We'll start again. All right. I'd like
to call this meeting to order. Um,
welcome everybody to what feels like the
first real day of summer. This is a
joint study session between the council
and the plan with the study with the
council and the planning commission.
So with that, um, can we do roll call?
>> Yes. Starting with council. Council
member Walter present. Council member
Hasco here. Vice Mayor Hufty
» here.
>> Mayor Taylor
>> present.
>> We have a quorum. And for planning
commission, Commissioner Vatra
>> here.
>> Commissioner Tark is absent.
Commissioner Morris
>> here.
>> Vice Chair Kinsky
>> here.
>> Chair Brothers,
>> I'm here.
>> We have a quorum.
>> Thank you.
So, I'd like to remind everybody that
there's no decisions being made tonight.
This is a study session. Um, the goal as
we go through this is to give staff some
direction. Um, and then staff's going to
incorporate our comments from tonight,
public comments up through June 30th, I
believe, um, and then revise the
document, bring it back to the planning
commission, and then from the planning
commission will come back to council.
So, I just wanted to give people sort of
a general context. So, with that, I'd
like to open up oral communications. Is
there anybody who wants to speak on
something that's not on this agenda?
Rita.
» Oh, okay. Um,
» okay. Fine. Um,
all right. So, Rita, so I think I'm
going to get based on that. I think I'm
gonna
do Do you mind? I mean
>> if it's point of order, you have to take
it.
» I don't think
» but any Yeah. No, go ahead. No. No.
>> The point of order question this
document that's part of the packet.
There's a lot of acronyms and color
coding, but I didn't see a key
>> telling me what those acronyms are, what
they mean, and what the color codes
mean. If someone has that, they can
share it. I really appreciate it. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> No, fair enough.
>> Okay. So, moving on to the regular
agenda. Um the first one is receiving an
update from the resilience um planning
town council ad hoc subcommittee. I
don't know if that's exactly what our
title was, but it's close.
Um, so this is a subcommittee um that
Rebecca and I were on and you saw in the
um council packet basically a report
back from us. I'm not going to go back
and read it. I do apologize somehow when
it got into the packet. The first time
half of it got was missing. So the whole
discussion is missing. So as long as you
got the more recent one there sort of
red line the stuff that was supposed to
be there.
>> It did not. Okay. Did you get the latest
council packet?
>> I did, but I didn't open it because I
didn't know there were changes.
>> I got it by
>> Okay. Well, um, in any case, there
there's more discussion. Um, I can speak
and again, this is just to pro provide
some input and you can read it unless
people feel like they want me to read
the pieces that are here. Um but it was
basically some discussion on how the
council or how the subcommittee was
um and then it talked a little about the
safety and resilience list and there was
also in the packet a description of the
safety and resilience list. So it
basically captured most of that. Um the
goal um for tonight was just to because
we're going to be talking about the
safety element and this is sort of
adjunct to the safety element was just
to quickly talk about this. So we had
this in the background
and the idea of the safety and
resilience list was this is not a
commitment on the part of the council or
committees but the goal was to get
safety related tasks in a place that we
would a sort of remember it was there
and then make sure that periodically it
was reviewed and that we need as a
council to come up with a policy on how
to deal with this. Um and there's a
proposed policy here but that's not for
tonight. That's just
so does that make enough sense for
people to give it context?
>> Are you going to ask for comments?
>> I can ask for I'm just trying to get the
general sense because I mean Judith was
confused.
>> I look I am confused. Yeah.
>> Um so I I read the initial packet.
Um I am worried. I'm trying to call up
right now what the red line is and I
don't have it. So, I'm not feeling very
comfortable that I'm going to make
informed comments that are still
relevant.
>> Okay.
>> So, how do I locate that? I'll go ahead.
>> You go to the town website, the calendar
>> website,
>> and then you go to tonight's special
meeting and you download the agenda. You
would get it that way or Veronica sent
out the links to the updated packet. So,
e either direction will get you there. I
mean, I'm happy just to I can read it. I
mean, it's what got left out was the
discussion part. And so, I'll read
literally what's here.
>> Okay.
>> The town safety element of our general
plan is the overarching view of our
approach to the town's safety
priorities. The safety element when
paired with a set of safety and
resilient initiatives begins to address
in a concrete way the significant safety
issues.
The safety can I Hey, Mary, can I ask
you guys to
I'm going to read this. Let's not have
two conversation. Thank you. Um, the
safety and resilience list provides a
more detailed oriented view. The safety
element of the town of Portola Valley
general plan was last updated July 28,
2010. The first public draft safety
element was circulated for public review
in October 2022. The town received
comments from the public key town
committees including geologic safety
committee, wildfire preparedness
committee, community planning and
assistance for wildfire sepaw subst
Excuse me, I'm trying to do this
quickly. Um, sustainability committee
and the emergency preparedness
committee. All the comments have been re
reviewed and many have been incorporated
into the safety element as policies. The
remaining comments have been moved to
the um safety and resilience list. Um,
and then the attached safety and
resilience list is a first draft. The
final list will be available shortly.
So, that's all that was missing. Um, and
then a recommendation, um, and this is
what I was referring to, um, is we
recommend that the town council
formalize the safety and resilience list
and an associated process at a future
council meeting. So, that's the full
extent that was missing.
>> Okay. Um, and then, you know, if you
scroll down in the packet, there's this
there's a sort of description of the
safety resilience list with the various
descriptions of the different um, titles
that are there. Um,
and again, I just brought, you know,
Rebecca and I just wanted to get that
here tonight so people had an idea. This
is definitely a death. So there's a lot
of duplication because this was a very
compressed I was going out of town for a
week. This is all very compressed. So
treat the actual list itself as very
much a draft.
So with that um excuse me let me open up
for clarifying questions and if there
aren't any then I'll go to the public
and then I'll come back and we can have
a quick discussion among us. I would ask
like to ask you since it is the the duty
of the planning commission to maintain
the general plan. Uh and we've never
seen this resilience list, how you see
the list going to the planning
commission to begin with and secondly
how you see it fitting in to the safety
element once we even get to that point.
Um, I think it's in my quick review, and
I haven't done a detailed review,
apparently duplicative, and for a town
that doesn't even have a five-year
budget, an awful lot of work. And I
worry, my final comment as a lawyer, I
worry about putting things on a piece of
paper that raises expectations. The
classic example is you say you're going
to replace the traffic light, you don't,
and there's an accident, you're a def.
So, I read this and I see a lot of
things, oh, we're going to do this. and
I I I I cringe. So, those are my my
questions.
>> Okay. And and I would refer you to the
process for maintaining the list. Um I
tried to clearly spell out how this list
was going to get maintained and sort of
what the purpose of it was.
» You did say it would be an adjunct to
the safety element. So, that was what's
basic,
>> right? And and I think it's meant to be,
you know, there's at our last in the
last draft, we got a lot of comments on
the safety element and the goal was not
all of those belong in the safety
element um in the opinion of staff, but
I Rebecca and I didn't want to lose
those. We wanted to make sure that those
kind of comments are still available for
people to review. So again, the goal of
the list in broad strokes is hopefully
and you know the council is going to
come up have to come up with this
policy, but the proposal was that
annually a subcommittee reviews this and
makes suggestions to the council for
things that should be budgeted and g and
basically given staff direction. And the
other use is that the committees when
they're trying to decide their
priorities for the next year could look
at this list and say, "Oh, this is
something that we want to take on." But
there's nothing on this list that's
meant to be a commitment on the town's
part. This is a laundry list, if you
will, of things that we might want to
work on.
>> But I still don't understand how that
Let's assume some year from now we have
a safety element and you're
independently out there running top
lines on items. How does that fit into
staff time implementing a safety element
that's required by state law and will at
that point have been adopted? I don't
understand where the rubber hits the
road on that intersection.
>> Well, the things that are on here tend
to be fairly detailed tasks and the
safety element tends to be fairly broad
and the goal was not to sort of reopen
the safety element on an annual basis.
The safety element's meant to be a
document that lasts kind of five years
to maybe even 10 years.
So again, it's just a tool and council
will decide on policy for you know
implementing or not. I mean the council
may decide not to do that.
Other clarifying questions.
>> Yeah, I have one.
>> Yeah.
>> Um respectfully like obviously this is a
extensive list
15ish pages.
Um can and as as I recall
the original directive
was to prepare a draft list and report
back.
So this is
>> this is the draft list,
>> right? And and like I said, because of
the time constraints of this meeting,
what's the reason that list is so long
right now is we attempted to take
everything every comment from the last
safety element draft that was made and
dump it into this list. Rebecca and I
plan to go back through this list, ddup
it, clean it up some before we bring a
real draft back to the council. So I
mean I I am concerned that it would then
further slow down our safety element
adoption.
I
>> I believe this is decoupled from the
safety. This is not the same process.
There's this not going to go into the
safety element. This is a list that we
maintain
with some policy behind it or not. I
mean again the c the council may decide
not to have a policy not maintain
but this is not the safety element. This
is not meant to replace the safety
element.
>> With all due respect you might want to
consider renaming it so that that's
clear.
>> Okay. So let's wait on comments. We're
getting any other clarifying questions.
Okay. So with that I'll open up to
public comment. Is there any public
comment Veronica online?
There is one raised hand online from MJ.
» Go ahead, MJ.
>> Yeah, thanks. Um, yeah, I had a few
questions. Um, first of all, when is the
safety element do?
» Okay, so right now we're talking about
the safety and resilience list, not the
safety. So, we will get to in the next
agenda item, the safety element.
Okay. But but the safety and resilience
list, you're saying it's going to be
like an addendum in the safety element?
