27:53] housing element program 8-3 that
[1:27:55] provides specific guidance for uh
[1:27:57] related to the emergency shelters and
[1:27:59] then we also have guidance to update the
[1:28:01] town's municipal code consistent with
[1:28:03] state law and best practices again kind
[1:28:05] of related to all of them but especially
[1:28:06] for the indemnification as well. So we
[1:28:09] have that kind of guidance that led us
[1:28:10] here tonight to do some updates to our
[1:28:12] zoning code again to make sure we're
[1:28:14] complying with state law and best
[1:28:15] practices. So with this time frame, we
[1:28:18] originally brought this forward to
[1:28:20] planning commission in February for a
[1:28:22] study session. We received some of their
[1:28:24] feedback and made a few edits according
[1:28:26] to planning commission's direction and
[1:28:28] we brought it back to them just this
[1:28:30] past month in April for their formal
[1:28:32] review and recommendation. So planning
[1:28:35] commission did have some debate on um
[1:28:38] the indemnification piece of the zoning
[1:28:40] code amendment and so they decided to
[1:28:42] sort of split it apart into two separate
[1:28:44] resolutions. So that's what you saw in
[1:28:46] your packet. There's two separate
[1:28:47] resolutions that they voted on. So the
[1:28:49] first one included information for
[1:28:51] identification. That was a 4 to1 vote.
[1:28:53] And then the other resolution included
[1:28:56] the ADU and JADU language as well as the
[1:28:59] emergency shelters language for the
[1:29:01] zoning code amendment. And that was a 5
[1:29:02] and0 vote from planning commission. And
[1:29:05] so now we're here tonight in May in
[1:29:06] front of town council for your formal
[1:29:08] review and consideration for potential
[1:29:10] adoption.
[1:29:12] So at this point I'm going to hand it
[1:29:13] back over to Brandon. He's going to walk
[1:29:15] us through a little bit more detail
[1:29:16] about what's before you.
[1:29:19] >> Good evening, council. Uh again, Brandon
[1:29:22] Ducas, um contract senior planner with
[1:29:25] uh kind of kind of going over the actual
[1:29:26] code updates. So, kind of the brief
[1:29:29] overview for the ADU and J8U. We're
[1:29:31] looking to rescend our existing
[1:29:33] standards which are contained in chapter
[1:29:36] 183640B,
[1:29:38] which is uses permitted in all zones.
[1:29:41] that's very interesting or it's
[1:29:43] accessory uses, sorry. Um, and it's kind
[1:29:46] of in a weird location. So, we are
[1:29:47] proposing as kind of a best practice to
[1:29:50] create a new chapter since we do
[1:29:51] anticipate having to update this
[1:29:53] regularly since the state is always
[1:29:56] changing the rules on this for us to
[1:29:58] make it easier and have a very
[1:30:00] self-contained chapter with all these
[1:30:03] standards.
[1:30:05] And so kind of the background to this,
[1:30:06] you know, the the state law and intent
[1:30:09] is really to remove barriers, streamline
[1:30:12] approvals, and incomplete uh increase
[1:30:14] housing capacity. Our current standards
[1:30:17] are non-compliant. They were last
[1:30:19] updated, I believe, in 2019. They are no
[1:30:21] longer compliant. Since 2021, we've had
[1:30:25] 12 new bills that have been passed
[1:30:27] changing the regulations for ADU law. We
[1:30:30] did receive an HCD non-compliant letter
[1:30:33] back in 2023. They reminded us um last
[1:30:36] year that we had still not replied to
[1:30:39] that and that we need to update that.
[1:30:43] And to kind of guide staff's
[1:30:46] development of this, you know, staff
[1:30:48] made use of HCD's handbook, which they
[1:30:51] did just re release a new updated
[1:30:53] version in March. Um, additionally, we
[1:30:57] reviewed their technical assistance
[1:30:58] letter. So, local agencies are required
[1:31:01] to submit their ordinances to HCD for
[1:31:04] review. HCD then sends you a letter back
[1:31:07] telling you what you got wrong. And we
[1:31:10] extensively review those, especially
[1:31:12] those that were issued this year to
[1:31:14] understand the guidance that HCD is
[1:31:16] providing and saying yes or no, what can
[1:31:19] you do? Um, and that will kind of go
[1:31:21] throughout when we're talking about the
[1:31:23] different standards and it led staff to
[1:31:26] why we're recommending what we
[1:31:28] recommending is based off of that
[1:31:30] guidance and that is you know HCD's
[1:31:33] interpretation which is a fair
[1:31:34] interpretation of the law and you know
[1:31:37] I'll let Katherine kind of expand more
[1:31:38] on the legal side of that. Um but that's
[1:31:42] kind of guiding this conversation and
[1:31:44] why we've made the recommendations that
[1:31:47] we have moving forward which were
[1:31:49] supported by the planning commission. So
[1:31:52] one of the big things and this is new
[1:31:55] this year is how HCD and the state law
[1:31:59] has been amended to really look at how
[1:32:02] the what's called 66314 which are going
[1:32:05] to be units that are created per local
[1:32:07] ordinance and units 66323 units which
[1:32:12] are state exempt units. Those are the we
[1:32:15] have to approve well and we'll get into
[1:32:18] a little more technical on that but
[1:32:20] those are the you know the conversion of
[1:32:22] existing space that's the 800 square f
[1:32:24] feet and those are the multif family
[1:32:26] ones those we always have to approve we
[1:32:29] can't apply any additional standards
[1:32:31] outside what the state sets
[1:32:34] within so the big picture is 66314 that
[1:32:38] is the authorizing language that says a
[1:32:41] city may adopt an ordinance that
[1:32:43] regulates ADUs and it does have a lot of
[1:32:47] language where it says you can apply all
[1:32:49] these standards but further down it
[1:32:51] further restricts what we can and cannot
[1:32:54] do and it says you uh if you adopt an
[1:32:58] ordinance your ordinance can only do
[1:33:00] these things or only have these maximum
[1:33:03] standards
[1:33:05] and HCD's new interpretation and how the
[1:33:08] state law is worded is that you are
[1:33:11] allowed your stateex exempt ones the 663
[1:33:13] 323 units no matter what. And then you
[1:33:17] are still allowed a 66314 unit per our
[1:33:21] ordinance or if we do not adopt an
[1:33:23] ordinance per what's authorized under
[1:33:25] that section if we do not have an
[1:33:27] ordinance. So that results in the
[1:33:29] possibility of having three ADUs plus a
[1:33:33] JADU on a site and that has been you
[1:33:37] know HCD's new position that's in their
[1:33:39] guidance their technical assistant
[1:33:41] documents on this is how that works and
[1:33:45] so that really comes to that
[1:33:46] conversation of the number of ADUs
[1:33:48] permitted. So this next table is just a
[1:33:51] very high level of all the standards,
[1:33:55] right? I know there's a lot of
[1:33:56] information on here.
[1:33:57] >> Hi chart.
[1:33:59] >> Yes. And it kind of divvy ups kind of
[1:34:01] the different conversations.
[1:34:03] I highlighted a couple sections where
[1:34:06] there is a little bit of a policy
[1:34:09] discretion where staff recommended and
[1:34:12] worked with the planning commission to
[1:34:15] have the recommendation that you have
[1:34:16] before you. for example, the 1,200
[1:34:18] square feet, the zero parking based off
[1:34:21] of best practices. But that is where you
[1:34:24] do have some limited policy discretion
[1:34:27] on to influence that number, not by very
[1:34:31] much. And we'll kind of go through that
[1:34:33] in the next couple slides.
[1:34:35] Um so that is uh just briefly is your maximum size and this is only in
[1:34:41] regards to attached ADUs and detached
[1:34:45] ADUs. Conversion ADUs do not have a a
[1:34:49] size restriction not besides whatever
[1:34:52] the existing building that they're
[1:34:54] converting. Uh same with multifamily
[1:34:57] ADUs since those are authorized under
[1:34:59] 66323
[1:35:01] they are only uh prescribed those
[1:35:04] minimum standards of a 4ft side and rear
[1:35:07] the height limitations that's it we
[1:35:09] cannot restrict the size of those
[1:35:11] multifamily ADUs the conversion and
[1:35:13] detached so where we have a little bit
[1:35:16] of discretion is in the attached ADU or
[1:35:20] the detached ADU and
[1:35:24] so the State laws requirements are for
[1:35:27] attached ADUs, you can restrict it up to
[1:35:30] 50% of the primary dwelling except that
[1:35:34] you have to allow at least 800 square ft
[1:35:37] for a studio or onebedroom or 1,000
[1:35:40] square ft for a two or more bedroom. For
[1:35:43] a detached ADU, it is just the straight
[1:35:46] 850 or 1,000 square ft. And then for
[1:35:49] conversion ADUs, again, there are no
[1:35:51] maximum size, you know.
[1:35:54] This was the original language staff did
[1:35:57] have in the study session that we went
[1:35:59] to um city coun or I'm sorry planning
[1:36:02] commission with and there was a
[1:36:04] discussion uh of the commission kind of
[1:36:07] going back and forth on this number you
[1:36:09] know is the thousand okay but we allow
[1:36:12] 1500 now under our current ordinance and
[1:36:16] they directed staff to kind of evaluate
[1:36:18] that and come forward with a proposal.
[1:36:21] staff did come back and that's where we
[1:36:22] just recommended the flat 1200. That
[1:36:25] makes it very simple for everyone. It's
[1:36:27] not as big as we currently allow under
[1:36:30] our ordinance, but it is within reason.
[1:36:34] Additionally, the 1,200 under HCD's
[1:36:37] guidelines is kind of the default for if
[1:36:40] you don't have an ordinance. That is in
[1:36:43] their handbook is if you don't adopt an
[1:36:44] ordinance, 1,200 square feet, 4 foot
[1:36:46] side and rear setbacks. That is the
[1:36:49] standard. if we don't adopt one
[1:36:53] uh for the size requirements kind of
[1:36:55] moving into multif family again um those
[1:36:57] sections um since they're and I I didn't
[1:37:01] update the correct uh code citation but
[1:37:04] uh since those are permitted for 66323
[1:37:08] there is no size maximums there now
[1:37:11] going to the setback discussion and
[1:37:13] we've heard this discussion the the
[1:37:15] planning commission had a lot of
[1:37:17] concerns with this of the 4foot foot
[1:37:19] side and rear setback. And there was,
[1:37:22] you know, the questions of, well, if we
[1:37:24] allow bigger or we gave them in addition
[1:37:27] to what's allowed by state law, can we
[1:37:30] enforce additional setbacks? And in the
[1:37:33] state guidance and per government code
[1:37:36] section 66314 and E7,
[1:37:40] we cannot. It says in no other basically
[1:37:43] in no case can you impose more than a
[1:37:46] 4ft side and rear setback. We can have
[1:37:49] other setbacks um for units built
[1:37:53] towards our ordinance such as hey you
[1:37:55] need to be set back on a primary
[1:37:56] structure six feet as long as we don't
[1:38:00] restrict an ADU that's at least 800
[1:38:02] square f feet and that's going to be 66
[1:38:06] uh 321
[1:38:08] and I know I'm quoting a lot of
[1:38:09] government code sections because they
[1:38:11] all kind of work together and point back
[1:38:14] to one another
[1:38:17] for The parking staff did recommend no
[1:38:20] parking and the reason is with the
[1:38:22] addition of the two highlighted areas
[1:38:24] which are part of more recent
[1:38:26] legislation. Um
[1:38:30] it it creates a situation where most
[1:38:32] often no parking will be required. So
[1:38:36] where an accessory dwelling unit is part
[1:38:38] of a proposed or existing primary
[1:38:40] residence or existing structure, we
[1:38:42] cannot enforce parking. That's a lot of
[1:38:44] the ADUs we are actually seeing.
[1:38:46] Additionally, when a permit of an
[1:38:48] application for an accessory dwelling
[1:38:50] unit is submitted with a permit to
[1:38:52] create a new home, we cannot apply
[1:38:54] parking as well. Again, that is a large
[1:38:57] number of the ADUs that we are seeing.
[1:38:59] So, more often than not, parking is not
[1:39:02] required. There would be very limited situations where we could
[1:39:07] require parking and th those aren't even
[1:39:11] it's just a parking spot. We can't say
[1:39:13] as a garage. It is just identify a
[1:39:16] parking spot and most often here in
[1:39:19] Pollola Valley, they do have the
[1:39:21] driveways. They already have space for
[1:39:24] parking. Um, this again doesn't restrict
[1:39:27] an applicant from proposing this.
[1:39:29] They're more than welcome to propose
[1:39:30] parking, but we as a jurisdiction
[1:39:33] have limitations on what we can require.
[1:39:37] And so for our proposed objective design
[1:39:40] standards, I I I know one of the
[1:39:42] questions is, well, what if we don't
[1:39:44] adopt an ordinance, if we don't adopt an
[1:39:46] ordinance and just default to state law,
[1:39:48] we don't get to apply these at all. So
[1:39:52] we could have the,200 square foot ADUs.
[1:39:54] They don't need to meet LRB. They don't
[1:39:56] need to meet lighting, landscaping, none
[1:39:58] of our, you know, AMFA. None of that
[1:40:01] still applies.
[1:40:03] We can apply those for the 66314 units
[1:40:08] as long as we do not restrict the unit
[1:40:10] to less than 800 square feet. And so
[1:40:13] that is how that and for example the
[1:40:16] design standards that we have don't
[1:40:17] affect size. So meeting LRV meeting
[1:40:21] exterior lighting meeting landscaping
[1:40:24] won't have that impact. And so that is
[1:40:26] why we are proposing these. And these
[1:40:28] were existing standards in the ADU
[1:40:31] ordinance that we did carry over. So
[1:40:34] they are not new standards. They are the
[1:40:37] standards that we have existing that are
[1:40:40] objective and that we can continue to
[1:40:42] apply. And staff does recommend
[1:40:45] applicants even currently since we don't
[1:40:47] have a compliant ordinance. We do still
[1:40:49] recommend that they comply with our
[1:40:51] design standards. It's just we cannot
[1:40:53] require them to.
[1:40:57] So staff did um make some minor
[1:41:00] revisions to what was in your packet um
[1:41:03] just based off of some of the feedback
[1:41:05] that we heard and just to ensure
[1:41:07] clarity. So one of them is on the review
[1:41:10] period is cleaning up the the header to
[1:41:13] explain you know an ADU on a lot with an
[1:41:17] existing um dwelling and what about a
[1:41:21] ADU accompanying a new dwelling like
[1:41:23] it's an undeveloped lot. just to make
[1:41:26] those headers a little more clarified
[1:41:29] and consistent.
[1:41:31] Additionally, we updated kind of the um
[1:41:33] pathology section clarifying um kind of
[1:41:38] a a single ADU that uh meets our
[1:41:41] ordinance, not the you know the two ADUs
[1:41:43] that you're granted above is permitted
[1:41:46] and then adding in the conversation
[1:41:48] regarding 66312.
[1:41:50] That is the language that specifically
[1:41:52] says you cannot apply standards that
[1:41:54] would limit a a unit to under 800 square
[1:41:58] feet even per your own ordinance. So
[1:42:01] that and the next couple slides we had
[1:42:04] that language kind of baked into
[1:42:06] different standards. We instead decided
[1:42:08] to just include it at the very beginning
[1:42:10] to make it clear and not have that
[1:42:12] necessarily repetitive language
[1:42:14] throughout.
[1:42:17] And then uh staff has also uh identified
[1:42:20] a minor um edit that we needed to do for
[1:42:22] the uh adjusted maximum floor area. So
[1:42:27] in our multifamily zones, we do have you
[1:42:29] know u floor area ratio and also the
[1:42:33] coverage area ratio. So adding those in
[1:42:36] just as citations again the ADUs do
[1:42:39] count towards that. They can't
[1:42:41] necessarily exceed unless it would
[1:42:44] prohibit what's the state has authorized
[1:42:47] again that 800 square foot or those
[1:42:49] stateex exempt units.
[1:42:53] And then the last one was a minor edit
[1:42:55] just to ensure the correct citation of
[1:42:59] the government code section, the
[1:43:01] specific standard that we are citing
[1:43:02] there.
[1:43:08] And then kind of moving on to emergency
[1:43:10] shelters. As Cara kind of discussed at
[1:43:13] the beginning, it is to implement our
[1:43:15] housing uh element program 83 to comply
[1:43:19] with state law AB2339.
[1:43:22] So this is one of those that the state
[1:43:24] has told us we need to make the edit.
[1:43:26] There isn't a default necessarily like
[1:43:29] we default to state law. We do need to
[1:43:31] make the edit. It is also consistent
[1:43:33] with our housing elements. So that edit
[1:43:35] is necessary for those reasons. Um and
[1:43:38] HCD will be looking at that. So we want
[1:43:40] to make sure we get that done. And then
[1:43:43] the indepthification, this is again the
[1:43:45] language um kind of codifying the town
[1:43:49] standard indepication policy which we
[1:43:51] were applying kind of as a condition of
[1:43:53] approval. But I think concerns with the
[1:43:56] um Stanford project kind of brought this
[1:43:58] up and Katherine kind of created a
[1:44:01] policy that uh addresses best practices
[1:44:04] to codify it within our um ordinance.
[1:44:09] And so just kind of briefly want to go
[1:44:11] over the options this evening that the council has before. You are able to
[1:44:17] introduce the ordinance as it was
[1:44:18] proposed. Introduce the ordinance with
[1:44:21] specific revisions that are made as part
[1:44:24] of the motion. You can not introduce the
[1:44:27] ordinance and and basically deny it or
[1:44:31] you can continue the item with specific
[1:44:33] staff direction on the amendments that
[1:44:35] you'd like us to make to bring that back
[1:44:38] to you at a future meeting.
[1:44:41] So, the recommendation is for staff to
[1:44:44] uh or is for the council to introduce
[1:44:47] the ordinance and um with the um
[1:44:51] revisions that were included as part of
[1:44:53] that updated A and staff is available
[1:44:56] for any questions at this time.
[1:45:00] >> Great. Thank you, Brandon.
[1:45:03] So, before we start with questions, um
[1:45:06] the one thing I want to remind council
[1:45:07] is this is not a study session tonight.
[1:45:10] So, this is not an opportunity to open
[1:45:12] this thing up, you know, wide open. Um,
[1:45:14] I think if we have specific things to
[1:45:18] and Bren, if you can go back to that
[1:45:19] last slide.
[1:45:27] So, if if we have, you know, some
[1:45:30] specific revisions and we think we can
[1:45:32] make them as part of the motion, you
[1:45:33] know, that's where we need to direct
[1:45:35] this. So, I' I'd like to ask us as we go
[1:45:37] through this tonight that we keep this
[1:45:39] in mind that we're trying to accomplish
[1:45:41] one of these four things. We're not
[1:45:44] trying to rewrite the entire ordinance.
[1:45:46] Like, that's not what's before us
[1:45:47] tonight. We may want to do that in the
[1:45:49] future, but that's not what's before it
[1:45:50] tonight. So, with that, um I'd like to
[1:45:53] start with questions. I know Rebecca had
[1:45:55] a long response, you know, where she's
[1:45:58] actually outlined her responses in the
[1:46:00] um the PDF basically of the ordinance,
[1:46:04] but Rebecca, do you have other questions
[1:46:07] sort of of the presentation? We're
[1:46:08] obviously going to have a robust
[1:46:10] discussion as well, but would you like
[1:46:11] to start?
[1:46:15] » Thank you. Um I appreciate all the hard
[1:46:17] work on this. Um, so I had some
[1:46:20] questions about uh parts of it that
[1:46:22] didn't comply with the state law and I
[1:46:24] noticed in the latest version that you
[1:46:25] sent out at noon or one o'clock today
[1:46:27] that you've corrected all of those
[1:46:29] points that I uh brought up. So I very
[1:46:31] much appreciate your um making those
[1:46:33] changes to the draft. Um so one of my
[1:46:38] fundamental questions is that um and I
[1:46:41] I'd like to get your um agreement that
[1:46:45] my understanding of of the code is
[1:46:49] correct. Um if we look at 66314 which is
[1:46:53] as you said is sort of the foundational
[1:46:55] um section of the code about um about
[1:47:00] the fact that the town the the state
[1:47:02] gives the town legal authority to um
[1:47:06] establish objective requirements for um
[1:47:11] those ADUs
[1:47:13] um as distinguished from the 66323
[1:47:16] um ADUs where we have very little say.
[1:47:20] So, you know, if you look at 66314B,
[1:47:23] I mean, it it goes into that point. It
[1:47:26] says that the state the town is allowed
[1:47:28] to impose objective standards such as
[1:47:31] but such as that include but are not
[1:47:34] limited to parking, height, setback,
[1:47:37] landscape, architectural review, and
[1:47:40] maximum size. Um, so my question for you
[1:47:45] is where in our ordinance in this draft
[1:47:49] do we I is it stated that the town has
[1:47:55] um that ability to set those objective
[1:47:58] standards and I'm most particularly
[1:48:00] concerned about is the setback one um
[1:48:03] given that this says that we can set
[1:48:05] setbacks for all ADUs except 663231s
[1:48:10] where in our ordinance
[1:48:13] Are we allowed to do that? Where have
[1:48:15] you specified that? That's part of the
[1:48:17] ordinance.
[1:48:18] >> So that that is built into our
[1:48:20] standards. However, you look at
[1:48:23] >> Brandon, make sure you speak close to
[1:48:25] the mic. It it really have to be right
[1:48:26] in front of you. Yeah.
[1:48:28] >> All right. So, you know, looking at
[1:48:30] 66314 B1, it does specifically say those
[1:48:34] standards. However, later in 66314D
[1:48:40] it says we can require accessory
[1:48:42] dwelling units to comply with all the
[1:48:44] following. So that is kind of a list
[1:48:46] that further restricts that above
[1:48:48] statement and HCD specifically points to
[1:48:52] in for example the setback issue the 4
[1:48:54] foot side and mirror specifically points
[1:48:56] to subsection 7 um that no setback shall
[1:49:01] be required for existing living space or
[1:49:02] accessory structures or structures
[1:49:05] constructed in the same location same
[1:49:06] dimensions as an existing structure that
[1:49:09] is converted to an accessory dwelling
[1:49:11] unit or to any portion of an accessory
[1:49:13] dwelling unit. and a setback of no more
[1:49:16] than 4 foot side and mirror shall be
[1:49:18] required for an accessory dwelling unit
[1:49:20] that is not converted from an existing
[1:49:23] structure or new structure constructed
[1:49:25] in the same location and the same
[1:49:27] dimensions as the existing structure. So
[1:49:30] in the HCD guidelines, that is what
[1:49:33] they're pointing to to say yes, we say
[1:49:35] you can do setbacks except 4 foot side
[1:49:39] and rear only. Where we are applying
[1:49:41] setbacks, for example, is the front
[1:49:43] setback. We do require that they meet
[1:49:45] that as long as we're not limiting an
[1:49:47] 800 foot unit. That's consistent with
[1:49:50] 66312 where that 800 foot thing comes
[1:49:53] into play. We can require, for example,
[1:49:56] if we wanted to add a setback between
[1:49:59] structures,
[1:50:00] you know, between like the main house,
[1:50:02] it would have to be on the same lot,
[1:50:04] between structures on the main lot. We
[1:50:05] could say, hey, you need to be 6 foot
[1:50:08] from that except that if it if it
[1:50:11] prohibits a unit of at least 800 square
[1:50:14] feet. So that is kind of the the
[1:50:17] justification HCD has provided on why we
[1:50:20] cannot impose higher sided rear setbacks
[1:50:24] but there are other setbacks that we
[1:50:26] could apply in those specific cases. Um,
[1:50:31] can I know we disagree completely on
[1:50:34] that interpretation and I understand
[1:50:36] that HCD um you're taking um your
[1:50:41] direction from HCD's interpretation of
[1:50:44] this, but can we both agree on the fact
[1:50:48] that D7 is one of the worst written um
[1:50:53] portions of this law period? to think
[1:50:57] they intended it to be two separate
[1:50:59] bullet points and somebody made an
[1:51:00] absolute oopsie and deleted something
[1:51:02] because it was not. Yes, I completely
[1:51:05] agree with you. It is not wellward and
[1:51:07] we see that throughout this ordinance
[1:51:10] that is a part of the legislaturator's
[1:51:13] action was to actually give HCD the
[1:51:17] power to interpret implement and
[1:51:19] supplement the standards in this chapter
[1:51:23] which is very unusual. You know
[1:51:25] supplement standards that are in state
[1:51:27] law you almost never see. So that is a
[1:51:30] very unique position and that is why
[1:51:33] staff is defaulting to the language that
[1:51:35] HCD is the guidance that they are
[1:51:37] providing because the legislature
[1:51:39] specifically in the ADU law has given
[1:51:42] them that authorization.
[1:51:50] Um, so one of my other questions is, um,
[1:51:54] just some background. To be honest, um,
[1:51:57] this project did start with the letter
[1:52:00] essentially from HCD about our current,
[1:52:03] um, our current ADU ordinance back in
[1:52:06] 2023 and said that we needed to update
[1:52:08] it to the current laws. Um, we obviously
[1:52:11] had a lot of turmoil in the department
[1:52:13] and tons of changeover. So, um, I
[1:52:16] actually went and and took that on as a
[1:52:18] project because there was no progress,
[1:52:20] you know, we had no staff to do any
[1:52:22] progress on this. I wrote an and I wrote
[1:52:25] an ADU ordinance for the town and
[1:52:27] submitted it back in August and I
[1:52:30] followed um the template that HCD
[1:52:34] provided actually. So they have created
[1:52:36] a template for an ADU ordinance and I
[1:52:40] followed this ordinance followed this
[1:52:42] and it's a it it obviously was out of
[1:52:44] date because this was really from 2023
[1:52:47] 2024 time period but um a lot of it
[1:52:50] hasn't changed um even though there's
[1:52:53] been a ton of new ordinances in reality
[1:52:55] that's just little pieces that have
[1:52:57] changed. So one of the um I did want to
[1:53:00] say that one of the I I I have a I'm
[1:53:03] coming to a question. One of the
[1:53:05] portions on here that is best practices
[1:53:07] is the inclusion of actual code
[1:53:10] references for each section. So my
[1:53:13] question is why do you not want to
[1:53:16] follow HCD templated you know best
[1:53:19] practices of including the actual code
[1:53:22] reference?
[1:53:24] >> So that template is interesting because
[1:53:27] we did receive it from the
[1:53:28] representative of HD but HCD oh I'll get
[1:53:32] a little closer. Sorry. Um, we did
[1:53:34] receive that from the representative for
[1:53:36] HCD. However, speaking to some other
[1:53:38] ones, it's in process. There is no live
[1:53:41] document that's available. So, I I
[1:53:44] cannot speak to whether that is actually
[1:53:46] HCDs or that was that individual
[1:53:49] reviewers
[1:53:51] guidelines. Um, it is a few years out of
[1:53:53] date. There has been more clar even
[1:53:56] though the state law necessarily hasn't
[1:53:59] the exact sections haven't been updated.
[1:54:02] HCD has been issuing newer guidance
[1:54:05] based off of other bills. I I think
[1:54:08] we've included references where we felt
[1:54:10] it's the most relevant adding in the
[1:54:13] citation of like 663 uh you know the the
[1:54:16] state exempt units 66323 units adding in
[1:54:20] the citation for uh 66312
[1:54:24] uh where we felt it is the most
[1:54:26] appropriate. We do site at the very
[1:54:28] beginning the entirety of it. So, you
[1:54:30] know, this is what we're trying to do.
[1:54:32] We're implementing this. Um,
[1:54:35] additionally, I mean, we we're we can
[1:54:37] work with adding more, but the only
[1:54:39] problem is, and this happened a few
[1:54:42] years ago, a lot of jurisdictions did
[1:54:44] that and then the state completely
[1:54:46] reumbered the entire section. That means
[1:54:48] we would have to go back through and
[1:54:50] reumber everything. And a lot of best
[1:54:54] practices have been not to include it.
[1:54:56] you have the reference at the big
[1:54:57] beginning so that you don't have to go
[1:54:59] back and fix every single one all the
[1:55:02] way through again if they happen to
[1:55:04] rechapter this or reumber anything. So
[1:55:07] that was kind of a big change that
[1:55:09] happened right around 2023 2024 time
[1:55:12] frame when they did that reumbering. Um
[1:55:15] I think that that document there I think
[1:55:17] includes it right after the re
[1:55:20] >> so but it was about that same time
[1:55:22] frame.
[1:55:22] >> Okay, thank you. Um so
[1:55:26] one of the things that concerns me about
[1:55:28] this ordinance is that it really doesn't
[1:55:30] protect our design guidelines
[1:55:33] um because they are discretionary
[1:55:35] because they are not written in a manner
[1:55:36] that's objective. Um so because we have
[1:55:41] not been able to work on transferring
[1:55:43] those into objective requirements.
[1:55:46] Um
[1:55:48] there's nothing codified into this new
[1:55:51] um ordinance that would that would
[1:55:53] include the eventual production of these
[1:55:56] objective requirements for design
[1:55:58] guidelines. Um, I had suggested some
[1:56:00] language um in I don't know where it is
[1:56:04] um that allowed for that potential
[1:56:07] future um
[1:56:10] future aspect so that we wouldn't then
[1:56:12] have to go and have a new ordinance um
[1:56:15] because it would already be set in
[1:56:17] there. It was um Oh, it was under
[1:56:22] objective design standards number
[1:56:27] six. Sorry,
[1:56:32] ADC. Um 182560
[1:56:36] number nine. Yeah, number nine,
[1:56:39] objective design standards. So, I had
[1:56:41] recommended that we put something like
[1:56:42] the town may in the future review,
[1:56:44] adopt, amend, or repeal objective design
[1:56:46] requirements to implement additional
[1:56:48] uniform standards or criteria that
[1:56:50] supplement or clarify the terms,
[1:56:51] references, and standards set forth in
[1:56:52] this chapter. I mean, I don't even
[1:56:54] remember where I got this from. I I must
[1:56:56] have gotten it right out of either our
[1:56:58] current ADU ordinance or something from
[1:57:01] HCG. So, is there a reason not to
[1:57:03] include that sort of caveat that would
[1:57:05] allow us to then just slot in our new
[1:57:08] objective requirements once we have
[1:57:10] them?
