[0:00] We'll start again. All right. I'd like
[0:02] to call this meeting to order. Um,
[0:03] welcome everybody to what feels like the
[0:05] first real day of summer. This is a
[0:08] joint study session between the council
[0:11] and the plan with the study with the
[0:13] council and the planning commission.
[0:16] So with that, um, can we do roll call?
[0:21] >> Yes. Starting with council. Council
[0:23] member Walter present. Council member
[0:25] Hasco here. Vice Mayor Hufty
[0:31] » here.
[0:32] >> Mayor Taylor
[0:33] >> present.
[0:33] >> We have a quorum. And for planning
[0:36] commission, Commissioner Vatra
[0:38] >> here.
[0:39] >> Commissioner Tark is absent.
[0:42] Commissioner Morris
[0:43] >> here.
[0:44] >> Vice Chair Kinsky
[0:45] >> here.
[0:46] >> Chair Brothers,
[0:47] >> I'm here.
[0:48] >> We have a quorum.
[0:49] >> Thank you.
[0:51] So, I'd like to remind everybody that
[0:53] there's no decisions being made tonight.
[0:54] This is a study session. Um, the goal as
[0:57] we go through this is to give staff some
[1:00] direction. Um, and then staff's going to
[1:03] incorporate our comments from tonight,
[1:06] public comments up through June 30th, I
[1:08] believe, um, and then revise the
[1:12] document, bring it back to the planning
[1:13] commission, and then from the planning
[1:15] commission will come back to council.
[1:16] So, I just wanted to give people sort of
[1:18] a general context. So, with that, I'd
[1:20] like to open up oral communications. Is
[1:22] there anybody who wants to speak on
[1:23] something that's not on this agenda?
[1:26] Rita.
[1:34] » Oh, okay. Um,
[1:38] » okay. Fine. Um,
[1:41] all right. So, Rita, so I think I'm
[1:43] going to get based on that. I think I'm
[1:46] gonna
[1:51] do Do you mind? I mean
[1:53] >> if it's point of order, you have to take
[1:55] it.
[1:58] » I don't think
[2:02] » but any Yeah. No, go ahead. No. No.
[2:03] >> The point of order question this
[2:05] document that's part of the packet.
[2:07] There's a lot of acronyms and color
[2:09] coding, but I didn't see a key
[2:11] >> telling me what those acronyms are, what
[2:14] they mean, and what the color codes
[2:17] mean. If someone has that, they can
[2:19] share it. I really appreciate it. Thank
[2:22] you.
[2:23] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:26] >> No, fair enough.
[2:28] >> Okay. So, moving on to the regular
[2:29] agenda. Um the first one is receiving an
[2:32] update from the resilience um planning
[2:35] town council ad hoc subcommittee. I
[2:38] don't know if that's exactly what our
[2:39] title was, but it's close.
[2:41] Um, so this is a subcommittee um that
[2:44] Rebecca and I were on and you saw in the
[2:49] um council packet basically a report
[2:52] back from us. I'm not going to go back
[2:54] and read it. I do apologize somehow when
[2:56] it got into the packet. The first time
[2:59] half of it got was missing. So the whole
[3:02] discussion is missing. So as long as you
[3:04] got the more recent one there sort of
[3:06] red line the stuff that was supposed to
[3:08] be there.
[3:09] >> It did not. Okay. Did you get the latest
[3:13] council packet?
[3:14] >> I did, but I didn't open it because I
[3:16] didn't know there were changes.
[3:17] >> I got it by
[3:19] >> Okay. Well, um, in any case, there
[3:21] there's more discussion. Um, I can speak
[3:24] and again, this is just to pro provide
[3:28] some input and you can read it unless
[3:30] people feel like they want me to read
[3:32] the pieces that are here. Um but it was
[3:35] basically some discussion on how the
[3:37] council or how the subcommittee was
[3:40] um and then it talked a little about the
[3:42] safety and resilience list and there was
[3:45] also in the packet a description of the
[3:47] safety and resilience list. So it
[3:49] basically captured most of that. Um the
[3:52] goal um for tonight was just to because
[3:55] we're going to be talking about the
[3:56] safety element and this is sort of
[3:58] adjunct to the safety element was just
[4:01] to quickly talk about this. So we had
[4:02] this in the background
[4:05] and the idea of the safety and
[4:06] resilience list was this is not a
[4:09] commitment on the part of the council or
[4:12] committees but the goal was to get
[4:14] safety related tasks in a place that we
[4:17] would a sort of remember it was there
[4:19] and then make sure that periodically it
[4:21] was reviewed and that we need as a
[4:24] council to come up with a policy on how
[4:26] to deal with this. Um and there's a
[4:28] proposed policy here but that's not for
[4:30] tonight. That's just
[4:34] so does that make enough sense for
[4:37] people to give it context?
[4:39] >> Are you going to ask for comments?
[4:41] >> I can ask for I'm just trying to get the
[4:43] general sense because I mean Judith was
[4:45] confused.
[4:45] >> I look I am confused. Yeah.
[4:47] >> Um so I I read the initial packet.
[4:52] Um I am worried. I'm trying to call up
[4:55] right now what the red line is and I
[4:57] don't have it. So, I'm not feeling very
[4:59] comfortable that I'm going to make
[5:01] informed comments that are still
[5:03] relevant.
[5:03] >> Okay.
[5:04] >> So, how do I locate that? I'll go ahead.
[5:07] >> You go to the town website, the calendar
[5:10] >> website,
[5:11] >> and then you go to tonight's special
[5:13] meeting and you download the agenda. You
[5:15] would get it that way or Veronica sent
[5:17] out the links to the updated packet. So,
[5:21] e either direction will get you there. I
[5:23] mean, I'm happy just to I can read it. I
[5:25] mean, it's what got left out was the
[5:27] discussion part. And so, I'll read
[5:29] literally what's here.
[5:30] >> Okay.
[5:31] >> The town safety element of our general
[5:33] plan is the overarching view of our
[5:35] approach to the town's safety
[5:36] priorities. The safety element when
[5:39] paired with a set of safety and
[5:40] resilient initiatives begins to address
[5:42] in a concrete way the significant safety
[5:45] issues.
[5:46] The safety can I Hey, Mary, can I ask
[5:49] you guys to
[5:51] I'm going to read this. Let's not have
[5:53] two conversation. Thank you. Um, the
[5:55] safety and resilience list provides a
[5:57] more detailed oriented view. The safety
[6:00] element of the town of Portola Valley
[6:02] general plan was last updated July 28,
[6:05] 2010. The first public draft safety
[6:08] element was circulated for public review
[6:10] in October 2022. The town received
[6:12] comments from the public key town
[6:14] committees including geologic safety
[6:16] committee, wildfire preparedness
[6:18] committee, community planning and
[6:20] assistance for wildfire sepaw subst
[6:23] Excuse me, I'm trying to do this
[6:24] quickly. Um, sustainability committee
[6:26] and the emergency preparedness
[6:27] committee. All the comments have been re
[6:30] reviewed and many have been incorporated
[6:32] into the safety element as policies. The
[6:35] remaining comments have been moved to
[6:37] the um safety and resilience list. Um,
[6:39] and then the attached safety and
[6:41] resilience list is a first draft. The
[6:43] final list will be available shortly.
[6:45] So, that's all that was missing. Um, and
[6:46] then a recommendation, um, and this is
[6:49] what I was referring to, um, is we
[6:51] recommend that the town council
[6:52] formalize the safety and resilience list
[6:54] and an associated process at a future
[6:56] council meeting. So, that's the full
[6:58] extent that was missing.
[7:00] >> Okay. Um, and then, you know, if you
[7:02] scroll down in the packet, there's this
[7:05] there's a sort of description of the
[7:07] safety resilience list with the various
[7:10] descriptions of the different um, titles
[7:12] that are there. Um,
[7:15] and again, I just brought, you know,
[7:17] Rebecca and I just wanted to get that
[7:18] here tonight so people had an idea. This
[7:20] is definitely a death. So there's a lot
[7:23] of duplication because this was a very
[7:25] compressed I was going out of town for a
[7:27] week. This is all very compressed. So
[7:29] treat the actual list itself as very
[7:31] much a draft.
[7:34] So with that um excuse me let me open up
[7:37] for clarifying questions and if there
[7:40] aren't any then I'll go to the public
[7:41] and then I'll come back and we can have
[7:43] a quick discussion among us. I would ask
[7:46] like to ask you since it is the the duty
[7:49] of the planning commission to maintain
[7:51] the general plan. Uh and we've never
[7:54] seen this resilience list, how you see
[7:57] the list going to the planning
[7:59] commission to begin with and secondly
[8:01] how you see it fitting in to the safety
[8:04] element once we even get to that point.
[8:06] Um, I think it's in my quick review, and
[8:10] I haven't done a detailed review,
[8:11] apparently duplicative, and for a town
[8:14] that doesn't even have a five-year
[8:15] budget, an awful lot of work. And I
[8:18] worry, my final comment as a lawyer, I
[8:20] worry about putting things on a piece of
[8:22] paper that raises expectations. The
[8:24] classic example is you say you're going
[8:26] to replace the traffic light, you don't,
[8:27] and there's an accident, you're a def.
[8:30] So, I read this and I see a lot of
[8:32] things, oh, we're going to do this. and
[8:34] I I I I cringe. So, those are my my
[8:38] questions.
[8:39] >> Okay. And and I would refer you to the
[8:41] process for maintaining the list. Um I
[8:44] tried to clearly spell out how this list
[8:47] was going to get maintained and sort of
[8:49] what the purpose of it was.
[8:54] » You did say it would be an adjunct to
[8:56] the safety element. So, that was what's
[8:59] basic,
[9:00] >> right? And and I think it's meant to be,
[9:02] you know, there's at our last in the
[9:04] last draft, we got a lot of comments on
[9:06] the safety element and the goal was not
[9:08] all of those belong in the safety
[9:10] element um in the opinion of staff, but
[9:13] I Rebecca and I didn't want to lose
[9:15] those. We wanted to make sure that those
[9:17] kind of comments are still available for
[9:19] people to review. So again, the goal of
[9:21] the list in broad strokes is hopefully
[9:24] and you know the council is going to
[9:25] come up have to come up with this
[9:27] policy, but the proposal was that
[9:29] annually a subcommittee reviews this and
[9:32] makes suggestions to the council for
[9:34] things that should be budgeted and g and
[9:36] basically given staff direction. And the
[9:38] other use is that the committees when
[9:40] they're trying to decide their
[9:41] priorities for the next year could look
[9:43] at this list and say, "Oh, this is
[9:45] something that we want to take on." But
[9:47] there's nothing on this list that's
[9:48] meant to be a commitment on the town's
[9:51] part. This is a laundry list, if you
[9:53] will, of things that we might want to
[9:55] work on.
[9:56] >> But I still don't understand how that
[9:58] Let's assume some year from now we have
[10:01] a safety element and you're
[10:02] independently out there running top
[10:05] lines on items. How does that fit into
[10:09] staff time implementing a safety element
[10:11] that's required by state law and will at
[10:13] that point have been adopted? I don't
[10:15] understand where the rubber hits the
[10:17] road on that intersection.
[10:19] >> Well, the things that are on here tend
[10:21] to be fairly detailed tasks and the
[10:24] safety element tends to be fairly broad
[10:27] and the goal was not to sort of reopen
[10:30] the safety element on an annual basis.
[10:33] The safety element's meant to be a
[10:34] document that lasts kind of five years
[10:36] to maybe even 10 years.
[10:41] So again, it's just a tool and council
[10:43] will decide on policy for you know
[10:46] implementing or not. I mean the council
[10:48] may decide not to do that.
[10:51] Other clarifying questions.
[10:53] >> Yeah, I have one.
[10:54] >> Yeah.
[10:55] >> Um respectfully like obviously this is a
[10:59] extensive list
[11:02] 15ish pages.
[11:04] Um can and as as I recall
[11:09] the original directive
[11:12] was to prepare a draft list and report
[11:16] back.
[11:18] So this is
[11:20] >> this is the draft list,
[11:21] >> right? And and like I said, because of
[11:23] the time constraints of this meeting,
[11:26] what's the reason that list is so long
[11:27] right now is we attempted to take
[11:30] everything every comment from the last
[11:33] safety element draft that was made and
[11:35] dump it into this list. Rebecca and I
[11:39] plan to go back through this list, ddup
[11:41] it, clean it up some before we bring a
[11:44] real draft back to the council. So I
[11:47] mean I I am concerned that it would then
[11:53] further slow down our safety element
[11:56] adoption.
[11:58] I
[11:58] >> I believe this is decoupled from the
[12:00] safety. This is not the same process.
[12:03] There's this not going to go into the
[12:04] safety element. This is a list that we
[12:07] maintain
[12:09] with some policy behind it or not. I
[12:12] mean again the c the council may decide
[12:14] not to have a policy not maintain
[12:16] but this is not the safety element. This
[12:18] is not meant to replace the safety
[12:19] element.
[12:20] >> With all due respect you might want to
[12:21] consider renaming it so that that's
[12:23] clear.
[12:25] >> Okay. So let's wait on comments. We're
[12:27] getting any other clarifying questions.
[12:30] Okay. So with that I'll open up to
[12:32] public comment. Is there any public
[12:34] comment Veronica online?
[12:38] There is one raised hand online from MJ.
[12:47] » Go ahead, MJ.
[12:48] >> Yeah, thanks. Um, yeah, I had a few
[12:52] questions. Um, first of all, when is the
[12:55] safety element do?
[12:59] » Okay, so right now we're talking about
[13:01] the safety and resilience list, not the
[13:03] safety. So, we will get to in the next
[13:05] agenda item, the safety element.
[13:09] Okay. But but the safety and resilience
[13:13] list, you're saying it's going to be
[13:15] like an addendum in the safety element?
[13:18] >> No, I'm saying it's No, I'm saying it's
[13:20] another list that the council still
[13:22] needs to review and create a policy for.
[13:26] >> Okay. Well, then so you only want
[13:28] questions right now about the safety and
[13:31] resilience list.
[13:33] I'm really just looking for public
[13:35] comment on the list and particularly the
[13:37] sort of the concept of the list.
[13:40] >> Okay. So, let me just ask this. I I've
[13:42] seen earlier drafts of the list. This
[13:46] table, this chart in here, is it the
[13:48] same list is just formatted differently.
[13:53] >> I'm not sure which
[13:55] >> the last version I saw was the one you
[13:57] guys passed around I think in March or
[14:00] February or March or something. So it's
[14:04] >> Yes. So it has a lot of the same things.