>> No, I'm saying it's No, I'm saying it's
another list that the council still
needs to review and create a policy for.
>> Okay. Well, then so you only want
questions right now about the safety and
resilience list.
I'm really just looking for public
comment on the list and particularly the
sort of the concept of the list.
>> Okay. So, let me just ask this. I I've
seen earlier drafts of the list. This
table, this chart in here, is it the
same list is just formatted differently.
>> I'm not sure which
>> the last version I saw was the one you
guys passed around I think in March or
February or March or something. So it's
>> Yes. So it has a lot of the same things.
>> Okay. But I would still need to read
this whole thing to see how it differs.
>> Well, this if the council agrees on a
policy, this will be the list. There
won't be yet another list.
>> Yeah. No, I mean in reference to the
list that I originally saw. That's what
I'm asking. because you know the
wildfire committee based its whole goals
on the stuff that came out of that list.
I just want to know if this list has
>> been added to.
» Well, it's definitely been added to, but
I don't think in any way has
>> subtracted from what wildfire
preparedness is trying to do.
>> Yeah. No, it's not the subtractions I'm
worried about. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you,
>> Craig. I I had actually a question
before you went to public comment. So, I
>> can I finish public comment though since
I've opened it and I'll come back to
you.
>> Well, it's a question for for the
attorney. What is the right thing to do?
>> Okay.
» So, I I was in the process of looking at
my list of questions and then Craig went
to public comment. That's fine. But if I
now have questions, do I just hold it
till public comment's done? That's all.
>> I would say discretion of the mayor
whether to
>> I'll wait.
>> Yeah.
Just because I think we can wrap
up pretty quick. I'll go to you first.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Um, anybody else online?
>> Yes. Two more hands. The first one just
says Zoom user.
Welcome Zoom user.
>> Hi Dana Breen. Can you hear me? Is it
>> We We can hear you Dana. Yeah, welcome.
>> Um I I feel confused all of a sudden at
the beginning of this meeting. I mean
why is there a time con constraint on
this uh on this meeting? What what is
the the issue? So I mean I thought that
we were talking about the the changes to
the general plan. Um, anyway, I feel
confused about what the process is here.
>> And I also like to say because this is a
change to the general plan, I'm so
surprised that Ed Holland's committee,
all these other committees have have not
studied what came out. ASC didn't study
it. So, I I hope we have an opportunity.
I hope that there's going to be a lot of
time here for us to study this stuff.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Dana. And again, I would
remind people that the safety and
resilience list is safety element, but
we we'll get to it. Um, okay. Any other
online?
>> Yes. From Christie.
» Go ahead, Christie. Welcome.
>> Thank you. I think what MJ was saying
earlier is of a concern. Anytime there's
changes to a previous document, the
public should see a red line of what was
added and what was deleted so we don't
have to compare them side by side. So
that's of concern
and uh
and I agree with that all committees
should uh get these things prior to
maybe you're trying to get in the first
read but we want the first read to be
our committees and to put have input and
then we want to look at the document and
then present it. So something is odd
with this process. I agree. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Already off schedule.
>> Yeah, I'm doing the best I can.
>> Understood.
>> Friendly.
>> Veronica, anybody else online?
>> Uh, no, that's all the comments.
>> Anybody in the schoolhouse? Rita,
please.
» Yes, I've used um project management in
the past. you know, the different uh
software where you are moving forward
with your project and then you use
different colors to show that you've
done progress. And a lot of these items
on here are in future tense. And
I know from attending many many meetings
that some of these things are in the
process or they've been done but it just
seems the way it's tensed that we don't
have anything going on in our beautiful
town and we we have to so um I just have
a concern about this particular uh
document and how it what it represents
you know for our town for somebody from
the outside looking in
and a lot of these things cost money
that we that we don't have, but they're
kind of done. So, it looks like we don't
have anything and we don't have money to
do these things.
That's my comment. Thank you.
All right. Anyone else in the
schoolhouse, please?
Nan
I see that.
>> Yeah. So we're talking about your safety
and resilience list which I take it is
the lowest level of detail sort of
project level which falls out from the
safety element which goes goals policies
and and then there's the no Linda says
no the the uh list of implementation
actions at the back of the safety
element
is still at a higher level than
the safety and resilience list. So I'm I
guess I'm confused between the
implementation actions in the safety
element and the safety and resilience
list items.
Okay. I mean I'm we're trying to do
comments and not I don't I'm trying to
be careful not to go too much into
answering questions, but one is meant to
be a general list of things that people
are interested in potentially doing. The
other is stuff that we intend to do as sort of policy. So they're different
in that way,
» meaning items that we can we think we
can actually accomplish in the next, you
know, discrete period of time rather
than things we think should happen in
some longer period of time or
>> um where are we out of our time or what?
>> That's our fine. Again, I'm we're
getting bit into back and forth which
I'd like to avoid because we're already
kind of over time on this item. So, um
but Nan, I'd be happy to talk to you
more a afterwards.
Okay. Um anybody else in the
schoolhouse?
All right. So, with that, I'm going to
close public comment. I'm going to come
back to Judith first.
>> Yeah. So my my question is a little more
procedural because
um and I I will have comments as well
but the question is more like this is a
list. Are we supposed to be saying where
we might have some concerns? Um, and
will that be con like considered in the
next draft or is it going to be assumed
that we're we're not commenting
substantively at all tonight and
therefore we're free to make any comment
at all when we next see it? So, I just
want to know what we're obligated to be
doing tonight versus if and when it
comes back. Um what because I I have
substantive questions and concerns but
they might be beside the point if we are
completely free to make any comments in
the next time it comes up
>> and there's you know to be clear I I
want there to be no implication that
there's you know a predisposed
assumption of acceptance coming out of
tonight.
>> That is correct. So there's you are
going to be completely free when the
council takes this up in the future to
talk about the policy and the list. Um
the only reason we brought this up
tonight was we were asked to bring it up
because there are things that aren't in
the safety element, but that people had
made comments in a previous one and we
wanted people to know that they weren't
lost, that that information wasn't gone.
>> That's sort of the safety and resilience
list was sort of part of that. But it's
going to come back to the council and
the council can decide that this list
shouldn't exist. That's fine as well. So
there there's nothing
>> be modified, right?
>> Well, I mean it could be modified. It
could be decided that we don't want to
do it at all. I mean the process has not
been decided. We were just saying look
here's the direction that the
subcommittee has been headed.
>> So that was it was just meant to be a
report out to say this is the direction
the subcommittee is headed.
Okay. Um yeah, please.
So is the main motivation for this list
to be separate from the safety element
itself the fact that the safety element
is maybe difficult to modify and not
modified very often or is it these are
things that didn't make it into the
safety element we're trying to keep
track of them so kind of yes to all the
above. So the safety element is
something that you don't want to keep
modifying the general plan if you don't
have to and it's an element of the
general plan. Um, and the list was meant
to be if a committee has something that
they think's important that they don't
want to get lost, we should be able to
put it on there, it's not a commitment
by the council or the town or the
committee, but it when we review it
annually, we should say, "Oh, I wonder
if we should start working on this now."
So, that was more what it was was just a
pl kind of a placeholder for ideas.
Okay,
other comments? been done.
>> I really want to be clear that this is
not part of the safety element.
>> It's not required by the state law to be
in the safety element. It has not been
reviewed or looked at by the planning
commission. We saw it just as soon as
you guys did. And um to kind of
correlate it to the safety element in my
mind, I guess the council can do what
they want to do, but it's not what the
law says. the element does have
implementation plans which can be laid
out on annual or weekly or monthly or
decadily uh manners. So I think it needs
to be really clear that this is
something from a subcommittee from the
town council and not to be confused with
the topic of tonight which is the safety
element.
>> Thank you. Other comments?
So let me I'll go on this side then I'll
come back to you guys. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. Um yes. Um thank you for
everything. And just to be clear, we did
kind of it was the questioning period
was a little bit unclear as well because
it was more of the um
like the process question instead of the
question on the documents. I feel like
so I will echo what chair brother said
um in terms of the safety element has
very mandated aspects that need to be
included
um and so like you know there's been a long time request to get
the safety element out the door and I
think it's great that we have this other
laundry list to consider but I do hope
that we concentrate on getting while all
of us are together and we've started
early. I do hope that we can get to the
safety elements so that we can make sure
that we consider that deeply. Thank you.
>> That's where we're headed. All right,
Mary.
>> Thank you. Uh I do really like the
concept of the safety and resilience
list uh and as being a living document
that actually all of us can look at see
where we what whether our concerns are
actually on there and uh and amplify
them if they need to be or elevate them
if they if it as the interest of the
community and it's possible. So I think
it's a great a great tool that you've
developed. Thank you very much. Uh and
it certainly makes me more feel more
comfortable moving ahead with the safety
element. Um the relationship between the
list and the safety element does need to
be clarified eventually but not tonight.
And I think they this is a separate uh
presentation and should remain so. So uh
I'm pleased with the direction that
you're going.
>> Okay. Thank you, Judy.
Well, if you're looking for comments,
um, like holistic comments, not line
item comments, um, I do echo some
concerns. I mean, obviously a lot of
work done. It's great to have a
repository of potential items to pick up
in the future. Um, but a lot of these
have significant cost implications for
the individuals and for the town. they
um it's unclear what the costbenefit
would be and some of these are policy
decisions for the council. So I do
anticipate a robust discussion when it
comes forward again and from a personal
point of view um I am retaining all
rights to make any comments in a future
meeting. Um but but do think that it's
helpful they have a repository um to to
frame up. Okay, thank you Karen.
>> Um I feel a little out of place speaking
to this because I'm not a council
member, but I do think it needs a lot of
cleanup. Um there a lot of these goals
are extremely vague and about
communication and I'm not sure when
you'd ever know it was done,
>> right?