[1:57:10] >> I I expect that the HCD would be like,
[1:57:14] well, what are these standards? Because
[1:57:16] they're reviewing the ordinance. They
[1:57:18] want to know, are we actually applying
[1:57:20] objective standards? So, if we did
[1:57:22] something like that, you would have to
[1:57:23] send your objective standards to speed
[1:57:25] because now you've made them a part of
[1:57:27] your ADU ordinance. So, and one thing
[1:57:30] with that, when we do do objective
[1:57:32] design standards and we do want to apply
[1:57:34] them, we don't have to completely redo
[1:57:35] the ADU ordinance, instead we can amend
[1:57:38] just that section to incorporate those
[1:57:41] objective design standards, but every
[1:57:44] time we do amend it, we are technically
[1:57:46] supposed to send it back to HCD. So,
[1:57:49] that's why by reference, if you do it by
[1:57:51] reference, you're going to have to send
[1:57:52] the entirety of your objective design
[1:57:54] standards to HCD for their review and
[1:57:57] approval. Um, so that's why best
[1:58:00] practice and that's why a lot of
[1:58:02] jurisdictions have it as a standalone
[1:58:04] chapter now and that was the thinking
[1:58:06] behind that.
[1:58:07] >> Have what is a standalone chapter?
[1:58:08] Sorry.
[1:58:09] >> KDU ordinance.
[1:58:10] >> Oh, okay.
[1:58:11] >> Because technically if you have it
[1:58:12] within your ordinance and you tweak
[1:58:13] anything a little bit, you might have to
[1:58:16] send it back to HCD. So that's why the
[1:58:18] best practice is have it be its own
[1:58:19] standalone chapter and kind of
[1:58:21] self-contained so that you don't have
[1:58:23] this. Well, you referenced this, so we
[1:58:25] need to see that now, too.
[1:58:28] Um so my other concern is just
[1:58:29] protection in furthering this sort of
[1:58:31] idea of protecting our our natural
[1:58:33] surroundings and our um
[1:58:37] you know our traditional heritage of how
[1:58:39] we developed and one of the things that
[1:58:42] was taken out of our um existing
[1:58:44] ordinance is just the purpose and
[1:58:46] intent. So I put it I had suggested we
[1:58:49] put it back in and that included um
[1:58:52] comments like just just having a little
[1:58:54] list of create new housing units while
[1:58:57] respecting the existing character of the
[1:58:59] town encourage adherence to the town's
[1:59:02] base zoning setbacks objective
[1:59:03] requirements and design guidelines while
[1:59:06] recognizing all legal rights granted by
[1:59:08] the code you know ADU code um support
[1:59:11] the development of ministerial approved
[1:59:13] ADUs and JADUs provide housing that
[1:59:15] respond residents changing needs needs,
[1:59:17] household sizes, and increasing housing
[1:59:19] costs and provide accessible housing for
[1:59:21] seniors and people with disabilities and
[1:59:23] then promote provision of affordable
[1:59:25] housing for people who work in town. So,
[1:59:27] is there a reason not to include that
[1:59:30] kind of message to sort of preface the
[1:59:32] whole ordinance so people really
[1:59:36] understand that we value, you know, that
[1:59:40] how our town has developed and we want
[1:59:42] to um encourage people to adhere to it
[1:59:46] while recognizing that they they have an
[1:59:48] enormous amount of
[1:59:50] >> I I think it's just trying to streamline
[1:59:53] as much as possible so that HCD doesn't
[1:59:56] necessarily come back with comments.
[1:59:58] Some of those while are, you know, yes,
[2:00:01] those are our purposes, they can be a
[2:00:03] little more well, respect the town's,
[2:00:05] you know, character. That's subjective
[2:00:07] and they're going to look at that even
[2:00:09] though it's in the policy or in the
[2:00:11] purpose. They may look at that and be
[2:00:12] like, how how are you enforcing that?
[2:00:15] doesn't make sense. I think where
[2:00:17] we have the leeway to do that is
[2:00:19] actually with how the public interacts
[2:00:21] with our documents. Most of the public
[2:00:23] does not come into and read our
[2:00:25] municipal code. they get our handouts
[2:00:27] and I think that is where we emphasize
[2:00:30] that hey yes here's what you're allowed
[2:00:32] but we encourage you we recommend that
[2:00:36] you do this that is where we I think
[2:00:39] have the ability to include stuff like
[2:00:41] that hey we want you to respect you know
[2:00:44] the the town's character and here's some
[2:00:47] guidance on how you might be able to do
[2:00:49] that and we provide that as part of our
[2:00:51] handouts but not in our code our code
[2:00:54] needs to be very kind of the objective
[2:00:56] streamlined. This is what you're
[2:00:58] allowed. And then our handouts can be
[2:01:00] more of that
[2:01:03] providing more of the guidance and the support and encouragement to still
[2:01:08] meet our our design standards as a town
[2:01:11] because that is important. You know,
[2:01:12] that is one of the unique things about
[2:01:13] Pulla Valley. And I think that is where
[2:01:16] we have that ability. I I worry that
[2:01:19] adding it into our ordinance will get
[2:01:21] HCD looking at it closer.
[2:01:24] Um so that you know and I don't know if
[2:01:26] Katherine has any further comments or
[2:01:28] Sarah kind of like you know on that
[2:01:30] point.
[2:01:32] >> Uh thank you summarized it nicely that
[2:01:35] the council has discretion to add a
[2:01:36] purpose. Um but I think Brandon provided
[2:01:39] an alternative for consideration that um
[2:01:42] some of that that could also go in a in
[2:01:44] a handout. Um so it's really just a risk
[2:01:46] analysis about sort of how whether this
[2:01:49] would flag HD's scrutiny.
[2:01:53] Um
[2:02:03] so um if we go back to 66314
[2:02:06] and um a it actually allows
[2:02:09] municipalities to designate areas within
[2:02:11] the jurisdiction where accessory
[2:02:13] dwelling out dwelling units are
[2:02:15] permitted. The converse is that is that
[2:02:17] we I I the converse is I assume that we
[2:02:21] can also designate areas where they're
[2:02:23] not permitted. Is that the case? Is that
[2:02:27] I mean without going is that's kind of a
[2:02:29] yes or no I guess because I have I want
[2:02:31] to add a little bit more to that.
[2:02:34] >> Yes. But there's limitations on what we
[2:02:36] can do.
[2:02:36] >> Okay. And recognizing that we have to
[2:02:39] allow 66323
[2:02:41] uh ADUs regardless. Um, is there a a
[2:02:45] reason not to ban uh 66314 ADUs, for
[2:02:50] example, in Craig's neighborhood, the um
[2:02:55] Woodside Highlands? Um,
[2:02:58] I mean, it obviously will have little
[2:03:00] impact in terms of uh people not
[2:03:02] building ADUs because they can still
[2:03:03] build three, you know, essentially three
[2:03:05] ADUs with the 66323s, but at least they
[2:03:08] wouldn't be able to build four because
[2:03:10] it would block that. Um, is there a
[2:03:12] reason not to include that? Not to kind
[2:03:14] of have an uh some areas that are where evacuation where traffic is
[2:03:20] already at a at a a safe a tremendous
[2:03:23] safety issue to just sort of give that
[2:03:27] impression to the community that, you
[2:03:29] know, if you're buying a house in that
[2:03:30] neighborhood where that, you know, it's got some issues with traffic and
[2:03:35] safety. Is there a reason not to to
[2:03:38] block off some areas?
[2:03:40] And this is where HCD's guidance kind of
[2:03:44] comes into play. So, you know, further
[2:03:46] down going into D of that same section,
[2:03:49] it says we have to allow it on property
[2:03:52] zone single family. So, this is really
[2:03:54] kind of more of the caveat on well, do
[2:03:56] you want to expand it into other zoning
[2:03:59] districts is what that is really at
[2:04:01] least the guidance documents seem to be
[2:04:03] pending. We still do have and this even
[2:04:07] applies to 66323 units where we can make
[2:04:10] case by case specific findings the
[2:04:12] building official if there is a risk to
[2:04:15] fire life safety. And so that was
[2:04:18] actually one of the changes from the
[2:04:20] planning commission version to your
[2:04:21] version that you saw that um the um
[2:04:25] commission brought up specifically um
[2:04:27] council member Karen. uh she brought it
[2:04:30] up focused on that and so staff did add
[2:04:33] that as that caveat there because that
[2:04:35] is where we feel that is kind of the max
[2:04:38] we can do without raising the eye of HCB
[2:04:42] since that is I mean that is a very much
[2:04:44] a consideration fire safety fire safety
[2:04:47] evacuation flood unstable soils is
[2:04:50] another example I think that's where she
[2:04:52] was focused on is well we have an
[2:04:54] ordinance that says you can't build
[2:04:55] these structures in these type of soils
[2:04:57] ACD's guidelines says you can only do
[2:04:59] that by a case by case basis. You cannot
[2:05:02] do a blanket ban in a section if it's
[2:05:06] zone single family and authorizes
[2:05:09] residential uses. So that is where that
[2:05:12] language came from and try to address
[2:05:14] exactly your concern.
[2:05:16] >> So my actually next question was
[2:05:17] completely relevant to that next portion
[2:05:20] and I did notice it and it is somewhat
[2:05:22] vague. Um,
[2:05:25] I know that HCD has come back and said,
[2:05:30] um, we can't use a fire safety as a
[2:05:33] reason to to ban ADUs, which is a little
[2:05:37] amazing to me. But um
[2:05:41] my question is it you know one of the
[2:05:43] edits I also recommended was to expand a
[2:05:46] little bit more on this public health
[2:05:47] and was to actually specify directly um
[2:05:51] that you cannot build an ADU within a
[2:05:55] earthquake setback. You cannot build an
[2:05:56] ADU within on unstable soils. You cannot
[2:05:59] build an ADU you know whatever whatever
[2:06:02] these I have a bunch of lists there
[2:06:04] because you're not allowed to build a
[2:06:05] house either in those areas. So, this
[2:06:07] was just a restatement of the reality is
[2:06:10] because um I I'm just wondering why
[2:06:13] would we not kind of put that emphasis
[2:06:16] into the into the system and why instead
[2:06:18] have this sort of vague notice
[2:06:22] >> and so
[2:06:24] this actually came up really relatively
[2:06:27] relevant. So, in reviewing some of the
[2:06:29] comment letters uh to San Diego
[2:06:30] specifically, San Diego said, "Hey, our
[2:06:33] fire department says you have to have
[2:06:35] five foot setbacks in these situations,
[2:06:38] they put it in the ordinance." State
[2:06:40] came back and said, "That's all good.
[2:06:41] That's building code. You cannot make
[2:06:43] that a zoning requirement."
[2:06:45] So, nothing in our zoning requirements
[2:06:47] mitigate or negate the building code
[2:06:50] requirements. So the building code which
[2:06:52] is where you know earthquake setbacks
[2:06:55] kind of all that comes into play that's
[2:06:58] where that gets applied but we can't
[2:07:00] apply it as a zoning standard and that
[2:07:02] was what HCD said. So that's why we're
[2:07:05] keeping that broad that is just that
[2:07:07] that's very similar to the authorizing
[2:07:09] language in the um government code
[2:07:12] regarding hey you can make this finding
[2:07:14] for public life safety. So that's why
[2:07:16] it's purposely broad is we're just
[2:07:18] trying to get to that because if we get
[2:07:19] specific, HCV will flag it and say you
[2:07:22] can't have that as a zoning standard.
[2:07:24] That's a building code standard.
[2:07:27] So could you explain a little bit the
[2:07:28] process of people um submitting a um
[2:07:33] planning application for an ADU that
[2:07:38] happened to be a little too close to a
[2:07:41] earthquake fault or was happened to be
[2:07:42] on some of the soil where it's banned. I
[2:07:45] mean one wouldn't want somebody an
[2:07:47] applicant to get that far along. So can
[2:07:50] you kind of explain a little bit the
[2:07:51] thinking of how we preempt that? Um,
[2:07:55] >> a lot of this, a lot of the ADUs do come
[2:07:58] in through general inquiry first and so
[2:08:00] the staff planners do try to work with
[2:08:02] them and we try to flag these higher
[2:08:04] level, hey, did you think of X, Y, and
[2:08:07] Z? Um, and provide that guidance. I
[2:08:09] think that's also where we add a lot of
[2:08:10] those disclosures in our handouts. We
[2:08:13] can say, hey, did you check are you in
[2:08:15] an unstable soil? You need to consider
[2:08:17] that because you might have to change
[2:08:19] your foundations or you have to relocate
[2:08:20] it. Are you in an earthquake zone?
[2:08:22] That's where we can highlight those is
[2:08:25] through that process.
[2:08:27] ADUs are different where there is not a
[2:08:29] distinct planning permit than building
[2:08:31] permit. Planning reviews as part of the
[2:08:33] building permit. And so those
[2:08:36] considerations are being handled by
[2:08:38] geology by building by engineering and
[2:08:42] not planning. Planning realistically
[2:08:44] when we're viewing ADUs we're looking
[2:08:47] are you at the 4ft side and rear
[2:08:48] setbacks. If you're over 800 square
[2:08:51] feet, is AMFA a concern? Are you meeting
[2:08:54] our objective standards that we can
[2:08:55] apply? That is what we're focused on.
[2:08:58] Those other considerations, unstable
[2:09:00] soils, that's going to be geology will
[2:09:02] make the comment. Hey, you're in
[2:09:03] unstable soils. You either need to move
[2:09:05] it or you need to provide a solution
[2:09:09] that addresses the concerns with the
[2:09:11] unstable soil. You know, one of my uh
[2:09:14] colleagues that in building says if you
[2:09:16] have enough time, money and energy, you
[2:09:18] can make anything work for the building
[2:09:20] code purposes, right? And so that is
[2:09:22] where those concerns are caught and
[2:09:25] those are reviewed by those departments.
[2:09:28] >> Okay. Um and then to switch over to the
[2:09:30] parking issue, um as you said, we are
[2:09:34] allowed to require one parking space per
[2:09:37] ADU for the 66314s.
[2:09:41] and you gave a bunch of reasons for why
[2:09:43] it just wouldn't be
[2:09:46] there was kind of no point because there
[2:09:48] it would be so few properties. Um, so
[2:09:52] are you saying you gave a bunch of
[2:09:54] examples of the types of applications
[2:09:56] you're coming in and the one you didn't
[2:09:58] mention was just
[2:10:00] an existing property that decides to add
[2:10:03] an ADU.
[2:10:05] So in
[2:10:07] >> in in in most cases that one may require
[2:10:12] parking um in those cases. Yes. So we
[2:10:15] could apply that to that. That's not as
[2:10:18] often that's not the one that we're
[2:10:19] getting the most. A lot of them are the
[2:10:21] conversion that we're getting and so
[2:10:23] that's why I brought that up. Yes, that
[2:10:25] would be one of the situations somebody
[2:10:26] builds a new dash building. Um, you
[2:10:30] would be required to provide one parking
[2:10:32] space unless they meet one of the other
[2:10:34] criteria. One thing to keep in mind is
[2:10:37] per how we have the standards. So, if we
[2:10:39] do require parking, let's say, hey, we
[2:10:41] require parking. They're like, oh, I
[2:10:43] need to build a second driveway. And
[2:10:44] that's going to trigger grading. If we
[2:10:46] say parking's required, that goes to
[2:10:48] that part of like the site improvements
[2:10:51] where you have to follow our normal
[2:10:53] process in excess of what's the minimum
[2:10:56] necessary permit that unit. They then
[2:11:00] could minister add a second driveway to
[2:11:02] provide the parking that's required for
[2:11:05] that unit and that could involve rating
[2:11:08] that exceeds the thresholds that we
[2:11:09] have, but we have to ministerally still
[2:11:12] approve that. So by actually not
[2:11:13] requiring parking, we're hoping kind of
[2:11:17] that site improvement side where hey, if
[2:11:19] you want to provide parking, you want to
[2:11:21] provide that second driveway, sure,
[2:11:23] you're going to ASC or you're going to
[2:11:25] planning commission. So it's kind of a
[2:11:27] weird roundabout way to get there, but
[2:11:29] that's why we're only permitting what
[2:11:31] you need to get that unit.
[2:11:34] And but you have but you do include if
[2:11:36] somebody wants to um have parking on
[2:11:39] their site, they they're required to
[2:11:42] follow our ordinance which requires a
[2:11:44] carport. So do you feel that that you don't well I guess you don't feel
[2:11:49] that that's a problem with six uh I
[2:11:52] 66311
[2:11:55] maybe which says um
[2:11:58] >> where would I find 6631 maintenance? Uh
[2:12:02] >> that's isn't that the state code?
[2:12:04] >> It's the state code. State code. It it's
[2:12:06] where the intent of the legislature is
[2:12:08] that you don't um
[2:12:11] >> uh so that you don't create something
[2:12:13] that's so arbitrary, excessive, or
[2:12:14] burdensome so as to unreasonably
[2:12:17] restrict the ability of homeowners to
[2:12:18] create accessory dwelling units. So to
[2:12:20] me, um
[2:12:23] you know, I'm not going to I just wanted
[2:12:25] to get your feedback that you don't feel
[2:12:26] that it's burdensome to require someone
[2:12:28] to create a carport.
[2:12:32] So we have that standard to kind of also
[2:12:35] reflect there are some setbacks for
[2:12:37] parking and things that in that section.
[2:12:40] you know the this uh 66314
[2:12:43] 10 which talks about parking basically
[2:12:46] says yes you can provide parking but it
[2:12:48] cannot exceed you know one parking space
[2:12:51] per accessory dwelling unit or per uh
[2:12:53] bedroom whichever is less and these
[2:12:56] spaces may be provided um tandem on the
[2:13:00] driveway and so that is kind of where
[2:13:04] could request just a driveway space even
[2:13:07] though it says may be provided
[2:13:10] the the guidance documents are saying
[2:13:12] that if they request that you have to
[2:13:14] grant that. So it's may they they have
[2:13:18] the applicant has the option to provide
[2:13:20] it in the driveway not that we have the
[2:13:23] option to require them to
[2:13:26] >> okay and I guess my my other main major
[2:13:29] question going back to the 1,200 square
[2:13:31] foot. So we're not required to allow
[2:13:34] 1,200 square foot. And given that your
[2:13:37] interpretation is that we have to allow
[2:13:40] 4 foot setbacks for every ADU, which I
[2:13:45] take issue with that interpretation, but
[2:13:47] you know, I can't do much about that.
[2:13:50] Why would we as a town allow 1,200
[2:13:54] square foots if they could be placed at
[2:13:56] 4 feet from the property line? Why not
[2:13:58] stick to the maximum that we're required
[2:14:00] to for by the code which is 850 or 1,000
[2:14:04] square ft? Why open that up to why why
[2:14:08] allow it? I mean, I'm not against 1,200
[2:14:10] square feet. You know, I I just don't
[2:14:12] want them four feet from property line
[2:14:13] if I don't, you know, if we're not
[2:14:14] required to have that. So why so
[2:14:18] >> this came as a result of the study
[2:14:20] session with so the original uh proposal
[2:14:24] was the 850 and a,000 the planning
[2:14:27] commission had that conversation like
[2:14:29] hey do we think they brought up how our
[2:14:32] existing ordinance does allow 1500 are
[2:14:34] we penalizing people you know are and
[2:14:38] kind of had that robust discussion about
[2:14:40] that and they kind of provided direction
[2:14:43] to staff is like hey look at it and
[2:14:45] maybe find a middle they they were
[2:14:47] feeling some of the members on the
[2:14:49] commission were feeling maybe that was a
[2:14:51] little too restricted. We want to
[2:14:53] encourage ADUs and by restricting them
[2:14:55] that small we're not encouraging that
[2:14:58] and there was other members that were
[2:15:00] like well that's that's big that's a
[2:15:03] giant unit 4T from the property line
[2:15:05] kind of that same concern. Um and when
[2:15:08] we came back the planning commission did
[2:15:09] review that and did recommend the 1,200.
[2:15:13] So this is definitely a discussion, you
[2:15:15] know, the council we can kind of hear
[2:15:17] from the council. We we know the
[2:15:19] language that we could replace it with
[2:15:20] and staff can definitely provide that as
[2:15:22] a recommendation if you want it to go
[2:15:24] with a minimum. But based off of the
[2:15:26] feedback that we got from the planning
[2:15:28] commission, that's why we move forward
[2:15:29] with
[2:15:30] >> And then um
[2:15:32] >> so my um next question is about the
[2:15:34] fees, the fee section and stuff. Could
[2:15:36] you speak a little bit to who actually
[2:15:38] has the authority
[2:15:41] um to set these to make these
[2:15:44] determinations about um
[2:15:47] uh not so much the fees but the um
[2:15:50] connections to the utilities um with
[2:15:53] separate connections versus um not
[2:15:56] separate connections. Um I realize that
[2:15:58] 66323 you can't you you can't require
[2:16:02] them. Nobody can can require them I
[2:16:03] think to have a separate connection if they don't want it but for obviously
[2:16:07] for the 66
[2:16:09] 31 6314s you know the normal ones
[2:16:14] somebody has jurisdiction to allow um to require a new or separate utility
[2:16:20] connection directly between the ADU and
[2:16:22] the utility. So could you speak to that
[2:16:23] because that's the wording that you put
[2:16:25] in into this.
[2:16:26] >> The utilities generally do have that
[2:16:31] authority. They they have their
[2:16:33] authorizations to require that under
[2:16:35] this ordinance. And I know there has
[2:16:38] been some conversations on exactly who
[2:16:41] when. There is also situations where
[2:16:43] even a 66323 unit does have to require
[2:16:47] utility. For example, A80 Ridge, which
[2:16:50] was that, you know, um, house, new house
[2:16:54] with an ADU, they did have to provide or
[2:16:57] P Gen required them to have a separate
[2:16:59] utility connection because they were
[2:17:01] being built with primary house. So, that
[2:17:03] is an example even though it's a 66323
[2:17:06] unit, that does still trigger P& has the
[2:17:09] right to say, yes, we want you to have a
[2:17:12] separate meter or the sewer district, we
[2:17:14] want you to have a separate meter in
[2:17:15] line. um those authorities are kind of
[2:17:19] left with the utilities. We are
[2:17:22] including it because it's in the statute
[2:17:25] and other jurisdictions have tried to
[2:17:27] leave it off and HCD has said in their
[2:17:30] comment letters, you don't have this,
[2:17:32] you're not compliant with state law. So
[2:17:34] that even though we don't have the
[2:17:36] authority, we are doing that to kind of
[2:17:38] just address that comment from HCD
[2:17:40] saying, hey, you need to have this in
[2:17:42] your ordinance. And on that note,
[2:17:44] there's quite a few sections within the
[2:17:46] ordinance that are not included in here.
[2:17:49] Um, so is was there can you discuss a
[2:17:52] little bit the discussion of why you
[2:17:53] left off like the whole thing about um
[2:17:57] selling ADUs or um you know a lot of the
[2:18:01] last stuff at the very end of the of the
[2:18:03] um of the ordinance was just not
[2:18:06] included. So the sale of the or uh sale
[2:18:08] of the ADUs, there are some explicit
[2:18:13] requirements that we have to allow for
[2:18:14] the separate sale of it. However, it's
[2:18:18] an opt-in process outside of those
[2:18:21] specific exceptions. Um and we were not
[2:18:25] proposing to allow ADUs to be sold
[2:18:28] separately except for where the state
[2:18:30] requires us to. and the state has um
[2:18:34] allowed just by reference those. So
[2:18:36] that's why that language was not put in
[2:18:39] um
[2:18:41] for that specific example.
[2:18:43] >> And then for the education fees, that
[2:18:45] one was also left out. Was there a
[2:18:46] reason why chose not to include that?
[2:18:51] >> Again, reviewing through their
[2:18:52] documents, they did not call out the
[2:18:54] jurisdiction for not having that in. Um
[2:18:57] we can we can add that in and add that
[2:18:59] language there. Um but you know we'll we
[2:19:04] feel confident enough moving forward
[2:19:05] without that inclusion because we have
[2:19:07] not seen that call out in their guidance
[2:19:11] documents when it wasn't.
[2:19:12] >> So you don't really feel like uh
[2:19:14] residents and architects should be
[2:19:15] informed of all the fees they're going
[2:19:17] to face so that we don't end up with
[2:19:19] another westbay sanitary district
[2:19:21] debacle. One of the uh conversations um
[2:19:24] staff has had and in other jurisdictions
[2:19:26] what we do is we have a handout that
[2:19:29] lists all the fees that possibly could
[2:19:32] apply to their project and I think that
[2:19:35] is definitely something we need because
[2:19:37] there are there are other fees that do
[2:19:39] apply and help kind of give them a
[2:19:42] picture of that upfront as part of those
[2:19:44] documents. I I think that is something
[2:19:46] we should do anyways because we do just
[2:19:48] we you know we discuss the utility fees
[2:19:50] but we don't clarify what they are and
[2:19:53] this is who is the fee who or who owns
[2:19:56] the fee so who's applying the fee and
[2:19:58] how to contact them and if possible we
[2:20:01] can say this is their calculations for
[2:20:03] their fees. So that is something that
[2:20:05] staff has kind of discussed and want to
[2:20:07] include as part of our handouts to help
[2:20:09] guide them specifically for that.
[2:20:11] >> And um given the extreme bandwidth
[2:20:16] issues right now and the amount of work
[2:20:18] that the planning department has, do you
[2:20:21] have a sense of when the community would
[2:20:23] be able to anticipate receiving those
[2:20:25] all these extra handouts and that
[2:20:27] actually guidelines that describe this?
[2:20:30] You know the one thing I you know really
[2:20:33] is once we have this locked down we can
[2:20:35] start moving forward. We have examples
[2:20:38] from other jurisdictions that do this
[2:20:39] quite well and staff is has those kind
[2:20:43] of ready. We just need to know what our
[2:20:45] ordinance is going to be and what our
[2:20:46] standards are going to be so we can
[2:20:48] update them. And you know Sarah can
[2:20:50] definitely discuss more the capacity um
[2:20:53] and how quickly we expect we can get
[2:20:55] those out. I think at the moment, you
[2:20:58] know, as we're seeing issues with some
[2:21:00] of our processes or communications,
[2:21:02] we're trying to do that more immediately
[2:21:03] with people in the system or applying
[2:21:05] now and that's informing either our
[2:21:07] permit tech or reviewers to make sure
[2:21:09] that they provide that information. The
[2:21:11] best way that this update will happen is
[2:21:12] when we're through implementing our new
[2:21:15] permitting and lensure software. Uh so
[2:21:18] that is a huge project that you may for
[2:21:22] have forgotten that there was a budget
[2:21:24] >> midyear budget approval for that and so
[2:21:26] we're heading into into implementing
[2:21:27] that project which will be a huge lift
[2:21:29] and that will be an overall overhaul of
[2:21:33] uh the whole kind of permitting process
[2:21:35] and so with that we would be automating
[2:21:37] a lot of things and it would be
[2:21:39] integrated into the application process
[2:21:41] or the information provided online for
[2:21:43] people and to me I know that this is an
[2:21:45] important thing of when someone goes in
[2:21:47] to apply to be aware of all the things
[2:21:49] that they might face or all the other
[2:21:52] different organizations or agencies that
[2:21:54] have, you know, review authority over it
[2:21:56] or other fees over their um permit or
[2:21:59] their project as well. So that I think
[2:22:01] we're tracking a lot of these things and
[2:22:03] then making sure that we're
[2:22:04] incorporating this um kind of all
[2:22:07] included within this permitting update.
[2:22:10] So that I would say this would track
[2:22:11] together with launching the whole permit
[2:22:14] system. Um, if we can do other peacemeal
[2:22:17] updates, we will, but I would really
[2:22:18] just try to make sure we're getting all
[2:22:20] the information and then once we're
[2:22:21] launching, we're launching that and all
[2:22:23] that information should be available.
[2:22:25] >> Okay. Thank you. And I guess my last
[2:22:27] question is, um,
[2:22:29] when I went through this and redlined
[2:22:31] it, um, there was just a lot of areas
[2:22:33] that I felt were not, um, I found it
[2:22:37] unclear. There was just a lack of
[2:22:39] specificity and there was just a little
[2:22:41] bit of, um, yeah, lack of clarity. if
[2:22:44] you will, and I put in some verbiage in
[2:22:47] some cases, you know, or I asked
[2:22:49] questions about things um whether it
[2:22:53] would be important to provide some
[2:22:54] clarity, whether it's the appeal
[2:22:55] process, whether it's
[2:22:58] um the process of of if your project
[2:23:01] gets is told that you're um don't have
[2:23:04] all the materials or your you know um
[2:23:07] whether or not an ADU will be considered
[2:23:09] at the same time or will not be. you
[2:23:12] know, there's just a little bit of um un
[2:23:14] vague vagueness, if you will, in there
[2:23:16] that I think causes confusion. So, um
[2:23:19] did you have a chance at all to review
[2:23:20] my um suggestions and um to understand
[2:23:24] those kinds of areas where there where I
[2:23:25] felt where I found the the ordinance to
[2:23:28] be a little overly vague.
[2:23:30] >> Yeah, I know. You know, I work with uh
[2:23:32] Katherine and kind of um one of her um
[2:23:35] staff members, Nardos, to review that.
[2:23:38] And you know we we did have multiple
[2:23:40] meetings to kind of discuss what we saw
[2:23:43] and urged and and try to identify I
[2:23:46] think one of them for example the shall
[2:23:48] or may in regards to processing an
[2:23:51] application. So, if you submit an ADU
[2:23:53] and a new house, the the town may delay
[2:23:57] the um the approval of the ADU to when
[2:24:00] the house is finally approved through
[2:24:02] its normal process. And you know, staff
[2:24:05] feels the flexibility is nice to have. I
[2:24:09] mean, we can in in practical, yes, we
[2:24:13] are delaying the approval of the ADU
[2:24:16] till the house is done. Um I I
[2:24:19] personally cannot envision in a
[2:24:21] situation where we wouldn't do that, but
[2:24:24] having the flexibility is useful for
[2:24:27] staff if a unique situation did occur
[2:24:31] where we're like actually that that
[2:24:33] makes sense in this case. Um and so
[2:24:37] that's why staff didn't address that
[2:24:39] one. I think um some of the concerns
[2:24:41] were like calendar days versus days
[2:24:43] versus business days. And Katherine can
[2:24:46] kind of speak to this where I guess my
[2:24:48] in my understanding is that when the
[2:24:50] state says days, they mean calendar
[2:24:52] dates and that's established as law in
[2:24:56] for the state code, it's only when they
[2:24:59] specific specifically call out business
[2:25:01] days. So we we felt since that was
[2:25:04] already an assumption and assumed under
[2:25:07] state law that we did not need to
[2:25:09] provide that clarification. Um, but of
[2:25:11] course we're happy to hear if council
[2:25:13] does want us to add that in, we can
[2:25:16] clarify all those points. Um, but and I don't know if there's any other
[2:25:22] examples, but we did analyze those and
[2:25:26] try to include, for example, with that
[2:25:28] exhibit A that you got, what we felt we
[2:25:31] could and was really the most relevant
[2:25:34] and then leave up the other ones to kind
[2:25:35] of more the decision from the council.
[2:25:38] Would you like us to address those kind
[2:25:40] of more minor clarification? Is that a
[2:25:43] concern with everyone and and move
[2:25:45] forward?