[14:07] >> Okay. But I would still need to read
[14:09] this whole thing to see how it differs.
[14:12] >> Well, this if the council agrees on a
[14:15] policy, this will be the list. There
[14:17] won't be yet another list.
[14:21] >> Yeah. No, I mean in reference to the
[14:23] list that I originally saw. That's what
[14:25] I'm asking. because you know the
[14:27] wildfire committee based its whole goals
[14:30] on the stuff that came out of that list.
[14:33] I just want to know if this list has
[14:37] >> been added to.
[14:41] » Well, it's definitely been added to, but
[14:42] I don't think in any way has
[14:45] >> subtracted from what wildfire
[14:46] preparedness is trying to do.
[14:48] >> Yeah. No, it's not the subtractions I'm
[14:51] worried about. Thank you.
[14:54] >> Okay. Thank you,
[14:55] >> Craig. I I had actually a question
[14:58] before you went to public comment. So, I
[15:01] >> can I finish public comment though since
[15:03] I've opened it and I'll come back to
[15:04] you.
[15:04] >> Well, it's a question for for the
[15:08] attorney. What is the right thing to do?
[15:10] >> Okay.
[15:15] » So, I I was in the process of looking at
[15:18] my list of questions and then Craig went
[15:20] to public comment. That's fine. But if I
[15:23] now have questions, do I just hold it
[15:25] till public comment's done? That's all.
[15:29] >> I would say discretion of the mayor
[15:31] whether to
[15:32] >> I'll wait.
[15:32] >> Yeah.
[15:33] Just because I think we can wrap
[15:35] up pretty quick. I'll go to you first.
[15:37] >> Yeah. Okay.
[15:38] >> Um, anybody else online?
[15:41] >> Yes. Two more hands. The first one just
[15:45] says Zoom user.
[15:51] Welcome Zoom user.
[15:52] >> Hi Dana Breen. Can you hear me? Is it
[15:55] >> We We can hear you Dana. Yeah, welcome.
[15:58] >> Um I I feel confused all of a sudden at
[16:01] the beginning of this meeting. I mean
[16:03] why is there a time con constraint on
[16:06] this uh on this meeting? What what is
[16:10] the the issue? So I mean I thought that
[16:13] we were talking about the the changes to
[16:15] the general plan. Um, anyway, I feel
[16:19] confused about what the process is here.
[16:23] >> And I also like to say because this is a
[16:26] change to the general plan, I'm so
[16:28] surprised that Ed Holland's committee,
[16:31] all these other committees have have not
[16:33] studied what came out. ASC didn't study
[16:37] it. So, I I hope we have an opportunity.
[16:41] I hope that there's going to be a lot of
[16:43] time here for us to study this stuff.
[16:46] Thank you.
[16:47] >> Thank you, Dana. And again, I would
[16:49] remind people that the safety and
[16:51] resilience list is safety element, but
[16:54] we we'll get to it. Um, okay. Any other
[16:56] online?
[16:57] >> Yes. From Christie.
[17:02] » Go ahead, Christie. Welcome.
[17:04] >> Thank you. I think what MJ was saying
[17:07] earlier is of a concern. Anytime there's
[17:10] changes to a previous document, the
[17:13] public should see a red line of what was
[17:17] added and what was deleted so we don't
[17:20] have to compare them side by side. So
[17:24] that's of concern
[17:26] and uh
[17:29] and I agree with that all committees
[17:32] should uh get these things prior to
[17:37] maybe you're trying to get in the first
[17:39] read but we want the first read to be
[17:41] our committees and to put have input and
[17:45] then we want to look at the document and
[17:48] then present it. So something is odd
[17:52] with this process. I agree. Thank you.
[17:56] >> Thank you.
[17:59] » Already off schedule.
[18:01] >> Yeah, I'm doing the best I can.
[18:03] >> Understood.
[18:05] >> Friendly.
[18:06] >> Veronica, anybody else online?
[18:07] >> Uh, no, that's all the comments.
[18:08] >> Anybody in the schoolhouse? Rita,
[18:10] please.
[18:16] » Yes, I've used um project management in
[18:19] the past. you know, the different uh
[18:21] software where you are moving forward
[18:24] with your project and then you use
[18:26] different colors to show that you've
[18:29] done progress. And a lot of these items
[18:32] on here are in future tense. And
[18:37] I know from attending many many meetings
[18:39] that some of these things are in the
[18:42] process or they've been done but it just
[18:45] seems the way it's tensed that we don't
[18:48] have anything going on in our beautiful
[18:50] town and we we have to so um I just have
[18:55] a concern about this particular uh
[18:58] document and how it what it represents
[19:01] you know for our town for somebody from
[19:03] the outside looking in
[19:06] and a lot of these things cost money
[19:09] that we that we don't have, but they're
[19:12] kind of done. So, it looks like we don't
[19:15] have anything and we don't have money to
[19:17] do these things.
[19:21] That's my comment. Thank you.
[19:27] All right. Anyone else in the
[19:28] schoolhouse, please?
[19:31] Nan
[19:38] I see that.
[19:41] >> Yeah. So we're talking about your safety
[19:43] and resilience list which I take it is
[19:47] the lowest level of detail sort of
[19:50] project level which falls out from the
[19:53] safety element which goes goals policies
[19:56] and and then there's the no Linda says
[20:01] no the the uh list of implementation
[20:05] actions at the back of the safety
[20:07] element
[20:09] is still at a higher level than
[20:12] the safety and resilience list. So I'm I
[20:15] guess I'm confused between the
[20:16] implementation actions in the safety
[20:18] element and the safety and resilience
[20:21] list items.
[20:26] Okay. I mean I'm we're trying to do
[20:28] comments and not I don't I'm trying to
[20:30] be careful not to go too much into
[20:32] answering questions, but one is meant to
[20:34] be a general list of things that people
[20:36] are interested in potentially doing. The
[20:38] other is stuff that we intend to do as sort of policy. So they're different
[20:43] in that way,
[20:47] » meaning items that we can we think we
[20:49] can actually accomplish in the next, you
[20:52] know, discrete period of time rather
[20:54] than things we think should happen in
[20:56] some longer period of time or
[20:59] >> um where are we out of our time or what?
[21:04] >> That's our fine. Again, I'm we're
[21:06] getting bit into back and forth which
[21:07] I'd like to avoid because we're already
[21:09] kind of over time on this item. So, um
[21:11] but Nan, I'd be happy to talk to you
[21:12] more a afterwards.
[21:15] Okay. Um anybody else in the
[21:17] schoolhouse?
[21:19] All right. So, with that, I'm going to
[21:20] close public comment. I'm going to come
[21:22] back to Judith first.
[21:23] >> Yeah. So my my question is a little more
[21:26] procedural because
[21:29] um and I I will have comments as well
[21:31] but the question is more like this is a
[21:34] list. Are we supposed to be saying where
[21:38] we might have some concerns? Um, and
[21:42] will that be con like considered in the
[21:45] next draft or is it going to be assumed
[21:48] that we're we're not commenting
[21:50] substantively at all tonight and
[21:53] therefore we're free to make any comment
[21:55] at all when we next see it? So, I just
[21:57] want to know what we're obligated to be
[21:59] doing tonight versus if and when it
[22:02] comes back. Um what because I I have
[22:07] substantive questions and concerns but
[22:10] they might be beside the point if we are
[22:12] completely free to make any comments in
[22:15] the next time it comes up
[22:17] >> and there's you know to be clear I I
[22:19] want there to be no implication that
[22:22] there's you know a predisposed
[22:25] assumption of acceptance coming out of
[22:28] tonight.
[22:29] >> That is correct. So there's you are
[22:31] going to be completely free when the
[22:33] council takes this up in the future to
[22:35] talk about the policy and the list. Um
[22:38] the only reason we brought this up
[22:40] tonight was we were asked to bring it up
[22:42] because there are things that aren't in
[22:44] the safety element, but that people had
[22:46] made comments in a previous one and we
[22:48] wanted people to know that they weren't
[22:49] lost, that that information wasn't gone.
[22:52] >> That's sort of the safety and resilience
[22:54] list was sort of part of that. But it's
[22:56] going to come back to the council and
[22:57] the council can decide that this list
[22:59] shouldn't exist. That's fine as well. So
[23:02] there there's nothing
[23:03] >> be modified, right?
[23:04] >> Well, I mean it could be modified. It
[23:05] could be decided that we don't want to
[23:07] do it at all. I mean the process has not
[23:09] been decided. We were just saying look
[23:11] here's the direction that the
[23:13] subcommittee has been headed.
[23:15] >> So that was it was just meant to be a
[23:17] report out to say this is the direction
[23:19] the subcommittee is headed.
[23:21] Okay. Um yeah, please.
[23:24] So is the main motivation for this list
[23:26] to be separate from the safety element
[23:28] itself the fact that the safety element
[23:30] is maybe difficult to modify and not
[23:33] modified very often or is it these are
[23:35] things that didn't make it into the
[23:37] safety element we're trying to keep
[23:39] track of them so kind of yes to all the
[23:41] above. So the safety element is
[23:43] something that you don't want to keep
[23:44] modifying the general plan if you don't
[23:46] have to and it's an element of the
[23:47] general plan. Um, and the list was meant
[23:49] to be if a committee has something that
[23:52] they think's important that they don't
[23:53] want to get lost, we should be able to
[23:55] put it on there, it's not a commitment
[23:57] by the council or the town or the
[23:59] committee, but it when we review it
[24:01] annually, we should say, "Oh, I wonder
[24:03] if we should start working on this now."
[24:05] So, that was more what it was was just a
[24:07] pl kind of a placeholder for ideas.
[24:11] Okay,
[24:13] other comments? been done.
[24:14] >> I really want to be clear that this is
[24:17] not part of the safety element.
[24:19] >> It's not required by the state law to be
[24:21] in the safety element. It has not been
[24:23] reviewed or looked at by the planning
[24:26] commission. We saw it just as soon as
[24:28] you guys did. And um to kind of
[24:32] correlate it to the safety element in my
[24:35] mind, I guess the council can do what
[24:37] they want to do, but it's not what the
[24:40] law says. the element does have
[24:42] implementation plans which can be laid
[24:45] out on annual or weekly or monthly or
[24:48] decadily uh manners. So I think it needs
[24:52] to be really clear that this is
[24:53] something from a subcommittee from the
[24:55] town council and not to be confused with
[24:58] the topic of tonight which is the safety
[25:01] element.
[25:03] >> Thank you. Other comments?
[25:06] So let me I'll go on this side then I'll
[25:08] come back to you guys. Go ahead.
[25:10] >> Yeah. Um yes. Um thank you for
[25:13] everything. And just to be clear, we did
[25:15] kind of it was the questioning period
[25:18] was a little bit unclear as well because
[25:20] it was more of the um
[25:24] like the process question instead of the
[25:26] question on the documents. I feel like
[25:28] so I will echo what chair brother said
[25:33] um in terms of the safety element has
[25:36] very mandated aspects that need to be
[25:39] included
[25:41] um and so like you know there's been a long time request to get
[25:50] the safety element out the door and I
[25:52] think it's great that we have this other
[25:54] laundry list to consider but I do hope
[25:57] that we concentrate on getting while all
[26:00] of us are together and we've started
[26:01] early. I do hope that we can get to the
[26:04] safety elements so that we can make sure
[26:06] that we consider that deeply. Thank you.
[26:09] >> That's where we're headed. All right,
[26:11] Mary.
[26:13] >> Thank you. Uh I do really like the
[26:16] concept of the safety and resilience
[26:18] list uh and as being a living document
[26:21] that actually all of us can look at see
[26:24] where we what whether our concerns are
[26:27] actually on there and uh and amplify
[26:30] them if they need to be or elevate them
[26:32] if they if it as the interest of the
[26:36] community and it's possible. So I think
[26:39] it's a great a great tool that you've
[26:41] developed. Thank you very much. Uh and
[26:44] it certainly makes me more feel more
[26:46] comfortable moving ahead with the safety
[26:48] element. Um the relationship between the
[26:51] list and the safety element does need to
[26:54] be clarified eventually but not tonight.
[26:57] And I think they this is a separate uh
[27:00] presentation and should remain so. So uh
[27:05] I'm pleased with the direction that
[27:07] you're going.
[27:08] >> Okay. Thank you, Judy.
[27:11] Well, if you're looking for comments,
[27:13] um, like holistic comments, not line
[27:15] item comments, um, I do echo some
[27:19] concerns. I mean, obviously a lot of
[27:20] work done. It's great to have a
[27:22] repository of potential items to pick up
[27:26] in the future. Um, but a lot of these
[27:30] have significant cost implications for
[27:32] the individuals and for the town. they
[27:35] um it's unclear what the costbenefit
[27:38] would be and some of these are policy
[27:42] decisions for the council. So I do
[27:44] anticipate a robust discussion when it
[27:47] comes forward again and from a personal
[27:51] point of view um I am retaining all
[27:54] rights to make any comments in a future
[27:57] meeting. Um but but do think that it's
[28:00] helpful they have a repository um to to
[28:03] frame up. Okay, thank you Karen.
[28:06] >> Um I feel a little out of place speaking
[28:08] to this because I'm not a council
[28:10] member, but I do think it needs a lot of
[28:12] cleanup. Um there a lot of these goals
[28:14] are extremely vague and about
[28:16] communication and I'm not sure when
[28:18] you'd ever know it was done,
[28:19] >> right?
[28:19] >> Or who would do it and I found 44 of
[28:22] those and so um I would suggest a you
[28:25] know a second draft.
[28:27] >> Yeah. Did and which is definitely going
[28:28] to be in progress. So Bonnie, any con?
[28:31] Um yeah, I guess I I I feel like it that
[28:35] the list is serving too many functions.
[28:38] Um and it I think it's confusing. Uh it makes it confusing of what exactly
[28:43] it's a list of. Um and yeah, it just is
[28:48] very long. I I realize there's some
[28:50] redundancy, but even after eliminating
[28:52] it, just feel like it's going to be very
[28:54] long. Like if we had a list of, you
[28:56] know, these are the 10 20 things like
[28:58] we're going to work on this year.
[29:01] I guess it's not trying to serve it
[29:03] seems like it's partially serving that
[29:04] but then serving other things maybe
[29:07] >> yeah it's not meant to serve the purpose
[29:08] of this is what we're working that's not
[29:10] the intent it was the intent was to
[29:13] gather people's requests and that
[29:16] annually those requests would be look at
[29:18] decide if we would start working on so I think it's sort of a step back from
[29:24] things that we're actually working on I
[29:26] mean unless a committee or the council
[29:28] decides to,
[29:31] you know, act act on one of these. It
[29:33] just sits on the list. That's its that's
[29:35] its home. That's where it's going to
[29:37] live. It really is just a repository. I
[29:39] think that's a good description of it
[29:41] from Judith. I mean, that's it. It's
[29:43] just a repository. It it has no
[29:44] actionable unless somebody takes one of
[29:47] those things and turns it into an action
[29:49] item, it's it's just a repository.