>> Or who would do it and I found 44 of
those and so um I would suggest a you
know a second draft.
>> Yeah. Did and which is definitely going
to be in progress. So Bonnie, any con?
Um yeah, I guess I I I feel like it that
the list is serving too many functions.
Um and it I think it's confusing. Uh it makes it confusing of what exactly
it's a list of. Um and yeah, it just is
very long. I I realize there's some
redundancy, but even after eliminating
it, just feel like it's going to be very
long. Like if we had a list of, you
know, these are the 10 20 things like
we're going to work on this year.
I guess it's not trying to serve it
seems like it's partially serving that
but then serving other things maybe
>> yeah it's not meant to serve the purpose
of this is what we're working that's not
the intent it was the intent was to
gather people's requests and that
annually those requests would be look at
decide if we would start working on so I think it's sort of a step back from
things that we're actually working on I
mean unless a committee or the council
decides to,
you know, act act on one of these. It
just sits on the list. That's its that's
its home. That's where it's going to
live. It really is just a repository. I
think that's a good description of it
from Judith. I mean, that's it. It's
just a repository. It it has no
actionable unless somebody takes one of
those things and turns it into an action
item, it's it's just a repository.
>> Okay. If it's clearly I I guess maybe my comment is maybe it could be
more clear that that's what it
>> Okay, great. Thank you, Bo.
>> I guess I'd echo uh Karen's point. I
think it's a good idea to have this list
and have the repository, there is
obvious overlap with the safety
elements. It's not clear which are
overlaps and which are not overlaps. And
I think as you work through this with a
draft and get a key and a glossery and
things are sorted out, then I think it
could be a very useful list. It's
obviously confusing today. Yeah,
appreciate. Okay. All right. So, with
that, let me
>> Can I make can I make one comment?
>> Sure.
Oh, I'm sorry, Nicholas. Um, first of
all, welcome.
>> Um, so can I go to Nicholas?
>> Go to Nicholas.
>> You and I would ask it's already
>> discussing this.
>> We're already 15 minutes over. So, if we
can keep our comments super short at
this point, um, because this was only
meant to say this is a thing we're going
to do in the future, not something to go
into detail. So, but Nicholas, please
make your make your comment.
>> Cool. Uh, thanks so much and I apologize
for joining you uh late. Let me
recognize that. Um, I also appreciate
the amount of work that went into
creating uh the list. I found it uh
confusing. of the relationship of the
list to the safety element uh itself. Um
I think that I share many of the the
concerns that were stated. I'm not going
to repeat them in the interest of time,
but
I don't think it is an item I'm hearing
that it's not an item to be voted on,
nor is it an item that
represents an action plan,
but rather it's a you know, we all have
this document
in your desk drawer. Got a desk drawer
that it's like of the things that you do
if you actually find some money and you
got some time to do it. And I looked at
that and I think well maybe this is that
and is not entirely baked but they're
things that you might think about doing
at some point in time and clarifying
its status at that level. Not that we're
gonna do it, but the interesting things
to think about maybe doing at some point
would be
uh the way that I would think about it
and feel comfortable
uh with it, you know, maybe go there for
good ideas and build it out, but you
know, it's both unclear what it is and
whether it should be done and how much
money it would cost to do it and what
the bang for the buck is. But, you know,
there's like nothing obviously wrong
with it, but it just needs it needs it
needs to be clarified what it is and
where it is and how it might be used.
That's what I've got. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mary.
My comment was going to be that uh it
answered one of the things that I have
been bothered by this whole process the
safety element process because yes there
are people who haven't been able to
speak to the safety element who we are
used to hearing from the safety element
about the safety element like bicycle
pedestrian traffic committee like the uh
fire department etc. They they this is
really a process that's been going on
for five years. This is the same old
process. We've all commented and commented and commented.
We need to get a safety element done. Uh
and this repository is the opportunity
to capture all the work of the last five
years that isn't able necessarily to be
incorporated in the safety element.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I'd like
to close 4A and move on to 4B, which is
receive an update and provide direction
on the 2026 draft safety element. So,
Sarah, believe you got the staff report.
Thank you. Good evening, town council
and planning commission. I'm Sarah
Cororus, the planning director with Town
of Cortto Valley, and I'm joined here
tonight with Aaron Fannensteel from
Atlas Planning. So, we're very excited
to be here tonight for a joint and also
very unique study session and very happy
to have both groups here tonight for
very important discussion around the
2026 draft safety elements. So, we
already kind of got a quick update from
the town council subcommittee. We have a
short presentation we'd like to walk
through to give an overview of the
progress we've made so far. There is
opportunity for public comment after the
presentation and then the rest of the
time will be left for discussion
including questions and comments from
both commission and counselors and we'll
be here for that. So at this point I'm
going to pass it off to Erin.
» Thank you Sarah. Next slide please. So
let's just briefly touch on how we got
here. Uh as uh I believe is a council
member Hufty uh how you indicated we've
been doing this for five years. Um I
have been a part of this process for a
vast majority of that. Uh right around
the end of 2023
this project kind of took a hold but
prior to that a lot of work was done. We
had a lot of studies. We wrote a couple
of drafts. Uh there was a lot of
feedback and and input. Uh and then
things went on holds. Um staff around me
has changed. I haven't changed that much
since we started this process. A little
grayer though. Thank you. Uh, and but
we're back. Um, and this was really
again prioritized by the council that
you wanted to get this back on track.
And I'm sure it wasn't just the council.
I'm sure a lot of people want back on
track. So, that's what brings us here
today. Uh, and the draft that we
provided uh is really just that. It's a
draft. Our uh proposed timeline at this
point is the rest of this month is open
for as much feedback as possible. So,
tonight is not the only night that we
get feedback. We want to make sure you
have plenty of time. We wanted to also
set the tone for what it is that would
help us the most in getting that
feedback so that way we can help focus
your efforts. We know you're busy. Uh
both Sarah and I have sat on the other
side of the DEAS as planning
commissioners. We understand what that
job looks like. Um we are not crazy
enough to actually sit on that side as
council members. No offense, but you
know, we're uh we understand uh what you
have as far as constraints. So this is
the the time frame that we've laid out
um with the intent that uh by July we'll
start looking and evaluating at all the
feedback that we received. We've already
started looking at a lot of what's
already come in. Uh working closely with
a lot of other external um agencies that
should be reviewing this like California
Office of Emergency Services, Califire,
and the uh California Geological Survey
uh with the hope that we could be back
uh sometime in September and October for
final review and approval by the
commission and council.
So, let me just briefly say what a
safety element is not. So, this is not a
document that focuses on immediate
actions. Yes. Oh, next slide. I'm
apologize.
I'm doing it on my my computer.
Um, so this is not a document that
focuses on immediate uh safety element.
Um, if we go to the next slide, um, is it's a mandatory chapter of your
general plan. There are seven required
chapters as you can see on the screen
and then there's two additional required
chapters depending on the conditions
within your community uh, whether or not
you would qualify. Um, these chapters
focus on long-term actions that can help
address town safety needs. Um, there are
required pieces to it like background
information, maps, and then policies and
actions. And this chapter now requires a
little bit more update than some of the
others because of the legislative
mandates that have come down. Now, if
you go to the next slide or just click
the next button, what you'll see is you
have all of those chapters and then
some. So the ones highlighted in pink
are the additional elements that you
have created as part of your general
plan. That is perfectly acceptable. Um
you have to have the bare minimum which
is those seven at least. Um but you have
the freedom to make as many elements as
you want. Don't often recommend that you
go that route. Um but every community
can do you know address the needs of
their community whatever way they see
fit. And this is how it um came out when
you put your last general plan together.
Next slide.
So, let's talk a little about what does
a safety element do? This is what the
government code says that you need to
have a plan that protects the community
from unreasonable risks associated with
seismically induced surface rupture,
ground shaking, flooding, tsunami, slope
instability, wildfire, etc. The four on
the bottom, those are not specific
hazards as much as conditions that you
also need to help address. The
interesting thing about that is three
out of those four have actually been
superseded by new legislation and new
mandates that have come down. If you go
to the next slide,
why are we updating the element? one
because you're now required to um when I
say you're required, there is no
statutory
um penalty in the way that you have
penalties for your housing element not
being up to date, but there is
legislation that indicates by certain
dates and through certain triggers, you
need to update your safety element.
In 20 uh 2006, AB2140 went into effect.
This is a voluntary item, but it's a
very very large um it has a very large
financial consequence if you don't do
it. We have opted to integrate that into
your safety element.
Uh in 2014, wildfire hazards were
required to be addressed. This is when
the wildfire um hazard maps basically
started to trigger CalFire review of
safety elements in 2017. Climate
adaptation and how the hazards within
your community may be impacted by
climate change were required to be
addressed. That's SB 379.
2018,
this is when the legislature connected
housing elements and safety elements
together.
2019,
2021, and 2022 is when evacuation
analysis requirements went into effect.
SB99 focuses on the single ingress,
egress, and constrained parcels. AB747
and 1409 looks at an evacuation
assessment and capacity, safety, and
viability of your circulation network.
And then in 2028 on January 1st, AB2684
goes into effect, meaning you have to
address extreme heat as part of your
safety. So, this is the main culprit as
to why we have been trying to update the
safety element and we're here before you
working with town staff as well as all
of the appointed and elected officials
to make sure that the safety element
meets those statutory requirements. Next
slide.