[2:25:46] >> So, those are all my questions for the
[2:25:48] ADU ordinance. So, I'd like to just pass
[2:25:50] it off to them. I do have some questions
[2:25:52] for the, you know, the
[2:25:55] um indemnification one, but I think we
[2:25:57] should stay my feeling.
[2:25:59] >> Okay. That that would be great. Let's do that. I don't mind splitting up
[2:26:02] the conversation between sections. Um
[2:26:05] Helen, do you have comments or not
[2:26:07] comments? Sorry. Do you have questions?
[2:26:09] We're still there question.
[2:26:11] >> Hi, thank you. Um
[2:26:14] let me get
[2:26:17] um
[2:26:19] just for clarific I have some um
[2:26:21] clarification questions.
[2:26:30] Um, again, utility because of the situation we're
[2:26:35] having with the West Bay Sanitary
[2:26:36] District. Um, would we not include
[2:26:43] just to be really clear,
[2:26:45] we we would not include the the
[2:26:49] because we have so many different
[2:26:51] agencies.
[2:26:52] Is there any reason not to include the
[2:26:55] names of the agencies that over with
[2:26:57] jurisdiction over because I think that
[2:26:59] people think that we over
[2:27:04] you know have jurisdiction over
[2:27:06] sanitation and over you know Pen
[2:27:10] obviously has electrical and G you know
[2:27:13] like so
[2:27:16] the thought there is that in our again
[2:27:20] and I know I keep defaulting to the
[2:27:22] handout s that's where we can be very
[2:27:23] specific in including that language in
[2:27:26] our municipal code. What if that
[2:27:28] jurisdiction changed their name or what
[2:27:30] if there is a handover of authority or
[2:27:33] we get split in authority there there's
[2:27:36] kind of those whatifs. So being more
[2:27:38] generic tends to be the better path in
[2:27:41] those specific cases. But being very
[2:27:43] specific on our handouts because our
[2:27:45] handouts staff can fix. we don't need to
[2:27:48] come back up to council to fix those
[2:27:51] where if it's in our ordinance, we would
[2:27:53] and that could create just unnecessary
[2:27:55] work
[2:27:56] >> for staff to have to come up for those
[2:27:58] really minor things.
[2:28:00] >> So, and um in terms of the um without
[2:28:05] even naming them that we could clearly
[2:28:07] state, you know, electrical, gas,
[2:28:10] sanitation is overseen by other
[2:28:13] agencies, right?
[2:28:16] >> Yeah. If we want to do something a
[2:28:18] little more generic in that way, yes, we
[2:28:20] can say, you know, or the governing or
[2:28:22] the the local agency that oversees these
[2:28:27] utilities and and kind of make it more
[2:28:29] clear on that way. Yes, we can
[2:28:30] definitely look at that and include
[2:28:33] something like that if you know that is
[2:28:35] council's direction.
[2:28:36] >> Okay.
[2:28:37] Um in terms of undergrounding of um
[2:28:45] uh utility connections
[2:28:47] um
[2:28:49] my you know Cal
[2:28:52] the letter that was sent to planning
[2:28:54] commission on February 4th 2026 by
[2:28:57] CalHDF
[2:28:59] claims that undergrounding is
[2:29:03] um not permissible requirement.
[2:29:08] Um
[2:29:11] and they my understanding is Cal HDF is
[2:29:16] like a legal uh advocacy group well who
[2:29:21] will sue us and they did send us a
[2:29:23] letter. Um
[2:29:26] so can you speak to the undergrounding
[2:29:28] situation? There it is on page four or
[2:29:30] five of their letter. Um,
[2:29:34] you know, it says the town may not
[2:29:36] impose such undergrounding requirements
[2:29:39] on sections. Again, it's the 66323 ADUs.
[2:29:44] Um,
[2:29:46] and this specifically exempts such ADUs
[2:29:48] from all local requirements.
[2:29:51] So, it does look like,
[2:29:54] you know, so if you could speak to the
[2:29:56] undergrounding situation.
[2:29:58] >> Yeah, just give me one second. I want to
[2:29:59] pull it up so I can read the exact
[2:30:01] >> right. And maybe it is with the I'm
[2:30:04] gonna forget the other um
[2:30:08] and um it's the and maybe it's under uh
[2:30:12] 66314.
[2:30:15] But because we have, you know, we did
[2:30:17] get a legal letter not from HCD but from
[2:30:20] a different group who also sues um I'm
[2:30:24] curious about this section
[2:30:32] and so with and I just clarify we're
[2:30:35] going to be discussing section I think
[2:30:37] it's under utility connection so E5 so
[2:30:40] when there is a proposed utility
[2:30:43] connection between them. We um they have
[2:30:46] to underground it. And so again, we are
[2:30:49] not specifying that if you have to
[2:30:52] underground
[2:30:53] uh if there are other ways for you to
[2:30:55] provide that utility connection. And
[2:30:58] this is where it gets a little
[2:31:01] unique. So in most cases, the utility
[2:31:04] connection generally goes directly
[2:31:06] through the existing service. It's a sub
[2:31:08] panel on the house or it's tied into the
[2:31:11] existing houses.
[2:31:13] Um, this would only be in the cases
[2:31:16] where they are proposing that direct
[2:31:18] connection. We're not requiring them to
[2:31:21] do that direct connection, but if
[2:31:23] they're proposing it, we are requesting
[2:31:24] that they underground, for example, the
[2:31:27] electrical line. And so that is, and
[2:31:30] Katherine, you can correct me if I'm
[2:31:31] wrong, in our interpretation of the
[2:31:33] state law, that is consistent with the
[2:31:36] provisions because we are not requiring
[2:31:39] them to underground. But if you propose
[2:31:41] to do utility connection or if you
[2:31:44] propose to do that, you're not required
[2:31:46] to do the direct utility connection
[2:31:49] except in very certain situations,
[2:31:51] right?
[2:31:53] Um
[2:31:55] in most other situations, you're not connecting directly to the
[2:31:59] utility. You're directing through the
[2:32:00] existing system and those were not
[2:32:03] requiring the underground data.
[2:32:04] >> When you say existing system, are you
[2:32:07] talking about the primary residence?
[2:32:09] Yes. And so what this is really focused
[2:32:11] on and and this is saying a separate
[2:32:14] utility interaction directly between the
[2:32:16] utility and the unit. So if you are
[2:32:20] providing a separate meter for the ADU
[2:32:23] and you are running a new power line
[2:32:26] from PG&'s pole to the house or to the
[2:32:30] ADU. If you propose that, you're not
[2:32:32] required to in most situations to do
[2:32:34] that. If you propose to do that, we do
[2:32:36] want you to undercut it.
[2:32:42] And does this uh follow does this follow
[2:32:47] state law? I mean obviously like you
[2:32:50] know for fire reasons I like things
[2:32:53] undergrounded but again I don't want the
[2:32:55] town to you know like so um
[2:33:00] >> it's similar to the parking situation.
[2:33:02] If you elect to provide parking besides
[2:33:05] it being in a garage, we can still
[2:33:07] require additional standards like it
[2:33:08] needs needs to be outside the setbacks,
[2:33:11] it needs to be on concrete, you can't
[2:33:12] have it be on, you know, dirt. We can
[2:33:16] still apply those standards because it's
[2:33:18] more like they're opting into that.
[2:33:20] >> So, I mean, in when I built my ADU, I
[2:33:23] went off a I have a separate meter and
[2:33:27] uh I was require and I was required to
[2:33:30] underground. it was extraordinarily
[2:33:33] expensive. So my you know um the
[2:33:36] trenching is heinously expensive. Um and
[2:33:41] because of the the uh configuration of
[2:33:45] the electrical poles, it made much more
[2:33:47] sense than coming off the primary. Um,
[2:33:50] so and then to see Cal HDF say that this
[2:33:54] is not permissible, but you're saying
[2:33:57] you're asking, but it does look like the
[2:33:59] verbiage says shall be placed
[2:34:02] underground,
[2:34:03] right? So this is why I'm like
[2:34:08] >> kind of Catherine, I don't know.
[2:34:09] >> I'll see if So I think the legal issue
[2:34:11] is whether this is excessively
[2:34:13] burdensome. Um, and that's that's what
[2:34:16] we talked about too with the with the
[2:34:17] parking. Um and the reason that we as
[2:34:20] staff don't believe we would trigger
[2:34:22] that is because the um applicant would
[2:34:25] be opting in to the decision to
[2:34:27] underground. It would not be required.
[2:34:30] Um all that said, this is a policy
[2:34:32] decision for council. Um there was I
[2:34:35] think a fair amount of discussion at the
[2:34:36] planning commission about this this
[2:34:37] provision and this is ultimately reflect
[2:34:39] their recommendation, but this is a
[2:34:40] policy decision.
[2:34:42] >> Okay.
[2:34:43] Thank you. Um next question. Um
[2:34:59] adjusted maximum floor area. Um
[2:35:04] just to be clear, 66323
[2:35:08] can be up 4T up against a fence and not
[2:35:11] count towards the overall. Is that
[2:35:13] correct?
[2:35:15] So with how we have the wording for the
[2:35:19] AMFA and the the similar requirements is
[2:35:22] that the ADU does still count, but we
[2:35:26] have to minimally allow either the 663T3
[2:35:29] units and the you know the 66314 unit up
[2:35:35] to 800 square feet. So if they propose
[2:35:38] le let's say they are 800 square f feet
[2:35:41] below AMFA and they propose two ADUs.
[2:35:44] They propose one under the state exempt
[2:35:46] the 800 square foot um you know uh 66323
[2:35:52] unit. They can do that. They are now at
[2:35:54] maximum AMF. They still can um apply for
[2:35:58] an ADU under 66314 which is our
[2:36:02] ordinance but they only get 800 ft. they
[2:36:05] don't get the 1,200 because they are
[2:36:07] only allowed to exceed the AMFA the
[2:36:11] maximum necessary to facilitate at least
[2:36:14] 800 square feet. So we do still have it
[2:36:16] counting. One one other impact of this
[2:36:19] is let's say you do do these units, you
[2:36:22] are now above AMFA, you can't do an
[2:36:24] addition to your house because you have
[2:36:27] already exceeded it. So any future
[2:36:30] additions would be prohibited at that
[2:36:32] point. And so that's why that is worded
[2:36:34] this way is so that people don't
[2:36:36] necessarily take advantage of that. If
[2:36:39] we don't count all those ADUs towards
[2:36:40] AMFA, you could they could build all
[2:36:43] those and still do the additions to the
[2:36:45] houses and we get a lot more structures
[2:36:48] than what we intend for or more square
[2:36:51] footage than we intended for.
[2:36:53] >> Okay. Thank you. Um
[2:36:59] in terms of the height limits um I find
[2:37:01] the height limits um confusing.
[2:37:05] Um has there did planning commission has
[2:37:09] anyone talked about the height allowable
[2:37:12] changing at all? Am I the only one
[2:37:14] raising this question?
[2:37:18] I actually believe um council member
[2:37:21] Finn did in one of her comments kind of
[2:37:24] like hey can't we just do this uh in
[2:37:26] regards to height but we what is
[2:37:29] proposed is the default in state law
[2:37:32] those are the height limits we can
[2:37:34] require um I think one of the way places
[2:37:38] that the council could provide policy
[2:37:40] discretion is if we want to allow the slightly greater height our base
[2:37:46] zoning that back or I'm sorry, our base
[2:37:49] zoning height does allow uh 28 or 30 in
[2:37:52] certain situations depending on where
[2:37:54] you are. Um that's higher than the 25.
[2:37:58] You could we could default to that if
[2:38:00] that is the guidance. We just left in
[2:38:02] the language that was in state law in
[2:38:05] regards to height.
[2:38:07] >> Okay. Thank you. Um
[2:38:17] okay. Um in terms of landscaping and
[2:38:20] this was per the ADU handbook of March
[2:38:23] 2026.
[2:38:25] Um and this my guess
[2:38:29] um so this seemed updated. I did not get
[2:38:32] to compare the see uh today's version.
[2:38:36] So this is last night's version.
[2:38:39] Um
[2:38:41] but this was from guidance from HCD of
[2:38:44] March 2026.
[2:38:47] Um
[2:38:49] in terms of
[2:38:51] a local like can open space or
[2:38:54] landscaping requirements be used to
[2:38:56] limit the size. So landscaping cannot it
[2:39:00] according right cannot be
[2:39:04] a limiting factor.
[2:39:05] >> That is correct.
[2:39:06] >> Right. Um, I would also note that we're
[2:39:11] moving into zone zero regulation and so
[2:39:14] and zone zero is not included anywhere
[2:39:17] in this discussion.
[2:39:20] Um, and so again, this is kind of that
[2:39:23] discussion we had earlier where zone
[2:39:26] zero is a building and fire code
[2:39:27] requirement. So that is still applicable
[2:39:30] and applies, but we cannot have it in
[2:39:33] our zoning ordinance.
[2:39:35] >> Right. Okay.
[2:39:37] Um,
[2:39:42] it's okay.
[2:39:44] And
[2:39:47] okay, let me just make sure. I think
[2:39:49] those are all my questions, but um, let
[2:39:52] me just double check.
[2:40:04] » Yep. Okay. Thank you. That's all my
[2:40:06] questions.
[2:40:07] >> Thank you, Helen. Mary,
[2:40:09] >> uh, oh, I think my question has probably
[2:40:11] already been answered, but I'm going to
[2:40:13] ask it again anyway because I don't
[2:40:15] completely understand. Uh, there's a
[2:40:17] policy choice about having this one
[2:40:21] having a parking place on some of these
[2:40:23] and you decided not to do it as a as a
[2:40:26] policy. Uh, I'm having a very hard time
[2:40:29] understanding.
[2:40:31] We're trying to get cars off of the road
[2:40:33] right into onto lots. Uh it doesn't
[2:40:36] matter whether it's on dirt or or on
[2:40:38] grass or whatever, but it's better that
[2:40:40] it be out of the street so people can
[2:40:43] exit and evacuate. What
[2:40:47] I is the net going to be there less less uh cars in the street or is it I
[2:40:53] mean is this because you think it's some
[2:40:56] kind of reverse thinking we're having to
[2:40:58] do that we can possibly avoid an SP9
[2:41:02] because we've made it more attractive to
[2:41:05] people to do this. I I'm I'm really lost
[2:41:08] in the morass of contradicting uh
[2:41:13] approaches to simple problems.
[2:41:15] >> So for the parking in specifically there
[2:41:19] are then in many cases for the ADUs that
[2:41:22] we are seeing we cannot require parking.
[2:41:25] >> Yeah. No, I got that. But there's one
[2:41:26] case where we can't. We can't.
[2:41:28] >> Okay. So we realize we have all very few
[2:41:30] options. But why do we why would we
[2:41:32] choose not to take an option that we
[2:41:36] have? It was for simplicity sake really
[2:41:40] is just it simplifies the number of
[2:41:42] standards that we do have
[2:41:43] >> and and it seems like that is the is it
[2:41:46] not true that that is the most likely
[2:41:49] situation where they would say oh well
[2:41:52] it's required to have a parking place
[2:41:53] we'll have a parking place I mean it's
[2:41:56] not it's not like this is going to be a
[2:41:58] handy a person who absolutely can't live
[2:42:01] without it
[2:42:02] >> and and this is where it kind of
[2:42:05] conversation where and also not
[2:42:07] requiring the parking. If somebody
[2:42:09] proposes the parking, we can still go
[2:42:11] through our process. There's a great
[2:42:14] example of an ADU. They're on a very
[2:42:16] large lot. They're putting their ADU
[2:42:17] kind of all the way in the back corner.
[2:42:19] They want to do a separate driveway, but
[2:42:22] it's up a steep hill. If we say that ADU
[2:42:25] requires parking, the grading on that
[2:42:28] hill will have to be ministerial, even
[2:42:31] though it would normally trigger
[2:42:32] planning commission. So, we're that. So,
[2:42:35] that's kind of that way. The other way
[2:42:37] is a lot of our sites that um are having
[2:42:41] these ADUs where they do trigger
[2:42:43] parking, they actually tend to have a
[2:42:46] large enough like roundabout area that
[2:42:48] they're, you know, on their law or near
[2:42:50] their garage that they're just showing
[2:42:52] here's where my parking is going to go.
[2:42:54] So, often there's already existing space
[2:42:57] on site. I I I think there's going to be
[2:43:00] a lot less situations where we do not
[2:43:02] have space on site that is already
[2:43:05] usable as a parking space because we do
[2:43:08] often require guest parking spaces and
[2:43:11] so those have been kind of utilized for
[2:43:13] that reason. However, again, it is a
[2:43:15] policy discussion and if the council
[2:43:18] does feel like we should add that back
[2:43:19] in, staff is more than happy to add it
[2:43:21] back in.
[2:43:26] And is that something we can do tonight?
[2:43:28] >> Yes, I I can quickly draft the wording
[2:43:30] right now just to align with state law
[2:43:32] and I can read it into the record and
[2:43:35] you guys can make that as part of your
[2:43:36] motion if
[2:43:37] >> and and can we do the 850 ft too.
[2:43:41] I
[2:43:41] >> if that is a a desire of the majority of
[2:43:44] the council. Yes.
[2:43:44] >> Yeah.
[2:43:45] >> Okay. And strategically. I mean I'm
[2:43:49] willing to think strategically if I have
[2:43:51] to, but I'd much rather think logically.
[2:43:54] Uh so uh strategically is that a
[2:43:58] mistake? I mean is there a mistake
[2:44:00] there?
[2:44:01] I I think, you know, we hear the concern
[2:44:04] a lot with, you know, these ADUs, where
[2:44:08] they're located, the impacts to our
[2:44:10] natural environment, and that aren't
[2:44:12] being reviewed by the planning
[2:44:13] commission and city council or, you
[2:44:15] know, um planning commission or
[2:44:17] >> the the uh the
[2:44:20] you're saying it would then go to the
[2:44:22] ASC
[2:44:22] >> because we're not requiring it. It's an
[2:44:25] I if it's required, we have to process
[2:44:28] it ministerally. If it's not required,
[2:44:31] we can say your our normal.
[2:44:32] >> So that's the strateg.
[2:44:41] » Thank you, Mary. All right. Helen tells
[2:44:42] me she had one more short question and
[2:44:44] then I'll go to you Judith. Sorry.
[2:44:47] I wanted to double check that the 1,200
[2:44:50] square f feet would also apply for as I
[2:44:54] recall previously the uh for parcels
[2:44:57] over 3.5 acres.
[2:45:00] >> So how we have it currently written it
[2:45:02] applies regardless of parcel size
[2:45:04] >> only 1,200 square f feet. Mhm.
[2:45:07] >> We we do not have that kind of bonus
[2:45:09] situation that the code currently has
[2:45:12] because it tied it to additional
[2:45:15] setbacks that again HCD has said we
[2:45:17] cannot do.
[2:45:19] >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
[2:45:21] >> Thank you Judith.
[2:45:24] >> Okay. Um all right. I'm going to start
[2:45:27] generally and then I'll get down into um
[2:45:29] specific questions. Uh, first I want to
[2:45:33] know what the legal authority of the HTD
[2:45:37] handbook is.
[2:45:41] I'll I'll take a stab at that. Um, so I
[2:45:45] would put that in the context of HCD
[2:45:48] statutory authority under that code
[2:45:50] section Brandon referred to at 66313.5
[2:45:55] um which reads the department meaning
[2:45:58] HCD uh may review, adopt, amend or
[2:46:01] repeal guidelines to implement uniform
[2:46:03] standards or criteria that supplement or
[2:46:06] clarify the terms, references and
[2:46:08] standards set forth in this chapter.
[2:46:12] meaning the the ADU chapter. So they are
[2:46:15] acting pursuant to that authority.
[2:46:19] >> Are they law?
[2:46:22] No, they're not law. Um
[2:46:24] they are guidelines. So I would say
[2:46:26] that's different than law. Uh but you
[2:46:29] know in if uh you know if a court were
[2:46:33] to review them, they would certainly be
[2:46:34] considered you know by the court in in
[2:46:36] interpreting statuto language.
[2:46:40] But they haven't they've gotten the
[2:46:43] ability to fill in the gaps, so to
[2:46:45] speak.
[2:46:46] >> Yes, the legislature gave them the
[2:46:48] ability,
[2:46:48] >> but the legislature they might be
[2:46:50] filling in gaps that the legislature
[2:46:54] didn't intend like like it's it can be
[2:46:58] arguable whether or not every single
[2:47:01] guideline
[2:47:02] is going to be filling the gap. And
[2:47:06] >> yes, that is a guideline. That's right.
[2:47:08] And you know, I suspect if you know, in
[2:47:10] theory, if if HCD gets it wrong, the
[2:47:12] legislature always has the opportunity
[2:47:14] to step in every legislative session and
[2:47:16] change the statute and make it clear
[2:47:18] what
[2:47:18] >> Okay. Um, and then the the other large
[2:47:22] picture item is the risk of not having
[2:47:26] an ordinance. You covered that. There's
[2:47:28] a I got to be honest, there's a lot of
[2:47:30] information that came in in the last 24
[2:47:32] hours. So if I'm repeating myself,
[2:47:36] that's why or or repeating what asking
[2:47:40] you to repeat, that's why. Um the risk
[2:47:42] of having no ordinance seems to be that
[2:47:45] some of the stuff that can be given
[2:47:48] effect in our current ordinance
[2:47:51] would just not it would be completely up
[2:47:54] to the state with gaps that where we
[2:47:57] currently have a little plug or two that
[2:47:59] we can apply. Is that essentially it?
[2:48:03] Yes. And I can go into more detail if
[2:48:05] you would like me to.
[2:48:06] >> No. No, that's okay. The other benefit
[2:48:09] of having the ADU ordinance sooner
[2:48:11] rather than later
[2:48:14] um is to enable staff to start doing
[2:48:16] things that can help applicants
[2:48:18] understand
[2:48:20] like like all these materials you're
[2:48:22] saying you could get going on. So to me
[2:48:25] it does seem that time is of the essence
[2:48:28] in a way, right? We want we have the HCD
[2:48:31] letter that we'd prefer not to have them
[2:48:35] looking at this and seeing a delay and
[2:48:37] then we want the staff to actually be
[2:48:40] enabling uh buildouts, right?
[2:48:43] >> Yes. And currently staff is having to
[2:48:45] default to state law because that is
[2:48:47] what the
[2:48:48] >> Yeah.
[2:48:48] >> state law says, but being able to
[2:48:50] actually enforce some of these objective
[2:48:52] design standards when we can, you know,
[2:48:54] is
[2:48:56] good.
[2:48:57] >> Okay. All right. Now, we're going to go
[2:48:59] to my more line item questions. Um, this
[2:49:04] isn't to challenge it. It's just to
[2:49:06] remark to the public. If some if a
[2:49:08] complete application is not approved or
[2:49:10] denied within 60 days, the application
[2:49:13] is deemed approved. How are we doing on
[2:49:16] meeting that 60-day timeline? Is it like
[2:49:20] something to be afraid of or are we
[2:49:22] managing to get those things done? So,
[2:49:25] ADUs
[2:49:27] and so the the 60 days is up when it's
[2:49:30] in review and we do work with applicants
[2:49:32] if there are multiple reviews.
[2:49:34] Technically, if they haven't still
[2:49:36] address the issues, we're supposed to
[2:49:38] deny them and make them reapply and pay
[2:49:40] the fees.
[2:49:41] >> We're not forcing applicants to do that.
[2:49:43] We are saying, "Hey,
[2:49:44] >> we will continue the review, but you are
[2:49:47] still deficient." So, we are still
[2:49:48] providing them the comments within the
[2:49:51] time frames required. That's that's all
[2:49:53] I'm really getting at is we're not do we
[2:49:56] have a bigger process issue if we are
[2:49:59] skimming skipping through the 60 days
[2:50:01] and not able to process but it sounds
[2:50:03] like you're you're engaged enough that's
[2:50:05] not an issue. Thank you. All right. Um,
[2:50:13] so to summarize the the 4 foot setback,
[2:50:17] it is a policy decision that the council
[2:50:19] can discuss today whether it's 850,000
[2:50:25] where where we're able to do anything
[2:50:28] about it. Um, or 1,200
[2:50:31] >> in regards to the uh size. Yes. You said
[2:50:34] setback. I just wanted to clarify for
[2:50:36] the size. Yes. Yeah,
[2:50:37] >> you have you have that discretion on the
[2:50:39] 1,200 850 for the one and
[2:50:42] >> Yeah.
[2:50:43] >> Okay. So, that can be a later
[2:50:44] discussion. Um,
[2:50:48] there's this odd language in 42 about 8
[2:50:51] detached ADUs, etc. Does that actually
[2:50:54] even apply in our town? Like the the
[2:50:59] eight multifamily unit ones? Like I'm
[2:51:02] just trying to gauge whether to focus on
[2:51:05] that given I personally believe we ought
[2:51:07] to be be getting something through our
[2:51:11] system sooner rather than later. So is
[2:51:13] that something that's likely to apply to
[2:51:16] us?
[2:51:17] >> So we do have some properties that do
[2:51:19] have existing multif family.
[2:51:21] >> Okay.
[2:51:21] >> Yes, that would apply.
[2:51:22] >> Okay. All right. Then I'll do my
[2:51:24] homework.
[2:51:27] >> Uh
[2:51:28] >> period.
[2:51:31] Sequoa.
[2:51:34] >> Yep.
[2:51:36] Okay.
[2:51:39] Site improvements. That was helpful. Oh.
[2:51:42] Um
[2:51:44] page 44. Uh there's this you have the
[2:51:47] site improvements. Then you have the
[2:51:49] objective standards.
[2:51:51] So ADU shall comply with the following
[2:51:55] objective standards.
[2:51:58] Oh, and then it's 323 units that it's
[2:52:01] encouraged not. So, were these already
[2:52:05] literally in our existing code like
[2:52:08] before we couldn't enforce them? Okay.
[2:52:10] So, you're not doing anything to
[2:52:12] optimize that at this point? Yeah, I
[2:52:14] think we did some minor clarification on
[2:52:16] the landscaping, but yes, otherwise
[2:52:18] because the landscaping just referenced
[2:52:21] the landscaping guidelines and those are
[2:52:23] too or the design guidelines which are
[2:52:25] too subjective but we kind of specified
[2:52:27] it to the approved plant list which is
[2:52:30] objective. So that was the only
[2:52:32] clarification otherwise everything else
[2:52:34] is what is already being applied.
[2:52:37] >> Okay. So I can't plant a rose bush
[2:52:40] >> near my plant list. So, no.
[2:52:44] As part of your ADU, no.
[2:52:46] >> Okay.
[2:52:48] All right.
[2:52:50] >> I Okay.
[2:52:53] The emergency shelter. Um, I don't know
[2:52:55] if I don't think we're going to have a
[2:52:57] separate discussion of that. The outdoor
[2:52:59] smoking area, is that literally out of
[2:53:01] state law?
[2:53:06] » I believe it it it is. And I will look
[2:53:08] to
[2:53:09] >> I got to believe it is cuz I can't imag
[2:53:14] Okay.
[2:53:15] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:53:18] >> Uh charter.
[2:53:23] Okay. I we're going to come back on the
[2:53:26] indemnity, right?
[2:53:29] So I'll stop there. Thank you.
[2:53:31] >> Thank you, Judith.
[2:53:33] Okay. I've just got some I think fairly
[2:53:35] simple questions. Um did mostly
[2:53:38] clarification just to make sure I got my
[2:53:39] head around everything that's come at
[2:53:41] us. So you said three ADUs. Can you just
[2:53:44] explain that a little bit? Like how do
[2:53:45] you get three three ADUs and the um AFMA
[2:53:50] applies?
[2:53:52] You can get up to 800 over, but that's
[2:53:56] it, right? So how do you get three?
[2:53:58] What's what's where do the three come
[2:53:59] from?
[2:53:59] >> So you would get under So you get two of
[2:54:02] them from the units authorized under
[2:54:04] 66323. So that is a conversion ADU. So
[2:54:08] converting existing part of your house,
[2:54:10] converting an existing garage, an
[2:54:13] existing pool house is a common one that
[2:54:15] we see. You get to convert that
[2:54:17] directly. That usually since it's
[2:54:20] already figured into the AMFA, it
[2:54:22] doesn't really impact as much. Then you
[2:54:24] can do the detach 800 square foot ADU
[2:54:28] per section 66323.
[2:54:31] So those are your first two. Then uh
[2:54:34] with the clarification that HCD has
[2:54:36] provided, you do still get one unit
[2:54:39] consistent with our local ordinance
[2:54:42] which is 66314
[2:54:45] and we can still apply AMFA except that
[2:54:48] we can never restrict a unit less than
[2:54:50] 800 square ft. So that's where you can
[2:54:53] get So if somebody does it correctly,
[2:54:56] you would or incorrectly, however you
[2:54:58] want to look at it, you get your two
[2:55:00] state exempt, you're already way over
[2:55:02] AMFA. You can still get your 663T1. It
[2:55:05] just will be 800 square f feet.
[2:55:07] >> Okay.
[2:55:10] All right. Um,
[2:55:13] so that's Yeah. So I think I get the
[2:55:15] ADUs. It seems complicated that
[2:55:17] somebody's doing all that, but but it's an interesting way all these things
[2:55:21] fit together. Um, so on the 1,200 square
[2:55:25] foot, as I understand, if we allow that,
[2:55:29] then we get to apply objective standards
[2:55:33] and we get to apply setbacks like a
[2:55:35] front setback, not not side and rear.
[2:55:38] Um, so and and setbacks between
[2:55:41] buildings.
[2:55:42] >> Yes, currently staff has not proposed a
[2:55:44] setback between building and the current
[2:55:46] ordinance, but that is something we can
[2:55:48] if the council directs us to, we can
[2:55:50] include.
[2:55:52] Okay, because the Yeah, one of the
[2:55:53] questions I was going to the next
[2:55:54] question I was going to ask is a fire
[2:55:56] safety question. Um I mean typically you
[2:55:59] want to have 10 feet that may already be
[2:56:01] in our fire regs. I don't know. Um
[2:56:05] because as I understand from this
[2:56:06] conversation, what you're saying is
[2:56:07] they're zoning and then layered on top
[2:56:10] of that is building and fire and if
[2:56:11] they're more restrictive, they win.
[2:56:14] >> That's correct. Because the fire and
[2:56:16] building code are seen as being adopted
[2:56:19] from the state building and fire code.
[2:56:21] they over they they control more and can
[2:56:24] be more specific on those specific
[2:56:26] standards where zoning we cannot. Okay.