[29:50] >> Okay. If it's clearly I I guess maybe my comment is maybe it could be
[29:55] more clear that that's what it
[29:58] >> Okay, great. Thank you, Bo.
[30:02] >> I guess I'd echo uh Karen's point. I
[30:04] think it's a good idea to have this list
[30:06] and have the repository, there is
[30:10] obvious overlap with the safety
[30:12] elements. It's not clear which are
[30:14] overlaps and which are not overlaps. And
[30:17] I think as you work through this with a
[30:18] draft and get a key and a glossery and
[30:21] things are sorted out, then I think it
[30:23] could be a very useful list. It's
[30:25] obviously confusing today. Yeah,
[30:28] appreciate. Okay. All right. So, with
[30:31] that, let me
[30:32] >> Can I make can I make one comment?
[30:35] >> Sure.
[30:37] Oh, I'm sorry, Nicholas. Um, first of
[30:38] all, welcome.
[30:41] >> Um, so can I go to Nicholas?
[30:43] >> Go to Nicholas.
[30:44] >> You and I would ask it's already
[30:46] >> discussing this.
[30:47] >> We're already 15 minutes over. So, if we
[30:50] can keep our comments super short at
[30:51] this point, um, because this was only
[30:53] meant to say this is a thing we're going
[30:55] to do in the future, not something to go
[30:57] into detail. So, but Nicholas, please
[30:59] make your make your comment.
[31:00] >> Cool. Uh, thanks so much and I apologize
[31:03] for joining you uh late. Let me
[31:06] recognize that. Um, I also appreciate
[31:09] the amount of work that went into
[31:11] creating uh the list. I found it uh
[31:13] confusing. of the relationship of the
[31:16] list to the safety element uh itself. Um
[31:23] I think that I share many of the the
[31:27] concerns that were stated. I'm not going
[31:29] to repeat them in the interest of time,
[31:31] but
[31:33] I don't think it is an item I'm hearing
[31:37] that it's not an item to be voted on,
[31:40] nor is it an item that
[31:47] represents an action plan,
[31:50] but rather it's a you know, we all have
[31:54] this document
[31:57] in your desk drawer. Got a desk drawer
[32:01] that it's like of the things that you do
[32:03] if you actually find some money and you
[32:06] got some time to do it. And I looked at
[32:08] that and I think well maybe this is that
[32:10] and is not entirely baked but they're
[32:13] things that you might think about doing
[32:15] at some point in time and clarifying
[32:19] its status at that level. Not that we're
[32:22] gonna do it, but the interesting things
[32:25] to think about maybe doing at some point
[32:29] would be
[32:31] uh the way that I would think about it
[32:35] and feel comfortable
[32:37] uh with it, you know, maybe go there for
[32:41] good ideas and build it out, but you
[32:45] know, it's both unclear what it is and
[32:49] whether it should be done and how much
[32:53] money it would cost to do it and what
[32:56] the bang for the buck is. But, you know,
[32:58] there's like nothing obviously wrong
[33:01] with it, but it just needs it needs it
[33:05] needs to be clarified what it is and
[33:07] where it is and how it might be used.
[33:11] That's what I've got. Thank you.
[33:12] >> Thank you, Mary.
[33:15] My comment was going to be that uh it
[33:17] answered one of the things that I have
[33:19] been bothered by this whole process the
[33:21] safety element process because yes there
[33:24] are people who haven't been able to
[33:25] speak to the safety element who we are
[33:28] used to hearing from the safety element
[33:31] about the safety element like bicycle
[33:34] pedestrian traffic committee like the uh
[33:38] fire department etc. They they this is
[33:42] really a process that's been going on
[33:43] for five years. This is the same old
[33:46] process. We've all commented and commented and commented.
[33:50] We need to get a safety element done. Uh
[33:53] and this repository is the opportunity
[33:55] to capture all the work of the last five
[33:57] years that isn't able necessarily to be
[34:00] incorporated in the safety element.
[34:03] >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I'd like
[34:05] to close 4A and move on to 4B, which is
[34:10] receive an update and provide direction
[34:11] on the 2026 draft safety element. So,
[34:14] Sarah, believe you got the staff report.
[34:17] Thank you. Good evening, town council
[34:19] and planning commission. I'm Sarah
[34:20] Cororus, the planning director with Town
[34:22] of Cortto Valley, and I'm joined here
[34:24] tonight with Aaron Fannensteel from
[34:26] Atlas Planning. So, we're very excited
[34:27] to be here tonight for a joint and also
[34:30] very unique study session and very happy
[34:32] to have both groups here tonight for
[34:34] very important discussion around the
[34:36] 2026 draft safety elements. So, we
[34:40] already kind of got a quick update from
[34:42] the town council subcommittee. We have a
[34:45] short presentation we'd like to walk
[34:47] through to give an overview of the
[34:48] progress we've made so far. There is
[34:50] opportunity for public comment after the
[34:52] presentation and then the rest of the
[34:54] time will be left for discussion
[34:56] including questions and comments from
[34:58] both commission and counselors and we'll
[35:00] be here for that. So at this point I'm
[35:01] going to pass it off to Erin.
[35:05] » Thank you Sarah. Next slide please. So
[35:08] let's just briefly touch on how we got
[35:10] here. Uh as uh I believe is a council
[35:14] member Hufty uh how you indicated we've
[35:17] been doing this for five years. Um I
[35:19] have been a part of this process for a
[35:21] vast majority of that. Uh right around
[35:24] the end of 2023
[35:26] this project kind of took a hold but
[35:29] prior to that a lot of work was done. We
[35:31] had a lot of studies. We wrote a couple
[35:33] of drafts. Uh there was a lot of
[35:35] feedback and and input. Uh and then
[35:37] things went on holds. Um staff around me
[35:40] has changed. I haven't changed that much
[35:43] since we started this process. A little
[35:46] grayer though. Thank you. Uh, and but
[35:49] we're back. Um, and this was really
[35:50] again prioritized by the council that
[35:52] you wanted to get this back on track.
[35:54] And I'm sure it wasn't just the council.
[35:56] I'm sure a lot of people want back on
[35:58] track. So, that's what brings us here
[36:00] today. Uh, and the draft that we
[36:03] provided uh is really just that. It's a
[36:05] draft. Our uh proposed timeline at this
[36:08] point is the rest of this month is open
[36:11] for as much feedback as possible. So,
[36:14] tonight is not the only night that we
[36:16] get feedback. We want to make sure you
[36:18] have plenty of time. We wanted to also
[36:20] set the tone for what it is that would
[36:23] help us the most in getting that
[36:25] feedback so that way we can help focus
[36:27] your efforts. We know you're busy. Uh
[36:29] both Sarah and I have sat on the other
[36:31] side of the DEAS as planning
[36:33] commissioners. We understand what that
[36:35] job looks like. Um we are not crazy
[36:37] enough to actually sit on that side as
[36:38] council members. No offense, but you
[36:41] know, we're uh we understand uh what you
[36:44] have as far as constraints. So this is
[36:46] the the time frame that we've laid out
[36:49] um with the intent that uh by July we'll
[36:52] start looking and evaluating at all the
[36:54] feedback that we received. We've already
[36:55] started looking at a lot of what's
[36:57] already come in. Uh working closely with
[36:59] a lot of other external um agencies that
[37:01] should be reviewing this like California
[37:03] Office of Emergency Services, Califire,
[37:06] and the uh California Geological Survey
[37:09] uh with the hope that we could be back
[37:11] uh sometime in September and October for
[37:13] final review and approval by the
[37:15] commission and council.
[37:17] So, let me just briefly say what a
[37:18] safety element is not. So, this is not a
[37:21] document that focuses on immediate
[37:22] actions. Yes. Oh, next slide. I'm
[37:25] apologize.
[37:26] I'm doing it on my my computer.
[37:29] Um, so this is not a document that
[37:31] focuses on immediate uh safety element.
[37:34] Um, if we go to the next slide, um, is it's a mandatory chapter of your
[37:39] general plan. There are seven required
[37:42] chapters as you can see on the screen
[37:44] and then there's two additional required
[37:46] chapters depending on the conditions
[37:48] within your community uh, whether or not
[37:50] you would qualify. Um, these chapters
[37:54] focus on long-term actions that can help
[37:56] address town safety needs. Um, there are
[37:59] required pieces to it like background
[38:00] information, maps, and then policies and
[38:03] actions. And this chapter now requires a
[38:06] little bit more update than some of the
[38:08] others because of the legislative
[38:11] mandates that have come down. Now, if
[38:12] you go to the next slide or just click
[38:14] the next button, what you'll see is you
[38:17] have all of those chapters and then
[38:19] some. So the ones highlighted in pink
[38:20] are the additional elements that you
[38:23] have created as part of your general
[38:24] plan. That is perfectly acceptable. Um
[38:27] you have to have the bare minimum which
[38:29] is those seven at least. Um but you have
[38:31] the freedom to make as many elements as
[38:33] you want. Don't often recommend that you
[38:36] go that route. Um but every community
[38:39] can do you know address the needs of
[38:41] their community whatever way they see
[38:42] fit. And this is how it um came out when
[38:46] you put your last general plan together.
[38:49] Next slide.
[38:51] So, let's talk a little about what does
[38:53] a safety element do? This is what the
[38:55] government code says that you need to
[38:57] have a plan that protects the community
[38:59] from unreasonable risks associated with
[39:01] seismically induced surface rupture,
[39:03] ground shaking, flooding, tsunami, slope
[39:05] instability, wildfire, etc. The four on
[39:09] the bottom, those are not specific
[39:11] hazards as much as conditions that you
[39:13] also need to help address. The
[39:15] interesting thing about that is three
[39:17] out of those four have actually been
[39:18] superseded by new legislation and new
[39:21] mandates that have come down. If you go
[39:23] to the next slide,
[39:25] why are we updating the element? one
[39:28] because you're now required to um when I
[39:30] say you're required, there is no
[39:33] statutory
[39:34] um penalty in the way that you have
[39:38] penalties for your housing element not
[39:40] being up to date, but there is
[39:42] legislation that indicates by certain
[39:45] dates and through certain triggers, you
[39:47] need to update your safety element.
[39:49] In 20 uh 2006, AB2140 went into effect.
[39:54] This is a voluntary item, but it's a
[39:56] very very large um it has a very large
[40:01] financial consequence if you don't do
[40:02] it. We have opted to integrate that into
[40:05] your safety element.
[40:07] Uh in 2014, wildfire hazards were
[40:11] required to be addressed. This is when
[40:12] the wildfire um hazard maps basically
[40:16] started to trigger CalFire review of
[40:19] safety elements in 2017. Climate
[40:22] adaptation and how the hazards within
[40:24] your community may be impacted by
[40:26] climate change were required to be
[40:28] addressed. That's SB 379.
[40:31] 2018,
[40:32] this is when the legislature connected
[40:35] housing elements and safety elements
[40:36] together.
[40:38] 2019,
[40:40] 2021, and 2022 is when evacuation
[40:43] analysis requirements went into effect.
[40:45] SB99 focuses on the single ingress,
[40:48] egress, and constrained parcels. AB747
[40:51] and 1409 looks at an evacuation
[40:54] assessment and capacity, safety, and
[40:56] viability of your circulation network.
[40:59] And then in 2028 on January 1st, AB2684
[41:03] goes into effect, meaning you have to
[41:05] address extreme heat as part of your
[41:06] safety. So, this is the main culprit as
[41:10] to why we have been trying to update the
[41:12] safety element and we're here before you
[41:14] working with town staff as well as all
[41:17] of the appointed and elected officials
[41:19] to make sure that the safety element
[41:22] meets those statutory requirements. Next
[41:24] slide.
[41:26] So, your element as proposed really has
[41:29] three main
[41:31] sections. The safety element overview is
[41:34] really about your purpose, the
[41:35] relationship to other elements uh and
[41:37] plans within your uh general plan and um
[41:41] some other plans that you may have uh
[41:43] created um as well as how the plan the
[41:46] element is organized and the focus for
[41:49] the community. The next main section are
[41:52] hazard evaluations. Basically, what are
[41:54] the hazards of concern? Again, looking
[41:57] through the the lens of what does the
[41:59] government code require? Um, there are
[42:02] safety elements out there that you could
[42:03] address every single hazard you're most
[42:05] worried about. I will tell you the vast
[42:07] majority of those do not protect a
[42:10] community any better than an element
[42:12] that is meeting the statutory
[42:13] requirements. Uh and then safety goals
[42:16] and policies, which is really the
[42:18] toolbox that town staff will be relying
[42:22] on and commission and council will be
[42:24] using to ensure that projects that are
[42:28] being proposed meet the standards that
[42:30] you have set as a community. Next slide.
[42:35] So what we need from you,
[42:38] this is something that we um we we've
[42:40] discussed with staff, you know, here
[42:43] tonight. we're a and moving throughout
[42:45] the rest of this month, it's really
[42:46] about receiving that feedback from the
[42:48] public, from appointed elected
[42:49] officials, from interested parties. Um,
[42:52] we want to then identify the changes
[42:54] that are necessary to meet statutory
[42:56] requirements. Um, we also anticipate
[42:59] there will be changes that we may need
[43:02] additional direction from council on uh
[43:05] to that are beyond those required
[43:07] changes. um and then ultimately get this
[43:09] plan and this element ready uh to have
[43:12] it reviewed by CalFire as well as other
[43:14] agencies. So we provided this you know
[43:18] how do how should we focus if you look
[43:21] at those three sections when we look at
[43:23] that first component of the safety
[43:25] element have we missed official plans or
[43:28] references to relevant documents that
[43:29] you would be concerned about or want to
[43:31] get connected to the element we've also
[43:33] seen a lot of feedback already that
[43:35] there might be too much detail and we're
[43:37] happy to go ahead and start to minimize
[43:40] some of that detail there are ways that
[43:41] we can that um so we really want to make
[43:45] sure it structurally works for the
[43:47] community. We went a little bit more
[43:50] versus less because sometimes
[43:52] communities like to see a lot of the
[43:54] detail. If yours doesn't, perfectly
[43:56] acceptable. At the end of the day, I
[43:58] walk out the door and you're stuck with
[44:00] the document. I don't want you to be
[44:01] stuck with something that you're not
[44:02] happy with. When it comes to the hazard
[44:04] evaluations, we need to know if we've
[44:06] used incorrect information from official
[44:09] and reputable sources. So, my friend
[44:11] Doug said something happened two years
[44:12] ago is not a reputable source.