So, your element as proposed really has
three main
sections. The safety element overview is
really about your purpose, the
relationship to other elements uh and
plans within your uh general plan and um
some other plans that you may have uh
created um as well as how the plan the
element is organized and the focus for
the community. The next main section are
hazard evaluations. Basically, what are
the hazards of concern? Again, looking
through the the lens of what does the
government code require? Um, there are
safety elements out there that you could
address every single hazard you're most
worried about. I will tell you the vast
majority of those do not protect a
community any better than an element
that is meeting the statutory
requirements. Uh and then safety goals
and policies, which is really the
toolbox that town staff will be relying
on and commission and council will be
using to ensure that projects that are
being proposed meet the standards that
you have set as a community. Next slide.
So what we need from you,
this is something that we um we we've
discussed with staff, you know, here
tonight. we're a and moving throughout
the rest of this month, it's really
about receiving that feedback from the
public, from appointed elected
officials, from interested parties. Um,
we want to then identify the changes
that are necessary to meet statutory
requirements. Um, we also anticipate
there will be changes that we may need
additional direction from council on uh
to that are beyond those required
changes. um and then ultimately get this
plan and this element ready uh to have
it reviewed by CalFire as well as other
agencies. So we provided this you know
how do how should we focus if you look
at those three sections when we look at
that first component of the safety
element have we missed official plans or
references to relevant documents that
you would be concerned about or want to
get connected to the element we've also
seen a lot of feedback already that
there might be too much detail and we're
happy to go ahead and start to minimize
some of that detail there are ways that
we can that um so we really want to make
sure it structurally works for the
community. We went a little bit more
versus less because sometimes
communities like to see a lot of the
detail. If yours doesn't, perfectly
acceptable. At the end of the day, I
walk out the door and you're stuck with
the document. I don't want you to be
stuck with something that you're not
happy with. When it comes to the hazard
evaluations, we need to know if we've
used incorrect information from official
and reputable sources. So, my friend
Doug said something happened two years
ago is not a reputable source.
unfortunately, unless Doug actually has
a scientific study or some sort of
analysis that they've done that has been
vetted by the town or by another uh
government agency. So, we want to make
sure that what we're relying on is good
quality information. If there's
something we have missed, we want to
make sure that it can be identified.
Part of the reason why we are going to
send this out to other agencies for
review is so that they can also help us
with that. Uh and then the goals and the
policy section is really about is there
a policy or action that's missing or uh
one that causes concern especially if
there's one that's causing concern that
may cost time, money, staff hours, and
you want to make sure that this is the
right decision for community. So those
are the types of ways that your feedback
will help us the most. Next slide.
So, the next steps for tonight uh was to
open things up for public comment. I
know that was part of the agenda and
then bring this back down to uh both
council and commission for questions and
discussion. Uh at this point, we are
done with the presentations. Happy to
answer any clarifying questions uh and
uh up to the mayor on how you would like
to proceed with public comment from
here.
>> Thank you, Aaron. So, I'd just like to
start with clarifying questions. Um, so
are there any clarifying questions on
the presentation? And we'll get to a
more wholesome discussion. Doug, do you
have anything? Not any. So, just sort of
shake your head if you don't have
anything and we can move on. But Karen,
>> I have a lot of clarifying questions,
but it might be more useful to make them
as comments.
>> Okay, great. Then why don't we wait?
>> Um, what is LHMP section 2140? said it
was a big deal and I don't know what it
is.
>> Apologies. Uh do you need me to go back
to the slide or is it okay?
>> Just tell me.
>> The local hazard mitigation plan uh is a
voluntary document that the city has
adopted. You've actually adopted the
annex to the multi-jurisdictional hazard
mitigation plan that San Monteo County
prepared. So, Sonteo County and a bunch
of the participating uh cities and towns
in the county all went in together and
you now have one of those. We call it an
LHMP, but in your case it's actually an
MJHP. That's the acronym that
>> Oh, that was referenced in the document.
Okay. Same thing. Um, for years we went
back and forth on fire maps. Which fire
map was actually used? What was the
source of it? the latest fire hazard uh
severity zone map that was produced by
CalFire and release.
>> Okay.
>> Um
now when you ask us what for the
background what might be missing I don't
feel like I have any point of reference
to make any comments. So how would you
suggest we react based on an inability
to understand what we don't know?
So I think the biggest thing that I
would suggest if you don't if you feel
like you don't know if you read that
section and you feel like it makes sense
then that's perfect. If you feel like
I'm confused that means that if you're
confused and you sit behind the deas
people in
>> will be confused. If you can highlight
that we're more than happy to make sure
that we can deconlict any of that
confusion. Yeah, I mean this and my last
couple of clarifying questions um
derived from that which is
there's no time for us to see it before
it goes to the state. You're going to
take all of our comments. There'll be a
lot of comments we can make, but there
is not another goaround so that we can
double check there's nothing that's
obviously missing before it gets
submitted to the state. If I understand
that correctly and that's what your
slide said then
um what is your experience on backing up
like if once it's submitted to the state
and all these other authorities if we
say the cost benefit of that isn't
reachable for us.
Are we locked and loaded? Because
that'll help frame the comments you hear
tonight. like if we have to if we're not
sure air on the side of get it out and
we can add later because there's a lot
in here that I see that I'm
uncomfortable with. So how do how do you
suggest we frame that discussion?
» Uh as I think I was explaining this to
Sarah earlier today as well. Um,
we have gone through this process with
CalFire on three Sanato County elements
that are actually going to the board of
forestry next week. Uh, and so we're
relying on a lot of the work that went
into those to inform what
recommendations we're providing to
Portolo Valley as well. Uh the challenge
you're going to run into is uh you're
right as you start to review this if you
are concerned um then how do we uh
rectify that concern? The proposed
schedule that we have we believe has
enough time in it to to accommodate some
of that. But again that was staff's
proposed schedule. That doesn't
necessarily mean that we can't modify
the schedule to accommodate some of the
concerns of council and commission.
>> Judith, may I ask a clarifying question
on your question and answer? Uh were you
talking about that other little substudy
that you were asking about or the
element is because the ending is the
element is going to be rewritten and is
coming back to the
>> not before it goes to the state
>> before it goes to the state
>> or the authorities that review it and
inform and then it comes back. It will
come back is my understanding but
>> if it goes out beyond
valley in my in my view we're locked and
loaded. you cannot back up. If you back
up at that point, then we're against
safety. So, I want to understand exactly
how to frame this out if I have concerns
about the cost benefit of something.
Should I advocate tonight to take it out
and we can evaluate it and add it later
on the theory that they'll be happier if
we add something later or you know what
is practical?
Uh, did you want me to to to address
that now? Because I know it it sounds
>> it's a study session. So, I don't
understand how you go from a study
session to submitting something without
coming back to your a
Judith, but I'm trying to understand the
same thing you're trying to
>> Yeah. I mean, we're aligned on the
question.
So, I'll reference a little bit where
back in fall of 2025, there's direction
from town council including budget and
funding and ultimately a contract with
consultants to work on a very specific
scope to move the safety element through
adoption. So, within that scope of work,
it was identified to do this study
session to hear feedback and to have
this joint study session to address
comments. However, if there are comments
or things that we've received that might
trigger more substantial changes, then
there could be an opportunity, but it
would change the timeline as well as the
budget and scope of the project. If we
find that there are more significant
revisions, then there's an opportunity
to do another public review draft. So,
that is that was written in the scope of
depending on how conversations happen. I
think there is an opportunity to still
potentially come to planning commission
during this draft during that time
period of uh external agency review
where if there's other feedback that we
can get before and then before it comes
through in with uh through the adoption
process. But the idea too as well as
going back to the timeline is that this
has been happening since 2021 and that
the plan you see before you addresses
all the previous comments that we have
received. ones that aren't in the plan
may have ended up on the safety and
resilience list, but the ones that
should be in the strappy safety element
have been addressed and are there. So,
this plan building on the previous
version, building on previous comments
and feedback gotten and is the best kind
of approach that we're putting forward
to you guys for feedback.
>> Yeah. And please don't take my questions
as criticism. They're really not
intended. I have to do my job. You've
done yours and you've done it well, as
far as I can tell. So, I want to be very
clear on that. Um, but you didn't answer
my question, which is if I if I want to
propose to take something out or like
what is the best use of time for me to
do tonight?
>> For tonight, I think if you have
specific comments or concerns about like
a policy or an action, let's I have
flagged those.
>> Okay. Um, and even if it's not I want to
dive into it, it's these are the ones
that I'm most concerned about. Then if
you want to follow up with here are some
of the specifics regarding those
concerns, that might be the most
efficient use of everyone's time.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah,
Judith Mary clarifying questions.
>> Yes. Uh I I specifically wanted to ask
about uh fire following um following
earthquake and why that shouldn't be
presented as a separate hazard as being
unique to Porto Valley, not unique, but
our greatest hazard and that it should
be a driving force in our safety
element, not just a suggestion maybe on
a on an on a that adjunctive list.
» Well, I can't speak to what what it may
be on any other list because I again I
just want to also clarify too we have
not been part of the safety.
>> Right. No, I I'm specifically asking uh
my question is how much trouble is it to
add another section because we have two
kinds of fire. We have urban and we have
wildfire. And we have another kind that
has to do with earthquake that we all
know that that you talk about those
hazards, but no nowhere does it say
specifically what we do about when we
have a big earthquake and nobody knows
what's going to happen next. So oftent
times what we try to do um in all types
of hazards planning is
don't propose going down rabbit holes of
the whatifs on top of each other. So
when we talk about a hazard we try to
break it down to its full component. We
know that fire is a big concern. We want
to make sure we can address fire. We
also know that earthquake is a big
concern. It's very very logical that the
two of them together are an even bigger
concern. And I think we can recognize
that. What I'm uh what I caution a lot
of communities is for them to say, well,
I'm really worried about a traffic
accident that turns into a hazardous
material spill that turns into
evacuation, right? And so what we want
to do is we want to break our elements
and and the the components of our
hazards down to their kind of core
components. So that way you can easily
add them up as you're going through the
emergency management planning process.