[2:56:31] Um so if we talked about
[2:56:35] and the design standards the objective
[2:56:38] standards we have now you were listing
[2:56:41] um you said LVR I wasn't quite sure the
[2:56:43] acronym
[2:56:44] >> uh light reflectivity val
[2:56:49] you know I know what it is I just didn't
[2:56:50] know what the acronym was but thank you thank you everybody so um
[2:56:55] >> I have the same problem
[2:56:56] >> do those only apply if we have an
[2:57:00] ordinance
[2:57:00] Yes.
[2:57:01] >> Okay. So, if we if we just defaulted to
[2:57:03] nothing, these wouldn't apply.
[2:57:05] >> That would be correct.
[2:57:06] >> Okay. Um, and if we defaulted to
[2:57:08] nothing, would the AFMA apply?
[2:57:11] >> So, we are clarifying on the AMFA.
[2:57:14] I think there could be an argument.
[2:57:18] Well, actually, no. If we default to
[2:57:20] that, no, we would not. um per HCD's
[2:57:23] guidance, 1,200 square f feet is the
[2:57:25] what we would have to allow as a default
[2:57:28] for if we don't have an ordinance.
[2:57:31] >> Okay.
[2:57:31] >> So, we would not be able to restrict it
[2:57:33] to the 800. Um but I'm trying to think
[2:57:37] if there's any other clear guidance on
[2:57:38] that, but to my understanding, that's
[2:57:40] the default is the 1,200. AMFA would not
[2:57:44] apply in that case.
[2:57:45] >> Okay? because I'm what I'm really trying
[2:57:46] to get at is the advantages of having an
[2:57:50] ordinance versus just defaulting to the
[2:57:52] state. So, that's really where I was
[2:57:54] trying to go with that. Um, and I know
[2:57:56] the direction we gave you was to just
[2:57:58] update our ordinance to state standards.
[2:58:01] So, I appreciate you've done that and
[2:58:03] I'm trying to understand what in
[2:58:05] addition we're getting out of that. So,
[2:58:06] um, so I I think that's helpful. Um, so
[2:58:09] let me stop with questions there. Um,
[2:58:11] then we've got the two more parts. um
[2:58:15] that we need to cover and then I think I
[2:58:18] can go to public comment. I did want to
[2:58:20] ask the council like are you okay if we
[2:58:22] go through the two more parts, take
[2:58:24] public comment and then maybe take a
[2:58:25] break.
[2:58:26] >> What are the two more indemnity and what
[2:58:28] >> the indemnity and the um emergency
[2:58:32] shelters.
[2:58:33] >> Okay,
[2:58:34] >> those those are the two two pieces we
[2:58:35] haven't discussed. I mean you you
[2:58:37] actually jumped into
[2:58:38] >> but I think Rebecca still said she
[2:58:40] wanted and I asked her to wait. So, I
[2:58:41] just want to make sure if anybody has
[2:58:43] comments on those two that we or
[2:58:45] questions on those two we
[2:58:46] >> Yeah.
[2:58:47] So, um so with that, let me go to
[2:58:50] those two. So, Rebecca, you had
[2:58:52] something that you wanted to
[2:58:54] >> Yeah, please.
[2:58:55] >> Okay. Well, quickly on the um emergency
[2:58:58] shelter, I had the same concern that
[2:59:00] Judith had about the outdoor smoking
[2:59:02] area. It says the outdoor smoking area
[2:59:04] may be screened by vegetation.
[2:59:07] Um, I had put in a little note about it
[2:59:10] complying with fire code. Um, I know I I
[2:59:14] I'm understanding now that that's more
[2:59:15] of a building thing. Um, so we would be
[2:59:18] able to then
[2:59:20] >> um through the building process code
[2:59:24] have, you know, make sure that we're not
[2:59:26] somehow creating a fire hazard.
[2:59:29] >> Yes, that is mine and I'll default to
[2:59:31] Katherine because Katherine helped write
[2:59:32] that that update. So I'll let Katherine
[2:59:35] chime in.
[2:59:36] >> But yes, that that is the same concept
[2:59:38] that would apply that code would
[2:59:40] prevail. Okay. And should I move on to
[2:59:43] indemnification?
[2:59:44] >> Yeah, please cover both of those.
[2:59:46] >> So for the indemnification, um
[2:59:50] it I I kind of want to understand my
[2:59:53] role as a c and the role of the council
[2:59:55] members in terms of who are we supposed
[2:59:58] to be protecting the most? I mean is it
[3:00:01] just the town or do we have any
[3:00:03] responsibility towards protecting our
[3:00:05] residents um in this situation? So when
[3:00:09] we ask for an indemnification for an
[3:00:11] applicant that comes for a project
[3:00:14] um well I would say let's see we are u
[3:00:17] obviously being mindful of residents um
[3:00:19] but while at the same time being
[3:00:21] protected of the town um the town is
[3:00:23] currently requiring identification of
[3:00:24] applicants uh so this is essentially
[3:00:27] codifying existing practice and I think
[3:00:30] the as um Brandon mentioned the main
[3:00:32] reason this caught um our attention and
[3:00:34] my attention was that during the um
[3:00:37] negotiation of the conditions of
[3:00:38] approval for the Stanford project. Um
[3:00:40] Standard pointed out that we had no
[3:00:41] statutory authority to require the
[3:00:44] indentification.
[3:00:45] >> We do or we didn't.
[3:00:46] >> We did not at the time. We still don't.
[3:00:48] Um so that's the purpose of of adding
[3:00:50] this to our code. They did end up
[3:00:52] indemnifying the town. Um that is part
[3:00:55] of the condition of approval. Uh but
[3:00:56] this is essentially intended to uh
[3:00:59] codify existing practice and we do all
[3:01:02] of these things that are in this uh
[3:01:04] proposal. We're we're asking for we're
[3:01:07] currently asking applicants to do
[3:01:09] reimbursement of public records acts. Uh
[3:01:12] so that is actually new. Um thank you
[3:01:14] for pointing that out. Uh we do not
[3:01:16] currently do that. Um but this is sort
[3:01:18] of with the with the mindset of uh
[3:01:21] saving costs for the town and a lot of
[3:01:23] times that these projects do actually
[3:01:26] result in um expensive uh public records
[3:01:30] act requests brought by um neighbors or
[3:01:33] other interested parties. uh that are
[3:01:36] solely about um and that
[3:01:39] >> are we not allowed in by law to charge
[3:01:43] for P requests in general just general P
[3:01:46] requests?
[3:01:46] >> No, we are not allowed to charge for
[3:01:48] that because I'm just a little Yeah, I
[3:01:52] it's very open-ended. So, you know, say in a situation that um there's some
[3:01:58] huge controversy and we make the the
[3:02:00] front pages of the Wall Street Journal
[3:02:02] again and all of a sudden, you know, the
[3:02:04] 75 uh reporters decide that they're
[3:02:07] going to do a P request to get
[3:02:09] information about whatever this
[3:02:11] controversial project is. So, then we're
[3:02:13] saying that that applicant of the
[3:02:16] controversial project has to pay for all
[3:02:18] those PR requests. So, I it just I mean
[3:02:22] it's very open-ended. I mean, it could
[3:02:24] go on for years, right? And somebody
[3:02:26] would get a bill 20 years from now
[3:02:28] because I mean there's no guard rail,
[3:02:31] you know, what are the guardrails on
[3:02:32] this?
[3:02:34] >> Yeah. I mean, again, this is, um,
[3:02:37] this is based on another jurisdictions,
[3:02:40] other jurisdictions language. And so,
[3:02:42] um, I have not heard of that situation
[3:02:44] coming up, but I'm mindful of what you
[3:02:45] say. And, you know, one option would be
[3:02:47] if you want to provide some guide rails,
[3:02:49] you could change the shall to May. um
[3:02:53] may reimburse the town or maybe may be
[3:02:55] required to reimburse the town or you
[3:02:56] could strike it all together if that is
[3:02:58] the the council's preference um
[3:03:01] regarding the P reimbursement
[3:03:04] and then um so what what happens in a
[3:03:08] situation where it's the town's
[3:03:10] negligence
[3:03:12] for for in in something in in how they
[3:03:16] approved a planning or one of our
[3:03:18] contractors screwed up or you know it it
[3:03:20] just seems
[3:03:22] we're forcing the applicant to take on
[3:03:24] that um responsibility.
[3:03:27] So, this did come up at the planning
[3:03:28] commission. There was a um a discussion
[3:03:31] amongst two of the commissioners who had
[3:03:33] two different views on this on this
[3:03:35] question. Um ultimately the um the
[3:03:39] commission uh decided not to carve out
[3:03:42] an exception for uh gross negligence or
[3:03:45] willful misconduct by the by the town.
[3:03:49] um which is consistent with other
[3:03:51] indemnification provisions throughout
[3:03:53] the municipal code. This isn't the only
[3:03:54] place where this would arise. Um there
[3:03:57] are some specific um indeidentification
[3:03:59] provisions that are not generally
[3:04:01] applicable like this one would be. Uh
[3:04:03] but the standard approach throughout the
[3:04:05] MUN code is tracks this language um and
[3:04:10] does not carve out an express exception
[3:04:12] for gross negligence or willful
[3:04:13] misconduct by the town. Now, as a
[3:04:15] practical matter, if there was um and
[3:04:20] not saying there ever would be, but
[3:04:21] gross negligence disable misconduct by
[3:04:23] the town, um there would certainly be
[3:04:25] the applicant would just refuse to
[3:04:26] indemnify and that would just be another
[3:04:28] part of the litigation. Uh I imagine,
[3:04:30] >> but when does the indemnification
[3:04:32] happen? At the end of the project, you sign something or um it essentially
[3:04:37] happens during the conditions of
[3:04:38] approval. Um for most projects, the
[3:04:42] planners might have additional
[3:04:43] information on that. Um but then you
[3:04:45] know most of the times there these
[3:04:47] projects do not result in litigation.
[3:04:49] But if for example this the the Stanford
[3:04:52] project after it was approved the the
[3:04:54] town received um a lawsuit regarding you
[3:04:57] know California you know SQA and the ER
[3:04:59] was not compliant etc. Um at that point
[3:05:02] Stanford would be required to indemnify
[3:05:05] um the town for any litigation costs in
[3:05:07] defending that SQA litigation. That's
[3:05:09] when this comes up kind of.
[3:05:10] >> And then I was confused about why we
[3:05:13] would be requiring the applicant to pay
[3:05:15] for the defense with the council of the
[3:05:18] town's choosing. Maybe you could just
[3:05:20] kind of explain the process here, you
[3:05:23] know. Um I I don't I I kind of gotten I
[3:05:27] don't quite follow how defense is cho in what situation a
[3:05:32] defense is then chosen by the town. What
[3:05:34] would be a scenario that this comes into
[3:05:37] play? Uh so if there is litigation
[3:05:40] challenging a project that the town
[3:05:43] approves,
[3:05:44] uh generally the the litigation would be
[3:05:46] brought against both the town and the
[3:05:49] applicant. Uh so the applicant would
[3:05:51] have their own attorney and they'd be
[3:05:53] defending the lawsuit. Um the that what
[3:05:56] this language is saying is that the town
[3:05:57] doesn't have to use the applicant's
[3:05:59] attorney. They could hire their own
[3:06:00] attorney to defend the town. So there
[3:06:01] might be different nuance in terms of
[3:06:03] the defense that the town would want to
[3:06:05] have its own counsel. Um and so this
[3:06:07] would provide that the town has the
[3:06:10] authority um the right to choose their
[3:06:12] own attorney.
[3:06:13] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:06:15] >> Have a practical example.
[3:06:16] >> Oh, thank you. Please
[3:06:17] >> Westridge. There was a conflict with our
[3:06:20] existing town attorney where we had to
[3:06:22] bring in outside counsel to help us
[3:06:24] through that process. So that would be
[3:06:26] another case of that is there if there
[3:06:29] is a conflict of interest, the town is
[3:06:31] able to get its own attorney, its own
[3:06:34] separate attorney to defend the
[3:06:37] >> Thank you, Rebecca. Ellen, do you have
[3:06:39] anything on these two? Great. Thank you,
[3:06:41] Mary.
[3:06:42] >> Nope.
[3:06:43] >> Thank you, Judith.
[3:06:44] >> Yeah. Um,
[3:06:47] so if I read this right,
[3:06:51] this could even be
[3:06:55] a town employee
[3:06:58] that brings a slip and fall suit
[3:07:00] relating to a project. So it's not third
[3:07:03] party indemnity. Is there intended to be
[3:07:06] a limit to a third party suit?
[3:07:14] Yes.
[3:07:16] >> Uh this is intended for third party
[3:07:20] suits against the town.
[3:07:22] >> And is the language derived from
[3:07:25] precedent we've already used exactly in
[3:07:27] town or is it derived from several
[3:07:32] >> several other jurisdictions um that have
[3:07:35] similar type of indemnity provisions?
[3:07:38] >> Yeah. And then um
[3:07:43] so say the public records act is
[3:07:46] alleging some inappropriate
[3:07:50] process
[3:07:52] in the course of handling the project on
[3:07:56] the town's part. We're we're still going
[3:08:00] to require them to
[3:08:03] um reimburse for the P request on that.
[3:08:09] Uh so the the P um
[3:08:15] uh request does that results in cost
[3:08:18] staff costs to collect documents um
[3:08:20] sometimes outside uh document um
[3:08:26] uh servers are are services are
[3:08:28] required. Um the intent is to capture um
[3:08:32] reimbursement for hard costs um and
[3:08:36] staff costs related to P requests,
[3:08:39] right? But but my point here is that the
[3:08:41] public records act exists for
[3:08:43] transparency as a public policy, right?
[3:08:46] Like let's find out what actually
[3:08:48] happened, what communications actually
[3:08:50] happened. the the the balance to me is
[3:08:55] public transparency and the right of the
[3:08:57] public to call out into the public
[3:09:01] sphere what's been going on in process
[3:09:04] within the town. if we're the source of
[3:09:07] a problem here, it it just seems
[3:09:11] it could be punitive under some
[3:09:13] circumstances if I'm thinking about it
[3:09:15] right to, you know, maybe maybe the
[3:09:18] person as a result of a P actually
[3:09:22] was right. Something was bad with the
[3:09:24] process. We're now saying that the
[3:09:28] applicant,
[3:09:30] regardless of who did what, has to
[3:09:32] reimburse those hard costs. Um, so I'm
[3:09:35] just trying to think about the the
[3:09:37] balancing of the policies here. Um, one
[3:09:40] policy is we're we're trying to save
[3:09:42] money and PAS are expensive versus the
[3:09:45] transparency. Is that kind of a way of
[3:09:47] looking at it? Because it's hard to get
[3:09:49] really nuanced with this.
[3:09:51] >> Yeah, I think that is a good way to look
[3:09:52] at it. Um, and I think those are those
[3:09:55] are good points in terms of policy
[3:09:56] considerations about whether to move
[3:09:57] forward with that um part of this
[3:10:00] ordinance. Um,
[3:10:02] >> you know, the council might decide that
[3:10:03] it wants to narrow it, um, to, uh, you
[3:10:06] know, optional reimbursement. Um,
[3:10:08] wouldn't require the town to seek
[3:10:10] reimbursement, but that maybe they're in
[3:10:12] certain situations. Um,
[3:10:14] >> or, you know, like we discussed with the previous question, if this
[3:10:18] isn't the direction the council wants to
[3:10:20] go at this time, that also would be fine
[3:10:21] and it could strike this portion of the
[3:10:23] ordinance.
[3:10:24] >> Okay, that that was my question. Thank
[3:10:26] you.
[3:10:27] >> Thank you, Judith. Um, I don't have any
[3:10:29] questions on these, so I'm going to
[3:10:31] close the council questioning. And is
[3:10:34] everybody okay if I open it up to public
[3:10:36] for questioning and then we take a break
[3:10:37] after that?
[3:10:38] >> Okay, great. Um, all right. So, I'd like
[3:10:40] to open it up for
[3:10:41] >> And this is a public hearing. So, you
[3:10:43] are opening the public hearing.
[3:10:44] >> Thank you. I'm I am now opening the
[3:10:45] public hearing. Thank you. And and I can
[3:10:48] we but we can start this and then we can
[3:10:50] exit and use the bathrooms, etc.
[3:10:52] >> Yeah, I'd recommend closing the public
[3:10:53] hearing once you finish with the public
[3:10:56] comments.
[3:10:57] >> Thank you. Take a break.
[3:10:58] >> Got I got the word. Okay. So, I'm now
[3:10:59] opening the public hearing. Thank you.
[3:11:01] Um, are there any public comments?
[3:11:05] So, looking in the room, I see a hand.
[3:11:07] Please come to the microphone. Welcome,
[3:11:08] Judith.
[3:11:12] » Thank you. Um, this is comments as well
[3:11:14] as questions. Is that accurate?
[3:11:16] >> Uh, it's comments.
[3:11:18] >> It's comments.
[3:11:18] >> It's not. There's no Yeah.
[3:11:19] >> Very good.
[3:11:20] >> Sorry. That's just the sort of the
[3:11:22] limits the limits on our hours. Um,
[3:11:25] virtually every application for a new
[3:11:26] home or major remodel has had an ADU in
[3:11:29] the last years and now we may be looking
[3:11:31] at uh them all having two or three
[3:11:34] ministerally approved. The town has the
[3:11:37] right, obviously we've been talking all
[3:11:38] night to to adopt objective criteria to
[3:11:42] be applied equally to all applications.
[3:11:45] Process of creating such standards was
[3:11:46] started several years ago. Um some
[3:11:49] committees uh submitted some proposals
[3:11:51] that were sent to planning department
[3:11:54] and then because of everything that went
[3:11:55] on in town this all stalled and more or
[3:11:58] less disappeared. Um
[3:12:02] this draft version as we talked about
[3:12:04] does not include some of the protective
[3:12:06] restrictions that we could reasonably
[3:12:08] place and ministerally apply. So I'm
[3:12:11] very concerned that
[3:12:13] um this is all being done tonight that a
[3:12:16] first reading is being dispensed with
[3:12:18] instead of instead of the normal usual
[3:12:20] process which exists for the reason
[3:12:23] exactly of a little more timely
[3:12:26] consideration of some of the things that
[3:12:27] have been brought up tonight. My
[3:12:29] specific concerns have to do with
[3:12:34] no surprise uh protecting the native
[3:12:37] environment here. So trails are one of
[3:12:41] the things that come up. It seems to me
[3:12:43] that that senior planner said that we
[3:12:45] could um put objective criteria about
[3:12:48] the distance between the two houses. Is
[3:12:51] there any reason we couldn't put an
[3:12:53] objective universally applied
[3:12:56] restriction that says it has to be a
[3:12:58] certain distance from a trail that the
[3:13:02] 4-foot thing What if the 4ft thing and
[3:13:05] the trail goes like this? Is the 4-foot
[3:13:07] setback allowed to encroach on a trail?
[3:13:10] And doesn't that seem like very
[3:13:12] objective criteria that should be able
[3:13:15] to be put to be put down? These are
[3:13:17] existing easements. Uh does the 4 foot
[3:13:21] um able to sort of violate the easements
[3:13:24] that we have. Um so that's one of my
[3:13:27] concerns that I think needs to be looked
[3:13:29] at a little more detail. Um I think the
[3:13:31] parking issue I don't have a specific
[3:13:33] comment to makecept that obviously if
[3:13:35] cars if you're writing something that
[3:13:38] encourages cars to be spilling out on
[3:13:39] the street that's that's enormously
[3:13:42] uh contradictory of what we're trying to
[3:13:44] have the town feel like. Um the scenic
[3:13:47] corridor issue is one that is not really
[3:13:49] addressed. There are lots in town along
[3:13:52] the scenic corridor where they have put
[3:13:54] their address on the street that goes
[3:13:56] off either Portolo or Alpine that makes
[3:13:59] their frontage on the scenic corridor
[3:14:02] their side yard. Are people going to be
[3:14:04] able to put two or three ADUs 4 feet
[3:14:08] from their property line on our scenic
[3:14:10] corridor? Isn't there not something
[3:14:13] that's an objective standard that
[3:14:15] applies to any applicant that we could
[3:14:18] include there?
[3:14:20] >> I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it
[3:14:21] up.
[3:14:22] >> Okay. That that's my main thing. I have
[3:14:23] grave concerns about adopting this
[3:14:25] ordinance tonight. I think you need to
[3:14:27] take the time to deserve at least a
[3:14:29] second reading and and come up with some
[3:14:31] language to address some of these really
[3:14:33] important things.
[3:14:35] The worst thing that happens is we go
[3:14:36] back to doing what we've been doing for
[3:14:37] the last year and a half, which is using
[3:14:40] the state ordinances. We don't have
[3:14:41] these nice little things we want to add,
[3:14:43] but we also don't have these other
[3:14:45] important ones. And that's maybe one or
[3:14:47] two houses, one or two projects. So,
[3:14:50] don't don't get steamrolled into going
[3:14:52] fast fast because it's hard to fix it if
[3:14:54] it's not right.
[3:14:55] >> Thank you. Um I I did want to just make
[3:14:58] one clarification. When we say we're
[3:15:00] waving a first reading, that means
[3:15:02] something very specific. It means we
[3:15:03] didn't read that entire like 50 pages
[3:15:08] into the record. It doesn't mean we
[3:15:10] skip. This is basically the first. It
[3:15:12] will come back to us after this. So
[3:15:15] there's not a skipping of the first.
[3:15:17] It's just reading as a very specific
[3:15:19] literally Katherine would sit here and
[3:15:22] read every word until we were done. And
[3:15:24] we that's what we say we're waving it.
[3:15:29] » It's not No, this is I mean this will
[3:15:32] come back to us.
[3:15:33] >> Yeah. that although Craig just to
[3:15:37] support the question and ask for
[3:15:39] clarification there was the request on
[3:15:42] the slide said adopt this so I want to
[3:15:46] >> fair enough but it but it is coming back
[3:15:47] I mean just that's why I wanted to
[3:15:48] clarify so it right it will come back to
[3:15:51] us as and likely come back to us as a
[3:15:53] consent agenda but it will come back to
[3:15:54] us
[3:15:55] >> it comes back for a second reading but
[3:15:56] just to make sure I'm folks are clear um
[3:15:59] the second reading is like you say a
[3:16:01] consent item and so the substantive
[3:16:02] discussion
[3:16:04] um does typically take place, you know,
[3:16:06] at the introduction, the first reading.
[3:16:10] » Okay. Any other hands in the
[3:16:13] schoolhouse? I don't see any. Any other
[3:16:15] hands online?
[3:16:18] Okay. I don't see any. All right. Oh,
[3:16:22] thank you.
[3:16:25] One day, I'm gonna be ahead of her, but
[3:16:28] Okay. Hi, Christie. Go ahead, please.
[3:16:31] >> Wow.
[3:16:33] I'm surprised you that because I really
[3:16:35] do have a right to talk.
[3:16:37] >> Oh, for sure. No, no, it was just I was
[3:16:38] about to close it. You got your hand up
[3:16:40] just in time. So, thank you.
[3:16:41] >> Okay. Um
[3:16:44] All right. I believe this topic should
[3:16:46] have been a steady session and a call
[3:16:49] out to the whole community to let them
[3:16:52] know this is really important to our
[3:16:54] community. And if you only have 10
[3:16:57] people here, 10 people out of 4,500
[3:17:00] people know about it. So, I do think
[3:17:03] that we should have we should take our
[3:17:05] time and go slower with this important
[3:17:08] document.
[3:17:10] I think the add-ons in the future,
[3:17:12] description, fees, definitions,
[3:17:15] education should have been added to this
[3:17:18] document so we can see it in its
[3:17:20] entirety. So the town has the right to
[3:17:23] make objective requirements po uh
[3:17:26] parking height
[3:17:28] um of the ADU setback um max size and
[3:17:33] then I noticed is it true that the ASC
[3:17:37] will be pulled out of the
[3:17:41] um ability to make comments such as
[3:17:44] light spill where the where the window
[3:17:47] should be where the dot where it's
[3:17:49] placed on the um
[3:17:53] on the parcel. Um can you add 300 ft? We
[3:17:58] want to notice our neighbors in this
[3:18:00] town because we are polite and we want
[3:18:03] to do that because we feel it's
[3:18:04] important. Can you please answer that
[3:18:07] tonight? Um
[3:18:10] let's see. I understand that the ADU law
[3:18:13] is ministerial, but I think that's
[3:18:15] important to still inform and educate.
[3:18:18] We live in the WOOI which is wildland
[3:18:20] urban interface which is the fire chief
[3:18:23] said he'll be burning you know canyons
[3:18:25] and woodside and really trying to clear.
[3:18:28] So if we live in the WOOI what what
[3:18:31] should we be thinking more of? Is that
[3:18:33] why houses were further apart in the 9
[3:18:36] by9 um area that we live? Corner
[3:18:40] parcels. I have heard nothing about
[3:18:43] corner parcels and what are the
[3:18:45] guidelines going to be? Please discuss
[3:18:48] patios and if they're allowed outside
[3:18:50] the ADU. If I build an ADU, I want a
[3:18:53] patio, not dirt. Um,
[3:18:56] did you take ASC out of the ADU process,
[3:18:59] light, spill, trees, location? It looks
[3:19:03] like Woodside with ADUs, if they have
[3:19:06] one bedroom, they are allowed to have
[3:19:08] one parking place. So, I'd like to see
[3:19:09] that discussed more. I think selling an
[3:19:12] ADU should be added and put back in.
[3:19:16] that is of interest. The second um sheet
[3:19:21] the fees and explanation should be
[3:19:24] attached as a entire document. And if we
[3:19:28] have 4 foot side and 4 foot back, but I
[3:19:30] want to do the setback at the normal,
[3:19:33] would I get the carrots perks bonus of a
[3:19:36] higher ceiling or uh a deck outside the
[3:19:40] ADU? Looks like that was um taken away.
[3:19:44] And then I'd like to see
[3:19:46] >> So Christie, I'm going to have to ask
[3:19:48] you to close it out.
[3:19:49] >> Pas strike uh that people should pay for
[3:19:53] them because we feel that we're already
[3:19:56] paying for them. And if we need
[3:19:58] something research, we're not
[3:19:59] professionals like you. We can't find
[3:20:01] things like you. We have to ask the
[3:20:03] clerk to find them for us. So I am
[3:20:06] really appalled by the fact that you
[3:20:08] want me to pay per page per. Thank you.
[3:20:12] >> Thank you, Christie.
[3:20:14] All right, before I close the public
[3:20:17] hearing, are there any other public
[3:20:19] comments?
[3:20:23] All right, I see no one in the
[3:20:24] schoolhouse. I see no one online. So,
[3:20:26] I'm now going to close the public
[3:20:28] hearing
[3:20:29] and we will take a short adjournment,
[3:20:32] five minutes. Does that work for
[3:20:33] everybody? Um, and then we'll come back
[3:20:35] and have discussion.
[3:20:39] Veronica, you want to start?
[3:20:41] >> Thank you.
[3:20:42] All right, welcome back everybody. Thank
[3:20:45] you.
[3:20:47] Okay, so before we start, um, a couple
[3:20:50] of questions came up that that I would
[3:20:52] like to hear the answers to. Um, just to
[3:20:55] capture, we had the trails question, the
[3:20:57] notification question, and the scenic
[3:20:59] corridor question. Could you just speak
[3:21:00] to them briefly?
[3:21:02] >> Yes. So, for the trails question in
[3:21:05] specific,
[3:21:07] generally those easements for the trails
[3:21:09] will have a no build condition. Those
[3:21:12] are enforcable
[3:21:14] usually through the building permit. I
[3:21:15] cannot specify as a planner through the
[3:21:18] zoning code an additional setback from
[3:21:20] those. I'm restricted to only the 4ft
[3:21:23] side and rear. Oftent times the trails
[3:21:26] are on what we refer to as the street
[3:21:29] side or the front setback. Um
[3:21:33] so you know working with them we would be able to enforce that at the
[3:21:37] building permit side as long as that
[3:21:39] because that's a private agreement. But
[3:21:41] I cannot as a planner I cannot prescribe
[3:21:44] additional setbacks beyond that because
[3:21:46] again I'm restricted to the 4 foot side
[3:21:48] and rear
[3:21:50] period. It doesn't necessarily take into
[3:21:53] consideration of the easement.
[3:21:56] Um the scenic corridor very again very
[3:22:00] similar is I can only regulate from
[3:22:03] property line. The scenic corridor does
[3:22:05] extend into the property line. We can
[3:22:08] add it when it affects the front
[3:22:10] property because that kind of falls
[3:22:12] under the front setback. Again, that
[3:22:14] would only apply to the units authorized
[3:22:16] by our ordinance. If they want a unit
[3:22:19] under 662 uh 32, I can only apply what
[3:22:23] state allows me to. There is no front
[3:22:25] setback allowance technically for those
[3:22:28] units. They could do it at the property
[3:22:30] line. We again we encourage people to
[3:22:33] set back. We can encourage that but we
[3:22:36] do not have a mechanism to require it or
[3:22:38] and again 66323 or I'm sorry 66 314
[3:22:44] >> yes thank you way too many numbers in my
[3:22:46] head that one yes we can enforce that as
[3:22:49] part of the front setback requirement
[3:22:52] kind of tailored to that if you don't
[3:22:54] mind the latitude is the corner lot the
[3:22:57] state has clarified they do not
[3:22:59] recognize a straight side it is a side
[3:23:02] period There is no special caveat when
[3:23:05] it comes to ADU law for that. So I only
[3:23:09] as a planner I can only look at front
[3:23:12] side rear. So a street side is a side
[3:23:16] step setback for the purposes of ADU
[3:23:18] law. And they actually clarified that at
[3:23:21] the beginning of this year in one of
[3:23:23] their uh webinars they reinforced that they do not recognize a street
[3:23:28] sideyard as a separate thing than a
[3:23:30] sideyard.
[3:23:33] So I'm not sure I So if you're in a
[3:23:34] corner lot, is there a front set back?
[3:23:36] >> There's a front. Yes, you have.
[3:23:38] >> What defines the front?
[3:23:40] >> So that would be to our municipal code
[3:23:42] generally we say the shortest distance
[3:23:44] that's affronting a street is considered
[3:23:47] the front.
[3:23:47] >> Okay. So for the examples of you know
[3:23:50] along you know Alpine or even along you
[3:23:53] know Portola generally if the lot is
[3:23:57] deep and following Pollola and it's
[3:24:00] short on the side and the main streets
[3:24:02] right here that's going to be the front
[3:24:04] everything on porta would be the side
[3:24:05] then
[3:24:07] >> and then uh there was one last question
[3:24:09] if you can cl
[3:24:10] >> notification there was there was a
[3:24:11] request I realize it's not required but
[3:24:13] I think there the question was could we
[3:24:16] provide notification like is that an
[3:24:18] option for us or are we not even allowed
[3:24:20] to do that?