[44:14] unfortunately, unless Doug actually has
[44:17] a scientific study or some sort of
[44:19] analysis that they've done that has been
[44:21] vetted by the town or by another uh
[44:23] government agency. So, we want to make
[44:25] sure that what we're relying on is good
[44:27] quality information. If there's
[44:29] something we have missed, we want to
[44:31] make sure that it can be identified.
[44:33] Part of the reason why we are going to
[44:34] send this out to other agencies for
[44:37] review is so that they can also help us
[44:39] with that. Uh and then the goals and the
[44:42] policy section is really about is there
[44:45] a policy or action that's missing or uh
[44:48] one that causes concern especially if
[44:51] there's one that's causing concern that
[44:52] may cost time, money, staff hours, and
[44:56] you want to make sure that this is the
[44:58] right decision for community. So those
[45:00] are the types of ways that your feedback
[45:03] will help us the most. Next slide.
[45:08] So, the next steps for tonight uh was to
[45:11] open things up for public comment. I
[45:12] know that was part of the agenda and
[45:14] then bring this back down to uh both
[45:16] council and commission for questions and
[45:18] discussion. Uh at this point, we are
[45:21] done with the presentations. Happy to
[45:23] answer any clarifying questions uh and
[45:26] uh up to the mayor on how you would like
[45:29] to proceed with public comment from
[45:31] here.
[45:34] >> Thank you, Aaron. So, I'd just like to
[45:36] start with clarifying questions. Um, so
[45:38] are there any clarifying questions on
[45:40] the presentation? And we'll get to a
[45:42] more wholesome discussion. Doug, do you
[45:44] have anything? Not any. So, just sort of
[45:49] shake your head if you don't have
[45:50] anything and we can move on. But Karen,
[45:52] >> I have a lot of clarifying questions,
[45:54] but it might be more useful to make them
[45:56] as comments.
[45:57] >> Okay, great. Then why don't we wait?
[46:00] >> Um, what is LHMP section 2140? said it
[46:04] was a big deal and I don't know what it
[46:07] is.
[46:07] >> Apologies. Uh do you need me to go back
[46:10] to the slide or is it okay?
[46:11] >> Just tell me.
[46:12] >> The local hazard mitigation plan uh is a
[46:15] voluntary document that the city has
[46:18] adopted. You've actually adopted the
[46:21] annex to the multi-jurisdictional hazard
[46:23] mitigation plan that San Monteo County
[46:25] prepared. So, Sonteo County and a bunch
[46:28] of the participating uh cities and towns
[46:31] in the county all went in together and
[46:34] you now have one of those. We call it an
[46:36] LHMP, but in your case it's actually an
[46:38] MJHP. That's the acronym that
[46:40] >> Oh, that was referenced in the document.
[46:43] Okay. Same thing. Um, for years we went
[46:47] back and forth on fire maps. Which fire
[46:49] map was actually used? What was the
[46:51] source of it? the latest fire hazard uh
[46:55] severity zone map that was produced by
[46:57] CalFire and release.
[46:59] >> Okay.
[47:00] >> Um
[47:03] now when you ask us what for the
[47:06] background what might be missing I don't
[47:09] feel like I have any point of reference
[47:11] to make any comments. So how would you
[47:14] suggest we react based on an inability
[47:18] to understand what we don't know?
[47:20] So I think the biggest thing that I
[47:24] would suggest if you don't if you feel
[47:26] like you don't know if you read that
[47:28] section and you feel like it makes sense
[47:30] then that's perfect. If you feel like
[47:33] I'm confused that means that if you're
[47:35] confused and you sit behind the deas
[47:37] people in
[47:38] >> will be confused. If you can highlight
[47:40] that we're more than happy to make sure
[47:42] that we can deconlict any of that
[47:45] confusion. Yeah, I mean this and my last
[47:48] couple of clarifying questions um
[47:51] derived from that which is
[47:54] there's no time for us to see it before
[47:57] it goes to the state. You're going to
[47:59] take all of our comments. There'll be a
[48:01] lot of comments we can make, but there
[48:04] is not another goaround so that we can
[48:06] double check there's nothing that's
[48:09] obviously missing before it gets
[48:10] submitted to the state. If I understand
[48:12] that correctly and that's what your
[48:14] slide said then
[48:17] um what is your experience on backing up
[48:21] like if once it's submitted to the state
[48:24] and all these other authorities if we
[48:27] say the cost benefit of that isn't
[48:30] reachable for us.
[48:33] Are we locked and loaded? Because
[48:34] that'll help frame the comments you hear
[48:36] tonight. like if we have to if we're not
[48:39] sure air on the side of get it out and
[48:42] we can add later because there's a lot
[48:44] in here that I see that I'm
[48:46] uncomfortable with. So how do how do you
[48:49] suggest we frame that discussion?
[48:54] » Uh as I think I was explaining this to
[48:56] Sarah earlier today as well. Um,
[48:59] we have gone through this process with
[49:02] CalFire on three Sanato County elements
[49:06] that are actually going to the board of
[49:07] forestry next week. Uh, and so we're
[49:12] relying on a lot of the work that went
[49:14] into those to inform what
[49:18] recommendations we're providing to
[49:20] Portolo Valley as well. Uh the challenge
[49:23] you're going to run into is uh you're
[49:25] right as you start to review this if you
[49:27] are concerned um then how do we uh
[49:32] rectify that concern? The proposed
[49:35] schedule that we have we believe has
[49:38] enough time in it to to accommodate some
[49:40] of that. But again that was staff's
[49:43] proposed schedule. That doesn't
[49:44] necessarily mean that we can't modify
[49:47] the schedule to accommodate some of the
[49:49] concerns of council and commission.
[49:52] >> Judith, may I ask a clarifying question
[49:54] on your question and answer? Uh were you
[49:56] talking about that other little substudy
[49:59] that you were asking about or the
[50:00] element is because the ending is the
[50:03] element is going to be rewritten and is
[50:05] coming back to the
[50:07] >> not before it goes to the state
[50:09] >> before it goes to the state
[50:10] >> or the authorities that review it and
[50:13] inform and then it comes back. It will
[50:15] come back is my understanding but
[50:18] >> if it goes out beyond
[50:20] valley in my in my view we're locked and
[50:24] loaded. you cannot back up. If you back
[50:26] up at that point, then we're against
[50:28] safety. So, I want to understand exactly
[50:31] how to frame this out if I have concerns
[50:34] about the cost benefit of something.
[50:37] Should I advocate tonight to take it out
[50:39] and we can evaluate it and add it later
[50:42] on the theory that they'll be happier if
[50:44] we add something later or you know what
[50:48] is practical?
[50:53] Uh, did you want me to to to address
[50:55] that now? Because I know it it sounds
[50:57] >> it's a study session. So, I don't
[50:59] understand how you go from a study
[51:01] session to submitting something without
[51:03] coming back to your a
[51:07] Judith, but I'm trying to understand the
[51:10] same thing you're trying to
[51:11] >> Yeah. I mean, we're aligned on the
[51:12] question.
[51:15] So, I'll reference a little bit where
[51:17] back in fall of 2025, there's direction
[51:19] from town council including budget and
[51:21] funding and ultimately a contract with
[51:23] consultants to work on a very specific
[51:26] scope to move the safety element through
[51:28] adoption. So, within that scope of work,
[51:31] it was identified to do this study
[51:32] session to hear feedback and to have
[51:34] this joint study session to address
[51:36] comments. However, if there are comments
[51:40] or things that we've received that might
[51:42] trigger more substantial changes, then
[51:45] there could be an opportunity, but it
[51:47] would change the timeline as well as the
[51:50] budget and scope of the project. If we
[51:52] find that there are more significant
[51:54] revisions, then there's an opportunity
[51:56] to do another public review draft. So,
[51:58] that is that was written in the scope of
[52:00] depending on how conversations happen. I
[52:03] think there is an opportunity to still
[52:04] potentially come to planning commission
[52:06] during this draft during that time
[52:08] period of uh external agency review
[52:11] where if there's other feedback that we
[52:13] can get before and then before it comes
[52:15] through in with uh through the adoption
[52:18] process. But the idea too as well as
[52:21] going back to the timeline is that this
[52:22] has been happening since 2021 and that
[52:25] the plan you see before you addresses
[52:27] all the previous comments that we have
[52:29] received. ones that aren't in the plan
[52:31] may have ended up on the safety and
[52:32] resilience list, but the ones that
[52:34] should be in the strappy safety element
[52:36] have been addressed and are there. So,
[52:38] this plan building on the previous
[52:39] version, building on previous comments
[52:41] and feedback gotten and is the best kind
[52:43] of approach that we're putting forward
[52:45] to you guys for feedback.
[52:47] >> Yeah. And please don't take my questions
[52:49] as criticism. They're really not
[52:50] intended. I have to do my job. You've
[52:52] done yours and you've done it well, as
[52:54] far as I can tell. So, I want to be very
[52:56] clear on that. Um, but you didn't answer
[52:59] my question, which is if I if I want to
[53:03] propose to take something out or like
[53:06] what is the best use of time for me to
[53:09] do tonight?
[53:10] >> For tonight, I think if you have
[53:12] specific comments or concerns about like
[53:15] a policy or an action, let's I have
[53:18] flagged those.
[53:18] >> Okay. Um, and even if it's not I want to
[53:21] dive into it, it's these are the ones
[53:23] that I'm most concerned about. Then if
[53:26] you want to follow up with here are some
[53:27] of the specifics regarding those
[53:29] concerns, that might be the most
[53:31] efficient use of everyone's time.
[53:33] >> Thank you.
[53:33] >> Yeah,
[53:36] Judith Mary clarifying questions.
[53:39] >> Yes. Uh I I specifically wanted to ask
[53:43] about uh fire following um following
[53:47] earthquake and why that shouldn't be
[53:49] presented as a separate hazard as being
[53:53] unique to Porto Valley, not unique, but
[53:56] our greatest hazard and that it should
[54:00] be a driving force in our safety
[54:03] element, not just a suggestion maybe on
[54:06] a on an on a that adjunctive list.
[54:15] » Well, I can't speak to what what it may
[54:17] be on any other list because I again I
[54:20] just want to also clarify too we have
[54:21] not been part of the safety.
[54:23] >> Right. No, I I'm specifically asking uh
[54:25] my question is how much trouble is it to
[54:28] add another section because we have two
[54:31] kinds of fire. We have urban and we have
[54:34] wildfire. And we have another kind that
[54:38] has to do with earthquake that we all
[54:41] know that that you talk about those
[54:43] hazards, but no nowhere does it say
[54:45] specifically what we do about when we
[54:48] have a big earthquake and nobody knows
[54:50] what's going to happen next. So oftent
[54:53] times what we try to do um in all types
[54:57] of hazards planning is
[55:01] don't propose going down rabbit holes of
[55:04] the whatifs on top of each other. So
[55:07] when we talk about a hazard we try to
[55:10] break it down to its full component. We
[55:12] know that fire is a big concern. We want
[55:15] to make sure we can address fire. We
[55:17] also know that earthquake is a big
[55:19] concern. It's very very logical that the
[55:21] two of them together are an even bigger
[55:23] concern. And I think we can recognize
[55:25] that. What I'm uh what I caution a lot
[55:28] of communities is for them to say, well,
[55:31] I'm really worried about a traffic
[55:33] accident that turns into a hazardous
[55:34] material spill that turns into
[55:36] evacuation, right? And so what we want
[55:38] to do is we want to break our elements
[55:40] and and the the components of our
[55:42] hazards down to their kind of core
[55:44] components. So that way you can easily
[55:47] add them up as you're going through the
[55:50] emergency management planning process.
[55:52] Because what's best suited for the fire
[55:56] after an earthquake hazard is for you to
[55:59] actually have um an annex to your
[56:02] emergency operations plan that talks
[56:04] about after an earthquake, what are we
[56:07] doing specifically as an organization.
[56:10] We can definitely put a policy or two
[56:12] in, but you already should have the
[56:14] building blocks with the earthquake and
[56:16] with the fire policies. And if we miss
[56:18] something that you're concerned about
[56:19] from an earthquake and a fire
[56:20] perspective,
[56:21] >> I don't think you're answering my
[56:22] question.
[56:23] >> Um, okay. So then,
[56:24] >> how much trouble would it be to add that
[56:27] element?
[56:27] >> I I've already answered that question.
[56:29] It's not difficult to add more
[56:31] information or context about that, but
[56:34] trying to create a whole entire hazards
[56:36] discussion on that specific thing, I
[56:38] would not recommend.
[56:40] So adding a discussion under earthquake
[56:43] that we have to be concerned about fire
[56:45] after earthquake is something that we
[56:48] can add to the element if you want to
[56:50] also identify in the fire section. One
[56:53] of the largest uh vulnerabilities for
[56:57] fire is fire occurring after an
[57:00] earthquake. We can definitely add that
[57:01] to the if you want to create a whole
[57:03] entire new section. That's probably a
[57:05] little bit more work because now we're
[57:07] getting into that scenario planning that
[57:10] safety elements were never designed to
[57:12] do.
[57:12] >> Thank you.
[57:13] >> Great. So, I'd like to remind people
[57:15] it's six almost six o'clock. Let's try
[57:17] to keep this section just to clarifying
[57:18] questions. I feel like we're starting to
[57:20] dive into kind of process. So, if we
[57:22] just keep it to questions about the
[57:24] presentation, we're going to come back.
[57:26] You can still ask questions. This is the
[57:27] last chance to ask questions, but let's
[57:30] not sort of use all of this time up. So,
[57:33] um, Lind, did you have any clarifying
[57:34] questions?
[57:34] >> I have a clarifying question. I have
[57:36] oodles of comments. So, like you, I'm
[57:37] anxious to get to that, but you made a
[57:40] comment to the effect that this is not
[57:42] an action document. How do you read the
[57:46] state code that requires us to put
[57:48] implementation measures?
[57:50] >> Those are actions. Those are specific
[57:52] actions.