Because what's best suited for the fire
after an earthquake hazard is for you to
actually have um an annex to your
emergency operations plan that talks
about after an earthquake, what are we
doing specifically as an organization.
We can definitely put a policy or two
in, but you already should have the
building blocks with the earthquake and
with the fire policies. And if we miss
something that you're concerned about
from an earthquake and a fire
perspective,
>> I don't think you're answering my
question.
>> Um, okay. So then,
>> how much trouble would it be to add that
element?
>> I I've already answered that question.
It's not difficult to add more
information or context about that, but
trying to create a whole entire hazards
discussion on that specific thing, I
would not recommend.
So adding a discussion under earthquake
that we have to be concerned about fire
after earthquake is something that we
can add to the element if you want to
also identify in the fire section. One
of the largest uh vulnerabilities for
fire is fire occurring after an
earthquake. We can definitely add that
to the if you want to create a whole
entire new section. That's probably a
little bit more work because now we're
getting into that scenario planning that
safety elements were never designed to
do.
>> Thank you.
>> Great. So, I'd like to remind people
it's six almost six o'clock. Let's try
to keep this section just to clarifying
questions. I feel like we're starting to
dive into kind of process. So, if we
just keep it to questions about the
presentation, we're going to come back.
You can still ask questions. This is the
last chance to ask questions, but let's
not sort of use all of this time up. So,
um, Lind, did you have any clarifying
questions?
>> I have a clarifying question. I have
oodles of comments. So, like you, I'm
anxious to get to that, but you made a
comment to the effect that this is not
an action document. How do you read the
state code that requires us to put
implementation measures?
>> Those are actions. Those are specific
actions.
>> Yeah. implementation measure or actions
but that's not an action that you can do
tomorrow in some like putting a padlock
on a fence and making sure that that
gate cannot open or close I can do that
tomorrow and somebody is a little bit
safer the implementation actions in a
general plan were never designed to be
something that you can take on tomorrow
check it off and and move on because
we're talking about larger systemic
issues that you have as a community
understanding your hazards and then
understanding how do you solve the
problem
>> associ associated with those hazards. I
understand but I think that's a much
different thing than what you said to
say that this is not an action enforcing
document because those implementation
measures are necessary
>> of locations and those are specific
actions
>> put the implementation actions in I
think maybe I misspoke and what I was
trying to but this is not immediate
action it's not something that happens
immediately it will take time
>> well no planning general plan element
happens immediately. So that's why it
was particularly disturbing. Thank you.
That's my only comment.
>> Thank you, Ellen.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> I do have a couple of questions. Um for
those folks who, you know, who are super
busy. Um, I didn't see an executive
summary type uh
situation in the front or any type of
uh, you know, quick and dirty
thing, you know, something that people
could read in their three minutes
situation.
>> Most of the time, general planning
elements do not have.
>> Okay, that was what I wanted to know.
Um, thank you. Next question. In terms
um of I don't about the impact of sea
level rise. Um I don't see anything in
here about our wastewater infrastructure
that is on the San Francisco Bay that's
cited in the San Monteo County sea level
rise vulnerability assessment of 2018.
The Silicon It's the Silicon Valley
clean water wastewater treatment plant.
Mhm.
>> Is was that because it's not in the town
boundaries? Like
>> so oftentimes what we really are
balancing is what do you have control
over versus what you don't have control
over. But I think we reference that sea
level rise is still a concern because of
infrastructure that the town relies on
outside. So I think that's a a great
thing you could add.
>> Great. Thank you. Um, and also just to
be clear about council member Hefty or
excuse me, Vice Mayor Hefty, what um, in
terms of the cascading effects, I take
it that we don't have cascading effects
because of the rabbit hole situation.
So, fire with an earthquake, flooding,
you do reference flooding with an
evacuation route, but are those all
usually saved for the annex crosswalk
situation?
>> That would usually be uh, you would want
to use that from an emergency planning
perspective. However, um we have
incorporated some text in the past that
talks about how ads are have cascading
effects. I think it's very very
appropriate to put an add.
>> Great. Thank you. Um and then last
question. I noticed that quite a few of
the maps weren't it said would be
updated. Um could you explain that
situation?
>> We're waiting on some additional data
from the townologist apparently they
were going to an update as well. So we
wanted to time it to make sure once
their maps were fully updated, we could
then incorporate the data shouldn't or
the map shouldn't change significantly,
but we would just wanted to make sure
that there was a footnote that there's
potential for that.
>> Okay, great. Those are my questions.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Nicholas.
>> Yeah, EDIC. Uh, three questions. is
are the uh elements that are included in
here meant to be self-executing? There
are words like enforce, ensure
that our command things that need to be
done. That is and that creates legal
obligations both for residents and also
creates an obligation and potentially a
duty on the part of the uh town. And so
if they're not performed then there's a
question of what that means.
>> Yes. Are the are the
are those is that language meant to be
self-executing
>> the policies and actions when their
account responsibility or account is
trying to oversee uh or or uh prevents
uh open condition. We're trying to use
the right language to make sure that happens. Right? We will often have
a policy says don't put homes in flood
plane. So we want to make sure that
you're enforcing flood regulations to
make sure the homes don't get put in the
flood plane. That policy should be kind
of self-regulated. You would have
essentially have somebody, you know,
submitting an application to the
planning department and their home is
smack dab in the middle of the flood
plane. Well, you can then reference that
policy basically does not allow us to do
that. You need to go home. So that's
really the intent of of how the policies
are written is really to help staff as
well as appointing elected officials
when they're getting projects across
their debts that are not meeting the
standard.
That answer your question in part. Um so
there are examples in which there said
to minimize risk or to limit the
potential of uh create a low-risk
condition that are
uh
not uh that that are discretionary in
nature. And it says that the town shall
do this and that the residents shall
presumably comply.
So it looks like kind of a
ordinance kind of direction being
included in a am I am I reading that
correctly or
>> is regulatory
>> but words like enforce and ensure
>> right
>> create specific obligations they are
execut
>> right and so we're we're saying force
hopefully we we've uh captured that
we're enforcing either an existing law
that's on the books or in code uh or
enforcing you know state statute uh you
know and often times what we have to do
is we have to understand that we maybe
misjudged on the right whether it was
informed or not um and so that's partly
what we also would hope council member
as you do your review doesn't mesh with
the long standard that or or tradition
that we've
where we're not enforcing this. This is
somebody else that enforces it. So, we need an outcome of it. So, um but
yes, you're right. At some point when
you say a word like require, you know,
that is basically you've got skin in the
game that you're making sure somebody's
doing something or what they say.
>> So, when you're using words and I and I
apologize for the time. Uh so when
you're using words like enforce, shall
require.
>> So it's like law.
>> We that should refer to a that is law.
But th those are that those that's
regulatory language. But what you're
saying is that should refer to a
specific existing obligation or and if
it has this kind of more nebulous to
create a low-risk condition
uh is without reference to any
statutory. Is that supposed to be I is
that should we be identifying areas
where you're using executive language
without referencing a statute?
Um, in some cases you don't have to
actually reference a set to apply that
policy as a a rule, right? So
>> to apply I'm sorry to apply it as a
rule,
>> a rule or a law or a requirement, right?
So um if you're not going to allow homes
in the flood plane, you can have a
policy don't allow homes in the flood
plane. Um, you can then also reference
your flood management ordinance, but you
don't have to reference the ordinance at
the same time.
>> There's language in here that seems to
create obligations out of full clock.
that are central for that.
>> And and in that context, that seems like
it's a self-executing
direction that isn't in reference to any
existing law. It may be a really good
idea. I'm just trying to understand
whether this Hey, Linda, please
respectful
is the qu the qu the question the
question is is it
is the language in here supposed to
create new obligations on individuals
and on the town
>> on some cases. In some cases it might.
Yeah.
and and those obligations may be backed
by changes to safe.
>> Yeah.
>> So do we have uh is is there is there
inclusion of costs that are associated
with this?
>> So often times the safety element will
not include the costs associated with
that. That's partly why we wanted to
have a study session that we could help
you all get up to speed on what's in
there and then you could start taking a
look at it because there are some policy
ramifications that you'll have to take a
look at as a the governing body.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. So, I'd
like to open it up for public comment.
Then we'll bring it back. We continue.
Again, this is a study session, so we're
going to continue to have questions,
discussions. Um, but with that, let me
go online. So, the first one is Zoom
user, which I think is still Dana.
» Can you hear me? No,
>> I can. Well, yeah, we can hear you.
>> Good. Um, so I mean, I hope the
obligations change as we learn more. I
mean, I went to the geology meeting the
other night and before we do anything, I
feel like I need to understand what are
the slip rates on the on the San Andreas
fault on the peninsula. Nothing has
changed in years and that needs to be
studied and we need to understand that
for our evacuations.
I I still feel like we're in the total
beginning of all of this and and I think
that puts us in danger if we are not up
to speed on all of this stuff. So, here
comes our our own geology committee last
week who puts forward this this talk and
it was very compelling and upsetting.
So, I hope that we um we look into all
of this stuff, the the the uh the
geology committee and I also think that
the staff needs to hear from residents
of the town because I don't think they
have the institutional knowledge yet of
what we what we understand about our
safety. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Dana and Jay.
Go ahead, MJ.
>> Oh, okay. So, first of all, Erin, I
think it's Erin. Uh, if you could speak
into the microphone a little closer. I
was really having trouble hearing you.