[3:24:23] >> There is no specific provision that
[3:24:26] allows us the ability to do notification
[3:24:28] because the idea is that the ministerial
[3:24:30] process ministerial process there isn't
[3:24:33] public discussion. There isn't this
[3:24:35] public input on the item. Um, it is
[3:24:42] I'm not aware of any other jurisdictions
[3:24:44] that are currently doing that and I
[3:24:46] don't know there personally there could
[3:24:49] be a way where we could weave it in
[3:24:52] there but it can't be from my
[3:24:54] understanding we can't require it. We
[3:24:55] can't say applicant you're going to pay
[3:24:57] us to do the notification. That would
[3:24:59] have to be almost a town cost if we're
[3:25:01] doing that.
[3:25:03] >> Um, and again these are process of the
[3:25:05] building permit. They're not a separate
[3:25:07] planning permit, which is where we
[3:25:08] normally trigger notification is for the
[3:25:11] planning permit, not a building permit.
[3:25:13] And so we would also have to double
[3:25:15] check building code if that's even
[3:25:16] allowed there.
[3:25:18] >> Okay, great. All right. Well, I just
[3:25:19] want to capture those sort of questions
[3:25:21] that we kind of got from the public.
[3:25:24] >> Somebody triggered one last question for
[3:25:26] me, which I think is going to be
[3:25:28] helpful. The objective standards. So,
[3:25:31] say we were to pass this or or agree
[3:25:35] that something should move forward
[3:25:36] tonight. We I heard you say no objective
[3:25:41] standard like don't build in a reference
[3:25:43] to objective standards because HD will
[3:25:45] want to see them tonight and we don't
[3:25:47] have them like or tomorrow. We don't
[3:25:49] have them yet. But there's nothing to
[3:25:51] preclude us from developing those, you
[3:25:54] know, as soon as it's practical. I I
[3:25:56] want your thoughts and then that'll be
[3:25:58] enough for me.
[3:25:59] >> Yes. And so in kind of when I how I
[3:26:02] responded to um council member Flynn is
[3:26:05] when those to get developed, we can add
[3:26:07] them in. That is the the the easy part
[3:26:10] of that. But um I also know Sarah,
[3:26:12] there's some other projects that are
[3:26:14] coming that that could be wrapped into
[3:26:17] and addressed that.
[3:26:19] >> Yes. So I want and this is also in
[3:26:21] response to the public comment and some
[3:26:22] questions we've received throughout the
[3:26:24] process. So, our goal with this code
[3:26:27] update is to make sure we're compliant
[3:26:29] with state law. We currently aren't. And
[3:26:32] our goal was to do the minimum we could
[3:26:34] to make sure we're getting into
[3:26:36] compliance.
[3:26:38] It doesn't say we can't do that in the
[3:26:39] future is go above and beyond and study,
[3:26:42] you know, other objective standards and
[3:26:44] other things that have been brought up
[3:26:45] tonight. But right now, it really is
[3:26:47] looking at what can we do to, you know,
[3:26:50] move this forward to come to compliance
[3:26:52] with state law. And then Brandon did
[3:26:54] point out some of those few moments
[3:26:56] where there is a little bit of
[3:26:58] discretion or open-endedness. I know he
[3:27:00] mentioned the parking, the square foot
[3:27:01] size. So there's a few moments where
[3:27:04] there is some discretion for discussion.
[3:27:06] Planning commission did have discussion
[3:27:07] on some of those things that was
[3:27:09] incorporated into the the amendments
[3:27:10] that are there before you tonight. So
[3:27:13] that's where I just want to call that
[3:27:14] out. We're looking at how can we come
[3:27:16] into compliance with state law.
[3:27:18] We were not given direction to study a
[3:27:22] lot of these other things and I would
[3:27:23] probably you know not recommend deciding
[3:27:26] tonight other requirements that probably
[3:27:29] do need further study. They probably do
[3:27:32] need input from the community. We need
[3:27:34] to have further discussion on those. So
[3:27:36] that was not our intent tonight. But I
[3:27:38] think there is definitely an
[3:27:39] opportunity. I think there's a desire
[3:27:40] and a need to look at other code updates
[3:27:43] maybe holistically within our code or
[3:27:45] also updates that can apply to ADUs in
[3:27:47] general. So, I am cognizant of that and
[3:27:49] I feel like that is a desire from the
[3:27:50] community. We've heard from town council
[3:27:52] members, from our priority setting
[3:27:54] session. We think there is a need to
[3:27:56] update our objective design standards,
[3:27:58] but to clarify that is not being
[3:28:00] proposed tonight. So, it doesn't mean
[3:28:01] that that's not a priority in the future
[3:28:03] for other updates down the road, but
[3:28:04] right now we're really just looking
[3:28:06] coming into state compliance.
[3:28:08] >> Thank you, Sarah. Can um Brandon, could
[3:28:10] you do me a favor? Can you bring your
[3:28:11] slides back up and go to that last
[3:28:13] slide? Um because as we go into
[3:28:15] discussion I want to focus it on you
[3:28:17] know this is what we have to decide
[3:28:19] tonight just so that we don't get too
[3:28:21] far a field.
[3:28:23] >> Can I ask a question while he's doing
[3:28:25] that? U yes we can go back and do them
[3:28:28] over but does that going to trigger a
[3:28:30] whole bunch of HCD attention if we if we
[3:28:33] do an ordinance? I mean, in other words,
[3:28:35] once we get it passed through HCD and
[3:28:37] then we come back and say, well, we want
[3:28:38] to add something about the character of
[3:28:40] the town and all those wonderful things
[3:28:42] and fences and whatever it might be, is
[3:28:45] that going to be reviewed by HCD and are
[3:28:48] they going to give us a hard time?
[3:28:49] >> Any any amendment to our ADU ordinance
[3:28:53] needs to be reviewed by HCD? So, yes. So
[3:28:56] we if we do come back later and add them
[3:28:59] in those objective standards to the
[3:29:01] ordinance, we would have to
[3:29:04] um we would have to route that to HCD.
[3:29:08] However, HCD most likely will just look
[3:29:10] at what we're proposing as that part of
[3:29:12] the amendment. Um they won't necessarily
[3:29:15] reopen it unless they find, hey, we
[3:29:17] updated state law again and now this
[3:29:19] provision's out of compliance. But we're
[3:29:22] planning on doing yearly updates anyways
[3:29:25] per our housing element because that has
[3:29:27] been what's happening is the state's
[3:29:29] changing the requirements every year. We should know probably by July if there
[3:29:35] are any serious bills that we need to
[3:29:37] start planning for for next year and we
[3:29:40] can kind of start prepping for that. And
[3:29:42] then as part of the other discussions
[3:29:44] like Sarah said and kind of the priority
[3:29:46] setting from the council, we can maybe
[3:29:48] invest and look into those other kind of
[3:29:51] caveats if we want to go slightly above
[3:29:53] and beyond. The objective standards that
[3:29:55] we have in there now were the minimum
[3:29:58] that we have or the ones that we had
[3:30:00] existing that we could still apply and
[3:30:02] so that was the intent.
[3:30:05] >> Thank you. Could
[3:30:06] >> Could I ask a quick question on timing
[3:30:07] and for these options?
[3:30:10] >> Um Sure.
[3:30:13] >> So, if it were to get approved today or
[3:30:17] whatever, I'm not sure which one
[3:30:19] >> introduced
[3:30:20] >> introduce ordinance as proposed or with
[3:30:22] revisions or whatever. Um, say it's with
[3:30:25] revisions. What What's the next step?
[3:30:27] You said it would come back as a um
[3:30:30] consent agenda item. What would be the
[3:30:32] timing on that?
[3:30:33] >> Yeah. So, it would come back at a second
[3:30:35] reading, which generally we try to
[3:30:37] schedule at the next uh council meeting.
[3:30:40] So that would be on your agenda then on
[3:30:42] your consent item as a second reading.
[3:30:46] Um and really it's also going to depend
[3:30:49] on how specific the revisions are and
[3:30:51] what's kind of the timeline because
[3:30:52] staff will need to go in and type those
[3:30:54] in for you to make sure it's included in
[3:30:56] the ordinance. So if it's not the next
[3:30:58] meeting, it might be the following
[3:30:59] meeting just depending on the scope of
[3:31:02] the revisions. We're hoping to keep
[3:31:03] those as minimal as possible or as
[3:31:05] straightforward as possible so we can
[3:31:07] turn it around quicker.
[3:31:09] Thank you. All right. So, the reason I
[3:31:11] um asked Brandon to bring up this slide
[3:31:13] is obviously we're going to go into
[3:31:15] discussion, but I would like to focus
[3:31:17] the discussion around this list. Like
[3:31:19] where do you stand on this list? If
[3:31:22] you're as proposed, great. If you're
[3:31:24] with revisions, then what um revisions
[3:31:27] are you proposing? Um or are we trying
[3:31:29] to, you know, not in like you're just
[3:31:31] this is the wrong thing to do period.
[3:31:33] Let's just default to the state. Or
[3:31:35] finally, do we continue this um and give
[3:31:37] staff direction and then come back
[3:31:40] again? Um and and I think and Katherine,
[3:31:44] you need to help me here. If we continue
[3:31:46] this item, we still need to keep any
[3:31:50] revisions fairly small, don't we? Or we
[3:31:53] risk going back and having to have
[3:31:55] another public hearing. Is that correct?
[3:31:56] >> Well, the last option is actually
[3:31:59] another public hearing.
[3:32:00] >> Is that effectively what it is? that is
[3:32:02] effectively. So you would actually
[3:32:03] continue the public hearing. Um and if
[3:32:06] you continue it to a date certain then
[3:32:07] you don't need to do the renoticing. Um
[3:32:10] but depending on the you know extent of
[3:32:13] the the requests and the changes um or
[3:32:17] the direction you know it probably
[3:32:19] wouldn't be the very next council
[3:32:20] meeting but might you know need to be
[3:32:23] depending on the town manager uh
[3:32:25] suggests uh you know a future a future
[3:32:28] meeting June July that kind of thing.
[3:32:30] >> Right. I I think the question I was
[3:32:31] trying to ask is if we continued it and
[3:32:35] we wanted to make substantial changes
[3:32:40] is can we do that as part of a
[3:32:42] continuation or at some point have you
[3:32:44] made so many changes that it's not a
[3:32:46] continuation anymore because it's
[3:32:47] already gone to the planning commission
[3:32:48] like when did when would it have to go
[3:32:50] back to the planning to come back from
[3:32:51] us like when do we sort of like right
[3:32:53] now what you have here and this one the
[3:32:55] you know these are fairly small I'm
[3:32:57] comfortable that these don't go back to
[3:32:58] the planning commission but if we made
[3:33:00] major changes,
[3:33:02] when would we have to, you know, sort of
[3:33:04] recycle this or, you know, circle back
[3:33:06] around?
[3:33:07] >> Yeah. Substantive changes that have not
[3:33:09] been considered by the planning
[3:33:11] commission do need to go back to the
[3:33:12] planning commission. Now, the planning
[3:33:14] commission considered, I mean, all of
[3:33:15] these options, including repealing and
[3:33:18] just going with state law. That was
[3:33:19] actually part of their discussion. Um
[3:33:21] but you know if um and I'm I'm
[3:33:25] struggling to think of an example of
[3:33:26] something they didn't consider because
[3:33:27] they actually had quite an extensive
[3:33:28] conversation but yeah in theory you
[3:33:30] there could be a situation where you
[3:33:31] need to go back to them.
[3:33:32] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So with that why
[3:33:36] don't we start the discussion. Um
[3:33:38] Rebecca do J do you want to go first?
[3:33:41] Great. Sure. Please. Um
[3:33:43] >> all right. Um I'm gonna go with number
[3:33:46] two. Um,
[3:33:49] I dislike all of these state imposed AD
[3:33:54] restrictions.
[3:33:55] They're well intended. They don't fit
[3:33:57] us. I've struggled with this for like 15
[3:34:00] years. So, with that caveat, um, I want
[3:34:04] to thank the planning commission for
[3:34:07] giving a lot of focus and feedback on
[3:34:09] it. um I they are a body that is
[3:34:12] meaningful to the town and they um you
[3:34:16] know are very thoughtful. So in general
[3:34:19] I I was pretty good with uh where this
[3:34:22] came out overall. Um I do want to remind
[3:34:26] people that you know we do have this
[3:34:30] isn't a one on oneot thing in the way I
[3:34:33] look at it at least. I think you know
[3:34:36] the near-term objective because it's
[3:34:38] important ADUs are just going to be part
[3:34:41] of our evolving set of um ordinances
[3:34:46] for the foreseeable future every year as
[3:34:48] you said. So from my perspective, what's
[3:34:51] the what are we really trying to do
[3:34:53] here? And for me, I do want to get um
[3:34:56] compliant with state law. we don't need
[3:34:59] extra hurdles in getting compliant with
[3:35:04] whenever HD does get back um to us. Uh I
[3:35:08] want to make sure that this is something
[3:35:10] we're managing and manage well. Um and I
[3:35:14] don't want the tonight I would suggest
[3:35:17] that people try not to get you know the
[3:35:20] enemy of of
[3:35:23] the good is perfect you know like
[3:35:25] >> perfect is the enemy of the good.
[3:35:26] >> Yeah. Whatever. I've been up a long time
[3:35:28] today. Sorry about that. And thank you.
[3:35:30] Um, but I think that's really important
[3:35:33] for for me in framing it because there
[3:35:35] is so much that I would want to try to
[3:35:38] do. Most of it's been raised by the
[3:35:41] planning commission and my fellow
[3:35:43] council members. Um but overall I think
[3:35:46] um I I I think we
[3:35:50] are um we need to keep it simple adding
[3:35:55] as you know I'm not the lawyer on this
[3:35:58] but one of my principles is add nothing
[3:36:01] that you haven't pressure test tested
[3:36:04] for the implications into an ordinance.
[3:36:06] you you really need to think of multiple
[3:36:09] different ways it could be looked at,
[3:36:11] interpreted, and used for and against
[3:36:13] you. So, I tend to want to hone it down
[3:36:16] and not have directional guidance on
[3:36:19] intent, for example. That's just
[3:36:21] something I'm going to be particular
[3:36:23] about. Um, and um,
[3:36:30] in terms of the guidelines, um, super
[3:36:34] important to get objective guidelines. I
[3:36:36] mean, I I can't understate the
[3:36:38] importance of that because pending
[3:36:40] projects coming through. Um, the
[3:36:43] public's concerned, the applicants are
[3:36:45] probably confused. Um, you know, it's
[3:36:47] not good to have them hanging out there.
[3:36:50] I take your point on there's going to be
[3:36:51] a moment when it's feasible and it's not
[3:36:54] right now. So, I get that. Um the only
[3:36:58] um area where I I do have issue is the
[3:37:04] indemnity
[3:37:05] and I I would not charge for the P. It's
[3:37:10] a sad fact of the matter. They are
[3:37:12] overexpensive. They can be abused. But I
[3:37:15] personally think the policy of
[3:37:16] transparency is really important and uh
[3:37:20] we shouldn't be punishing good faith
[3:37:24] actors and requests by assuming
[3:37:27] nefarious intent. So I would I would not
[3:37:29] include the P request in there even
[3:37:32] though I acknowledge it's a problem. You
[3:37:34] know it can be abused and it has been
[3:37:36] you know overused.
[3:37:38] Um then in terms of the lack of an
[3:37:44] exception for negligence and bad acts um
[3:37:49] you know I don't know where in the
[3:37:51] spectrum uh professional malfeasence
[3:37:54] falls but I am worried about that. I
[3:37:57] don't think it's fair for applicants to to have to indemnify us for bad
[3:38:04] process bad acts. So that that is very
[3:38:08] important to me. Um I think when we're
[3:38:11] in good faith processing an application
[3:38:14] and things just fall apart and we're
[3:38:16] caught in the middle, that's one thing
[3:38:18] we should be indemnified for. But if
[3:38:20] it's frankly our our inability to get
[3:38:23] things right, that that shouldn't be
[3:38:26] something an applicant passes on to us.
[3:38:28] We always have the ability not to ask
[3:38:30] for it if that becomes an issue. But as
[3:38:35] again, this is going to be what
[3:38:36] applicants coming to Porto Valley
[3:38:39] initially getting to know us are going
[3:38:40] to see. And I I think if it's like an
[3:38:43] over broad ask, it's not going to go
[3:38:46] well. So I would want the P out. I would
[3:38:48] want an exception for negligence,
[3:38:51] recklessness, I would ask you to um
[3:38:54] think about what the level there would
[3:38:56] be. Um
[3:38:59] thank you for all the work and the
[3:39:01] explanations. And I I guess the last
[3:39:03] point I have is honestly it's it's
[3:39:06] simply not fair to ask the council
[3:39:09] members to to process lengthy, very
[3:39:13] detailed anything the day of. It just
[3:39:16] isn't fair. So I would ask us in the
[3:39:19] longer term when we're not like tired
[3:39:22] and and our eyes aren't blurry to try
[3:39:24] and think are there process improvements
[3:39:26] that we can make um to avoid that
[3:39:29] because I really take this very
[3:39:30] seriously. I want to read everything,
[3:39:33] but it it can become overwhelming when
[3:39:36] it's quite so technical. So, that's a
[3:39:38] request. Thank you.
[3:39:41] >> Thank you, Judith. Anybody want to go
[3:39:43] next?
[3:39:45] >> Rebecca, I know you got you thought
[3:39:47] about this.
[3:39:50] >> So, I'm between number two and number
[3:39:53] four.
[3:39:55] Um, it's a very difficult um decision to
[3:39:59] be honest. I I feel like there's a ton
[3:40:00] of stuff that just
[3:40:03] could could use improvements and I'm
[3:40:07] cognizant of Judith's comment of perfect
[3:40:09] the enemy of the good. Um I I understand
[3:40:13] some of the implications of not at least
[3:40:17] getting our three objective requirements
[3:40:21] that are in here in into action
[3:40:24] immediately. I I I think that's kind of
[3:40:26] important. Um, if we do go with two, I
[3:40:31] would want to have um the 851,000
[3:40:37] limit for maximum size instead of 1,200
[3:40:40] since we don't seem to have any ability
[3:40:42] to actually manage setbacks.
[3:40:45] Um, in terms of the parking issue, I I I
[3:40:50] get very much, you know, you the
[3:40:52] consequences you said of of requiring
[3:40:54] parking in a situation where someone
[3:40:56] would have to do massive um ground
[3:40:58] works. Um, in the absence of being able to have
[3:41:04] some type of verbiage
[3:41:07] where we define which parking is
[3:41:09] actually required,
[3:41:11] um, I wouldn't want to have it a
[3:41:12] blanket. a parking space is required
[3:41:15] given that somebody could then, you
[3:41:17] know, do a massive project that then
[3:41:19] doesn't require ASC approval. So, I
[3:41:22] don't know if there's some sort of
[3:41:23] language that would say a parking space
[3:41:25] is required in your driveway or in an
[3:41:27] existing driveway or something like
[3:41:29] that. Um, if if something kind of really
[3:41:33] tight sort of thing um
[3:41:37] was possible, then you know, I think I
[3:41:40] would want to have parking. you know, if
[3:41:43] it's possible to have, you know, a
[3:41:45] parking place is required on your
[3:41:48] driveway or on your site. I don't know
[3:41:51] if it's feasible without major earth
[3:41:53] works or some I don't know. Um I I did
[3:41:57] want to touch base back with Helen's um
[3:42:01] concern with the f um the Cal Housing
[3:42:04] Defense Fund back on this undergrounding
[3:42:07] thing because
[3:42:10] reading it, it does say that 66323
[3:42:16] are not required
[3:42:19] to install a new or separate utility
[3:42:21] connection directly between the unit and
[3:42:23] the utility.
[3:42:25] Unless I think it says unless the unit
[3:42:29] was constructed with a new single family
[3:42:31] dwelling.
[3:42:33] So if that is a situation we my
[3:42:36] understanding is that then we cannot
[3:42:38] require them to be underground. So I
[3:42:40] feel that we need to just have a little
[3:42:42] caveat there under the section five when you have
[3:42:49] when a new or separate utility
[3:42:50] connection directly between the ADU and
[3:42:52] the utility proposed may not be the perfect word
[3:42:55] there but the utility connections will
[3:42:57] be placed underground consist 18 da da unless it's a 66323
[3:43:04] unit. I mean, I I think to me, I think
[3:43:06] that has to go in there. If if if we're
[3:43:09] not allowed if we're required if in
[3:43:12] there's one situation where we're
[3:43:14] required to um
[3:43:18] an ADU is required to have this separate
[3:43:20] utility, separate connection, you know,
[3:43:22] we cannot require it to be underground
[3:43:25] for a 66 323. So, I think I would
[3:43:27] recommend that you take a look a little
[3:43:28] bit at that and that that one needs to
[3:43:30] be resolved by the time this were to
[3:43:32] come back to us. Um
[3:43:39] I did I did want to address the comment
[3:43:41] of the legal authority of the HCG
[3:43:43] handbook. Um I did go through it again
[3:43:46] yesterday and I and I went and
[3:43:49] highlighted all the things that I
[3:43:50] consider to be incorrect in there. So as
[3:43:53] you said, you know, what do you do when
[3:43:55] the the information is flat out wrong?
[3:43:57] But, you know, take you know, but but
[3:44:00] somehow the the the state government has
[3:44:02] given HCD the authority to kind of
[3:44:05] determine how they interpret the the
[3:44:07] law, which
[3:44:08] is very generous. Um,
[3:44:11] >> Rebecca, can I just ask a quick
[3:44:12] question? Is this handbook something
[3:44:14] that HCDs approved? Like, is this their
[3:44:16] handbook? Okay, so it is. Okay. I just
[3:44:18] wanted to make sure. Thank you. Keep
[3:44:19] going. All right.
[3:44:21] >> Um, let's see. Where was I?
[3:44:24] Um,
[3:44:27] of course I'm just so concerned about,
[3:44:32] you know, we have nothing in this
[3:44:34] ordinance that really discourages people
[3:44:36] from putting putting ADUs at 4 feet on
[3:44:39] the property line. I mean, we have one
[3:44:40] little statement saying, you know, we
[3:44:42] encourage you to follow base voting and
[3:44:45] it doesn't seem like we can put anything
[3:44:47] in here really that um
[3:44:51] they were totally limited by the way
[3:44:53] that they're they're interpreting that
[3:44:54] D7 for everything. Even though they say
[3:44:57] right up front that we we have the right
[3:44:59] to discern setbacks, which to me are
[3:45:01] defined as not between buildings, but
[3:45:04] from the street or from the side, but um
[3:45:07] that they've chosen to define that as
[3:45:08] four feet, which is really unfortunate
[3:45:11] because,
[3:45:13] you know, it makes no sense in our our
[3:45:15] area. Um,
[3:45:19] I mean, those are my main change
[3:45:21] requests, I guess, but I I can't
[3:45:25] I I don't know which whe whether I would
[3:45:27] rather just continue it. I I don't write
[3:45:29] this minute in my head. I'd rather hear
[3:45:30] some more feedback whether we you make
[3:45:32] those changes. Um,
[3:45:37] and
[3:45:37] >> well, I think we got your input and then
[3:45:39] after
[3:45:40] >> I wanted to talk about the
[3:45:41] indemnification. I I do agree with
[3:45:44] Judith about um the PAS and putting a
[3:45:48] little bit more boundaries on the um
[3:45:52] Oh yeah, the malfeasants. Yes. Yes. So
[3:45:55] coming up with some verb some just
[3:45:56] gentle verbiage that would at least give
[3:45:59] you know applicants something of
[3:46:02] protection.
[3:46:04] >> So thank you. Okay Helen.
[3:46:07] >> Thanks. Um,
[3:46:10] so first I really appreciate everyone's
[3:46:13] questions and work on this effort. Um,
[3:46:16] you know, the new housing laws are head
[3:46:18] spinning, right? We know that. Um, don't
[3:46:22] worry, Scott Weiner is running for
[3:46:24] Congress. Might slow down.
[3:46:30] So,
[3:46:31] um, I looked up when the 4-foot setback
[3:46:34] law was passed and it was actually
[3:46:36] passed in 2020, you know, so some of us
[3:46:40] probably didn't notice. Um, we, you
[3:46:44] know, um,
[3:46:46] and respectfully, the town is still
[3:46:49] very, you know, the town has been
[3:46:51] allowing these 4-foot setbacks because
[3:46:54] it's been state law. Is right.
[3:46:57] That's correct. Yes.
[3:46:58] >> Right. So, um,
[3:47:01] and we're still very rural feeling. Um,
[3:47:05] you know, like still the rural town
[3:47:07] feeling that we love. Um, I haven't
[3:47:10] noticed much difference, right? Um, I
[3:47:13] think we have too many parking lots
[3:47:15] along our scenic corridor, but they're not ADUs, right?
[3:47:21] Um, so what I'm also seeing is 800
[3:47:26] square foot
[3:47:28] ADUs being built.
[3:47:30] You okay? Okay. 800 square f feet being
[3:47:34] built and then signed off and then
[3:47:36] illegally expanded,
[3:47:39] which really worries me, right? And I've
[3:47:41] seen that numerous times. Um so and
[3:47:45] lastly what because of the way our code
[3:47:48] is people can then build a garage as you
[3:47:51] know as much maximum square footage is
[3:47:55] left in their in their lot. Um which
[3:47:59] shows that we care are caring more about
[3:48:02] garages
[3:48:04] and cars than people than people.
[3:48:10] That worries me. So, could you explain
[3:48:13] that comment a little bit?
[3:48:14] >> Sure. So, let's say I'll use my own
[3:48:17] parcel.
[3:48:18] I have 6,000 square feet maximum. My
[3:48:22] mom's house is 3,000 square feet, right?
[3:48:27] I could have built a garage with the
[3:48:29] other square 3,000 square ft.
[3:48:33] >> Right. But I could only build an ADU up
[3:48:35] to,200 square ft.
[3:48:38] >> But you could build three of it.
[3:48:40] >> Now it's changed. Right.
[3:48:43] But before and it still is this way that
[3:48:46] I you can use your square feet for a
[3:48:49] garage but not for an ADU that was you
[3:48:53] know now with three of them right so our
[3:48:56] emphasis which environmentally too is to
[3:48:59] build these really big houses when
[3:49:02] environmentally it's better if you have
[3:49:04] smaller houses with less
[3:49:07] you know right and we're trying to stay
[3:49:09] rural and I get it but we also really
[3:49:12] need to think about environmentally our
[3:49:14] impact
[3:49:16] because smaller houses use less water, a
[3:49:20] less gas, less electricity, right? So by
[3:49:26] allowing people to have these smaller
[3:49:29] options and giving more personal
[3:49:32] property rights too, right, to allow
[3:49:35] these ADUs some more flexibility, I
[3:49:38] think is important.
[3:49:41] So, um, so I just needed to bring some
[3:49:44] of those points up.
[3:49:46] Um, so that's why I would continue to
[3:49:49] push for up to 1500 square ft. You know,
[3:49:52] I don't, you know, that would be my
[3:49:56] personal preference. I also would like
[3:49:58] the height to be the base zoning. Um,
[3:50:02] because
[3:50:03] um, I think the height situation is
[3:50:05] confusing, you know. Um uh
[3:50:12] >> clarify.
[3:50:13] >> Yeah, absolutely.
[3:50:14] >> For the height, you know, we have both
[3:50:16] the detached accessory dwelling unit and
[3:50:19] then the attached. Are you wanting both
[3:50:22] set to the base zoning setback height or
[3:50:24] are you wanting just the attached
[3:50:26] because that is a little bit different.
[3:50:28] Right.
[3:50:29] >> Right. Um what you know um by attached
[3:50:35] those are generally the J AUS or is that
[3:50:37] a is attached not necessarily J AU
[3:50:42] >> attached is not necessarily so JADU is
[3:50:44] conversion of existing space so it's
[3:50:47] already built right
[3:50:47] >> right right
[3:50:48] >> so it is going to be an attached ADU
[3:50:51] under state law is the base zoning
[3:50:54] setback or base zoning district's height
[3:50:58] or 25 ft whichever is less. I think in
[3:51:01] most of our districts we're more than 25
[3:51:04] ft. So I guess that's kind of the
[3:51:07] question for detached you get 16 or 18
[3:51:10] depending on certain situations and you
[3:51:12] can go up to 20 if you hit those other
[3:51:15] things. So and I guess that's the
[3:51:17] question. Do you also want the detached
[3:51:19] up to possibly 28 feet? But is that
[3:51:23] >> right? Okay. So, and maybe um I just
[3:51:27] want I just want the height to be as
[3:51:30] simple as possible. Um so that you know
[3:51:34] that's and I will let staff or other I'd
[3:51:38] love other like I just want it to be
[3:51:40] simpler for people to understand it when
[3:51:42] they look at our code to have more as
[3:51:45] much flexibility as possible. That's my
[3:51:48] goal. Um I personally would include the
[3:51:52] zone zero. it's it's in the pipeline
[3:51:54] like it's going to be state law soon.
[3:51:56] So, um I want the utilities to be noted
[3:52:01] that the town doesn't have jurisdiction.
[3:52:04] Um
[3:52:06] and for safety reasons that were and to
[3:52:10] allow more flexibility, I would have
[3:52:12] requests that two lights at the front
[3:52:14] door should be allowed instead of
[3:52:16] forcing people because they still have
[3:52:18] to be dark sky nights lights, excuse me.
[3:52:21] Um, I would have them um the two so that
[3:52:25] people do not have to go with their ADUs
[3:52:27] to the ASC over a light fixture. So, um,
[3:52:31] I know my mom trying to get my mom into
[3:52:33] my ADU was really hard because the lack
[3:52:36] of light. So, I would respectfully
[3:52:39] request two lights at the front door.
[3:52:42] Okay. Thank you for your consideration.
[3:52:45] Oh, wait. And 1500 square feet. I would
[3:52:48] go, you know, um I'm I also heard my
[3:52:52] colleague, Council Member Flynn, I
[3:52:55] definitely would allow it for larger for
[3:52:57] 3.5 acres um because um that that was
[3:53:01] what our previous code. So, I would
[3:53:03] match that and if my other colleagues
[3:53:06] would uh be consider consider 1500, I
[3:53:09] doubt they would, but I definitely would
[3:53:11] do the,200 square feet. So, thank you.
[3:53:15] >> Thank you, Helen.
[3:53:16] Did you pick one, two, three, four?
[3:53:19] >> Two. Thank you,
[3:53:25] » Mary.
[3:53:25] >> Jeez.
[3:53:27] >> Okay, no problem. Uh,
[3:53:31] I'm picking two. Uh, the problem is that
[3:53:34] specific revisions part. Um, I I I I
[3:53:40] liked your your uh indemnification
[3:53:42] additions, Judith. That that sounded
[3:53:45] right to me. I I did have a legal
[3:53:48] question which is I thought gross
[3:53:50] negligence always trumped. I thought if
[3:53:53] you were grossly negligent, you know,
[3:53:55] nothing works. Malpractice, nothing
[3:53:58] worked. You're just grossly negligent.