[57:53] >> Yeah. implementation measure or actions
[57:55] but that's not an action that you can do
[57:57] tomorrow in some like putting a padlock
[58:00] on a fence and making sure that that
[58:02] gate cannot open or close I can do that
[58:04] tomorrow and somebody is a little bit
[58:06] safer the implementation actions in a
[58:08] general plan were never designed to be
[58:10] something that you can take on tomorrow
[58:12] check it off and and move on because
[58:14] we're talking about larger systemic
[58:17] issues that you have as a community
[58:19] understanding your hazards and then
[58:20] understanding how do you solve the
[58:22] problem
[58:22] >> associ associated with those hazards. I
[58:24] understand but I think that's a much
[58:26] different thing than what you said to
[58:28] say that this is not an action enforcing
[58:30] document because those implementation
[58:32] measures are necessary
[58:34] >> of locations and those are specific
[58:36] actions
[58:37] >> put the implementation actions in I
[58:39] think maybe I misspoke and what I was
[58:42] trying to but this is not immediate
[58:45] action it's not something that happens
[58:47] immediately it will take time
[58:49] >> well no planning general plan element
[58:53] happens immediately. So that's why it
[58:55] was particularly disturbing. Thank you.
[58:57] That's my only comment.
[58:58] >> Thank you, Ellen.
[59:01] >> Great. Thank you.
[59:03] >> I do have a couple of questions. Um for
[59:06] those folks who, you know, who are super
[59:09] busy. Um, I didn't see an executive
[59:13] summary type uh
[59:17] situation in the front or any type of
[59:20] uh, you know, quick and dirty
[59:24] thing, you know, something that people
[59:25] could read in their three minutes
[59:28] situation.
[59:29] >> Most of the time, general planning
[59:31] elements do not have.
[59:33] >> Okay, that was what I wanted to know.
[59:36] Um, thank you. Next question. In terms
[59:39] um of I don't about the impact of sea
[59:43] level rise. Um I don't see anything in
[59:46] here about our wastewater infrastructure
[59:48] that is on the San Francisco Bay that's
[59:50] cited in the San Monteo County sea level
[59:53] rise vulnerability assessment of 2018.
[59:56] The Silicon It's the Silicon Valley
[59:58] clean water wastewater treatment plant.
[1:00:00] Mhm.
[1:00:01] >> Is was that because it's not in the town
[1:00:04] boundaries? Like
[1:00:06] >> so oftentimes what we really are
[1:00:08] balancing is what do you have control
[1:00:10] over versus what you don't have control
[1:00:12] over. But I think we reference that sea
[1:00:14] level rise is still a concern because of
[1:00:17] infrastructure that the town relies on
[1:00:19] outside. So I think that's a a great
[1:00:21] thing you could add.
[1:00:22] >> Great. Thank you. Um, and also just to
[1:00:26] be clear about council member Hefty or
[1:00:28] excuse me, Vice Mayor Hefty, what um, in
[1:00:30] terms of the cascading effects, I take
[1:00:32] it that we don't have cascading effects
[1:00:35] because of the rabbit hole situation.
[1:00:37] So, fire with an earthquake, flooding,
[1:00:40] you do reference flooding with an
[1:00:42] evacuation route, but are those all
[1:00:45] usually saved for the annex crosswalk
[1:00:47] situation?
[1:00:48] >> That would usually be uh, you would want
[1:00:50] to use that from an emergency planning
[1:00:52] perspective. However, um we have
[1:00:54] incorporated some text in the past that
[1:00:56] talks about how ads are have cascading
[1:00:59] effects. I think it's very very
[1:01:01] appropriate to put an add.
[1:01:04] >> Great. Thank you. Um and then last
[1:01:06] question. I noticed that quite a few of
[1:01:08] the maps weren't it said would be
[1:01:11] updated. Um could you explain that
[1:01:14] situation?
[1:01:15] >> We're waiting on some additional data
[1:01:17] from the townologist apparently they
[1:01:19] were going to an update as well. So we
[1:01:21] wanted to time it to make sure once
[1:01:24] their maps were fully updated, we could
[1:01:26] then incorporate the data shouldn't or
[1:01:28] the map shouldn't change significantly,
[1:01:30] but we would just wanted to make sure
[1:01:32] that there was a footnote that there's
[1:01:34] potential for that.
[1:01:35] >> Okay, great. Those are my questions.
[1:01:37] Thank you.
[1:01:38] >> Thank you, Nicholas.
[1:01:40] >> Yeah, EDIC. Uh, three questions. is
[1:01:46] are the uh elements that are included in
[1:01:49] here meant to be self-executing? There
[1:01:52] are words like enforce, ensure
[1:01:56] that our command things that need to be
[1:01:59] done. That is and that creates legal
[1:02:02] obligations both for residents and also
[1:02:07] creates an obligation and potentially a
[1:02:10] duty on the part of the uh town. And so
[1:02:14] if they're not performed then there's a
[1:02:17] question of what that means.
[1:02:20] >> Yes. Are the are the
[1:02:23] are those is that language meant to be
[1:02:26] self-executing
[1:02:28] >> the policies and actions when their
[1:02:33] account responsibility or account is
[1:02:35] trying to oversee uh or or uh prevents
[1:02:39] uh open condition. We're trying to use
[1:02:42] the right language to make sure that happens. Right? We will often have
[1:02:46] a policy says don't put homes in flood
[1:02:48] plane. So we want to make sure that
[1:02:50] you're enforcing flood regulations to
[1:02:52] make sure the homes don't get put in the
[1:02:53] flood plane. That policy should be kind
[1:02:56] of self-regulated. You would have
[1:02:58] essentially have somebody, you know,
[1:03:00] submitting an application to the
[1:03:01] planning department and their home is
[1:03:03] smack dab in the middle of the flood
[1:03:05] plane. Well, you can then reference that
[1:03:06] policy basically does not allow us to do
[1:03:09] that. You need to go home. So that's
[1:03:11] really the intent of of how the policies
[1:03:13] are written is really to help staff as
[1:03:16] well as appointing elected officials
[1:03:18] when they're getting projects across
[1:03:20] their debts that are not meeting the
[1:03:22] standard.
[1:03:25] That answer your question in part. Um so
[1:03:29] there are examples in which there said
[1:03:34] to minimize risk or to limit the
[1:03:38] potential of uh create a low-risk
[1:03:42] condition that are
[1:03:47] uh
[1:03:49] not uh that that are discretionary in
[1:03:52] nature. And it says that the town shall
[1:03:55] do this and that the residents shall
[1:03:59] presumably comply.
[1:04:02] So it looks like kind of a
[1:04:07] ordinance kind of direction being
[1:04:09] included in a am I am I reading that
[1:04:13] correctly or
[1:04:15] >> is regulatory
[1:04:17] >> but words like enforce and ensure
[1:04:21] >> right
[1:04:21] >> create specific obligations they are
[1:04:25] execut
[1:04:26] >> right and so we're we're saying force
[1:04:28] hopefully we we've uh captured that
[1:04:31] we're enforcing either an existing law
[1:04:34] that's on the books or in code uh or
[1:04:36] enforcing you know state statute uh you
[1:04:40] know and often times what we have to do
[1:04:42] is we have to understand that we maybe
[1:04:44] misjudged on the right whether it was
[1:04:47] informed or not um and so that's partly
[1:04:50] what we also would hope council member
[1:04:54] as you do your review doesn't mesh with
[1:04:58] the long standard that or or tradition
[1:05:00] that we've
[1:05:01] where we're not enforcing this. This is
[1:05:03] somebody else that enforces it. So, we need an outcome of it. So, um but
[1:05:07] yes, you're right. At some point when
[1:05:10] you say a word like require, you know,
[1:05:13] that is basically you've got skin in the
[1:05:16] game that you're making sure somebody's
[1:05:18] doing something or what they say.
[1:05:21] >> So, when you're using words and I and I
[1:05:23] apologize for the time. Uh so when
[1:05:26] you're using words like enforce, shall
[1:05:30] require.
[1:05:33] >> So it's like law.
[1:05:34] >> We that should refer to a that is law.
[1:05:38] But th those are that those that's
[1:05:41] regulatory language. But what you're
[1:05:44] saying is that should refer to a
[1:05:47] specific existing obligation or and if
[1:05:52] it has this kind of more nebulous to
[1:05:57] create a low-risk condition
[1:06:01] uh is without reference to any
[1:06:04] statutory. Is that supposed to be I is
[1:06:09] that should we be identifying areas
[1:06:12] where you're using executive language
[1:06:16] without referencing a statute?
[1:06:20] Um, in some cases you don't have to
[1:06:22] actually reference a set to apply that
[1:06:24] policy as a a rule, right? So
[1:06:28] >> to apply I'm sorry to apply it as a
[1:06:30] rule,
[1:06:31] >> a rule or a law or a requirement, right?
[1:06:34] So um if you're not going to allow homes
[1:06:37] in the flood plane, you can have a
[1:06:39] policy don't allow homes in the flood
[1:06:41] plane. Um, you can then also reference
[1:06:44] your flood management ordinance, but you
[1:06:47] don't have to reference the ordinance at
[1:06:50] the same time.
[1:06:51] >> There's language in here that seems to
[1:06:53] create obligations out of full clock.
[1:06:57] that are central for that.
[1:06:58] >> And and in that context, that seems like
[1:07:03] it's a self-executing
[1:07:06] direction that isn't in reference to any
[1:07:11] existing law. It may be a really good
[1:07:14] idea. I'm just trying to understand
[1:07:17] whether this Hey, Linda, please
[1:07:20] respectful
[1:07:22] is the qu the qu the question the
[1:07:24] question is is it
[1:07:28] is the language in here supposed to
[1:07:31] create new obligations on individuals
[1:07:35] and on the town
[1:07:38] >> on some cases. In some cases it might.
[1:07:40] Yeah.
[1:07:41] and and those obligations may be backed
[1:07:43] by changes to safe.
[1:07:46] >> Yeah.
[1:07:46] >> So do we have uh is is there is there
[1:07:49] inclusion of costs that are associated
[1:07:52] with this?
[1:07:53] >> So often times the safety element will
[1:07:55] not include the costs associated with
[1:07:57] that. That's partly why we wanted to
[1:07:59] have a study session that we could help
[1:08:02] you all get up to speed on what's in
[1:08:06] there and then you could start taking a
[1:08:07] look at it because there are some policy
[1:08:10] ramifications that you'll have to take a
[1:08:13] look at as a the governing body.
[1:08:15] >> Thank you.
[1:08:18] >> All right. Thank you. All right. So, I'd
[1:08:20] like to open it up for public comment.
[1:08:22] Then we'll bring it back. We continue.
[1:08:23] Again, this is a study session, so we're
[1:08:25] going to continue to have questions,
[1:08:26] discussions. Um, but with that, let me
[1:08:29] go online. So, the first one is Zoom
[1:08:31] user, which I think is still Dana.
[1:08:36] » Can you hear me? No,
[1:08:38] >> I can. Well, yeah, we can hear you.
[1:08:40] >> Good. Um, so I mean, I hope the
[1:08:43] obligations change as we learn more. I
[1:08:46] mean, I went to the geology meeting the
[1:08:49] other night and before we do anything, I
[1:08:51] feel like I need to understand what are
[1:08:53] the slip rates on the on the San Andreas
[1:08:56] fault on the peninsula. Nothing has
[1:08:59] changed in years and that needs to be
[1:09:02] studied and we need to understand that
[1:09:04] for our evacuations.
[1:09:07] I I still feel like we're in the total
[1:09:09] beginning of all of this and and I think
[1:09:12] that puts us in danger if we are not up
[1:09:15] to speed on all of this stuff. So, here
[1:09:18] comes our our own geology committee last
[1:09:21] week who puts forward this this talk and
[1:09:24] it was very compelling and upsetting.
[1:09:27] So, I hope that we um we look into all
[1:09:30] of this stuff, the the the uh the
[1:09:33] geology committee and I also think that
[1:09:36] the staff needs to hear from residents
[1:09:40] of the town because I don't think they
[1:09:42] have the institutional knowledge yet of
[1:09:44] what we what we understand about our
[1:09:47] safety. Okay. Thank you.
[1:09:51] >> Thank you, Dana and Jay.
[1:10:02] Go ahead, MJ.
[1:10:04] >> Oh, okay. So, first of all, Erin, I
[1:10:07] think it's Erin. Uh, if you could speak
[1:10:09] into the microphone a little closer. I
[1:10:11] was really having trouble hearing you.
[1:10:14] Um,
[1:10:16] so my first question is when is the
[1:10:19] safety element due? I think you said
[1:10:21] that your your goal is to get it turned
[1:10:23] over. uh by September, October. But but
[1:10:27] is there actually a due date
[1:10:30] from the state?
[1:10:33] >> So NJ, this is your chance to comment.
[1:10:35] Um it's not a question period. So if
[1:10:38] >> other commissioners or council want to
[1:10:40] answer ask those same questions, but
[1:10:42] from you, I'm just looking for your
[1:10:43] general comments.
[1:10:44] >> Okay. So, um, one comment I have is that
[1:10:49] to review the safety element as a Brown
[1:10:51] Act committee, the wildfire committee
[1:10:53] needs to put this on our agenda for next
[1:10:56] Thursday. So I put a ad hoc subcommittee
[1:11:00] together but basically we only have 7 to
[1:11:03] 10 days to review a thousand pages over
[1:11:06] seven documents because I have also told
[1:11:09] them that they need to look at the l uh
[1:11:12] Samontro County LHMP the local hazard
[1:11:16] mitigation plan that is currently under
[1:11:19] review on the Santo County website. So I
[1:11:23] kind of feel that the fact that this was
[1:11:25] given to us with such a short turnaround
[1:11:28] is almost like asking uh for just a
[1:11:32] rubber stamp or or complete uh ignorance
[1:11:35] from our committee. Uh another comment I
[1:11:39] have is that there are a ton of policies
[1:11:41] in this safety element. A lot of them
[1:11:43] are assigned to town departments and
[1:11:45] some aren't. I didn't understand why.
[1:11:48] And also I noted that only a few
[1:11:51] policies were actually assigned to
[1:11:53] responsible town committees and I think
[1:11:56] it would be nice, you know, we're here
[1:11:58] to serve you guys and if you guys give
[1:12:00] us responsibility for some of these
[1:12:03] policies, we would take that on. So I
[1:12:06] wanted to point that out. Thank you.
[1:12:09] >> Thank you, MJ. Anybody else online?
[1:12:14] All right. Going once, going twice. All
[1:12:16] right. So we'll go to schoolhouse.
[1:12:17] Anyone in the schoolhouse?