Um,
so my first question is when is the
safety element due? I think you said
that your your goal is to get it turned
over. uh by September, October. But but
is there actually a due date
from the state?
>> So NJ, this is your chance to comment.
Um it's not a question period. So if
>> other commissioners or council want to
answer ask those same questions, but
from you, I'm just looking for your
general comments.
>> Okay. So, um, one comment I have is that
to review the safety element as a Brown
Act committee, the wildfire committee
needs to put this on our agenda for next
Thursday. So I put a ad hoc subcommittee
together but basically we only have 7 to
10 days to review a thousand pages over
seven documents because I have also told
them that they need to look at the l uh
Samontro County LHMP the local hazard
mitigation plan that is currently under
review on the Santo County website. So I
kind of feel that the fact that this was
given to us with such a short turnaround
is almost like asking uh for just a
rubber stamp or or complete uh ignorance
from our committee. Uh another comment I
have is that there are a ton of policies
in this safety element. A lot of them
are assigned to town departments and
some aren't. I didn't understand why.
And also I noted that only a few
policies were actually assigned to
responsible town committees and I think
it would be nice, you know, we're here
to serve you guys and if you guys give
us responsibility for some of these
policies, we would take that on. So I
wanted to point that out. Thank you.
>> Thank you, MJ. Anybody else online?
All right. Going once, going twice. All
right. So we'll go to schoolhouse.
Anyone in the schoolhouse?
Rita,
thank you. Uh just a clarification in
referring to budget, are we talking
about the cost of contractors to revise
the contracts to the paperwork or
implementation of the things that are on
the list? you know, uh I really hope
that we have an opportunity, the
different committees, the different
residents have an opportunity to review
the updated maps and updated
information. When this process first
started, that was during COVID. That was
a different council. It was a different
planning commission. You know, there
weren't AI companies. There was it was a
different life five years ago. And you
know, people keep referring to different
meetings in the past. We even have I
think we're on our third or fourth um
town manager.
So, it's different people and I think we
need to look at the current information
that we have and uh we've been promised
that this was going to be done every
October for the past 5 years. Yeah,
October. It's going to happen in October
and promised and so it just seems a
shame to rush it because it means so
much to our town right now. You know,
there was a what 7.8 earthquake the
other day in one place, a 6.1 in Cuba
that affected Florida.
We're not prepared. And we were also
promised that the safety element should
have gone or was going to happen before
the housing element, but instead all the
resources of the town were put in for
the housing element. And there are
things there were lots of comments and
we could have saved a lot of money on
the housing element if the safety
element had come first. And uh my other
comment is about the
uh section five that's talking about the
storm drains. I've been part of a lot of
the budget discussions on Zoom or in
person and we're behind on getting that
done that mandated item done because we
don't have the money. But here it is in
the safety element saying that we're
going to do it. How are we going to sign
off on things that we say are important
to us that we're going to do and we
can't even do them on a regular basis?
So, I really hope that we take the time
to review the document, have an
opportunity for our committees and
current residents because a lot of
residents have changed in the past five
years and help them understand why this
is important.
Thank you for listening. Thank you.
>> Right. Anyone else in the schoolhouse?
>> Kim, please.
» Good evening everyone. Um, so like Rita
was saying, new staff, new people.
>> You might just introduce yourself.
Sorry.
>> Not everybody knows, especially people
online.
>> Sorry. It's Kim Giuli, division chief
and fire marshall with Woodside Fire
Protection District. So when I came on, on the 2023 draft and it
towards the tail end of my predecessor
and at that time there was a lot of back
and forth on the safety element back
then. It went to legal proceedings and a
legal agreement was reached between
Woodside Fire and the town staff to
develop an agreement on a work plan. And
it went to be called the work plan. Um
13 key approaches to fire safety and
seven requests of mitigations.
And so with this draft of the safety
element, I reviewed the entire safety
element. I am happy to see the amount of
progress and it makes sense that you
used the Calires because in the language
that was used, it made sense where it
needed to. So, it's nice to see that was followed to some. But in
Woodside Fire, we're very unique and we
have a lot more ordinances and um
Woodside Fire has a lot of blankets that
affect all of the district, not just a
part of it, and it's more restrictive
than state law. So, I am submitting
through the link that was provided um
because I do have a long list of
comments because I did um I did go over
each of the 18 items. Some of the items
were completely met in this reddraft.
Some of them are partially met. They
just maybe need some language addition,
some um some things that maybe were not
met. So, I will be submitting that for
you all to review. I also have some
recommendations on some rewrites as well
as there is some information in there
that I found that um was not accurate
and maybe just needs to be revisited.
So, just wanted to let you all know
that's been completed and will be
submitted today with the link.
>> Great.
>> Thank you.
Kim.
>> Great. Nan
safety element. I've been working on
this for four years since June. Can you
hear?
>> No,
>> you can't hear me
>> there.
>> Oh, okay. I've been working on this
since June 2022. It has been four years.
Um,
I hope town council members and planning
commission members that you
agree with me that this is a document
that's more than just check the boxes
and turn it into the state to meet uh
statutory requirements. This is a
document that controls should be
controlling what the town does to keep
itself safe. It's it to me it's it's
much more personal than just satisfying
the state laws and you know putting in all the all the
requirements.
Okay, that said um I think that this
draft in 2026 reads much more smoothly
than the 2022 draft. So thank you for
that. It's much much more readable. Um,
I like it better just generally the
organization is better. It's clearer.
Um, I think a lot of that comes from
taking the third level of detail, the
implementation actions out of the
document itself and putting them in the
appendix. So that that was a good good
call. I find that a lot of the comments
we made in 2022 are in that list. So
they're in the document, but you don't
see them um in the body. That's fine.
Um for the geologic hazard section in
particular, um we've been going through
it pretty carefully and we found um
quite a few inaccuracies, misstatements
which we will point out. So we're going
to make some detailed
um detailed comp comments.
Uh we will note them and make
suggestions for changes.
Um,
one thing I will mention is a set of
geologic maps which I find, you know, I
know those maps intimately, but I find
going from one to the other very
confusing. Um
uh and you mentioned the LHMP, the local
hazard mitigation plan that captures the
seismic hazard of the town much better
than
um CGS or USGS. So um I would like to
look um in more detail and have more
detail from LHMP in the um in the safety
element in the uh seismic hazard
section.
uh for cascading hazards. Yes. Uh you
mentioned it once at least in geological
hazard section, but it's so important in
this town because all we have to do is
have a large earthquake. Oops, I've gone
over time. Sorry. Um we get a fire, we
have to evacuate, we get landslides, we
get liquefaction. It's it's a very real threat here and it's sort of
glossed over and I would like to find a
way to um to say more about that. I'm
not sure how you do that.
>> So Nan, I'm going to have to ask you to
stop.
>> Yeah.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Right. Anyone else in the schoolhouse?
All right. So with that, I'm going to
bring it back to the council and the
commission. Um, Linda, do you wanna, you
know, we've got roughly a half hour, so
that means we have roughly three minutes
per um do you want to run through your
commissioners?
>> That sounds good.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh, I'll go through them uh
alphabetically, which means that we
start with me. Um, I've I've written nations laws. I've written
the nuclear waste laws that apply to
this nation. They've all been challenged
and they've all been substained. I've
written hazardous waste loves and
nuclear waste laws. And um my point is
this is so far away from anything that I
would like to see go on our code that
it's hard to know where to start. I have
comments on every single page where I
think the language has been sort of
careless or or inexact. And I think
these are topics where you have to be
very exact. There are some areas that
are very exact but I mean for example
the first line says it's an affluent
community unnecessary. Who decided that?
Why did you include it? Uh I can go to
page uh and these may be details but
it's it's it's a point that's made
throughout the document. You have a page
37 a table that says hazards safety
risk. I always my eyeballs always pop
open when I see a slash. It's a hazard
list. I don't know why you called safety
in there. It's just inexact. I don't
know what the slash means. Just examples
of situations like that. Uh I'm going to
have a bigger comment here. Uh for
example, I know the law requires you to
mention military uh activities. Mention
um and I could pull up the page uh
Moffett Field. I'm not sure that Moffett
Field is still functional to begin with
in any way that's relevant, but in any
case, then you add another paragraph
about, well, maybe Muffetfield would
help us to me that those kinds of
comments make this very unfocused and
very difficult for a user or the town or
anybody else to evaluate it. Which
brings me to my second comment. Um,
I feel like you've missed the boat in a
few major areas. I I just got back from
a trip where we were on and off boats
and I think of how you know when the
boat's there and you step out and you
hope the boat's not going to bounce away
so you fall in the water. I kind of feel
like you're close to falling in the
water on a couple of things. The point
here when you write a law or you write a
rule or you write a brief is you figure
out what your point is and then you make
it and you can make a paragraph. The
lovely thing about a computer is you can
write that paragraph. Well, we're a
bunch of guinea pigs here in a town
that's got earthquakes, fire, every
natural disaster you can imagine with
only two roads in and out. And we're
like the guinea pigs that are rolling
around on the little wheel. But we're
not going to be on the wheel. We're
going to be stuck on the road. So the
thing that really gets lost here is the
fact that the most important thing for
this town is your job to educate which
is part of the safety element and your
job to inform which is part of the
safety element but then your job to set
the goals and the implementation
measures really only focus on one thing
I'm overexaggerating to make my point
which is evacuation. Um, so moving on,
um, just a little bit from that point.
Um, I love all the figures, but they all
use a different base map. I can't even
tell you where the town lines are.
There's mistakes in the figures. I live
in Porto Valley Ranch. It's not a county
park. It happens to be private land,
although other people might think
otherwise. Um, I think there's a failure
to make really important judgments.