[3:54:02] Can't blame it on somebody else.
[3:54:05] >> Uh so there's a typical term that's
[3:54:08] included a lot of contractual language.
[3:54:10] I don't have not seen it in code
[3:54:11] language um before but I think we could
[3:54:15] go ahead and put it in there uh because
[3:54:17] as you say it we would the town would
[3:54:19] not be able to get get out of it get the
[3:54:22] identification if they had been grossly
[3:54:24] negligent. So I don't think it actually
[3:54:26] um uh you know hurts the town to put it
[3:54:28] in there.
[3:54:29] >> Yeah.
[3:54:30] >> But does it make a difference
[3:54:33] >> in your opinion?
[3:54:35] >> No. So we could take it out too because
[3:54:38] I thought we already took it out.
[3:54:40] >> It's not currently there.
[3:54:43] >> Well, let let me clarify. I said bad
[3:54:46] acts. I wasn't trying to draft and I
[3:54:48] wasn't thinking gross negligence was was
[3:54:52] everything, right? Um because if we
[3:54:54] really screw up, it's gross negligence
[3:54:56] is a very high standard. So I think if
[3:55:00] you want applicants to feel like we're
[3:55:03] being fair, it it's got to look like
[3:55:06] not gross negligence but something less.
[3:55:09] That's that's where I was coming from if
[3:55:11] I wasn't clear.
[3:55:13] >> Thank you.
[3:55:14] >> So,
[3:55:15] >> okay. Uh specific revisions. Uh you
[3:55:19] know, I I think we should go ahead and ask for that extra cart parking
[3:55:24] space. Uh,
[3:55:28] and I I was actually with the uh 12
[3:55:31] the,000 um the 8501000.
[3:55:36] I don't mean to be jumping on the uh I I
[3:55:39] do know people who tried to build these.
[3:55:43] Um and have been very frustrated by
[3:55:45] trying to stay under that. Um
[3:55:50] and I'm and I I do find it difficult to
[3:55:53] understand the line of where the
[3:55:56] strategy is working against us and
[3:55:58] working for us. Uh so I'm happy to go
[3:56:03] along with further discussion on this uh
[3:56:07] so we can get this so we can go ahead
[3:56:10] and u make this part of the of the
[3:56:13] motion. So I'm not helping very much.
[3:56:16] Um,
[3:56:18] Craig, could I just voluntarily list the
[3:56:22] open points that I've heard and I I'm
[3:56:24] going to only get some of them because
[3:56:25] it might help Mary kind of see if she
[3:56:29] wants to weigh in on others because I
[3:56:32] >> Well, I I tell you what, why don't you
[3:56:33] let me do that? Yeah. You think that
[3:56:35] would help her? So,
[3:56:36] >> I I think it would help to You're going
[3:56:38] to go ahead.
[3:56:39] >> Well, yeah, I was going to as well, but
[3:56:41] Well, no. I mean, so I think what Judith
[3:56:43] is asking is the things that are on the
[3:56:45] table right now is there's a a question
[3:56:48] of whether we remove the P um being
[3:56:51] charged back to the applicant. There's a
[3:56:53] question about whether we find some way
[3:56:55] to craft the town negligent so that the
[3:56:57] applicant's not responsible for town
[3:56:59] negligence, not necessarily gross
[3:57:01] negligence, but some kind of negligence.
[3:57:03] Um Rebecca's um suggested 850 um 101000
[3:57:08] um and the parking and then had a
[3:57:10] question about whether we could require
[3:57:12] undergrounding. Pelen is requesting 1500
[3:57:16] um and a um height which is base zone
[3:57:20] utilities which is as I understood it
[3:57:22] just listing that's electrical and water
[3:57:25] etc not specific utilities um and two
[3:57:28] lights and then you were saying that you
[3:57:30] want to stay with 851000 and the
[3:57:32] parking. So I I think that's the summary
[3:57:35] that I've gotten so far.
[3:57:36] >> Can I add education fees?
[3:57:39] >> Um sure.
[3:57:43] I don't even know what education.
[3:57:47] >> Okay.
[3:57:47] >> Do you mean I'm sorry. Do you mean the
[3:57:49] impact fees for the education fees?
[3:57:52] But they're
[3:58:08] » And could I ask I mean so Brandon, could
[3:58:11] you speak to what what is this education
[3:58:13] fees thing?
[3:58:15] Yeah, it's just the authorizing language
[3:58:17] that establishes the thresholds for when
[3:58:20] education fees can be applied that are
[3:58:22] applied by the school district. Um, and
[3:58:25] I'm pulling up uh Katherine, what
[3:58:26] section did you say it was again? I'm
[3:58:28] trying to pull up the exact language.
[3:58:29] 663
[3:58:33] » except so that is for at 500 square feet
[3:58:37] which is generally a
[3:58:40] studio the size of a studio and most
[3:58:42] studios like respectfully don't folks
[3:58:46] that live in studios don't usually have
[3:58:47] kids around here.
[3:58:54] So it it's
[3:58:56] my understanding the request is to do
[3:58:58] similar like we're doing for the
[3:58:59] utilities where we're just saying you
[3:59:01] need to follow it. Um even though and
[3:59:04] that's definitely something an easy
[3:59:06] provision we can just add in we'll just
[3:59:07] give the exact citation as it's written
[3:59:10] in the the or in the government code.
[3:59:12] >> Yeah. I'm just trying to be
[3:59:13] comprehensive so that all the utilities
[3:59:15] all the every organization that they
[3:59:17] have to deal with is at least
[3:59:19] acknowledged.
[3:59:24] How about u the light the double light
[3:59:27] on the
[3:59:29] >> Did you get that down there?
[3:59:30] >> I did. I mentioned.
[3:59:31] >> Oh, good. Great. Okay.
[3:59:33] >> So, but now it's back to you. Do you
[3:59:35] have anything else you want to add to
[3:59:36] your No.
[3:59:37] >> Okay. Great. Thank you. All right.
[3:59:42] » Okay.
[3:59:42] >> Didn't we say something? Didn't we throw
[3:59:44] something in there about trails? I we we
[3:59:47] weren't able to throw anything in about
[3:59:48] trails.
[3:59:49] >> No. What if there's a trail easement,
[3:59:51] you can't build on it, but we can't
[3:59:53] require setbacks off of that trail
[3:59:56] easement. That's that was the
[3:59:58] conclusion.
[3:59:58] >> Jesus from those earlier questions would
[4:00:02] be the scenic corridor is saying that
[4:00:04] that's part of the front setback when it
[4:00:06] applies.
[4:00:07] >> But again, it's still that caveat that
[4:00:09] we can't restrict a unit to under 800
[4:00:11] square feet. So, we could add that
[4:00:13] caveat in
[4:00:14] >> um because the scenic corridor is what
[4:00:16] 75.
[4:00:17] >> Yeah,
[4:00:18] >> correct. Y
[4:00:19] >> So we could request that as part of the
[4:00:21] like front setback discussion, but again
[4:00:23] that would only apply to the units
[4:00:25] authorized under our ordinance.
[4:00:28] >> So that's the up to, you know, 1,200 as
[4:00:30] currently proposed. It wouldn't apply to
[4:00:33] the state exempt unit,
[4:00:36] >> right?
[4:00:36] >> How about conservation easements?
[4:00:41] That one is a unique one
[4:00:44] and I would have to default to Katherine
[4:00:45] on how the state law plays with that
[4:00:48] because there is not really discussion
[4:00:50] in the ordinance of that or in state law
[4:00:54] of that
[4:00:56] >> nice generally. Well, go ahead.
[4:00:58] >> Well, I was I would try to say this
[4:00:59] trail then it would it would likely
[4:01:01] include a no build provision in the
[4:01:04] conservation.
[4:01:05] >> Oh. Oh, yeah. It sure does. the and I
[4:01:08] think Katherine this is where we need to
[4:01:10] do more research is state law does
[4:01:12] prohibit any outright restrictions that
[4:01:15] would never allow an ADU so if the con
[4:01:17] for an example of the conservation
[4:01:19] easement full site that could be an
[4:01:23] issue because we can't facilitate an ADU
[4:01:25] the state exempt ones so that might be
[4:01:28] an example but I I would have to default
[4:01:30] and we would have to read the state law
[4:01:32] more on that
[4:01:36] Okay, thank you. Um, so I guess where I
[4:01:40] come down on this is I would prefer the
[4:01:43] P stay in, but we use May so that
[4:01:46] there's some discretion because I think
[4:01:48] there can be if the applicants doing
[4:01:50] crazy stuff and they're driving their
[4:01:52] neighbors wild, I'm pretty happy to have
[4:01:53] them pay for it. On the other hand, I
[4:01:55] think it's reasonable that the town can
[4:01:58] say or or the council that, you know,
[4:02:01] look, this really isn't their fault and
[4:02:03] we really should cover it. Um, so I
[4:02:06] actually prefer the may versus removing
[4:02:07] it. Um, the negligence, I will leave
[4:02:10] that to the lawyers. I appreciate Jud's
[4:02:12] point, so I'm I'm generally okay with
[4:02:15] it. Um, I I just don't want the language
[4:02:17] to get too complicated. I want it to be
[4:02:19] something people can read, but I get
[4:02:20] that. I would go with 1,200. Um, and I
[4:02:25] say that because we had, you know, back
[4:02:26] when I was on the planning commission,
[4:02:27] we had a long discussion about making
[4:02:29] these units large enough so that
[4:02:31] somebody could move out of their big
[4:02:32] residence and move into the small one,
[4:02:34] which is actually why we originally
[4:02:36] provided the 1500. Um, but given all
[4:02:38] this ministerial stuff, I'm a little
[4:02:40] uncomfortable because before we had some
[4:02:42] more jurisdiction over what they did and
[4:02:45] the setbacks and stuff, we don't have
[4:02:46] anymore. So, but but I would still go
[4:02:48] with,200 since that was recommended by
[4:02:50] the planning commission. I I would leave
[4:02:52] the parking not required. I think we're
[4:02:54] making it too complicated. And I I don't
[4:02:57] know if we're going to get the weird
[4:02:58] case where somebody wants to grade, you
[4:03:00] know, plow something up the hill. But I just it doesn't seem like it affects
[4:03:05] enough places because most of these we
[4:03:07] have no choice anyway. If people want to
[4:03:09] park in the street, there's a bunch of
[4:03:10] them. We have zero ability to control
[4:03:12] that anyway. So now we're down to, you
[4:03:14] know, maybe we can have this for one in
[4:03:17] the next 10 years. I I guess I don't
[4:03:19] care. I'd keep it simple. So, I wouldn't
[4:03:21] go for the parking. Um, the
[4:03:24] undergrounding,
[4:03:26] I'm neutral. I I don't understand really
[4:03:27] what the issue here. I, you know, this
[4:03:29] sounds like this is an interpretation of
[4:03:31] law. I certainly don't want to get sued.
[4:03:33] So, if we think there's a high
[4:03:34] likelihood of being sued, then maybe we
[4:03:36] should reconsider, but generally, I'd
[4:03:39] leave it as is. the educational fees. If
[4:03:43] we can put in something short along with
[4:03:45] utilities just saying that by the way
[4:03:48] there are fees and here are some of
[4:03:50] them. I just don't want to get into
[4:03:51] enumerating exactly what all the fees
[4:03:54] are and who might charge them and and
[4:03:55] how they charge them. That seems like
[4:03:57] the wrong thing for the ordinance. Um so
[4:04:01] that's where I stand on that one. The
[4:04:02] lights I'm a night sky guy. I I'm not a
[4:04:06] fan. I'd like to find other ways to
[4:04:08] solve the lights. So I I don't think I
[4:04:10] would go for that. So I think that
[4:04:12] covers what my fellow council members
[4:04:15] have brought up. Oh, and then there's
[4:04:16] the scenic setback that you just
[4:04:17] mentioned. I would actually go for that.
[4:04:19] Um I think that that's worth putting in.
[4:04:21] Like we value that scenic corridor and I
[4:04:24] get it's not perfect. It's not a perfect
[4:04:25] solution, but it's better than leaving
[4:04:29] it wide open. So I I think that's an
[4:04:31] incremental value.
[4:04:33] And then overall, I would say thank you.
[4:04:35] I mean, this has been a great
[4:04:36] presentation. I know it's super long and
[4:04:38] it's super late, but but you guys have
[4:04:40] provided a huge amount of details. So,
[4:04:42] thank you. And I would really look
[4:04:43] forward to an applicant handout and
[4:04:46] these objective standards, and I know
[4:04:47] they're not going to happen tomorrow. I get all that, but but I I think those
[4:04:51] are what's going to lock this in and
[4:04:52] make it so it's back to being what we
[4:04:55] think port we as Portola Valley value.
[4:04:58] So, so that's going to be key. So, with
[4:05:01] all that said,
[4:05:03] um
[4:05:05] I'm going to make a proposal and then pe
[4:05:07] push back. Um
[4:05:10] depending on how strongly you feel just to try to get these things blended
[4:05:15] together. Um I would recommend the May
[4:05:19] and the P. Um and again, I'm I'm open.
[4:05:22] This is for discussion. I'm just trying
[4:05:24] to put a straw horse out there. So, we
[4:05:26] do a May, we do the town negligence,
[4:05:28] which is going to need some language.
[4:05:30] Um,
[4:05:32] I would go for 1,200.
[4:05:34] I would go for no parking right now. I'm
[4:05:37] not going to go with this Calousing. Um,
[4:05:39] I would go with this utilities
[4:05:43] being somehow lightly listed.
[4:05:47] Um,
[4:05:49] and 1500 and then the scenic corridor.
[4:05:53] And I think that captures
[4:05:58] what I
[4:05:59] >> ask a question to Catherine. Yeah. Is it
[4:06:02] possible once you guys have the
[4:06:03] discussion on this that they table the
[4:06:05] item so that we can quickly write the
[4:06:07] language that they're specifically
[4:06:09] asking? Yeah. You can go on to your next
[4:06:11] item and then unt us and then we can
[4:06:14] give you that specific language that
[4:06:16] you're looking for because I do think it
[4:06:17] might take a few moments for us to write
[4:06:20] it all out for you.
[4:06:21] >> Yeah. Thank you. And I was going to get
[4:06:22] back to that like okay if we I f the
[4:06:24] first thing is for the council to see if
[4:06:26] we can come to a conclusion on a single
[4:06:28] thing otherwise you guys will have no
[4:06:30] direction and then Katherine the next
[4:06:32] question is I if we
[4:06:36] basically table this to use a light word
[4:06:38] here and then go on to the next item and
[4:06:42] come back to this to finish up is that
[4:06:44] seem reasonable
[4:06:46] >> I think so although I want to be part of
[4:06:48] the next item and so Um,
[4:06:51] we could take a break. Um, or if you
[4:06:54] wanted to perhaps do the end of the
[4:06:55] agenda, the council leaison reports if
[4:06:58] you want to keep moving on that. Um, I
[4:07:00] don't think I'm muted there. Right.
[4:07:02] >> But I I do want to be part of the next
[4:07:04] item. So,
[4:07:04] >> Sure. Yeah. And I know you you need to
[4:07:06] be part of of some of the next items.
[4:07:08] So, okay. Um, all right. So, let's go
[4:07:10] back to this. So, I've tried to put
[4:07:12] something on the table. Is this close
[4:07:14] enough to let us move forward for
[4:07:16] tonight or do people strongly object to
[4:07:18] this? Um, I need the Calousing situation
[4:07:22] resolved because if that's not to code,
[4:07:25] that absolutely has to be corrected. So,
[4:07:29] um, whatever time you need to actually
[4:07:31] read through that, that absolutely needs
[4:07:33] to be resolved. Um, because we cannot
[4:07:36] require undergrounding for 66323. So um
[4:07:41] if there's language required to change
[4:07:43] in there simple then it absolutely has
[4:07:45] to be
[4:07:46] >> I if you know that is the direction I
[4:07:48] think that's easy we can just add in
[4:07:50] except for units that are created per
[4:07:53] government code section 6 323. So that
[4:07:56] is a pretty easy edit for staff if that
[4:07:59] is the majority direction.
[4:08:01] >> So Rebecca would that be good enough
[4:08:02] would be just added that exception.
[4:08:04] >> Okay. Um, just to clarify on the zone
[4:08:07] zero situation, does that mean the
[4:08:09] setback would be five feet? Is that
[4:08:11] where you're thinking that's going to go
[4:08:12] or would that be a building code thing
[4:08:14] if we had you had said Helen, you had
[4:08:17] talked about a zone zero?
[4:08:18] >> Oh, um, no, that's for around the zone
[4:08:21] zero is for around the AUS. Yeah.
[4:08:24] >> I'm just wondering if it's four feet
[4:08:26] from a wooden fence
[4:08:27] >> at the property line, what happens then?
[4:08:29] What?
[4:08:30] >> So, can I suggest that we not include
[4:08:32] that in zoning? it it's part of the fire
[4:08:34] vegetation already. So it it we've
[4:08:37] already said it's going to get trumped
[4:08:38] by them. So I think that was Brandon's
[4:08:39] whole point is let's not put things in
[4:08:41] the zoning that are building and fire
[4:08:43] restrictions and this is a fire
[4:08:44] restriction. That's fine.
[4:08:45] >> Yeah. Okay. So Okay. So I've got your
[4:08:47] undergrounding exception and Brandon
[4:08:50] thinks he can do that. Um,
[4:08:52] >> in terms and then do we have I mean when
[4:08:55] you say you're a dark sky person
[4:08:57] recognize that the front lights you
[4:08:59] still we still are required to do dark
[4:09:02] sky lighting.
[4:09:03] >> I understand but two lights is
[4:09:06] >> it's like on either side of the door
[4:09:08] >> would you have the lumens in each one?
[4:09:11] >> I mean because it gets about to me it's
[4:09:13] about lumens at the end of the day.
[4:09:15] though
[4:09:16] >> you could, if I may. For example,
[4:09:18] garages, we do allow two, but there's a
[4:09:21] restriction on maximum lumens of those
[4:09:23] two lights combined. We if the if the
[4:09:25] council's interested in that, we could
[4:09:27] add that as a same standard for front
[4:09:29] doors for ADUs if that's what you're
[4:09:32] thinking.
[4:09:32] >> Right. But do we have a linen standard
[4:09:34] for
[4:09:34] >> Yes.
[4:09:35] >> Okay. I mean, okay. I I I
[4:09:39] >> And the reality is the ASUC has approved
[4:09:41] every single one of those for the past
[4:09:43] well the entire year and a half or
[4:09:45] whatever I was on.
[4:09:46] >> Did they do lumen?
[4:09:50] >> Okay. All right. So, I added that.
[4:09:51] Judith, how how are you on this? I'm
[4:09:53] just trying to get us to resolution. I
[4:09:54] know it's not exactly what you asked
[4:09:56] for, but
[4:09:56] >> yeah, I Well, you might prefer to
[4:09:59] bifurcate on the indemnity. I'm still
[4:10:01] not there. Um, so you you could do what
[4:10:04] the planning commission did, and I can
[4:10:06] just vote against that. um the 1,200
[4:10:10] versus a,000. I get you're you're you're
[4:10:14] generally um in the range. I had started
[4:10:17] down the route of agreeing with the 850
[4:10:20] to a,000 to be honest because so little
[4:10:22] is in our our control and and the size
[4:10:27] of the buildings 4T up is a different
[4:10:30] skeptic. So if if other members were,
[4:10:34] you know, on board with a a thousand, I
[4:10:36] would go there. But that's, you know,
[4:10:39] I'm flexible on that. Um I'm okay with
[4:10:41] the scenic setback, no parking required,
[4:10:45] whatever the exception for
[4:10:46] undergrounding is. So, you know, I'm
[4:10:50] largely there. Let me know if I missed
[4:10:51] anything. All right.
[4:10:52] >> So, we're not no parking.
[4:10:55] >> I that's that's that's the proposal. I
[4:10:58] just said it it's it it's on the margin
[4:11:00] and I was willing to keep it simple to
[4:11:01] move us along tonight. Um
[4:11:03] >> so I I would like to ask the question if
[4:11:05] we went with the 850 1000
[4:11:08] do any of the because isn't that state
[4:11:10] requirement at that point? Like can do
[4:11:11] we still get our objective standards and
[4:11:13] the AMFA? Okay.
[4:11:14] >> It's just Yes, you still get that for
[4:11:17] the uh the units authorized by ours.
[4:11:20] >> Okay.
[4:11:20] >> It's just it's the you're closer to the
[4:11:22] 800 limit,
[4:11:23] >> right?
[4:11:24] >> Which is where we have to start
[4:11:25] >> which is the three. Yeah. Got it. Okay.
[4:11:27] So, where do people stand? I mean, I
[4:11:29] made a proposal of 12.
[4:11:30] >> I am fine with 12,200.
[4:11:32] >> Okay. So, you're good with 12. I'm good
[4:11:33] with 12.
[4:11:34] >> And that's is in
[4:11:35] >> Can I just ask about the 1,200? If we
[4:11:37] didn't have it and we were 1,850 and
[4:11:40] someone wanted a 1,200, did they have
[4:11:43] any recourse to request it? Can they go
[4:11:46] through ASC? Can they come to the T? And
[4:11:48] is there any other recourse?
[4:11:51] how the state has the the state law
[4:11:55] worded is that ADUs have to be processed
[4:11:59] in this and with a 4 foot sided rear.
[4:12:02] So, and this is where you know we've had
[4:12:05] the conversation of well if we allow if
[4:12:08] we we can go up to 1500 with the
[4:12:10] increased step back but you got to go
[4:12:11] through ASC. The state said no if it's
[4:12:13] an ADU it's a ministerial process
[4:12:15] period. they could technically apply
[4:12:18] maybe under SB9 for something slightly
[4:12:21] larger than that because SB9 defaults
[4:12:24] again back to AMFA but without
[4:12:26] necessarily the same size limitations
[4:12:28] that we have. So that could be a
[4:12:30] mechanism
[4:12:31] >> setback.
[4:12:32] >> SP9.
[4:12:32] >> So might want to use your mic.
[4:12:34] >> No reason.
[4:12:35] >> Do they have SP? Do SP9s have setbacks?
[4:12:38] >> They have. And it's been amended to
[4:12:42] setbacks as AD8s.
[4:12:44] >> So it's the 4 foot side and rear. We can
[4:12:46] still talk.
[4:12:48] >> So right
[4:12:48] >> another way to get ADUs. And it's funny
[4:12:51] because SP9 actually says you it it
[4:12:55] almost says you can't do the five units
[4:12:57] for ADUs because it limits it to maximum
[4:13:00] four. So if they did that they would
[4:13:02] actually only get four units. If you do
[4:13:03] an SB9, you can only ever have four
[4:13:05] units. You don't get the allowance for
[4:13:07] the five technically under ADU law.
[4:13:12] >> Okay. So
[4:13:13] >> so that therefore you're encouraging SP9
[4:13:15] lot splits. That's that's the point. And
[4:13:18] remember SP has two provisions. You
[4:13:20] don't have to do a lot split. Okay.
[4:13:22] >> So the first provision is you can have
[4:13:24] up to four units in any configuration on
[4:13:26] an existing lot. That could be two SP9,
[4:13:28] two ADUs or all SP9. And then you have
[4:13:32] the option to also do the lot split. So
[4:13:34] those are not mutually exclusive.
[4:13:38] >> Thank you for that update.
[4:13:40] >> Okay. So we got the 1200 on the table.
[4:13:43] I've got two people that are okay with
[4:13:45] it. What I'm asking is with the rest of
[4:13:47] you, I I realize that you might not and
[4:13:49] it sounds like there's three of you and
[4:13:50] if you tell me that the three of you are
[4:13:52] not going to go for 1,200, I will change
[4:13:54] it to 850 a,000. I'm just looking for
[4:13:58] something that we can all then vote on
[4:14:00] and give I mean let let them go right up
[4:14:02] the changes and then we can vote on. So
[4:14:05] where do you guys stand? Are you willing
[4:14:06] to go for 1,200 or you want to stand
[4:14:07] firm at the thousand?
[4:14:10] >> Is this an auction?
[4:14:12] >> Uh no. This this is just a pressure
[4:14:14] campaign to decide.
[4:14:15] >> To be clear, the the planning commission
[4:14:17] ended at a thousand.
[4:14:19] >> No. They they
[4:14:21] >> the 1200 that's in New York or
[4:14:22] >> I thought they said for you to go back
[4:14:24] and do something in the middle. I I
[4:14:25] remember that. So originally under when
[4:14:29] we went up to the commission under the
[4:14:31] study session we proposed the 1100 or
[4:14:35] the a thousand and 850 the ASC or I'm
[4:14:39] sorry the planning commission had the
[4:14:40] conversation because they brought up the
[4:14:42] 1500 right so that's where the in the
[4:14:44] middle and then that's when we came back
[4:14:46] with 1,200 and they agreed
[4:14:48] >> they agreed with that
[4:14:50] >> I'd say they provided direction to
[4:14:52] because there was interest to go above a
[4:14:54] thousand so the direction was to study
[4:14:56] that look at what comes closer to
[4:14:58] compliance with state law and that's
[4:15:01] where we came back with the
[4:15:03] >> and and that's why I proposed it because
[4:15:05] I heard different pieces but again
[4:15:07] >> I just heard different things different
[4:15:09] times
[4:15:10] >> um
[4:15:12] well give me a good argument per
[4:15:14] thousand
[4:15:16] what's the best argument
[4:15:19] >> well it all comes down to that forfeoot
[4:15:21] that interpretation in the booklet that
[4:15:24] says that you know we have no control
[4:15:27] over setbacks. And my big I'm not
[4:15:29] against 1,200
[4:15:30] or 1500 because I mean a ridge if it if
[4:15:35] it wasn't at 4 feet that's where my big
[4:15:37] concern is. So we can't put that uh you
[4:15:40] know restriction in there. So
[4:15:42] >> they just go for an SP9 anyway. So
[4:15:45] >> but they are they seem to also have the
[4:15:47] forefoot now with SP9. So
[4:15:50] >> I guess is it beneficial? Is it that
[4:15:53] beneficial is the question. And back
[4:15:56] when we were on the planning commission,
[4:15:57] we tried to like the 4 foot I remember
[4:15:59] passing and then we were trying to give
[4:16:01] carrots to put it
[4:16:03] >> back more, but that those aren't allowed
[4:16:05] anymore from what I understand.
[4:16:07] >> So, I mean, I I think we've had the law
[4:16:10] for four years. We we haven't had 1,200
[4:16:13] foot homes. I mean, have we had anything
[4:16:16] right at four feet in in a larger lot,
[4:16:18] not in the
[4:16:20] >> looking and remembering the report that
[4:16:23] we did for the housing element, I think
[4:16:25] we had one, 1200 foot unit within the
[4:16:28] last three years.
[4:16:30] >> And that was only one. And I don't
[4:16:32] remember the setback. I don't remember
[4:16:33] all of that. And was that yours, Ellen?
[4:16:35] >> So, that's mine. And I had a 25 foot
[4:16:38] setback.
[4:16:39] >> So, and my neighbors hate me.
[4:16:41] >> Yeah.
[4:16:41] >> Because of it. Sorry.
[4:16:42] >> Yeah. That's a different
[4:16:45] >> best to work with the applicants to
[4:16:47] encourage the largers. It's just when
[4:16:49] they submit and propose the four, we
[4:16:50] can't say no. So, you know, staff is
[4:16:52] working with people to try to encourage
[4:16:54] it.
[4:16:55] >> And we're doing the best that we can,
[4:16:57] but if they propose that four, we just
[4:16:59] have to accept it. Sadly,
[4:17:01] >> I mean, again, the argument I'm making
[4:17:02] for the 12 is that if we want people to
[4:17:05] build a reasonable residence, when I've
[4:17:07] talked to architects, this is a number
[4:17:08] they said, you know, 1,200 you can get a
[4:17:10] reasonable place. And you know, if our
[4:17:13] worry is it's a 4 foot setback, you
[4:17:15] know, another 200 feet in terms of its
[4:17:17] impact is not that much. I mean, you've
[4:17:19] already got a thousand foot of impact.
[4:17:21] The the next 200, I think, in terms of
[4:17:23] impact being that close, as much as I
[4:17:26] hate it as well. So, I think what we're
[4:17:27] hoping is that they're not going to take
[4:17:29] advantage of I'm going to build it as
[4:17:31] close to the edge as I can, but we can't
[4:17:33] control it.
[4:17:34] >> You know, at 1200, in what I've seen in
[4:17:36] other jurisdictions, you can get a
[4:17:38] reasonably sized two to threebedroom.
[4:17:40] >> Yeah. Exactly. what is coming in at that
[4:17:43] size. Otherwise, it's usually a one or
[4:17:45] two bedroom that's usually under the
[4:17:47] map. Mostly one.
[4:17:50] » I guess I'm okay.
[4:17:52] >> I'm okay with it.
[4:17:53] >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So then I I
[4:17:56] take J to J's point. I'd like to split
[4:17:58] these two pieces. We can do that right
[4:17:59] between the the P and the the
[4:18:02] indemnification and um
[4:18:07] but in just right in terms of votes. Um
[4:18:10] so then on the ADU we've got 1,200
[4:18:13] utilities education fee just some light
[4:18:16] thing the scenic um corridor the
[4:18:19] undergrounding exception and the two
[4:18:21] lights with a lumen limit. Is that am I
[4:18:23] missing anything? Okay. So I think
[4:18:26] that's the marching directions and then
[4:18:30] going to the um
[4:18:33] indemnification
[4:18:35] as a separate
[4:18:37] thing just as a separate one. I was
[4:18:39] proposing may and some sort of language
[4:18:43] that Katherine can come up with to deal
[4:18:45] with town negligence. Um, and we're
[4:18:48] separating this because Judith may vote
[4:18:50] against the may, but
[4:18:51] >> I will because and just for the record,
[4:18:55] um, if you have a may and an ordinance,
[4:18:58] it's what do I do with that? Like, who's
[4:19:00] going to be the decider for when it gets
[4:19:04] applied? Once you start distinguishing
[4:19:06] between one situation and another,
[4:19:09] you're at real risk of being perceived
[4:19:11] as
[4:19:12] having a grudge against somebody.
[4:19:15] Recalling how the PAS came up. So, I I
[4:19:18] think it's got to be out is is where I'm
[4:19:23] coming from. I don't like the fact that
[4:19:25] it can be subject to abuse, but there's
[4:19:27] a lot of p pieces of, you know, the town
[4:19:31] that
[4:19:33] we we Well,
[4:19:36] you can't you can't uh dictate good good
[4:19:39] faith use of tools. This is part of what
[4:19:42] we have to make available for
[4:19:44] transparency from my point of view. So
[4:19:46] that's that's it.