[1:12:19] Rita,
[1:12:26] thank you. Uh just a clarification in
[1:12:28] referring to budget, are we talking
[1:12:30] about the cost of contractors to revise
[1:12:33] the contracts to the paperwork or
[1:12:37] implementation of the things that are on
[1:12:40] the list? you know, uh I really hope
[1:12:43] that we have an opportunity, the
[1:12:45] different committees, the different
[1:12:46] residents have an opportunity to review
[1:12:49] the updated maps and updated
[1:12:52] information. When this process first
[1:12:53] started, that was during COVID. That was
[1:12:56] a different council. It was a different
[1:12:58] planning commission. You know, there
[1:13:00] weren't AI companies. There was it was a
[1:13:03] different life five years ago. And you
[1:13:06] know, people keep referring to different
[1:13:08] meetings in the past. We even have I
[1:13:11] think we're on our third or fourth um
[1:13:14] town manager.
[1:13:16] So, it's different people and I think we
[1:13:18] need to look at the current information
[1:13:20] that we have and uh we've been promised
[1:13:23] that this was going to be done every
[1:13:25] October for the past 5 years. Yeah,
[1:13:28] October. It's going to happen in October
[1:13:31] and promised and so it just seems a
[1:13:33] shame to rush it because it means so
[1:13:35] much to our town right now. You know,
[1:13:39] there was a what 7.8 earthquake the
[1:13:42] other day in one place, a 6.1 in Cuba
[1:13:45] that affected Florida.
[1:13:48] We're not prepared. And we were also
[1:13:50] promised that the safety element should
[1:13:53] have gone or was going to happen before
[1:13:56] the housing element, but instead all the
[1:13:58] resources of the town were put in for
[1:14:01] the housing element. And there are
[1:14:03] things there were lots of comments and
[1:14:05] we could have saved a lot of money on
[1:14:06] the housing element if the safety
[1:14:08] element had come first. And uh my other
[1:14:12] comment is about the
[1:14:15] uh section five that's talking about the
[1:14:17] storm drains. I've been part of a lot of
[1:14:20] the budget discussions on Zoom or in
[1:14:23] person and we're behind on getting that
[1:14:26] done that mandated item done because we
[1:14:28] don't have the money. But here it is in
[1:14:31] the safety element saying that we're
[1:14:33] going to do it. How are we going to sign
[1:14:36] off on things that we say are important
[1:14:38] to us that we're going to do and we
[1:14:40] can't even do them on a regular basis?
[1:14:43] So, I really hope that we take the time
[1:14:46] to review the document, have an
[1:14:48] opportunity for our committees and
[1:14:50] current residents because a lot of
[1:14:52] residents have changed in the past five
[1:14:54] years and help them understand why this
[1:14:57] is important.
[1:14:59] Thank you for listening. Thank you.
[1:15:04] >> Right. Anyone else in the schoolhouse?
[1:15:06] >> Kim, please.
[1:15:13] » Good evening everyone. Um, so like Rita
[1:15:17] was saying, new staff, new people.
[1:15:19] >> You might just introduce yourself.
[1:15:21] Sorry.
[1:15:21] >> Not everybody knows, especially people
[1:15:23] online.
[1:15:24] >> Sorry. It's Kim Giuli, division chief
[1:15:26] and fire marshall with Woodside Fire
[1:15:27] Protection District. So when I came on, on the 2023 draft and it
[1:15:33] towards the tail end of my predecessor
[1:15:36] and at that time there was a lot of back
[1:15:40] and forth on the safety element back
[1:15:42] then. It went to legal proceedings and a
[1:15:44] legal agreement was reached between
[1:15:46] Woodside Fire and the town staff to
[1:15:49] develop an agreement on a work plan. And
[1:15:52] it went to be called the work plan. Um
[1:15:56] 13 key approaches to fire safety and
[1:15:58] seven requests of mitigations.
[1:16:00] And so with this draft of the safety
[1:16:03] element, I reviewed the entire safety
[1:16:05] element. I am happy to see the amount of
[1:16:09] progress and it makes sense that you
[1:16:10] used the Calires because in the language
[1:16:13] that was used, it made sense where it
[1:16:15] needed to. So, it's nice to see that was followed to some. But in
[1:16:19] Woodside Fire, we're very unique and we
[1:16:22] have a lot more ordinances and um
[1:16:26] Woodside Fire has a lot of blankets that
[1:16:28] affect all of the district, not just a
[1:16:30] part of it, and it's more restrictive
[1:16:32] than state law. So, I am submitting
[1:16:36] through the link that was provided um
[1:16:38] because I do have a long list of
[1:16:41] comments because I did um I did go over
[1:16:44] each of the 18 items. Some of the items
[1:16:46] were completely met in this reddraft.
[1:16:49] Some of them are partially met. They
[1:16:51] just maybe need some language addition,
[1:16:54] some um some things that maybe were not
[1:16:56] met. So, I will be submitting that for
[1:16:59] you all to review. I also have some
[1:17:01] recommendations on some rewrites as well
[1:17:04] as there is some information in there
[1:17:06] that I found that um was not accurate
[1:17:08] and maybe just needs to be revisited.
[1:17:11] So, just wanted to let you all know
[1:17:12] that's been completed and will be
[1:17:14] submitted today with the link.
[1:17:15] >> Great.
[1:17:16] >> Thank you.
[1:17:16] Kim.
[1:17:19] >> Great. Nan
[1:17:29] safety element. I've been working on
[1:17:31] this for four years since June. Can you
[1:17:34] hear?
[1:17:35] >> No,
[1:17:35] >> you can't hear me
[1:17:37] >> there.
[1:17:38] >> Oh, okay. I've been working on this
[1:17:40] since June 2022. It has been four years.
[1:17:44] Um,
[1:17:46] I hope town council members and planning
[1:17:49] commission members that you
[1:17:52] agree with me that this is a document
[1:17:54] that's more than just check the boxes
[1:17:57] and turn it into the state to meet uh
[1:17:59] statutory requirements. This is a
[1:18:02] document that controls should be
[1:18:04] controlling what the town does to keep
[1:18:07] itself safe. It's it to me it's it's
[1:18:10] much more personal than just satisfying
[1:18:13] the state laws and you know putting in all the all the
[1:18:21] requirements.
[1:18:23] Okay, that said um I think that this
[1:18:26] draft in 2026 reads much more smoothly
[1:18:29] than the 2022 draft. So thank you for
[1:18:32] that. It's much much more readable. Um,
[1:18:35] I like it better just generally the
[1:18:38] organization is better. It's clearer.
[1:18:41] Um, I think a lot of that comes from
[1:18:42] taking the third level of detail, the
[1:18:44] implementation actions out of the
[1:18:46] document itself and putting them in the
[1:18:48] appendix. So that that was a good good
[1:18:52] call. I find that a lot of the comments
[1:18:54] we made in 2022 are in that list. So
[1:18:58] they're in the document, but you don't
[1:19:00] see them um in the body. That's fine.
[1:19:04] Um for the geologic hazard section in
[1:19:07] particular, um we've been going through
[1:19:10] it pretty carefully and we found um
[1:19:13] quite a few inaccuracies, misstatements
[1:19:16] which we will point out. So we're going
[1:19:19] to make some detailed
[1:19:21] um detailed comp comments.
[1:19:24] Uh we will note them and make
[1:19:26] suggestions for changes.
[1:19:29] Um,
[1:19:31] one thing I will mention is a set of
[1:19:34] geologic maps which I find, you know, I
[1:19:36] know those maps intimately, but I find
[1:19:38] going from one to the other very
[1:19:41] confusing. Um
[1:19:44] uh and you mentioned the LHMP, the local
[1:19:47] hazard mitigation plan that captures the
[1:19:51] seismic hazard of the town much better
[1:19:54] than
[1:19:55] um CGS or USGS. So um I would like to
[1:20:01] look um in more detail and have more
[1:20:04] detail from LHMP in the um in the safety
[1:20:08] element in the uh seismic hazard
[1:20:11] section.
[1:20:14] uh for cascading hazards. Yes. Uh you
[1:20:16] mentioned it once at least in geological
[1:20:19] hazard section, but it's so important in
[1:20:22] this town because all we have to do is
[1:20:24] have a large earthquake. Oops, I've gone
[1:20:26] over time. Sorry. Um we get a fire, we
[1:20:30] have to evacuate, we get landslides, we
[1:20:32] get liquefaction. It's it's a very real threat here and it's sort of
[1:20:40] glossed over and I would like to find a
[1:20:42] way to um to say more about that. I'm
[1:20:46] not sure how you do that.
[1:20:47] >> So Nan, I'm going to have to ask you to
[1:20:49] stop.
[1:20:50] >> Yeah.
[1:20:50] >> Great. Thank you.
[1:20:51] >> Thank you.
[1:20:52] >> Right. Anyone else in the schoolhouse?
[1:20:55] All right. So with that, I'm going to
[1:20:56] bring it back to the council and the
[1:20:58] commission. Um, Linda, do you wanna, you
[1:21:02] know, we've got roughly a half hour, so
[1:21:05] that means we have roughly three minutes
[1:21:07] per um do you want to run through your
[1:21:10] commissioners?
[1:21:12] >> That sounds good.
[1:21:13] >> Thank you.
[1:21:13] >> Uh, I'll go through them uh
[1:21:15] alphabetically, which means that we
[1:21:17] start with me. Um, I've I've written nations laws. I've written
[1:21:26] the nuclear waste laws that apply to
[1:21:28] this nation. They've all been challenged
[1:21:29] and they've all been substained. I've
[1:21:31] written hazardous waste loves and
[1:21:32] nuclear waste laws. And um my point is
[1:21:37] this is so far away from anything that I
[1:21:40] would like to see go on our code that
[1:21:42] it's hard to know where to start. I have
[1:21:44] comments on every single page where I
[1:21:47] think the language has been sort of
[1:21:49] careless or or inexact. And I think
[1:21:52] these are topics where you have to be
[1:21:54] very exact. There are some areas that
[1:21:56] are very exact but I mean for example
[1:21:57] the first line says it's an affluent
[1:21:59] community unnecessary. Who decided that?
[1:22:02] Why did you include it? Uh I can go to
[1:22:06] page uh and these may be details but
[1:22:10] it's it's it's a point that's made
[1:22:11] throughout the document. You have a page
[1:22:14] 37 a table that says hazards safety
[1:22:17] risk. I always my eyeballs always pop
[1:22:20] open when I see a slash. It's a hazard
[1:22:22] list. I don't know why you called safety
[1:22:25] in there. It's just inexact. I don't
[1:22:27] know what the slash means. Just examples
[1:22:30] of situations like that. Uh I'm going to
[1:22:34] have a bigger comment here. Uh for
[1:22:35] example, I know the law requires you to
[1:22:37] mention military uh activities. Mention
[1:22:41] um and I could pull up the page uh
[1:22:43] Moffett Field. I'm not sure that Moffett
[1:22:46] Field is still functional to begin with
[1:22:48] in any way that's relevant, but in any
[1:22:50] case, then you add another paragraph
[1:22:51] about, well, maybe Muffetfield would
[1:22:53] help us to me that those kinds of
[1:22:56] comments make this very unfocused and
[1:22:59] very difficult for a user or the town or
[1:23:03] anybody else to evaluate it. Which
[1:23:06] brings me to my second comment. Um,
[1:23:10] I feel like you've missed the boat in a
[1:23:12] few major areas. I I just got back from
[1:23:15] a trip where we were on and off boats
[1:23:16] and I think of how you know when the
[1:23:18] boat's there and you step out and you
[1:23:20] hope the boat's not going to bounce away
[1:23:22] so you fall in the water. I kind of feel
[1:23:24] like you're close to falling in the
[1:23:25] water on a couple of things. The point
[1:23:28] here when you write a law or you write a
[1:23:30] rule or you write a brief is you figure
[1:23:33] out what your point is and then you make
[1:23:35] it and you can make a paragraph. The
[1:23:37] lovely thing about a computer is you can
[1:23:39] write that paragraph. Well, we're a
[1:23:40] bunch of guinea pigs here in a town
[1:23:43] that's got earthquakes, fire, every
[1:23:46] natural disaster you can imagine with
[1:23:48] only two roads in and out. And we're
[1:23:51] like the guinea pigs that are rolling
[1:23:52] around on the little wheel. But we're
[1:23:54] not going to be on the wheel. We're
[1:23:55] going to be stuck on the road. So the
[1:23:57] thing that really gets lost here is the
[1:24:00] fact that the most important thing for
[1:24:02] this town is your job to educate which
[1:24:06] is part of the safety element and your
[1:24:08] job to inform which is part of the
[1:24:10] safety element but then your job to set
[1:24:12] the goals and the implementation
[1:24:14] measures really only focus on one thing
[1:24:17] I'm overexaggerating to make my point
[1:24:19] which is evacuation. Um, so moving on,
[1:24:23] um, just a little bit from that point.
[1:24:26] Um, I love all the figures, but they all
[1:24:30] use a different base map. I can't even
[1:24:32] tell you where the town lines are.
[1:24:34] There's mistakes in the figures. I live
[1:24:36] in Porto Valley Ranch. It's not a county
[1:24:39] park. It happens to be private land,
[1:24:41] although other people might think
[1:24:42] otherwise. Um, I think there's a failure
[1:24:45] to make really important judgments.
[1:24:48] Let's look for example at figure two.
[1:24:50] And I I will I will stop in one more
[1:24:53] minute, Craig, but I just want to get
[1:24:55] the point across that my points that I
[1:24:57] have on every single comment. Figure two
[1:24:59] treats the the area I think it's where
[1:25:02] Nicholas lives over there in the upper
[1:25:04] left and the ranch the same way as it
[1:25:07] treats a culde-sac off of Westridge
[1:25:09] where there's one house. If you were to
[1:25:12] talk about evacuation, you need to
[1:25:14] figure out how to get the four the 200
[1:25:17] households at the ranch, which is 20% of
[1:25:20] the town's population, and these other
[1:25:22] ones over there off of Portola Road out
[1:25:25] of town. That's a whole lot different
[1:25:27] from getting two people who live on a
[1:25:29] street
[1:25:31] that that's the only house on the
[1:25:32] street. So, I think that the the failure
[1:25:35] to kind of do a more detailed analysis
[1:25:37] here to me is a missed opportunity. And
[1:25:40] then the final point I will make is that
[1:25:41] putting all these definitions in here
[1:25:43] are really nice, but you haven't used
[1:25:45] incorporation by reference. You haven't
[1:25:47] used appendices. Who needs to have all
[1:25:49] these definitions? What you really need
[1:25:50] is to get to the guts of it, which is
[1:25:52] your evaluation and your I'm out of
[1:25:54] time. I know, but uh uh I want to paint
[1:25:58] that picture. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:26:00] >> You're welcome. That was so hopefully
[1:26:02] you'll keep your Yeah, that was your
[1:26:03] five. And you're supposed to have
[1:26:04] minutes, right? You're supposed to have
[1:26:05] three.