Let's look for example at figure two.
And I I will I will stop in one more
minute, Craig, but I just want to get
the point across that my points that I
have on every single comment. Figure two
treats the the area I think it's where
Nicholas lives over there in the upper
left and the ranch the same way as it
treats a culde-sac off of Westridge
where there's one house. If you were to
talk about evacuation, you need to
figure out how to get the four the 200
households at the ranch, which is 20% of
the town's population, and these other
ones over there off of Portola Road out
of town. That's a whole lot different
from getting two people who live on a
street
that that's the only house on the
street. So, I think that the the failure
to kind of do a more detailed analysis
here to me is a missed opportunity. And
then the final point I will make is that
putting all these definitions in here
are really nice, but you haven't used
incorporation by reference. You haven't
used appendices. Who needs to have all
these definitions? What you really need
is to get to the guts of it, which is
your evaluation and your I'm out of
time. I know, but uh uh I want to paint
that picture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> You're welcome. That was so hopefully
you'll keep your Yeah, that was your
five. And you're supposed to have
minutes, right? You're supposed to have
three.
>> Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Yeah, we're down to three. So, if you
could
>> Ronnie will be next.
>> Um, I I did send some comments to staff
late last night. Did those make their
way to you? Is that the best way to
comment?
>> Yeah, we I I already reviewed um your
comments and I appreciate the the detail
that you provided.
>> Okay, great. Uh so, yeah, I guess the main kind of policy one I wanted to
raise was this policy S3.2 two uh which
is about construction
um in a fault zone setback and
specifically the San Andreas fault zone.
Um the policy after that 3.3 is um about
construction in in other fault zones I I
think not outside of San Andreas and 3.3
kind of um allows for construction when
there's you know uh uh studies and
mitigation measures etc. But but 3.2 two
in the San Andreas fault zone seemingly
like completely disallows um
construction and uh I mean I I believe
that would be a significant change from
what we currently have in place and you
know we do have properties that are
completely covered by um sort of these setbacks and so I I don't know if
you want to briefly respond is is
>> I read I read your comments uh and I
agree that there is a little bit
ambiguity. One of the things I want to
do is I want to take a look at the
previous element that um that's
currently adopted just to verify that we
weren't reusing language. We may have
repurposed an existing policy and that
might be where there's that inongruity.
The other thing too is we also uh
coordinating with the town geologists
and making sure that the town geologist
is comfortable with language. So, we'll
bring up your comments as well with the
town geologist just to make sure that um
we're capturing that because I I do
agree with what you're saying. It seems
like we're using a different standard
when one standard probably is more than
adequate, but we want to verify with the
town geologist.
>> Okay. Okay. Great. Yeah. So the main
comment is um you know I think we you
know we want to disallow unsafe building
but if there are studies and mitigation
measures I think that we should you know
accommodate that since we do have many
faults running through the town.
>> Um
that was kind of the main substantial
one. Um
uh I I did um
so me many of the policies like in 3.5
and in 5.6 um are identified as being
part of the public works department and
maybe I just don't understand our what
our public works department does but to
me it seemed like they were outside of
the scope of what I understood them to
do. like for example
kind of almost negotiating across
utility companies, Woodside Fire
Protection District, neighboring towns,
etc. Um, maintaining development
standards. Um, so yeah, I guess m maybe
just review if the public works
department is really the right agency or
>> Yeah, planning and I are going to take a
look at those comments and then we'll
also touch base with public works.
>> I'm sorry, but I'm got a gun to my head.
That's four minutes.
>> That That was three. Veronica, can I ask
that you just put up the timer? That'll
I think help everybody through.
» Ronnie, Doug, going alphabetically here.
>> Uh I will go under my time. Uh
>> thank you.
I just have a like a general question
that that I think goes similar to Linda
in the this seems daunting to me for the
town to accomplish all of this. Um, and
so my general question is how does this
compare to the minimum that the state
requires and then what is being added on
in top of that because that's unique to
our community and as then it relates to
the implementation actions.
It feels to me like there should be some
prioritization
of these because I think the chance of a
flood is a lot less than a fire. And so
maybe that's where we should be spending
our time and directing our resources. Or
maybe that's not a good example, but you
get the idea. We as a community should
decide on what our priorities priorities
are and and realize that we have a
limited set of resources to get those
done and that should be reflected in
this document somehow. And if I'm just
clarifying when you say ad daunting, are
you talking about the scope of all of
the goals, policies, and actions that
are in the element or the entire element
itself?
>> Uh the goals that are within the element
which then translate to Craigslist,
which then becomes even bigger.
>> Yeah. Uh and sorry to laugh when you
said Craigslist. I was I went to
>> sell everything. But to to answer the
question from a priority perspective,
the safety element is agnostic when it
comes to priority. Not because one
hazard is more or less important than
the other, but because we want to give
you as many tools as possible. What we
want you then to be able to do as a
community is that once it's adopted, you
then decide which of the tools you want
to pull out and start using the most
because you have the greatest need. So
with that, you we we're trying to give
you as many ways for you to help your
community with all of the various issues
that we've identified.
And then on an annual basis, that's when
you're working with all of the town
departments on what are some of the
priorities and they're going to then
look at the general plan implementation
actions to to back and reinforce back up
and reinforce those priorities with oh,
we have an action for this. we we we
we're we're implementing this policy or
action, you know, and that's that's what
the the safety element is usually
designed for. It doesn't mean that your
community has to follow that. If you
want to do something different, I know
you have plans for an additional list or
some other things, you have the the
wherewithal to do that. So, but the
safety element in and of itself is not
intended to go ahead and start
prioritizing things for you because we
also know that communities issues change
on an annual on a regular basis.
So, the prioritization needs to come
outside of the element. It needs to come
as part of that annual process of upkeep
to the elements.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, alphabetically, Nicholas, you're
next. So building on those points and
reverting back to the mandatory
language, there are
very many uh examples where the town
shall do things shall will ensure will
enforce
placing obligations on the town. But I
mean to your point,
these aren't necessarily prioritized,
but if there's a mandatory obligation,
it um and if the language isn't as
precise as it might be or could be, uh
it feels as though there is a they're not policies to be implemented.
But
there are directions that we must take.
But as you said, we don't necessarily
want to take all of them because they
may not be priorities. But if the
language says that we shall do it or
that we shall enforce it, it seems to
cut against that. So I found that
confusing.
I also
uh
felt that a lot of it felt very
bureaucratic you know and that's you
know it's coming from a land use and
environmental attorney
but there's a
operation and maintenance agreement that
shall be enforced for vegetation
management
really. So, we're going to have for
every new project or remodel, we're
going to have an on andm agreement that
is
enforcable. It's like without
description of what these things are and
what the enforcement mechanisms
very very very prescriptive.
>> Some of it absolutely is prescriptive if
I can jump in. Part of that, especially
on the wildfire section, is because
CalFire is looking for a lot of
um or that they're asking for a lot of
new requirements be incorporated into uh
general plans as part of that uh CalFire
review process. So like that operations
and maintenance item that you're
identifying, that's a CalFire thing.
What they want to make sure is that you
don't have a developer who comes in and
says, "Hey, I'm going to build this
development. uh we're going to do all
this landscaping. Oh, and by the way,
yeah, we forgot that we're not going to
have set aside any money to actually
maintain it. And so then what happens is
because you don't have an operations and
maintenance agreement, who gets stuck
with the bill when that is overgrown and
you're being told that it needs cut
back? So that's the purpose behind that
policy is that CalFire has learned over
the years by not having that requirement
on their own land that they want to
start seeing a lot of cities in
California that are under their program
to start to incorporate that in as well
because they've been burned as well.
>> So they they have been burnt. the uh I I
would just point out that rather than
having prescriptive language or
proscriptive language that one could
have adopt an ordinance or consider
adopting an ordinance to ensure the
long-term
uh sustainability
and vegetation management to address
fill in the blank rather than to have a
mandatory new bureaucratic
element that is
using executive language in a general
plan. And the problem we run into is
unless that ordinance already exists and
we haven't seen the comments from
Woodside Fire Protection District, maybe
they already have something that we
could rely on. If we don't, you now have
a gray area where you now basically have
something that you would want to
enforce, but you have no way to enforce
it if you don't have a policy in your
general plan to allow you to. the
general plan respectfully and I'm
mindful of the time
>> yeah thank you says that would be of the
form adopt a ordinance that does
something
>> yeah we can definitely I mean
>> rather than saying that this thing
exists and the town shall implement it
based on the GP itself
>> it's a it's a it's an issue of the time
lag if there's a concern about
>> I think we need to move on
>> sure
>> uh Karen
>> yeah um my comments actually link
Nicholas's is to nans and that I also
found and I sent you 11 um comments and
questions earlier um so I hope you have
those and
>> yeah we reviewed
>> I will just go through these for the
community here um because I found the
language also confusing and that I
wanted to know are we going to explore
these particular things are we going to
actually are we are we or are we not
going to ever have an evacuation
are we uh are we or are we not um going
to explore widening Alpine Road. I know
that would cost a lot of money, but I
think that we need to consider that and
I don't think that should be on the
other list. Um and it could be not
necessarily required, but we should
explore these things. Um another thing
that would not be that expensive is
TFAS, temporary fire refuge areas. And I
know that the priority has um would explore that with us. Um, and that
would be in the cascading disaster that
if we had an earthquake, the roads are
closed, they're somewhere safe, um, if
the fire fire goes out for the
community. Um, do we have a sufficient
reserve fund that if the roads are are
broken that we have enough money to get
them quit fixed very quickly? Um, home
hardening um, expansion for both this
building. Have we cleaned up the town
center itself? Uh, what about
businesses?