[4:19:47] >> Could we put a limit? You're responsible
[4:19:48] for the first 10
[4:19:54] » 10,000 I think is what she's saying.
[4:19:56] >> No, no. First 10
[4:19:57] >> first 10 P requests.
[4:19:59] >> Oh
[4:20:02] god, that's a lot of P requests. But
[4:20:04] yeah,
[4:20:04] >> related to your application.
[4:20:06] >> And I guess my thinking Judith was that
[4:20:11] the council
[4:20:13] would have the authority to decide the
[4:20:15] may and that the public would have the
[4:20:18] ability to influence the council on
[4:20:20] whether we put that on the applicant and
[4:20:22] or the count the town took it on which
[4:20:24] is I mean that was what I was thinking
[4:20:26] that the may would get.
[4:20:28] >> Yeah. I just think it both seeing the
[4:20:31] public reaction to past PAs, if you
[4:20:34] thought they were worth it or not, it
[4:20:36] was very polarizing and I don't think
[4:20:38] that's a good thing to set up. Um, and
[4:20:41] then the other is the applicant might
[4:20:43] not have done anything wrong at all and
[4:20:46] yet they're their project is a lightning
[4:20:50] rod because someone wants to make it a
[4:20:52] big deal. all of a sudden that applicant
[4:20:54] has to now fund what could be a
[4:20:57] ridiculous amount of P. So I think it
[4:20:59] has the ability to be very unfair
[4:21:03] and political. So anyway, you hear me?
[4:21:07] >> I I appreciate your point. I mean, I'm
[4:21:10] >> I'm persuaded enough that if other
[4:21:12] people wanted to remove it, I could go
[4:21:14] along with that. How that So
[4:21:16] >> Okay. Well, so you're saying get rid of
[4:21:18] PR like that the town's just going to
[4:21:19] pay for like Okay. And how long were you
[4:21:22] for that?
[4:21:25] >> Okay, so neutral Becca.
[4:21:28] Okay, then why don't let's just assume.
[4:21:32] >> Okay. So, all right. Um, if we do that
[4:21:35] and we get this town, can we just vote
[4:21:37] on this as one thing instead of
[4:21:38] splitting in two? I mean, is that is
[4:21:40] that what you were going to not vote
[4:21:42] against? Okay, then I think we've got
[4:21:44] one thing we can work on. Great. Thank
[4:21:46] you everybody. So, the next step is
[4:21:50] we're gonna what what's the proper word
[4:21:52] here for tableabling?
[4:21:55] >> Uh, well, do you want to take a break or
[4:21:57] do you want to uh I think table actually
[4:22:00] would be the proper word to table this
[4:22:02] item uh while the council proceeds with
[4:22:05] um other business. Yeah, I guess what I
[4:22:07] was hoping is we could go to the
[4:22:09] subcommittee leaison committee and
[4:22:10] regional agent reports for instance
[4:22:13] >> and just get that done while you guys
[4:22:15] are working because you don't need to be
[4:22:16] part of that. Yes.
[4:22:17] >> Um and then the charter obviously you do
[4:22:21] need you're you're front and center on
[4:22:23] that. So So can I guess that's what I'm
[4:22:25] asking. Can we move to eight and come
[4:22:26] back to the come back to a
[4:22:28] >> Yes, you may.
[4:22:28] >> Okay, great.
[4:22:29] >> Can I ask one clarifying question about
[4:22:30] the indemnification before we table? Um,
[4:22:34] so I I heard uh from Council Hasco that
[4:22:38] uh
[4:22:40] her preference would be not to use gross
[4:22:42] negligence. Um
[4:22:44] uh which is a term that we've we
[4:22:46] oftentimes use in our contracts. Uh but
[4:22:50] again, this is um not typical to have
[4:22:53] that exception in the code. And so I
[4:22:55] just want to make sure it's tight and so
[4:22:56] we don't get into an argument with the
[4:22:58] applicant that they're not going to
[4:22:59] demnify us because you were
[4:23:01] >> you were negligent. And so I I guess I
[4:23:04] would I would recommend either gross
[4:23:06] negligence or willful misconduct or at
[4:23:09] least sole negligent or willful
[4:23:10] misconduct.
[4:23:12] >> What is soul
[4:23:13] >> sole negligence? Uh that would be
[4:23:16] basically it's solely the town's
[4:23:18] response fault.
[4:23:19] >> So you're you're instead of gross
[4:23:22] negligence. Uh I I'm wary of
[4:23:25] >> I think it's solely solely to the extent
[4:23:27] arising out of except to the extent so
[4:23:30] arising solely out of the town's
[4:23:33] negligence.
[4:23:34] >> Yeah, I was that would work. I was
[4:23:36] looking at except to the extent such
[4:23:37] claim arises out of the sole negligence
[4:23:40] or willful misconduct of the town.
[4:23:43] >> Okay, great.
[4:23:44] >> Okay,
[4:23:44] >> perfect.
[4:23:45] >> Thanks. We'll take a break or we'll
[4:23:47] table this item and we'll be back.
[4:23:49] >> Okay, so you guys are going to just go
[4:23:50] sort of sit in the back and work
[4:23:51] together. All right, great. Thank thank
[4:23:53] you very much guys I council and
[4:23:55] everybody for working through a very
[4:23:57] complicated issue. All right so with
[4:23:59] that we're going to table 7A we're going
[4:24:02] to skip 7B for right now and we're going
[4:24:05] to go directly to eight. Um
[4:24:10] so are there in addition to the um
[4:24:13] written reports are there any verbal
[4:24:15] reports? I have one. Anybody else?
[4:24:18] >> I have one as well.
[4:24:20] >> Okay. Mary, do you is your Okay, great.
[4:24:23] All right, Helen, go ahead.
[4:24:26] >> So, um, uh, Vice Mayor and I actually
[4:24:31] did work on a, uh, colleagues memo and I
[4:24:35] pulled it right before, um, on the
[4:24:39] connect Bay Area transportation measure
[4:24:42] that will be on the ballot in November.
[4:24:46] Um I was hoping that Portal Valley could
[4:24:49] potentially get some funding from it. Um and that was what the colleagues
[4:24:54] memo was looking at. Um, in a meeting
[4:24:58] with Sam Trans that I had on Friday
[4:25:01] morning, right before it was due to go
[4:25:03] before, um, uh, it became quite clear to
[4:25:08] me that Porto Valley is not going to be
[4:25:11] eligible because of our lack of public
[4:25:13] transportation and 63% of Connect Bay
[4:25:17] Area dollars goes to operations, right?
[4:25:21] um for example. So um you know the town
[4:25:25] we're not going to be able to fill
[4:25:27] potholes but we will get cleaner you
[4:25:29] know if that we would get indirect
[4:25:32] benefits like cleaner air trains to the
[4:25:35] Giants games um less congestion on the
[4:25:39] road. So but I did not do a colleague
[4:25:43] memo because the colleagues memo would
[4:25:46] have been pointless. So, um, and the
[4:25:50] vice mayor and I did write a colleague's
[4:25:51] memo, but
[4:25:53] the last minute I frantically emailed
[4:25:56] Veronica and Darcy like, "Please do not,
[4:26:00] you know, please pull it off the
[4:26:01] agenda." So, that's the update on
[4:26:03] Connect Bay Area.
[4:26:04] >> Okay. Thank So, thank you for the
[4:26:06] update. Um and my update was that um
[4:26:10] Midpen had a special meeting on
[4:26:12] Hawthorne's and I attended Mary was
[4:26:16] there Darcy was there um
[4:26:20] Nonella was there so you know so we had
[4:26:23] regional representation who else I'm
[4:26:25] sorry
[4:26:25] >> Betsy was there was there yeah of course
[4:26:27] >> them up the attorney
[4:26:29] >> so anyways we we had pretty good
[4:26:31] representation um the meeting was about
[4:26:34] whether they were going to start on SQA
[4:26:36] um and and basically what they were
[4:26:38] going to do SQL on. So what they decided
[4:26:42] um and you know as you as you can
[4:26:44] imagine this had already gone through
[4:26:46] the natural resources committee and
[4:26:48] they've been working on this a long time
[4:26:50] and the general manager was very much
[4:26:53] we've been working on this a long time
[4:26:55] we need to keep moving. So that that was
[4:26:57] her push. And so in the end, what
[4:26:59] they've approved is doing SQA, but doing
[4:27:01] full squa on the two options. And so the
[4:27:05] two options are what they call option
[4:27:06] nine and option 10. Option nine uses the
[4:27:10] existing driveway that goes up to the
[4:27:11] residence and then sort of turns and
[4:27:14] cuts back to the right. And option 10 is
[4:27:16] at the corner of Alpine and Portola and
[4:27:19] then kind of goes in and turns left. And
[4:27:21] then within those options are
[4:27:25] um different parking configurations. So
[4:27:28] they're looking for a 50 car parking
[4:27:30] with ADU and a hammerhead to turn
[4:27:33] around. That's one option and that's
[4:27:35] true of both of them. And then there's
[4:27:37] another option which is sort of imagine
[4:27:39] a you know if there's two sets of
[4:27:41] parking you know opposing each other
[4:27:43] that they only do one strip. So they'd
[4:27:46] be sort of roughly 25. Um, and then
[4:27:48] another option was sort of a truncated
[4:27:50] one where they only sort of it's it's
[4:27:52] the same double width, but it's only
[4:27:54] half as wide. So, so those are the I
[4:27:57] think six options that they were going
[4:27:59] to consider. Um, our conversations are
[4:28:02] still ongoing with them and will
[4:28:04] continue to be ongoing. I'm going to
[4:28:07] recommend and I'm going to work on a
[4:28:08] colleagues memo. I I that you know we
[4:28:10] should create a subcommittee um probably
[4:28:12] hire an attorney to help us with the
[4:28:14] squa. the I did have some conversations
[4:28:18] both with board members um and some of
[4:28:20] their planners. I don't think they fully
[4:28:22] realize the impact. We still have um
[4:28:27] grading and zoning
[4:28:30] basic authority. Um and somehow they the
[4:28:35] planners sort of gave that light touch.
[4:28:37] I mean a couple of count a couple of the
[4:28:39] directors asked about it and they didn't
[4:28:42] give them in my mind a particularly
[4:28:44] clear answer. So I think the the
[4:28:46] critical thing is and that's why I'm
[4:28:48] going to write this colleagues memo is I
[4:28:50] think we need to go back to them and
[4:28:51] just say look we're trying to help you
[4:28:54] not have a train wreck. So it better
[4:28:56] that we talk about this now than later
[4:28:58] but you know at the end of the day they
[4:29:00] are the lead agency and we are a
[4:29:03] responsible agency. Is that the correct
[4:29:05] term? Um, and then we heard tonight that
[4:29:07] the school district might want to be
[4:29:09] involved. So, I will follow up on that
[4:29:11] as well. So, I don't want to get too
[4:29:12] much into policy here because this is
[4:29:14] just a report, but that's the report
[4:29:15] from that meeting. So, they did approve
[4:29:17] it. Um, but there was two directors that
[4:29:20] were definitely like, we sure this is
[4:29:23] going the right direction. In the end,
[4:29:25] it was unanimous, but I I think they're
[4:29:27] missing some information. So, this is a
[4:29:30] process that probably won't start in
[4:29:32] earnest until this summer, and it's a
[4:29:34] year-long process.
[4:29:35] So, you know, this this is still we we
[4:29:38] still have plenty of opportunity to have
[4:29:39] discussion with them and they did say
[4:29:41] that they were open to discussion. So,
[4:29:46] >> I don't want to well, let let me be
[4:29:48] clear. Catherine's firm is conflicted
[4:29:50] out and the town needs legal counsel.
[4:29:53] So, as part of whatever we do here, we just have to figure that out because
[4:29:58] I'm completely uncomfortable going
[4:30:00] >> going without legal counsel on that. So,
[4:30:02] we'll figure that out.
[4:30:03] >> And that was my proposal. The
[4:30:04] colleague's memo was to have a
[4:30:06] subcommittee get us legal representation
[4:30:08] >> for SQA, etc. Yeah. No, 100%. Yeah, this
[4:30:11] is this is not just a hey, let's go
[4:30:12] chitchat. I mean, yeah, we need some
[4:30:14] legal representation. Yeah, 100%. Thank
[4:30:15] you.
[4:30:16] >> So, I would point out if you're going to
[4:30:18] go talk to the um school district with,
[4:30:22] you know, Bob Bower, um he said that
[4:30:24] they hadn't been consulted.
[4:30:26] >> Right.
[4:30:26] He was speaking for himself. Um I
[4:30:29] would point out two things. First of
[4:30:31] all, since Rebecca and I were elected,
[4:30:35] we had not been briefed by Mid Pen. Um,
[4:30:39] there were numerous public meetings, but
[4:30:42] because of the concurrent meeting timing
[4:30:46] been, you know, challenging. Um,
[4:30:48] obviously Midpin's been working on this
[4:30:50] project for like 10 years, so that's an
[4:30:52] awkward one. Um they also at some point
[4:30:56] my understanding is asked um the school
[4:30:59] district to share parking. Um right and
[4:31:03] the school district my understanding
[4:31:05] according to mid pen
[4:31:07] said no.
[4:31:08] >> Yeah that's that did come up at the
[4:31:10] meeting u and
[4:31:11] >> they said it as they weren't interested
[4:31:14] but I I don't know how much it was
[4:31:16] pursued and and I think we have some
[4:31:18] other options as a town to help with
[4:31:19] parking. Um, so I think there's a lot of
[4:31:22] opportunity to have some discussion and
[4:31:24] that really was my purpose in going to
[4:31:25] the meeting speaking was
[4:31:28] this is great. We love open space. Our
[4:31:31] town's founded on it, but let's talk and
[4:31:33] they said, "Yeah, we're willing to
[4:31:34] talk." So, so I think that we were
[4:31:36] opening that dialogue up. That's really
[4:31:37] what it was about. So,
[4:31:39] >> I just wanted to ask about the SQA
[4:31:40] process. Um, it's all about um the
[4:31:44] environment, right? Whether trees are
[4:31:46] cut down or what what the mitigating
[4:31:49] factors are, right? Does it does the
[4:31:51] town have any say? Is there an
[4:31:53] opportunity within SQA to have the town
[4:31:55] have input?
[4:31:57] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[4:31:59] So,
[4:32:01] >> okay. So, anyway, that that's that's all
[4:32:03] I have on on that. And again, I don't
[4:32:04] want to go too far because it's just a
[4:32:06] report. Um, it was an it was an
[4:32:08] interesting meeting. I mean it they
[4:32:10] clearly they've done lots and lots of
[4:32:11] meetings and they think that our
[4:32:13] planning staff has you know turned over
[4:32:15] and so it's been hard to communicate
[4:32:16] with us and and I appreciate those are
[4:32:18] legitimate concerns but now we're ready
[4:32:20] to open up and have a clear dialogue. So
[4:32:23] I think we'll do that
[4:32:24] >> and Oh right and they also they did have
[4:32:27] the POG.
[4:32:28] >> Yeah.
[4:32:28] >> And we have had
[4:32:30] Karen Botra who's on on this meeting
[4:32:33] right now and Helen Quinn and then
[4:32:35] there's someone up in Los Angeles.
[4:32:37] >> Right. and and Helen was there, right?
[4:32:39] Um and it's David
[4:32:41] starts
[4:32:43] no. Anyway, yeah, David, I know him.
[4:32:47] I've met him before. He's he's up in Los
[4:32:49] Tranos. Um so, and and David's is this
[4:32:54] >> Mir. Thank you. There you go. And
[4:32:56] David's position was oh, maybe we can
[4:32:58] get connection trails and this isn't,
[4:33:00] you know, a mid pen wide thing and we
[4:33:04] should, you know, have all this parking.
[4:33:05] So, I mean, he's very pro 9 or 10. I
[4:33:08] mean, just that that's where that
[4:33:09] because he called in to basically give
[4:33:11] his opinion. So, anyway, I I think
[4:33:13] there's room for conversation here. I
[4:33:15] think that's the the main thing I wanted
[4:33:16] to report.
[4:33:18] >> Okay. Um
[4:33:19] >> I had a little report, too.
[4:33:21] >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead, please. All right.
[4:33:22] Um, so I attended the be sensitive, be
[4:33:25] brave workshop that was put on for
[4:33:26] mental health resources um by the mayor
[4:33:29] group from um San Carlos, South City and
[4:33:34] Pacifica. They organized it and it was
[4:33:36] really quite interesting and part of it
[4:33:38] was about it was for mental health for council members and school board
[4:33:43] members really what you know just so you
[4:33:45] are aware of um the resources and you're
[4:33:49] aware of keeping track of your own um
[4:33:52] situation as well as um they went
[4:33:56] through a bunch of um scenarios
[4:33:59] uh of how to kind of show concern for
[4:34:01] your fellow council members if you're
[4:34:03] seeing them under stress and how how to
[4:34:06] communicate that sort of thing. It's
[4:34:07] really quite helpful. And if people
[4:34:09] would like to have the slides when they
[4:34:10] send it, I'm happy to share them.
[4:34:14] >> I have one more.
[4:34:16] >> Okay. So, yeah, I would say maybe you
[4:34:18] can give them to Darcy and then she can
[4:34:20] pass them out to us. Yeah. Great. Yeah.
[4:34:23] Go ahead, Helen.
[4:34:23] >> Um, just a reminder that tomorrow is
[4:34:25] bike to work day. I have a CKG meeting
[4:34:28] so I can't bike to work but tomorrow is
[4:34:30] bike to work day
[4:34:32] um because it's up in
[4:34:34] Berling Berling St. Carlos. Um
[4:34:39] >> yeah yeah yeah
[4:34:41] >> um so bike but also May is bike to
[4:34:44] wherever day.
[4:34:45] >> Nice.
[4:34:46] >> The whole month of May.
[4:34:49] They just made it
[4:34:49] >> bike to school too. Right.
[4:34:52] >> Right. Bike to wherever days. pledged to
[4:34:54] ride a bike in May.
[4:34:56] >> Good. Yeah. Which I think is great
[4:34:58] because so many people are working at
[4:34:59] home. I was going to say my bike to my
[4:35:01] bike to work is like, well, let's see.
[4:35:02] I'm going to bike from upstairs to
[4:35:04] downstairs.
[4:35:06] Yeah. Yeah. No, no. Well, it's Yeah,
[4:35:08] except there's a lot of people who are
[4:35:09] still working from home. So, so I think
[4:35:11] this, you know, wherever days that
[4:35:12] sounds like a great idea to get
[4:35:14] encourage people get out on their bikes.
[4:35:15] So, all right. And anything else under
[4:35:17] this agenda item before I close it out?
[4:35:20] All right. Well, thank you. Um, I would
[4:35:22] suggest we just, you know, turn off the
[4:35:26] recording. We can sort of whatever the
[4:35:28] table equivalent is and wait for them to
[4:35:30] come
[4:35:31] on. Oh, you're right. Absolutely. 100%.
[4:35:34] Thank that that was my bad. Let me just
[4:35:35] do that.
[4:35:36] >> I Yeah, it's it's a long meeting. So,
[4:35:39] um, is there any public comment on
[4:35:42] agenda item number eight? So, there's no
[4:35:45] one left in the schoolhouse. Anybody
[4:35:48] online have any comments on the reports?
[4:35:54] Excuse me. Okay, I see no public
[4:35:56] comments. So now I'll close this out.
[4:35:59] Thank you for reminding him. All right.
[4:36:01] So Veronica, if you can just turn off
[4:36:03] the recording, then we'll just wait
[4:36:05] until they come back and then we'll
[4:36:06] restart 78. Oh,
[4:36:12] okay. All right, great. Yeah. Yeah,
[4:36:14] probably. Well, it's good. I'm I'm ready
[4:36:16] for that. It's like, go ahead. Yeah, it
[4:36:17] was all good. So, all right. Thank So,
[4:36:19] thank you. We'll we'll be back shortly.
[4:36:25] All right. Welcome back everybody.
[4:36:27] So, we have our little subcommittee
[4:36:30] here. They're they're back and they
[4:36:33] hopefully have some new language.
[4:36:37] » So, go ahead. What do you got for us?
[4:36:39] >> Oh, I see how it is. This is going to be
[4:36:41] like an eyesight test. Okay.
[4:36:43] >> Totally. I'm just zoom in for you guys
[4:36:45] too to make sure I
[4:36:47] >> Yeah, thank you. I appre
[4:36:48] >> if you would like us to save this as a
[4:36:51] PDF and send it to you.
[4:36:53] >> No, just No, just
[4:36:54] >> I would like that.
[4:36:56] >> Can we Can we just read this and keep
[4:36:57] going?
[4:36:57] >> Oh, no. You mean right now? Oh, no.
[4:36:59] >> Yeah, right now. Just Oh, no. Just keep
[4:37:00] going. Just go do it.
[4:37:03] >> So, uh we'll start going through the ADU
[4:37:05] ordinance. Um I didn't further up. Nope.
[4:37:10] So with the utility connections, we
[4:37:13] added in that also clarifying that
[4:37:16] utility connections are subject to the
[4:37:18] review and approval by the appropriate
[4:37:20] utility agency. Right?
[4:37:21] >> That was something you know we heard
[4:37:23] from you all.
[4:37:24] >> Good enough.
[4:37:25] >> Additionally
[4:37:26] >> for you so before you go. So that was
[4:37:28] your so good enough. Okay. Great. Next.
[4:37:30] >> We we also added the
[4:37:32] >> we'll get the education one. We also
[4:37:35] added the except for ADUs permitted
[4:37:37] pursuant to government code section
[4:37:38] 66323
[4:37:40] when a new or separate utility um
[4:37:43] connection is proposed. So that should
[4:37:45] cover us with the the cow um housing
[4:37:48] defense fund.
[4:37:50] We did add this in just because of how
[4:37:52] we added the school fee in. We added a
[4:37:54] little clarification and I think this
[4:37:56] was something we heard as well is the
[4:37:58] connection fees and capacity charges. We
[4:38:00] just added these fees are assessed by
[4:38:01] the utility agency. be
[4:38:03] >> very clear, these are not our fees.
[4:38:05] >> Um, and that's just to align with the
[4:38:07] wording that we use for the school fees,
[4:38:09] >> which include the language straight from
[4:38:11] the um, California government code. And
[4:38:14] then again clarifying that these fees
[4:38:16] are assessed by the school district.
[4:38:17] >> Awesome.
[4:38:19] >> I can't see them at all.
[4:38:21] >> I just want to make sure
[4:38:23] >> if you have um, I'm sharing my screen on
[4:38:24] the Zoom T. So if you're logged in,
[4:38:26] >> I'm gonna try and I'm gonna try and
[4:38:29] computer too. Yeah.
[4:38:34] I can zoom in a little bit more too if I
[4:38:37] >> Thank you. There. That's much better.
[4:38:42] » Okay, keep going.
[4:38:44] >> Okay.
[4:38:49] » Wow, we're on page four. I'm feeling
[4:38:50] great about this.
[4:38:52] >> All right, so for
[4:38:54] door, uh, since I we can only apply it
[4:38:56] as far front setback, that's where I
[4:38:58] have included it. So this uh the front
[4:39:01] setback is the same as the underlying
[4:39:02] district including the required scenic
[4:39:05] corridor setbacks and then that's we're
[4:39:07] still adding in the clarification about
[4:39:08] the six
[4:39:10] that was the existing language.
[4:39:12] >> Okay. And then for exterior lighting, we
[4:39:16] did leave kind of the you need to follow
[4:39:18] those requirements except that the
[4:39:20] primary entrance of the ADU may have one
[4:39:24] or two fixtures which shall be limited
[4:39:26] to a total lumen count of 1,125.
[4:39:31] That's consistent with the garage. I did
[4:39:33] have one question. Do you want that
[4:39:35] extended to J80 primary entrance for J8?
[4:39:39] >> No, I don't. But that's a thousand
[4:39:41] lumens. That's a lot of lumens.
[4:39:43] >> That's that is authorized for the two
[4:39:46] lights on,
[4:39:48] >> right? But they're but they're 20 feet apart. We're talking
[4:39:51] about something that's five feet or six
[4:39:54] feet apart. So
[4:40:01] » So
[4:40:03] for the lights that are at a an
[4:40:06] entrance, I think most of the times the
[4:40:08] lumens are around 4 to 500.
[4:40:11] um that that that's kind of like the max
[4:40:14] that we ever see. That's going to be
[4:40:15] generally like a 10 cent bulb in that
[4:40:19] fixture. Um but there's also a whole
[4:40:22] range that it changes to high. So if we
[4:40:25] want to specify a lower number, you
[4:40:27] know, we definitely can.
[4:40:28] >> Why don't you keep going? I'll I'll come
[4:40:30] up with something.
[4:40:31] >> Well, also does that assume that it's
[4:40:34] the the downward trajec?
[4:40:37] >> Yeah. So they would still have to so all
[4:40:39] we're doing is adding the exception
[4:40:41] instead of one light you have to with
[4:40:43] that maximum lumen you still have to
[4:40:45] comply with outdoor lighting and if you
[4:40:48] want me to revise this to explicitly say
[4:40:50] that I can that as well but
[4:40:52] >> well isn't that what that section
[4:40:54] reference does then
[4:40:56] yeah okay then no need for more
[4:41:03] » so that would be it for the ADU
[4:41:05] ordinance and then I will scroll But
[4:41:07] I'll let Catherine discuss theations.
[4:41:13] » And what was the number you put on the
[4:41:14] lumas? That was 11
[4:41:16] >> right now. I just matched what is for
[4:41:17] the garage which is 1,125.
[4:41:21] >> Okay. I mean I that's like 75 watt
[4:41:24] equivalent. I can probably live with
[4:41:26] that.
[4:41:28] I mean people
[4:41:30] >> split between two.
[4:41:32] >> Okay. I guess I don't, just for the
[4:41:35] record, I hate making this stuff up and
[4:41:37] I hate lights that are too bright in
[4:41:40] town because they only go get brighter
[4:41:43] and nobody puts their shades up and all
[4:41:45] of that. So,
[4:41:46] >> I I'll bite the bullet on this one, but
[4:41:49] I really don't like winging it. Um, you
[4:41:51] know, if if I could, I would reduce it a
[4:41:54] little bit, but
[4:41:54] >> Well, to what? I mean,
[4:41:57] >> like twothirds. I mean, I don't know. If
[4:41:59] you're telling me that's 75, I don't
[4:42:01] want it to be unusable.
[4:42:03] >> I think this is also one of those
[4:42:05] situations where you can re-review that
[4:42:07] number as part of the objective design
[4:42:09] standards. When that kind of comes
[4:42:10] through, you might want to reook at
[4:42:12] lighting and change those numbers
[4:42:14] anyways. Maybe not use lumen. So that
[4:42:18] >> if we did that later, would we have to
[4:42:20] change this?
[4:42:21] >> You would update it, but you could
[4:42:22] update it. It's in the objective design
[4:42:24] standard section anyways, which you
[4:42:26] would want to update when you do
[4:42:27] objective.
[4:42:28] >> Oh, it is. Okay.
[4:42:29] >> All right. Got it. Thank you. Okay.
[4:42:31] >> And then the other thing is I mean what
[4:42:32] if we made it lower? We've made 750 now.
[4:42:35] And if it wasn't enough, we up it later.
[4:42:38] >> So how do people feel? Let's just make a
[4:42:41] I mean I'm with you. I hate this sort of
[4:42:43] doing on the fly. But we got an option
[4:42:45] to fix this in the future. So I'm
[4:42:46] willing to move forward. So
[4:42:48] >> it's your it's your problem. I'll get it
[4:42:50] right.
[4:42:51] >> I know. I'm trying to remember like what do we have? Thank you.
[4:42:59] >> Um, what do we have currently allowed?
[4:43:01] How what lumens other than the garage
[4:43:03] like at the front door? Does anyone know
[4:43:06] in our current code?
[4:43:08] >> I have to read it and I have it pulled
[4:43:10] up. So, a moment.
[4:43:13] I don't know if they're
[4:43:21] » optimal outdoor lighting requires a
[4:43:22] balance of brightness and purpose
[4:43:24] generally ranging from 12 to 1300 plus
[4:43:28] lumens. So that's a
[4:43:31] bit of a range.
[4:43:34] >> Well, 12 is really low.
[4:43:35] >> Oh, I know. I'm not proposing that.
[4:43:37] That's just for a point of reference
[4:43:38] since I know nothing.
[4:43:42] I and it might be in the design
[4:43:44] guidelines. So I might have to pull
[4:43:45] those up where that lumen restriction is
[4:43:48] in the code. The only explicit lumen
[4:43:50] restriction is on the garages. So I
[4:43:52] would I would have to pull up the design
[4:43:54] standards to double check if there's
[4:43:55] another restriction there.
[4:43:59] >> Okay. Well, what what do we want to move
[4:44:01] forward on? We just leave for now.
[4:44:04] >> I put it a little lower, but but I don't
[4:44:07] feel that strongly. I mean
[4:44:09] >> 900 just
[4:44:14] Oh my god.
[4:44:15] >> I'm just making it lower than 1100.
[4:44:17] >> Change.
[4:44:18] >> Yeah.
[4:44:23] » Not it's it this is a substantive item
[4:44:26] so it's not really a typo or you know
[4:44:29] technical correction. Um
[4:44:34] though if there's I guess if the council
[4:44:36] direction is if there's a I don't know
[4:44:38] if we can give clear council direction
[4:44:40] what the intent is perhaps we could
[4:44:43] do some research between now and then
[4:44:45] and just make
[4:44:46] >> so if I can repeat bad info from AI um
[4:44:50] key recommendations include 100 to 200
[4:44:52] lumens for paths 50 to 300 for landscape
[4:44:56] accents 300 to 700 for security and 700
[4:45:01] to,300 for flood lights.
[4:45:04] >> Take what of that what you will.
[4:45:11] » Security like your three to seven.
[4:45:13] >> Yeah. Three to 300 to 700.
[4:45:17] >> Uh 50 to 300 for landscape.
[4:45:24] » Not per light. That's
[4:45:27] >> okay. Okay. What we have right now is
[4:45:28] 1100.
[4:45:30] >> We got the design guidelines.
[4:45:32] >> Yep.
[4:45:32] >> I can read the language in there. So,
[4:45:35] for a fixture type, it focuses more on
[4:45:37] where the light's going to be. If it's
[4:45:39] an overhead fixture, the maximum lumens
[4:45:41] for a single fe uh fixture is 350.
[4:45:45] >> Um,
[4:45:47] and then for a low height is 225 and a
[4:45:50] stair step is 50.
[4:45:52] >> Okay. How about two times 350? 750 700.
[4:45:56] Great.
[4:45:57] >> Good. All right. Thank you. Great. And again, we can re if we get it wrong,
[4:46:01] we'll revisit it later.