[1:26:06] >> Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:26:07] >> Yeah, we're down to three. So, if you
[1:26:09] could
[1:26:09] >> Ronnie will be next.
[1:26:12] >> Um, I I did send some comments to staff
[1:26:15] late last night. Did those make their
[1:26:16] way to you? Is that the best way to
[1:26:17] comment?
[1:26:18] >> Yeah, we I I already reviewed um your
[1:26:20] comments and I appreciate the the detail
[1:26:22] that you provided.
[1:26:23] >> Okay, great. Uh so, yeah, I guess the main kind of policy one I wanted to
[1:26:30] raise was this policy S3.2 two uh which
[1:26:34] is about construction
[1:26:36] um in a fault zone setback and
[1:26:38] specifically the San Andreas fault zone.
[1:26:41] Um the policy after that 3.3 is um about
[1:26:47] construction in in other fault zones I I
[1:26:49] think not outside of San Andreas and 3.3
[1:26:52] kind of um allows for construction when
[1:26:55] there's you know uh uh studies and
[1:26:58] mitigation measures etc. But but 3.2 two
[1:27:02] in the San Andreas fault zone seemingly
[1:27:04] like completely disallows um
[1:27:07] construction and uh I mean I I believe
[1:27:11] that would be a significant change from
[1:27:13] what we currently have in place and you
[1:27:15] know we do have properties that are
[1:27:17] completely covered by um sort of these setbacks and so I I don't know if
[1:27:23] you want to briefly respond is is
[1:27:26] >> I read I read your comments uh and I
[1:27:29] agree that there is a little bit
[1:27:31] ambiguity. One of the things I want to
[1:27:32] do is I want to take a look at the
[1:27:35] previous element that um that's
[1:27:37] currently adopted just to verify that we
[1:27:39] weren't reusing language. We may have
[1:27:41] repurposed an existing policy and that
[1:27:44] might be where there's that inongruity.
[1:27:46] The other thing too is we also uh
[1:27:48] coordinating with the town geologists
[1:27:50] and making sure that the town geologist
[1:27:51] is comfortable with language. So, we'll
[1:27:53] bring up your comments as well with the
[1:27:55] town geologist just to make sure that um
[1:27:58] we're capturing that because I I do
[1:28:00] agree with what you're saying. It seems
[1:28:02] like we're using a different standard
[1:28:04] when one standard probably is more than
[1:28:06] adequate, but we want to verify with the
[1:28:07] town geologist.
[1:28:08] >> Okay. Okay. Great. Yeah. So the main
[1:28:11] comment is um you know I think we you
[1:28:13] know we want to disallow unsafe building
[1:28:16] but if there are studies and mitigation
[1:28:18] measures I think that we should you know
[1:28:22] accommodate that since we do have many
[1:28:24] faults running through the town.
[1:28:26] >> Um
[1:28:27] that was kind of the main substantial
[1:28:29] one. Um
[1:28:32] uh I I did um
[1:28:35] so me many of the policies like in 3.5
[1:28:40] and in 5.6 um are identified as being
[1:28:43] part of the public works department and
[1:28:45] maybe I just don't understand our what
[1:28:48] our public works department does but to
[1:28:50] me it seemed like they were outside of
[1:28:52] the scope of what I understood them to
[1:28:54] do. like for example
[1:28:57] kind of almost negotiating across
[1:28:59] utility companies, Woodside Fire
[1:29:01] Protection District, neighboring towns,
[1:29:03] etc. Um, maintaining development
[1:29:06] standards. Um, so yeah, I guess m maybe
[1:29:10] just review if the public works
[1:29:13] department is really the right agency or
[1:29:17] >> Yeah, planning and I are going to take a
[1:29:18] look at those comments and then we'll
[1:29:20] also touch base with public works.
[1:29:22] >> I'm sorry, but I'm got a gun to my head.
[1:29:24] That's four minutes.
[1:29:27] >> That That was three. Veronica, can I ask
[1:29:29] that you just put up the timer? That'll
[1:29:30] I think help everybody through.
[1:29:37] » Ronnie, Doug, going alphabetically here.
[1:29:41] >> Uh I will go under my time. Uh
[1:29:44] >> thank you.
[1:29:46] I just have a like a general question
[1:29:49] that that I think goes similar to Linda
[1:29:52] in the this seems daunting to me for the
[1:29:56] town to accomplish all of this. Um, and
[1:29:59] so my general question is how does this
[1:30:02] compare to the minimum that the state
[1:30:04] requires and then what is being added on
[1:30:07] in top of that because that's unique to
[1:30:09] our community and as then it relates to
[1:30:14] the implementation actions.
[1:30:17] It feels to me like there should be some
[1:30:19] prioritization
[1:30:20] of these because I think the chance of a
[1:30:23] flood is a lot less than a fire. And so
[1:30:26] maybe that's where we should be spending
[1:30:27] our time and directing our resources. Or
[1:30:30] maybe that's not a good example, but you
[1:30:32] get the idea. We as a community should
[1:30:34] decide on what our priorities priorities
[1:30:37] are and and realize that we have a
[1:30:39] limited set of resources to get those
[1:30:41] done and that should be reflected in
[1:30:43] this document somehow. And if I'm just
[1:30:46] clarifying when you say ad daunting, are
[1:30:48] you talking about the scope of all of
[1:30:50] the goals, policies, and actions that
[1:30:51] are in the element or the entire element
[1:30:53] itself?
[1:30:55] >> Uh the goals that are within the element
[1:30:58] which then translate to Craigslist,
[1:31:01] which then becomes even bigger.
[1:31:03] >> Yeah. Uh and sorry to laugh when you
[1:31:06] said Craigslist. I was I went to
[1:31:10] >> sell everything. But to to answer the
[1:31:12] question from a priority perspective,
[1:31:13] the safety element is agnostic when it
[1:31:15] comes to priority. Not because one
[1:31:18] hazard is more or less important than
[1:31:19] the other, but because we want to give
[1:31:21] you as many tools as possible. What we
[1:31:24] want you then to be able to do as a
[1:31:25] community is that once it's adopted, you
[1:31:28] then decide which of the tools you want
[1:31:30] to pull out and start using the most
[1:31:32] because you have the greatest need. So
[1:31:35] with that, you we we're trying to give
[1:31:37] you as many ways for you to help your
[1:31:40] community with all of the various issues
[1:31:43] that we've identified.
[1:31:45] And then on an annual basis, that's when
[1:31:48] you're working with all of the town
[1:31:49] departments on what are some of the
[1:31:51] priorities and they're going to then
[1:31:52] look at the general plan implementation
[1:31:54] actions to to back and reinforce back up
[1:31:57] and reinforce those priorities with oh,
[1:31:59] we have an action for this. we we we
[1:32:02] we're we're implementing this policy or
[1:32:03] action, you know, and that's that's what
[1:32:06] the the safety element is usually
[1:32:07] designed for. It doesn't mean that your
[1:32:10] community has to follow that. If you
[1:32:11] want to do something different, I know
[1:32:13] you have plans for an additional list or
[1:32:15] some other things, you have the the
[1:32:18] wherewithal to do that. So, but the
[1:32:21] safety element in and of itself is not
[1:32:24] intended to go ahead and start
[1:32:25] prioritizing things for you because we
[1:32:27] also know that communities issues change
[1:32:30] on an annual on a regular basis.
[1:32:33] So, the prioritization needs to come
[1:32:35] outside of the element. It needs to come
[1:32:37] as part of that annual process of upkeep
[1:32:40] to the elements.
[1:32:41] >> Okay.
[1:32:44] >> Uh, alphabetically, Nicholas, you're
[1:32:46] next. So building on those points and
[1:32:51] reverting back to the mandatory
[1:32:54] language, there are
[1:32:59] very many uh examples where the town
[1:33:04] shall do things shall will ensure will
[1:33:08] enforce
[1:33:11] placing obligations on the town. But I
[1:33:15] mean to your point,
[1:33:18] these aren't necessarily prioritized,
[1:33:21] but if there's a mandatory obligation,
[1:33:26] it um and if the language isn't as
[1:33:30] precise as it might be or could be, uh
[1:33:36] it feels as though there is a they're not policies to be implemented.
[1:33:44] But
[1:33:46] there are directions that we must take.
[1:33:50] But as you said, we don't necessarily
[1:33:53] want to take all of them because they
[1:33:55] may not be priorities. But if the
[1:33:58] language says that we shall do it or
[1:34:00] that we shall enforce it, it seems to
[1:34:02] cut against that. So I found that
[1:34:04] confusing.
[1:34:05] I also
[1:34:07] uh
[1:34:09] felt that a lot of it felt very
[1:34:11] bureaucratic you know and that's you
[1:34:13] know it's coming from a land use and
[1:34:16] environmental attorney
[1:34:19] but there's a
[1:34:21] operation and maintenance agreement that
[1:34:24] shall be enforced for vegetation
[1:34:26] management
[1:34:29] really. So, we're going to have for
[1:34:31] every new project or remodel, we're
[1:34:36] going to have an on andm agreement that
[1:34:38] is
[1:34:40] enforcable. It's like without
[1:34:42] description of what these things are and
[1:34:45] what the enforcement mechanisms
[1:34:48] very very very prescriptive.
[1:34:51] >> Some of it absolutely is prescriptive if
[1:34:53] I can jump in. Part of that, especially
[1:34:56] on the wildfire section, is because
[1:34:58] CalFire is looking for a lot of
[1:35:02] um or that they're asking for a lot of
[1:35:04] new requirements be incorporated into uh
[1:35:07] general plans as part of that uh CalFire
[1:35:09] review process. So like that operations
[1:35:11] and maintenance item that you're
[1:35:13] identifying, that's a CalFire thing.
[1:35:15] What they want to make sure is that you
[1:35:18] don't have a developer who comes in and
[1:35:20] says, "Hey, I'm going to build this
[1:35:21] development. uh we're going to do all
[1:35:23] this landscaping. Oh, and by the way,
[1:35:25] yeah, we forgot that we're not going to
[1:35:27] have set aside any money to actually
[1:35:28] maintain it. And so then what happens is
[1:35:31] because you don't have an operations and
[1:35:32] maintenance agreement, who gets stuck
[1:35:34] with the bill when that is overgrown and
[1:35:37] you're being told that it needs cut
[1:35:39] back? So that's the purpose behind that
[1:35:42] policy is that CalFire has learned over
[1:35:44] the years by not having that requirement
[1:35:47] on their own land that they want to
[1:35:48] start seeing a lot of cities in
[1:35:50] California that are under their program
[1:35:54] to start to incorporate that in as well
[1:35:56] because they've been burned as well.
[1:35:57] >> So they they have been burnt. the uh I I
[1:36:01] would just point out that rather than
[1:36:03] having prescriptive language or
[1:36:06] proscriptive language that one could
[1:36:09] have adopt an ordinance or consider
[1:36:13] adopting an ordinance to ensure the
[1:36:16] long-term
[1:36:18] uh sustainability
[1:36:20] and vegetation management to address
[1:36:23] fill in the blank rather than to have a
[1:36:28] mandatory new bureaucratic
[1:36:32] element that is
[1:36:35] using executive language in a general
[1:36:39] plan. And the problem we run into is
[1:36:41] unless that ordinance already exists and
[1:36:43] we haven't seen the comments from
[1:36:45] Woodside Fire Protection District, maybe
[1:36:47] they already have something that we
[1:36:49] could rely on. If we don't, you now have
[1:36:51] a gray area where you now basically have
[1:36:53] something that you would want to
[1:36:55] enforce, but you have no way to enforce
[1:36:56] it if you don't have a policy in your
[1:36:58] general plan to allow you to. the
[1:36:59] general plan respectfully and I'm
[1:37:01] mindful of the time
[1:37:03] >> yeah thank you says that would be of the
[1:37:06] form adopt a ordinance that does
[1:37:10] something
[1:37:11] >> yeah we can definitely I mean
[1:37:12] >> rather than saying that this thing
[1:37:15] exists and the town shall implement it
[1:37:18] based on the GP itself
[1:37:19] >> it's a it's a it's an issue of the time
[1:37:21] lag if there's a concern about
[1:37:23] >> I think we need to move on
[1:37:24] >> sure
[1:37:25] >> uh Karen
[1:37:26] >> yeah um my comments actually link
[1:37:28] Nicholas's is to nans and that I also
[1:37:31] found and I sent you 11 um comments and
[1:37:35] questions earlier um so I hope you have
[1:37:37] those and
[1:37:37] >> yeah we reviewed
[1:37:38] >> I will just go through these for the
[1:37:41] community here um because I found the
[1:37:44] language also confusing and that I
[1:37:46] wanted to know are we going to explore
[1:37:48] these particular things are we going to
[1:37:51] actually are we are we or are we not
[1:37:53] going to ever have an evacuation
[1:37:55] are we uh are we or are we not um going
[1:37:59] to explore widening Alpine Road. I know
[1:38:02] that would cost a lot of money, but I
[1:38:03] think that we need to consider that and
[1:38:05] I don't think that should be on the
[1:38:06] other list. Um and it could be not
[1:38:10] necessarily required, but we should
[1:38:11] explore these things. Um another thing
[1:38:13] that would not be that expensive is
[1:38:15] TFAS, temporary fire refuge areas. And I
[1:38:18] know that the priority has um would explore that with us. Um, and that
[1:38:24] would be in the cascading disaster that
[1:38:27] if we had an earthquake, the roads are
[1:38:28] closed, they're somewhere safe, um, if
[1:38:31] the fire fire goes out for the
[1:38:32] community. Um, do we have a sufficient
[1:38:34] reserve fund that if the roads are are
[1:38:37] broken that we have enough money to get
[1:38:40] them quit fixed very quickly? Um, home
[1:38:43] hardening um, expansion for both this
[1:38:46] building. Have we cleaned up the town
[1:38:48] center itself? Uh, what about
[1:38:50] businesses?
[1:38:52] Um, and this very small minor thing, but
[1:38:55] are the sewer pump stations um, will
[1:38:58] they support a flood? Are we going to
[1:38:59] have a sewer sewer issue? So, these are
[1:39:01] all like are I'm not saying that we
[1:39:03] should necessarily do all these things,
[1:39:04] but I have no idea whether or not we are
[1:39:07] going to explore them. And I don't think
[1:39:08] that should be on the safety and
[1:39:10] resilience list. So, I'll leave my
[1:39:11] comments at that.