Um, and this very small minor thing, but
are the sewer pump stations um, will
they support a flood? Are we going to
have a sewer sewer issue? So, these are
all like are I'm not saying that we
should necessarily do all these things,
but I have no idea whether or not we are
going to explore them. And I don't think
that should be on the safety and
resilience list. So, I'll leave my
comments at that.
>> Thank you. Um, one of the things you you
did wrong and then I'll close off our
comments, but I see Karen has a minute
left. One of the things that I found
very frustrating,
>> but I would say you guys extra minutes.
So,
>> you've made you you've made Stamford's
properties our problem. And my initial
comment about us being guinea pigs here
surrounded by problems. We're surrounded
by property we don't own and we don't
control. Midpen, Stamford, uh, all your
stuff about water and creeks and the
lakes, uh, that's all on Stanford
property and they've done a lot of stuff
on there. So, you've raised a lot of
questions that you don't need to raise
or you need to raise in a different way.
Thank you. Um, respectful time. Sorry.
>> Thank you.
>> Sorry.
>> All right. So, now I'm going to bring it
back to the council for comments. So,
Helen, why don't I start with you?
>> Sure. Thank you. Um, a couple of quick comments. Um,
uh, first, the military at Moffett does
still exist.
We get the our reserves are there for
instance. Um, you get people folks in
camo around Mountain View for instance.
Um, that's just a side note. Um, in
terms of sending it to the other
committees, I'm very concerned that we
have been working on this for five
years.
Um, obviously this is as a council
member I'm new new newish new one of the
newer members on this body. So this is
my first bite at the apple but and I
don't want to rush this but the town has
been working on this for 5 years and I
am very worried about scope creep and
extended you know extending the cost. Um
I appreciate that staff has left this
open for a month for public comment. I
appreciate that we are this body is
meeting with the planning committee. Um
so you know I I am very worried about
scope creep. I would like to get this
plan done um because then it allows us
to apply for other grants that would
help to keep us safe. Cuz for instance,
as we go out for a grant for the
evacuation route that they will ask on
the grant application, is this named in
a document in your safety element or a
plan? Right. And so we so I want to tr
personally I mean I am worried about
trying to continue to take this
elsewhere um uh the other committees. So
I just wanted to be on the record for
that. Um basically don't let the perfect
be the enemy of the good. Right. Um
so um there are and I appreciate having
all of your eyes on this document. I
really do appreciate like I love the
idea of the temporary fire locations
that was forgotten. Um I appreciate you
know some of the um verbiage that you
know that would help potentially to make
sure the um tense is in the correct
place. Um but I did want to you know
make sure that hopefully we can uh move
this document forward. Thank you.
>> Thank you Helen Mary.
Speaking of the devil,
>> document. Am I the devil?
>> No. No. The fire trucks are coming
through the parking lot.
» Call them, Kim.
>> Are they coming to get you?
» Well, uh I I have a question u that I
maybe know should know the answer to. Um
but and it's been the thing I've been
pursuing in this is what the obligation
of the safety element is and uh what the
safety element obliges the town
to do in terms of quantifying the number
of cars, people, disabled persons,
animals, trailers, trucks, vans, etc.
work. I know we we have a list of
temporary workers. we have but the
people who are actually here and who
have to get out uh I feel there's a need
to have those numbers and I don't think
we have them um certainly accurately
uh maybe that's maybe we can't get them
but uh is that an obligation that the
state is putting on us
>> it is not an obligation no
>> it's not in at all okay
>> no because again the safety element is
for all people in the town so by us not
quantif ifying. You've covered
everybody.
>> Okay. Animals.
>> It's It's for It's for everybody.
>> For the town's resources, right? And
residents, businesses, animals.
Absolutely.
>> Well, I I will go uh I think these are
the eighth graders, by the way. They actually won't hurt us.
>> Say that.
>> I don't have one anymore.
Okay. So, uh, the primary thing that I
want to get back to is the unique
situation of our, uh, risk, our wildfire
risk following earthquake and why that's
important and why, uh, again, I don't
want to be the person using the example,
but we did have a LMA prieta earthquake.
My children were one and four and it was
very terrifying to have a major
earthquake to be told you had to stay
there and to know perfectly well that
fire following earthquake is the nay
number one thing and nobody
answering any kind of emergency
response. So I really feel you know we
were basically told we had no
electricity, no water, no way to take
care of ourselves and we couldn't leave.
Okay. So, that that's fire that's fire
risk and that's real. And I have found
that by far the biggest hazard I've ever
faced. Uh and I really think that we owe
ourselves
having this in our element.
>> Sure. Yeah. Again, I don't think uh
incorporating language into the element
is not a problem. If there's specific
policies that you think would be helpful
as well, we are more than welcome to.
>> It's all about education. It's it's
knowing that you're not alone and that
you actually have to go help everybody
else and have them figure it out.
>> For sure.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you, Mary Judith.
>> Hey, I'm going to speak. Do not answer.
I'm taking my full three minutes. Um,
it's a great start.
I feel strongly it must come back to
council at a minimum and likely the
planning commission and council because
we don't know what comments you're going
to get. We don't know if they're going
to be consistent and we most importantly
haven't had a lot of the policy
discussions I feel are critical in order
to send something to outside
authorities. So I want it to come back.
Um, I do want it submitted sooner rather
than later, but done right. So, I'm not
for eons longer. We have to figure out,
pick a point in time where we're we're
ready to go and life will continue
changing. The state will continue
legislating. There's nothing we can do
about that. We got to get something
done. But we're close. We just need to
do it right. Um, I would in the future
like to see what is required by state
law per your discussion with
Commissioner Tar versus what is a policy
decision that we need to um contemplate
and weigh in because there's no point in
us debating if it's required. We can
work on the language. Um, all right. So
then moving on to some of the general
comments and I have a couple of
anecdotal examples but um I have more
and I can separately send in comments.
One is some some of the items are seem
at odds with the housing element uh
restricting on street parking uh
setbacks and fire hazard zones that kind
of thing. And I don't know if that's
correct or not. It's a question for you
to think about. There's a lot of policy
questions in here. um creating new
developments outside of the the fire
hazard safety concern areas. Well, good
in principle, but we've got a housing
element coming up in four years. Are we
locking ourselves right now into
developing in areas that might not be on
balance the right ones? It's a valid
question. There are things that are am
ambiguous. Um CWPP I don't think is
defined. um these these are things that
we can easily take care of. But what
does to ensure something mean to me? It
means to guarantee it will happen. I
don't think we're have the budget to do
that. Um in certain respects, uh the
costbenefit analysis is the policy uh
decision, but there are things about
removing um invasives or dangerous
plants in the right of way. Where is
that? Is it along the evacuation route?
No, it's somewhere in addition to that
because it says including the evacuation
route. We can't be spending money on
clearing everything to be safe. We have
to make sure the evacuation routes are
taken care of. There are private um
owner concerns. I think there if we're
imposing assessments, we got to be
careful to have those discussions. Um
scope creep. there is some uh invasive
species language. It doesn't seem safety
oriented. Um and then
um you know the requirement to enforce
we always have a problem with
enforcement in this town. We don't have
we we almost don't have a sheriff that
to help us enforce things. So it's it's
a real question on how to rephrase some
of that to be something we could Thanks.
>> Thank you, Judith.
>> Okay. Um, so I wanted to thank you for
putting this together and I know it's a
ton of work. Um, I have five general
comments. Um, the first one's pretty
minor, but the purpose has an order of
sections and then the TOC has a
different one. Um, I'd really like to
see those line up and I sort of feel
like the purpose one feel felt like the
right one and the TOC kind of felt like
maybe that's the state version, but it
didn't really feel like it matched the town. Um the next thing is this the
point that um Commissioner Tar was
getting at which is this new obligation.
I mean I really have a concern when I
look at this. I can't tell whether we're
creating B sort of soft ordinances
indirectly. Like it's just really hard
looking at this document which then
leads me to sort of my third one which
is sort of reviewing this before it goes
to the state agencies. I agree with
Judith. I'd like to see somehow
highlighted, maybe it's colorcoded, but
you know, what are policies that are
council discretion that we need to
decide on versus what are requirements
that just have to be there for v various
state reasons. So, I think that that's
going to be important because again, if
we have substantive changes and it's
already gone out to the state agencies
and it comes back, I I don't even
understand the process of does it have
to cycle back around like how many
cycles do we have to do? So, I'd rather
just cut that off ahead of time.
Um, the other one is I do want to be
mindful of budget. Um, you know, this is
S Sarah's been working hard to to stay
within this budget. So Sarah, I think
you're probably going to come back have
to come back with whatever additional
budget you think you need to do this
based on the comments. So that's I think
that basically covers where I'm at. I
would like to encourage everyone
including all the committees to get your
comments in. I personally would be okay
if you extended the deadline for
comments, but you know, I'm going to
leave that to staff, but the important
thing is that everybody get their
detailed comments in. And you know,
Commissioner Tar, if you can go through
and point out the things that are, you
know, like these are obligations that
need to be discussed. The more we can
help the consultant identify these
things quickly, the less money we'll
spend on the consultant trying to figure
it out for himself. That would be great.
On the other hand, you know, Erin, I've
worked with you some in this process. I really value your time and expertise.
So, I just wanted to say thank you for
all the effort that went into this. Um,
and I'm looking forward to seeing the next round.
Okay. So, with that, it is 6:53. Um, I'm
going to call for a motion to adjurnn
since the council gets a little
breathing room before we start a seven
o'clock council meeting. So, do I have a
motion to adjurnn?
So moved.
>> All in favor?
>> I thank you everyone. Thank you very
much for productive study session.