[4:46:02] >> Yep. Okay.
[4:46:03] >> Okay. Thank you. So, you'll make that
[4:46:04] fix.
[4:46:05] >> Yep.
[4:46:06] >> You want to just do that while we're
[4:46:08] watching you type? And
[4:46:10] >> I'm just gonna add a note for right now.
[4:46:12] Okay. And I will
[4:46:14] >> Fair enough. Yeah. Now, I'm Yep. Yep.
[4:46:17] >> You guys don't have to watch.
[4:46:20] >> No, I know. Me. Yeah, me too. That's what I was thinking, too. So,
[4:46:23] we're on board. All right. What's next?
[4:46:25] I think indemnification is next. Is that
[4:46:28] right, Brandon? All right. So, while
[4:46:30] Brandon's scrolling down. Oh. Oh, yes.
[4:46:32] So, we um struck the cost reimbursement
[4:46:35] from the title um struck the um and
[4:46:39] shall reimburse the town for cost and
[4:46:42] vis response to P requests. And then
[4:46:44] scroll down a little bit more. Uh we
[4:46:46] carved out an exception here to this
[4:46:49] section 020
[4:46:52] indemnity required to say the
[4:46:53] applicant's duty under this section
[4:46:56] shall not apply to the extent such
[4:46:58] claims arise out of the sole negligence
[4:47:00] or willful misconduct of the town, its
[4:47:03] agents, officers and employees.
[4:47:07] >> Okay, you good with that?
[4:47:09] >> Yeah.
[4:47:09] >> Okay, great. And that's it, isn't it?
[4:47:12] >> Yes.
[4:47:12] >> Okay, so
[4:47:15] was a a quick clarification that we
[4:47:18] couldn't remember on the parking
[4:47:20] >> conversation. I know we said no parking.
[4:47:22] >> Okay.
[4:47:23] >> Did you want say when they do provide
[4:47:25] parking, you just want to put it in the
[4:47:27] driveway? Because I know that was kind
[4:47:29] of the discussion and I don't think we
[4:47:30] had it clear
[4:47:33] >> if if the applicant voluntarily provides
[4:47:36] a parking space, it must be on an
[4:47:38] existing
[4:47:39] >> driveway.
[4:47:40] Is that any problem with our
[4:47:43] doing that?
[4:47:45] No, I just wanted to make sure I asked
[4:47:47] that question because that conversation
[4:47:48] came up.
[4:47:49] >> Yeah.
[4:47:50] >> Um the only the only time that's going
[4:47:52] to be an issue is the fire truck
[4:47:54] turnaround, but again that's fire code
[4:47:55] and they still have to be fire code. So
[4:47:57] that would not be
[4:47:59] >> necessarily an issue. And the state law
[4:48:01] does say they can provide it as tandem
[4:48:03] in driveway which they're focused on
[4:48:05] like small lot. So that would literally
[4:48:06] be right outside the garage door.
[4:48:10] >> I think he is just not requiring a a
[4:48:12] carport. I mean, I wouldn't have a
[4:48:14] problem actually with having them park
[4:48:15] in the dirt personally, but um
[4:48:19] >> what I mean, do we need to say anything
[4:48:20] more? Just not speak to this and you
[4:48:23] know, when we go to revise this and we
[4:48:25] come up with our, you know, objective
[4:48:27] design standards, maybe we'll know more
[4:48:29] then.
[4:48:32] >> The thing about if you do put anything
[4:48:34] in, you have to um uh conform with
[4:48:37] whatever our ordinance is for parking
[4:48:39] and that's a pretty substantial
[4:48:40] ordinance there.
[4:48:41] >> Got it. So either we have to say what I
[4:48:44] put in there was you have to provide a
[4:48:45] 10 by 20 foot space but um
[4:48:49] >> Okay,
[4:48:50] >> but I mean it's up to
[4:48:52] >> All right. Well, any of any other
[4:48:53] opinions? Does anybody feel strongly? Um
[4:48:58] so Brandon, do you have a recommendation
[4:49:00] here? I I think what Rebecca's saying is
[4:49:03] should we reduce it from something that
[4:49:05] seems, you know, substantial
[4:49:08] to just making it, you know, if you're
[4:49:10] going to have parking, it's big enough
[4:49:12] to park a car in.
[4:49:14] >> Yeah. We can say either within an
[4:49:16] existing
[4:49:18] on the existing driveway or in a design
[4:49:25] asphalt
[4:49:27] area
[4:49:28] >> pre-existed. I I would be happy not to
[4:49:30] be paved per I would love it to be
[4:49:32] permeable but
[4:49:35] >> so we can say I think that would be the
[4:49:38] simplistic
[4:49:40] >> one okay
[4:49:41] >> is that Sarah I want to know what you're
[4:49:44] thinking
[4:49:46] >> sounds like we might need a bit more
[4:49:48] thought on this um than deciding
[4:49:51] >> yeah
[4:49:53] now
[4:49:55] >> maybe
[4:49:59] Yeah, I think that makes sense. Because
[4:50:02] again, you can if we don't t get it
[4:50:05] tight, it
[4:50:06] >> I'm with you. So, Rebecca, you you okay
[4:50:08] with that? Okay, great. Then let's do
[4:50:10] that. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. I'm just trying to keep everybody's
[4:50:14] requests honest. Okay, then that's it,
[4:50:18] right?
[4:50:19] >> Okay.
[4:50:20] >> All right. So,
[4:50:21] >> have a motion.
[4:50:22] >> Yeah. So,
[4:50:25] please go ahead. I move that the town
[4:50:27] council adopt ordinance number 2026-455
[4:50:35] um as amended approving the town zoning
[4:50:38] code title 18 of the portal valley
[4:50:40] municipal code to add regulations
[4:50:43] related to accessory dwelling units
[4:50:46] junior access accessory dwelling units
[4:50:49] and dimmification of town and emergency
[4:50:52] shelters by adding chapter 1825 Five
[4:50:57] uh
[4:50:58] standards for access accessory dwelling
[4:51:01] units ADU and J AUS junior excuse me and
[4:51:05] junior accessory dwelling unit in
[4:51:07] chapter 1882
[4:51:09] indemnification of town we struck out
[4:51:12] cost reimbursement right and by amen
[4:51:16] amending section 1836.040
[4:51:20] 040
[4:51:23] accessory uses and determining the
[4:51:25] project is exempt under the California
[4:51:28] Environmental Quality Act.
[4:51:32] >> Do I have a second?
[4:51:34] >> Well, are we adopting it? Like was that
[4:51:36] >> I want to make one clarification. I know
[4:51:37] you're That was excellent. Um there but
[4:51:40] you're actually um introducing it. So I
[4:51:42] would strike the word adoption and
[4:51:44] reduction instead.
[4:51:45] >> Okay. And we should reference the as
[4:51:48] amended by staff as presented.
[4:51:50] >> Yeah.
[4:51:51] >> Correct.
[4:51:51] >> Yes. As amen as amended by staff.
[4:51:55] >> Okay. Do we have a second?
[4:51:59] >> Second.
[4:52:00] >> Thank you. All in favor?
[4:52:02] >> I I.
[4:52:04] >> Any opposed? Okay. Great. Thank you very
[4:52:08] much for your hard work.
[4:52:11] I'd like to close 7A and move on to 7B.
[4:52:15] So, who's presenting for 7B? Yeah, I
[4:52:18] know. It's quarter after 11.
[4:52:23] » Yeah.
[4:52:32] » Okay. We have already got a hand raised.
[4:52:34] So, I will be I have just
[4:52:39] eight slides. So, let me go
[4:52:42] fast. And I'll just I guess I'll just go
[4:52:46] back. But, uh, Brandon, this is his last
[4:52:48] meeting with the town. So,
[4:52:51] >> he's taken a permanent planning manager
[4:52:53] job at the city of Union City, which is
[4:52:55] a promotion. And if tonight was any any
[4:52:59] evidence, you will do great things in
[4:53:01] your career. You are exceptional
[4:53:03] planner.
[4:53:05] >> Thank you. have had an absolute pleasure
[4:53:07] for the last year and a half working for
[4:53:08] Valley and contributing with different
[4:53:10] projects brought up and I I know you
[4:53:13] guys are in good hands here with Sarah
[4:53:14] coming on board your new senior planner
[4:53:17] that you guys have hired. I I know you
[4:53:20] guys will be through things and thank
[4:53:22] you for the opportunity.
[4:53:24] >> Thank you.
[4:53:24] >> And and and I just want to echo that. It really has been a pleasure and
[4:53:28] particularly given we have you here at
[4:53:30] 11:20 on your very last night doing
[4:53:33] this. So, so yeah, you you are you are
[4:53:35] our hero tonight. So, thank you again.
[4:53:37] We really appreciate it. Yeah. Drive
[4:53:39] safe.
[4:53:40] >> Good luck.
[4:53:42] >> All right, Darcy.
[4:53:43] >> Okay, Darcy Smith, town manager, joined
[4:53:44] by Katherine Angberg, town attorney. And
[4:53:46] we had a lot of help from Lauren Tarpe,
[4:53:49] an associate at Katherine's firm
[4:53:52] and Tony, who left a long time ago. So,
[4:53:55] we're here tonight with the public
[4:53:56] hearing on your town charter, but how we
[4:53:59] got here, many years of work um working
[4:54:02] on your number one priority, which is
[4:54:04] finility and long-term viability. A lot
[4:54:07] of work has been done, will continue to
[4:54:09] be done. One highlight is that our user
[4:54:11] free study is coming to the next
[4:54:13] meeting. So, again, we we work on this
[4:54:16] stuff every day and you know, we live
[4:54:18] and breathe it. Um,
[4:54:21] so you know the black line, I like to
[4:54:23] show it just every meeting. So you know
[4:54:25] it's the black line of doom. Um,
[4:54:27] nothing's changed over the last three
[4:54:29] weeks. Um,
[4:54:32] we have been trying to
[4:54:35] address the structural deficit. Um, but
[4:54:38] it's looming
[4:54:40] and we've been continuing our community
[4:54:42] conversation. So I think you know we
[4:54:44] sent out the Pulla Valley Post. We're
[4:54:47] running the survey which will go through
[4:54:49] June. One thing I wanted to mention
[4:54:52] around community feedback is that the
[4:54:54] town staff, me and Tony met with all all
[4:54:57] the committee chairs that chose to join
[4:55:00] us. We got a pretty good turnout. I
[4:55:01] think about 13 of them came and we had
[4:55:03] great conversations with them. Um and
[4:55:06] we've heard from the community about
[4:55:07] their three priorities. I think you know
[4:55:09] them. I mean, in addition to fiscal
[4:55:11] stability, which is number one, but
[4:55:12] there's a huge interest in disaster
[4:55:14] preparedness,
[4:55:16] ensuring we're protecting our town
[4:55:17] autonomy for the conversations you just
[4:55:20] had tonight, right, around zoning and
[4:55:21] land use decisions. When we have that ability to make local decisions, we
[4:55:26] want to preserve it. Um, and it and our
[4:55:29] analysis last year, community survey
[4:55:31] showed that 60% are highly interested in
[4:55:34] this charter approach.
[4:55:37] So
[4:55:39] yeah and and supportive of a taxation
[4:55:42] measure. So I think you know the
[4:55:44] difference between a general town and
[4:55:46] charter town but you know why we are
[4:55:47] here why we're doing this is local
[4:55:51] control over what the state has defined
[4:55:53] of municipal affairs but as you know
[4:55:54] number one is to the ability to adopt
[4:55:56] taxes that are otherwise not allowed or
[4:55:59] not a charter and specifically the real
[4:56:02] property transfer tax and that's
[4:56:04] important. All that revenue would go
[4:56:05] entirely to
[4:56:08] so 26% of California cities have
[4:56:11] charters. So we're not unique and we
[4:56:13] have many neighbors in the Bay Area that
[4:56:15] have charters. Um and I've been out
[4:56:17] talking to our my peers and many are
[4:56:19] working on this right now.
[4:56:22] So at the last meeting you directed the
[4:56:25] preparation of what we would describe as
[4:56:27] a brief two pages. Very proud of that
[4:56:30] narrowly focused charter uh modeled
[4:56:32] after the St. Helina model that would
[4:56:34] authorize the transfer tax but otherwise
[4:56:37] keep the town subject to gen the general
[4:56:39] state laws that exist. This will keep
[4:56:42] the process simple and streamline and on
[4:56:44] schedule and
[4:56:46] um what there's a lot that the charter
[4:56:49] will not touch and will not do and I
[4:56:51] just want to make sure we're clear about
[4:56:52] that. It won't change the town's form of
[4:56:55] government, the council mayor and their
[4:56:57] terms. Um won't alter the municipal code
[4:56:59] or existing law. will not affect any
[4:57:02] public contracting or prevailing wage
[4:57:05] rules. That's important. Will not change
[4:57:07] any local election procedures and will
[4:57:10] not limit any changes to this in the
[4:57:13] future through council or voter options.
[4:57:16] So, here's our path to the November 3rd,
[4:57:19] 2026 ballot. So, we are embarking on a
[4:57:24] series of public hearings and more
[4:57:26] meetings. Um, this is number one today
[4:57:28] and we do have a pretty big gap because
[4:57:31] there has to be at least 30 days between
[4:57:32] this public hearing and the next one.
[4:57:34] So, if this proceeds tonight, we would
[4:57:37] move to the next meeting on June 24th.
[4:57:40] And then both meetings in July will be
[4:57:43] occupied with the ballot measure work um
[4:57:46] to meet the filing deadline of August
[4:57:48] 7th. And then if the voters vote with a
[4:57:52] 50% plus one majority vote, it would go
[4:57:54] into effect January 1st.
[4:57:57] And
[4:57:59] that's actually all. Hold on. Just Oh,
[4:58:02] hold on. We have the public hearing. And
[4:58:05] again, we have the St. Helena model. We
[4:58:07] have um omitted what was questioned last
[4:58:10] time by the council about a specific
[4:58:12] form of government. Article 4. We didn't
[4:58:15] include that. We just determined that it
[4:58:17] doesn't we don't need to specify the
[4:58:18] form of government in the charter since
[4:58:20] you're not changing it. Um, so again,
[4:58:23] the town charter's
[4:58:25] attached with two pages. We will accept
[4:58:28] any comments. This is not like the
[4:58:30] introduction and second reading. So
[4:58:32] you're free to make comments and changes
[4:58:34] tonight. You're free to make comments
[4:58:35] and changes at the next meeting in June.
[4:58:39] Um and then with that all you need to do
[4:58:44] is hold the public hearing open close
[4:58:46] the public hearing put and that is all
[4:58:51] tonight. Yes. Tonight sorry tonight.
[4:58:54] Yeah.
[4:58:55] >> Got it. Okay. And and I wanted to make
[4:58:57] the point that I mean this is St. Helia
[4:59:00] St. Helena's
[4:59:02] charter that we're modeling not their
[4:59:05] real estate transfer tax.
[4:59:07] >> Correct. And that's one thing that I'm
[4:59:08] concerned is I think people conflate
[4:59:09] those and they had a I believe a an
[4:59:12] overly complicated real estate transfer
[4:59:14] tax that we are not adopting.
[4:59:16] >> So this is just their charter. So with
[4:59:18] that, is there any questions for staff?
[4:59:21] Judith?
[4:59:24] Yeah, this is nice and simple, but um I
[4:59:27] need a little explanation on the
[4:59:30] paragraph 100 and in particular because
[4:59:33] we were trying to aim for plain vanilla.
[4:59:37] Um there is a sentence that starts in
[4:59:40] particular and you know we're we're
[4:59:43] making it specific for a transfer tax.
[4:59:47] Um so I have that the first question is that needed?
[4:59:52] what's the benefit of it?
[5:00:00] » I I would want to go back and think
[5:00:02] about that. Um, and I Yeah, the goal was
[5:00:05] certainly to make it as absolutely
[5:00:06] simple as possible. Um, I thought that
[5:00:10] there was some clarity in actually
[5:00:12] stating the purpose of this charter so
[5:00:14] there wasn't some confusion around, oh,
[5:00:17] you know, the town actually wants to um
[5:00:19] collect some other type of tax. Uh, and
[5:00:22] I believe this language actually was
[5:00:24] also in um both Elserto's and
[5:00:26] >> okay
[5:00:27] >> uh St. Helena's um charter language, but
[5:00:31] um I think that's a good question and I
[5:00:34] mean since we're going to have another
[5:00:35] public hearing, I guess I'd like the
[5:00:36] opportunity to think about that a little
[5:00:37] bit more. Yeah, because some public
[5:00:39] comment was assuming that was already
[5:00:42] rolling along and this was to your
[5:00:44] point, Craig,
[5:00:46] like that's where we're all headed and
[5:00:48] this is it and this is step one and we
[5:00:51] still have to have more discussion of
[5:00:54] step two. So tying it to the this one
[5:00:57] approach seems premature, but if there's
[5:01:00] a benefit, I'm more than happy to hear
[5:01:02] about it in the future.
[5:01:05] 100. And then the second question
[5:01:09] is um
[5:01:12] the the second question is the last
[5:01:16] sentence here. In the event of a
[5:01:18] conflict between the charter and the
[5:01:19] general law, is it understood what the
[5:01:22] general law is? And is it absolutely
[5:01:25] clear that we we can completely
[5:01:27] supersede it? um is just good
[5:01:30] housekeeping to make sure I like the
[5:01:33] principal. I just want to make sure it's
[5:01:35] enforcable. So, I'll leave that with you
[5:01:37] to think through and I have no other
[5:01:40] questions.
[5:01:41] >> Great. Thank you.
[5:01:44] >> Um sort of Oh, sorry.
[5:01:46] >> No, no, no. Please go ahead.
[5:01:48] Along the same lines that Judith was
[5:01:51] asking about, um, does this constrain us
[5:01:54] from in the future having a different
[5:01:57] type of tax, considering a different tax
[5:02:00] like a, I don't know, second home tax or
[5:02:02] something like that because we've kind
[5:02:04] of put this into our charter for a real
[5:02:06] estate property tax. Does it constrain
[5:02:08] us in any way? I mean the sentence
[5:02:10] before says that we have the right to
[5:02:12] imposition levy and collection of such
[5:02:14] taxes but does by putting the only the
[5:02:18] real estate property tax in there does
[5:02:19] that constrain us from
[5:02:22] considering other taxes?
[5:02:24] So all other taxes can be that I think
[5:02:28] the town might consider could be um
[5:02:31] passed whether you're a charter city or
[5:02:33] a general law charter town or a general
[5:02:35] law town. Uh, so this would not
[5:02:38] constrain that ability, but I think it
[5:02:40] also is related to um Judith's question
[5:02:43] about whether we really need it um
[5:02:45] because it it could sound constraining.
[5:02:47] So I I will give that some thought and
[5:02:49] you know when they come back for a
[5:02:50] second public hearing have a
[5:02:51] recommendation about whether um we need
[5:02:53] the example of the real property
[5:02:55] transfer tax um to to avoid you know
[5:02:59] confusion that somehow that's limiting.
[5:03:00] Can can you clarify your statement of
[5:03:04] being able to assess a tax as a general
[5:03:07] law, city? I thought the whole point is
[5:03:08] that we can't uh we can't assess the
[5:03:11] real property transfer tax. What about a
[5:03:14] second home tax? Is that a is that
[5:03:18] something we need to be a charter town
[5:03:20] for? Even
[5:03:22] >> I No,
[5:03:24] >> it's allowed under general law.
[5:03:25] >> Yeah.
[5:03:26] >> Oh, okay.
[5:03:29] Same with sales tax or the parcel tax
[5:03:31] option. Those could all be um you know
[5:03:33] if passed by the voters uh could could
[5:03:36] be assessed by a general law town.
[5:03:41] And if I just follow on is the reason
[5:03:43] the real estate transfer tax special is
[5:03:45] it's already in general law but it's a
[5:03:47] small a lower number because we are we
[5:03:50] already have a real estate transfer tax.
[5:03:51] It's just a lower number.
[5:03:52] >> Correct.
[5:03:53] >> Yeah. Okay. So Mary, did you have any
[5:03:55] questions for staff? Okay. Helen. Um,
[5:03:58] can I obviously like as we're dealing
[5:04:01] with Mid Pen and they've had all of
[5:04:03] these public meetings,
[5:04:07] I am concerned, you know, it's 11:30 at
[5:04:10] night, we've got five people online or
[5:04:12] whatever, right? That that that the town
[5:04:15] is not aware fully aware of what's going
[5:04:18] on. So, I'm very like I'd very much like
[5:04:21] clarity on what the council what we can
[5:04:27] like I know we're not supposed to
[5:04:28] advocate right legally. Um,
[5:04:33] but can like could the town do like a
[5:04:35] popup at Roberts kind of thing during
[5:04:37] the week or something to help do
[5:04:39] outreach like to help let people know
[5:04:41] what's going on kind of thing?
[5:04:46] So,
[5:04:46] >> and can I add to that? I mean, are we
[5:04:49] restricted from advocating? I know once
[5:04:51] it's on the ballot, we are. So, after
[5:04:53] August 7th, we are, but between now and
[5:04:56] then, are we?
[5:04:57] >> So, it's a little fuzzy, but there's
[5:04:59] never any prohibition regarding
[5:05:02] providing information. And I think the
[5:05:04] example provided here popup um would
[5:05:06] beformational.
[5:05:08] uh the FBC which enforces these rules
[5:05:11] about no campaigning um with use of
[5:05:14] public funds um does not always draw a
[5:05:17] super bright line um at the point of
[5:05:20] place placement on the ballot. So you know I recommend being cautious and
[5:05:25] mindful that to avoid use of public
[5:05:28] funds for advocate. Now if you want on
[5:05:30] your free time do some advocating that's
[5:05:32] fine.
[5:05:33] >> Perfect. And so for instance like at
[5:05:37] farmers market or something if we were
[5:05:38] to set up and say like information this
[5:05:41] is what's going on that's okay to do.
[5:05:43] >> Yeah. And I would I would encourage you
[5:05:48] to use the Portell Valley Post as a good
[5:05:53] source of information. The back the
[5:05:55] front has information about our
[5:05:57] priorities which this is focused on as
[5:06:00] well and then the back has the
[5:06:01] information and the back has the date of
[5:06:03] this meeting and again it went out to
[5:06:05] every house
[5:06:06] in Porta Valley.
[5:06:09] >> Yeah. So,
[5:06:11] >> okay. Just I want to make sure like
[5:06:14] think like trying to get clarity of what
[5:06:16] we could do or not do
[5:06:17] >> and and send those questions to us
[5:06:19] offline, but yeah, this would be a good
[5:06:21] place to start and we have some extras
[5:06:23] if you want to hand some out and we can
[5:06:25] also do the table at the farmers market
[5:06:28] or at Roberts. That's a good idea.
[5:06:30] >> Thank you.
[5:06:31] >> Can I ask another kind of question? Can we if someone has a pro or con to
[5:06:37] it? Are we is it part of information to
[5:06:39] provide the other side of it or is that
[5:06:42] starting to get into advocacy?
[5:06:47] » I guess I might want a little bit more
[5:06:49] examples of the of the pro and the con.
[5:06:52] Um we certainly can inform people that
[5:06:54] we have the public hearing process and
[5:06:56] please come. Uh we welcome all views. Um
[5:07:01] I don't think we're going to be putting
[5:07:02] out pros and cons with use of public
[5:07:05] resource. even if it's balanced, it's I
[5:07:07] don't I don't think we're going to do
[5:07:08] that. Um, so
[5:07:10] but if you have any other examples,
[5:07:12] happy to. No, I'm just thinking in terms
[5:07:13] of if we were set up outside here at the
[5:07:16] farmers market to provide information
[5:07:17] and someone said, "I hate taxes."
[5:07:21] What, you know, what would we be allowed
[5:07:22] to say in terms of why this is needed or
[5:07:26] whatever?
[5:07:27] >> The red, the black line,
[5:07:29] >> well, the black line and what the
[5:07:31] finance committee has gone through. I
[5:07:33] think we can speak to all that. That's
[5:07:34] all in the public record. So,
[5:07:38] Ellen, anything else? Okay. Um, so then
[5:07:41] the only question I have, um, so the
[5:07:43] Jarvis initiative, which is trying to
[5:07:45] limit this, um, if that were to pass,
[5:07:48] then our issues, as I understand it, is
[5:07:52] if ours is certified first, then we have
[5:07:55] some short period,
[5:07:56] >> two years, and if we're certified after,
[5:08:00] then it's null and void at the gecko. or
[5:08:02] do we still have two years?
[5:08:04] >> Uh, it would be null and void at the
[5:08:05] get-go. And I will say um I am doing
[5:08:08] some research um with staff to on the
[5:08:11] specific dates that we can expect
[5:08:12] certification of our results. I mean, I
[5:08:14] think normally we wait and have a
[5:08:16] regular council meeting to certify those
[5:08:18] results, but we might actually schedule
[5:08:20] a special meeting the next day. Um so
[5:08:22] we'll at the next opportunity we'll have
[5:08:24] some more um information about the
[5:08:27] specific timing of election results.
[5:08:29] Okay. And just so that you probably
[5:08:32] know, uh, the Howard Jarvis
[5:08:34] ballot measure has qualified as my
[5:08:36] >> understand it's qualified. Yeah. I mean,
[5:08:38] there's still a question of whether
[5:08:39] it'll get pulled and whether to
[5:08:41] negotiate and a bunch of other stuff,
[5:08:42] but but at the moment it's qualified is
[5:08:44] my understanding.
[5:08:45] >> And the negotiations are not going well.
[5:08:47] >> And do they have to have 50% plus one or
[5:08:50] twothirds?
[5:08:51] >> Well, for for us to pass
[5:08:53] >> No, theirs. Jarvis,
[5:08:55] >> I think it's 50.
[5:08:58] Good question.
[5:09:00] They would say it's 50% plus one, but my
[5:09:02] understanding is there's some there's
[5:09:04] some effort in the legislature to force
[5:09:05] a um a twothirds on theirs.
[5:09:11] >> Okay. All right. Any other questions?
[5:09:13] We're not into discussion yet. All
[5:09:15] right. So, it's now time to open the
[5:09:18] public hearing. So, I will open the
[5:09:20] public hearing. There's nobody in the
[5:09:22] schoolhouse. We have five people online.
[5:09:26] Does anybody have comments?
[5:09:29] I'll give people a moment to raise their
[5:09:31] hands.
[5:09:34] All right, seeing no hands, I'm going to
[5:09:37] close public comment.
[5:09:40] So, what else do we need to do tonight
[5:09:44] in terms of this item?
[5:09:48] » Uh I think I have sufficient direction
[5:09:50] in terms of the questions regarding the
[5:09:52] charter language itself.
[5:09:53] >> Okay. And I think we have some direction
[5:09:55] in terms of providing information to the
[5:09:57] community about the public hearing
[5:09:59] process and the charter.
[5:10:01] >> Great. And and it's my hope back to this
[5:10:04] sort of question of how how we're going
[5:10:05] to get information out to the public. I
[5:10:07] I'm already starting to work on sort of
[5:10:09] a PowerPoint that I'd like to take out
[5:10:11] to the community. Um which just shows
[5:10:14] the stuff that we've talked about the
[5:10:15] finance committee. It just, you know,
[5:10:16] shows our expenses and our revenues, but
[5:10:18] it also talks about why we're a town and
[5:10:20] talks about the general plan. And I I'm going to be willing to talk to
[5:10:24] anybody, you know, any 10 people who
[5:10:26] want to invite me. I I will go.
[5:10:29] >> So, I would I don't know if you'd be
[5:10:31] willing to share your slide deck, but
[5:10:33] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm not done with it
[5:10:35] yet, but yes, when I have a finished
[5:10:36] deck, I Yeah, I think I can do that. I
[5:10:38] probably have to do in a public meeting
[5:10:39] or something, but I'm I'm happy to share
[5:10:41] it.
[5:10:42] >> You can provide a one-directional email.
[5:10:44] >> There you go. Fine. One directional
[5:10:45] email. I I'll give it to Darcy and she
[5:10:48] does that.
[5:10:49] There there is a process point here
[5:10:51] though um because it is in every all of
[5:10:54] the council members interest to provide
[5:10:56] the information when the opportunity
[5:10:58] arises and keeping it as consistent as
[5:11:02] you know reasonably possible makes
[5:11:04] sense. So I mean if I if I come up with
[5:11:07] a different set of talking points if I
[5:11:09] hear people asking questions in a
[5:11:11] certain way I'm not sure how to handle
[5:11:13] that. like do I do I
[5:11:16] put it for reaction to Darcy and
[5:11:19] Catherine
[5:11:20] and just for their information and they
[5:11:22] can give input on whether it's accurate.
[5:11:26] Like I'm not quite sure how to do this
[5:11:28] and I want to be very deliberate about
[5:11:31] not not emphasizing things in
[5:11:34] inappropriate ways. So, what what is
[5:11:37] maybe you can get back to us on if we've
[5:11:40] got like maybe Craig's talking to
[5:11:42] broader points and I know the audience I
[5:11:45] want to give an update to has, you know,
[5:11:48] a different angle. I'm just going to
[5:11:50] want to be consistent if I can be and
[5:11:52] like let me know how that might be
[5:11:54] achieved.
[5:11:57] >> Great. Thank you.
[5:11:58] >> Will there be a Q&A? Are we going to
[5:12:00] have a section on the website or what's
[5:12:02] the
[5:12:03] >> I think we already have a Q&A on the
[5:12:05] website, but should be off that
[5:12:08] community engagement page, but we're
[5:12:10] continuing to build it all the time. And
[5:12:11] I would say if you get questions, send
[5:12:13] them to me one one way only to me and
[5:12:16] then I can add them or add them to my
[5:12:19] we're sending out another postcard and
[5:12:21] then the next quarterly newsletter. So,
[5:12:23] it would be helpful for me to know what
[5:12:25] kind of questions we're getting so we
[5:12:27] can ensure we get the information out.
[5:12:29] >> Yeah. No, that seems great. I'd say,
[5:12:30] yeah, if we get questions, let's send
[5:12:32] them to Darcy because getting an FAQ up
[5:12:34] so that they're all there and then we
[5:12:36] can all refer to it as well so that when
[5:12:38] we go out to talk to people, we're all,
[5:12:40] you know, given the same answer. So,
[5:12:41] okay, great. Um, so we've closed public
[5:12:46] hearing. We've dealt with this item. I
[5:12:48] think there's nothing else to do. Is
[5:12:49] that Am I missing anything? All right.
[5:12:52] So I would entertain a motion.
[5:12:55] >> So moved.
[5:12:56] >> Second.
[5:12:57] All in favor? I. All right. Good night.
[5:13:00] Thank you everyone. I know it's been a
[5:13:02] long night. Um, excellent work.