[1:39:14] >> Thank you. Um, one of the things you you
[1:39:17] did wrong and then I'll close off our
[1:39:19] comments, but I see Karen has a minute
[1:39:20] left. One of the things that I found
[1:39:22] very frustrating,
[1:39:23] >> but I would say you guys extra minutes.
[1:39:25] So,
[1:39:25] >> you've made you you've made Stamford's
[1:39:28] properties our problem. And my initial
[1:39:31] comment about us being guinea pigs here
[1:39:33] surrounded by problems. We're surrounded
[1:39:35] by property we don't own and we don't
[1:39:37] control. Midpen, Stamford, uh, all your
[1:39:41] stuff about water and creeks and the
[1:39:43] lakes, uh, that's all on Stanford
[1:39:45] property and they've done a lot of stuff
[1:39:47] on there. So, you've raised a lot of
[1:39:48] questions that you don't need to raise
[1:39:50] or you need to raise in a different way.
[1:39:52] Thank you. Um, respectful time. Sorry.
[1:39:55] >> Thank you.
[1:39:57] >> Sorry.
[1:39:59] >> All right. So, now I'm going to bring it
[1:40:00] back to the council for comments. So,
[1:40:02] Helen, why don't I start with you?
[1:40:06] >> Sure. Thank you. Um, a couple of quick comments. Um,
[1:40:12] uh, first, the military at Moffett does
[1:40:14] still exist.
[1:40:16] We get the our reserves are there for
[1:40:18] instance. Um, you get people folks in
[1:40:21] camo around Mountain View for instance.
[1:40:24] Um, that's just a side note. Um, in
[1:40:27] terms of sending it to the other
[1:40:30] committees, I'm very concerned that we
[1:40:34] have been working on this for five
[1:40:35] years.
[1:40:37] Um, obviously this is as a council
[1:40:39] member I'm new new newish new one of the
[1:40:42] newer members on this body. So this is
[1:40:45] my first bite at the apple but and I
[1:40:47] don't want to rush this but the town has
[1:40:50] been working on this for 5 years and I
[1:40:52] am very worried about scope creep and
[1:40:55] extended you know extending the cost. Um
[1:40:58] I appreciate that staff has left this
[1:41:01] open for a month for public comment. I
[1:41:04] appreciate that we are this body is
[1:41:06] meeting with the planning committee. Um
[1:41:11] so you know I I am very worried about
[1:41:14] scope creep. I would like to get this
[1:41:16] plan done um because then it allows us
[1:41:19] to apply for other grants that would
[1:41:22] help to keep us safe. Cuz for instance,
[1:41:25] as we go out for a grant for the
[1:41:27] evacuation route that they will ask on
[1:41:30] the grant application, is this named in
[1:41:33] a document in your safety element or a
[1:41:36] plan? Right. And so we so I want to tr
[1:41:41] personally I mean I am worried about
[1:41:44] trying to continue to take this
[1:41:45] elsewhere um uh the other committees. So
[1:41:50] I just wanted to be on the record for
[1:41:51] that. Um basically don't let the perfect
[1:41:55] be the enemy of the good. Right. Um
[1:41:59] so um there are and I appreciate having
[1:42:03] all of your eyes on this document. I
[1:42:06] really do appreciate like I love the
[1:42:08] idea of the temporary fire locations
[1:42:09] that was forgotten. Um I appreciate you
[1:42:13] know some of the um verbiage that you
[1:42:16] know that would help potentially to make
[1:42:19] sure the um tense is in the correct
[1:42:21] place. Um but I did want to you know
[1:42:24] make sure that hopefully we can uh move
[1:42:27] this document forward. Thank you.
[1:42:30] >> Thank you Helen Mary.
[1:42:34] Speaking of the devil,
[1:42:37] >> document. Am I the devil?
[1:42:39] >> No. No. The fire trucks are coming
[1:42:41] through the parking lot.
[1:42:46] » Call them, Kim.
[1:42:48] >> Are they coming to get you?
[1:42:54] » Well, uh I I have a question u that I
[1:42:57] maybe know should know the answer to. Um
[1:43:00] but and it's been the thing I've been
[1:43:02] pursuing in this is what the obligation
[1:43:05] of the safety element is and uh what the
[1:43:09] safety element obliges the town
[1:43:12] to do in terms of quantifying the number
[1:43:16] of cars, people, disabled persons,
[1:43:20] animals, trailers, trucks, vans, etc.
[1:43:25] work. I know we we have a list of
[1:43:27] temporary workers. we have but the
[1:43:30] people who are actually here and who
[1:43:31] have to get out uh I feel there's a need
[1:43:35] to have those numbers and I don't think
[1:43:37] we have them um certainly accurately
[1:43:41] uh maybe that's maybe we can't get them
[1:43:44] but uh is that an obligation that the
[1:43:46] state is putting on us
[1:43:48] >> it is not an obligation no
[1:43:50] >> it's not in at all okay
[1:43:52] >> no because again the safety element is
[1:43:53] for all people in the town so by us not
[1:43:57] quantif ifying. You've covered
[1:43:59] everybody.
[1:44:01] >> Okay. Animals.
[1:44:03] >> It's It's for It's for everybody.
[1:44:05] >> For the town's resources, right? And
[1:44:07] residents, businesses, animals.
[1:44:10] Absolutely.
[1:44:11] >> Well, I I will go uh I think these are
[1:44:13] the eighth graders, by the way. They actually won't hurt us.
[1:44:19] >> Say that.
[1:44:20] >> I don't have one anymore.
[1:44:23] Okay. So, uh, the primary thing that I
[1:44:26] want to get back to is the unique
[1:44:29] situation of our, uh, risk, our wildfire
[1:44:33] risk following earthquake and why that's
[1:44:36] important and why, uh, again, I don't
[1:44:40] want to be the person using the example,
[1:44:42] but we did have a LMA prieta earthquake.
[1:44:45] My children were one and four and it was
[1:44:48] very terrifying to have a major
[1:44:50] earthquake to be told you had to stay
[1:44:52] there and to know perfectly well that
[1:44:55] fire following earthquake is the nay
[1:44:58] number one thing and nobody
[1:45:01] answering any kind of emergency
[1:45:03] response. So I really feel you know we
[1:45:07] were basically told we had no
[1:45:08] electricity, no water, no way to take
[1:45:10] care of ourselves and we couldn't leave.
[1:45:13] Okay. So, that that's fire that's fire
[1:45:15] risk and that's real. And I have found
[1:45:18] that by far the biggest hazard I've ever
[1:45:21] faced. Uh and I really think that we owe
[1:45:25] ourselves
[1:45:26] having this in our element.
[1:45:28] >> Sure. Yeah. Again, I don't think uh
[1:45:31] incorporating language into the element
[1:45:34] is not a problem. If there's specific
[1:45:35] policies that you think would be helpful
[1:45:37] as well, we are more than welcome to.
[1:45:40] >> It's all about education. It's it's
[1:45:42] knowing that you're not alone and that
[1:45:44] you actually have to go help everybody
[1:45:47] else and have them figure it out.
[1:45:48] >> For sure.
[1:45:49] >> Thanks.
[1:45:50] >> Thank you, Mary Judith.
[1:45:53] >> Hey, I'm going to speak. Do not answer.
[1:45:56] I'm taking my full three minutes. Um,
[1:45:58] it's a great start.
[1:46:01] I feel strongly it must come back to
[1:46:04] council at a minimum and likely the
[1:46:06] planning commission and council because
[1:46:10] we don't know what comments you're going
[1:46:11] to get. We don't know if they're going
[1:46:14] to be consistent and we most importantly
[1:46:18] haven't had a lot of the policy
[1:46:20] discussions I feel are critical in order
[1:46:22] to send something to outside
[1:46:25] authorities. So I want it to come back.
[1:46:28] Um, I do want it submitted sooner rather
[1:46:31] than later, but done right. So, I'm not
[1:46:34] for eons longer. We have to figure out,
[1:46:37] pick a point in time where we're we're
[1:46:39] ready to go and life will continue
[1:46:42] changing. The state will continue
[1:46:44] legislating. There's nothing we can do
[1:46:46] about that. We got to get something
[1:46:47] done. But we're close. We just need to
[1:46:50] do it right. Um, I would in the future
[1:46:54] like to see what is required by state
[1:46:57] law per your discussion with
[1:46:59] Commissioner Tar versus what is a policy
[1:47:02] decision that we need to um contemplate
[1:47:06] and weigh in because there's no point in
[1:47:08] us debating if it's required. We can
[1:47:10] work on the language. Um, all right. So
[1:47:14] then moving on to some of the general
[1:47:16] comments and I have a couple of
[1:47:17] anecdotal examples but um I have more
[1:47:20] and I can separately send in comments.
[1:47:23] One is some some of the items are seem
[1:47:27] at odds with the housing element uh
[1:47:29] restricting on street parking uh
[1:47:31] setbacks and fire hazard zones that kind
[1:47:34] of thing. And I don't know if that's
[1:47:36] correct or not. It's a question for you
[1:47:38] to think about. There's a lot of policy
[1:47:41] questions in here. um creating new
[1:47:44] developments outside of the the fire
[1:47:47] hazard safety concern areas. Well, good
[1:47:50] in principle, but we've got a housing
[1:47:52] element coming up in four years. Are we
[1:47:55] locking ourselves right now into
[1:47:58] developing in areas that might not be on
[1:48:02] balance the right ones? It's a valid
[1:48:04] question. There are things that are am
[1:48:06] ambiguous. Um CWPP I don't think is
[1:48:10] defined. um these these are things that
[1:48:13] we can easily take care of. But what
[1:48:15] does to ensure something mean to me? It
[1:48:19] means to guarantee it will happen. I
[1:48:21] don't think we're have the budget to do
[1:48:23] that. Um in certain respects, uh the
[1:48:28] costbenefit analysis is the policy uh
[1:48:31] decision, but there are things about
[1:48:33] removing um invasives or dangerous
[1:48:36] plants in the right of way. Where is
[1:48:39] that? Is it along the evacuation route?
[1:48:41] No, it's somewhere in addition to that
[1:48:43] because it says including the evacuation
[1:48:45] route. We can't be spending money on
[1:48:48] clearing everything to be safe. We have
[1:48:50] to make sure the evacuation routes are
[1:48:53] taken care of. There are private um
[1:48:56] owner concerns. I think there if we're
[1:48:59] imposing assessments, we got to be
[1:49:02] careful to have those discussions. Um
[1:49:05] scope creep. there is some uh invasive
[1:49:09] species language. It doesn't seem safety
[1:49:11] oriented. Um and then
[1:49:15] um you know the requirement to enforce
[1:49:17] we always have a problem with
[1:49:19] enforcement in this town. We don't have
[1:49:22] we we almost don't have a sheriff that
[1:49:24] to help us enforce things. So it's it's
[1:49:27] a real question on how to rephrase some
[1:49:29] of that to be something we could Thanks.
[1:49:32] >> Thank you, Judith.
[1:49:34] >> Okay. Um, so I wanted to thank you for
[1:49:36] putting this together and I know it's a
[1:49:38] ton of work. Um, I have five general
[1:49:41] comments. Um, the first one's pretty
[1:49:43] minor, but the purpose has an order of
[1:49:46] sections and then the TOC has a
[1:49:48] different one. Um, I'd really like to
[1:49:50] see those line up and I sort of feel
[1:49:52] like the purpose one feel felt like the
[1:49:54] right one and the TOC kind of felt like
[1:49:56] maybe that's the state version, but it
[1:49:58] didn't really feel like it matched the town. Um the next thing is this the
[1:50:04] point that um Commissioner Tar was
[1:50:06] getting at which is this new obligation.
[1:50:08] I mean I really have a concern when I
[1:50:09] look at this. I can't tell whether we're
[1:50:12] creating B sort of soft ordinances
[1:50:16] indirectly. Like it's just really hard
[1:50:18] looking at this document which then
[1:50:20] leads me to sort of my third one which
[1:50:22] is sort of reviewing this before it goes
[1:50:25] to the state agencies. I agree with
[1:50:27] Judith. I'd like to see somehow
[1:50:30] highlighted, maybe it's colorcoded, but
[1:50:32] you know, what are policies that are
[1:50:34] council discretion that we need to
[1:50:36] decide on versus what are requirements
[1:50:38] that just have to be there for v various
[1:50:40] state reasons. So, I think that that's
[1:50:42] going to be important because again, if
[1:50:45] we have substantive changes and it's
[1:50:46] already gone out to the state agencies
[1:50:48] and it comes back, I I don't even
[1:50:50] understand the process of does it have
[1:50:52] to cycle back around like how many
[1:50:53] cycles do we have to do? So, I'd rather
[1:50:55] just cut that off ahead of time.
[1:50:58] Um, the other one is I do want to be
[1:51:01] mindful of budget. Um, you know, this is
[1:51:02] S Sarah's been working hard to to stay
[1:51:05] within this budget. So Sarah, I think
[1:51:07] you're probably going to come back have
[1:51:08] to come back with whatever additional
[1:51:10] budget you think you need to do this
[1:51:12] based on the comments. So that's I think
[1:51:15] that basically covers where I'm at. I
[1:51:18] would like to encourage everyone
[1:51:19] including all the committees to get your
[1:51:22] comments in. I personally would be okay
[1:51:24] if you extended the deadline for
[1:51:26] comments, but you know, I'm going to
[1:51:28] leave that to staff, but the important
[1:51:30] thing is that everybody get their
[1:51:31] detailed comments in. And you know,
[1:51:34] Commissioner Tar, if you can go through
[1:51:36] and point out the things that are, you
[1:51:37] know, like these are obligations that
[1:51:39] need to be discussed. The more we can
[1:51:41] help the consultant identify these
[1:51:44] things quickly, the less money we'll
[1:51:45] spend on the consultant trying to figure
[1:51:47] it out for himself. That would be great.
[1:51:49] On the other hand, you know, Erin, I've
[1:51:51] worked with you some in this process. I really value your time and expertise.
[1:51:55] So, I just wanted to say thank you for
[1:51:57] all the effort that went into this. Um,
[1:51:59] and I'm looking forward to seeing the next round.
[1:52:04] Okay. So, with that, it is 6:53. Um, I'm
[1:52:09] going to call for a motion to adjurnn
[1:52:12] since the council gets a little
[1:52:14] breathing room before we start a seven
[1:52:16] o'clock council meeting. So, do I have a
[1:52:18] motion to adjurnn?
[1:52:20] So moved.
[1:52:21] >> All in favor?
[1:52:22] >> I thank you everyone. Thank you very
[1:52:24] much for productive study session.