[0:01] All right, welcome everybody.
[0:04] >> Welcome everyone. I'd like to call this
[0:05] meeting to order.
[0:08] So, let's start with roll call.
[0:11] Veronica,
[0:14] » Council Member Walter,
[0:16] >> I present.
[0:18] >> Council member Hasco,
[0:19] >> I present. [laughter]
[0:22] >> Council member Flynn,
[0:23] >> present.
[0:24] >> Vice Mayor Hufty,
[0:26] >> present.
[0:26] >> Mayor Taylor,
[0:27] >> present.
[0:28] >> We have a quorum. Great. Thank you.
[0:31] All right. So, the first thing on the
[0:33] agenda is presentations and
[0:34] proclamation. And our first proclamation
[0:37] is for Ethan Radford um and his
[0:40] appointment to the United States Naval
[0:42] Academy. So, unfortunately, well,
[0:44] fortunately for him, but um
[0:46] unfortunately for us, Ethan is on his
[0:48] way to the Naval Academy, so he cannot
[0:50] be here this evening. Um but we have
[0:53] siblings here that are going to
[0:54] basically accept it on his behalf. So,
[0:57] we have
[0:59] a beautiful proclamation. And normally
[1:01] what we do with these is we ask you to
[1:03] come up and the council comes up and we
[1:04] all take a big picture and then we'll
[1:06] send you the picture and then you can
[1:08] tell Ethan like you have a proclamation.
[1:10] He'll come back at Christmas or
[1:11] something. You can give it to him. So,
[1:12] okay. So, why don't we all just stand up
[1:14] here and
[1:19] » did you confirm that the that it is
[1:21] class of class of 2026?
[1:25] >> Classic.
[1:30] No,
[1:30] >> we just
[2:29] » [laughter]
[2:38] » Maybe I can just say as we're sitting
[2:39] down
[2:40] >> how it how it came Could be that we did
[2:42] this proclamation
[2:46] council.
[2:46] >> Sure.
[2:47] >> Oh uh I happened to go to Sam Licardo's
[2:50] uh presentation of his candidates at the
[2:54] Mafood field because we were discussing
[2:56] the safety element and whether we
[2:58] actually had and it was in our own
[3:00] response hanger. So I got to see where
[3:03] our response team is which I thought was
[3:06] very interesting. And then by God there
[3:08] we had our own person who got
[3:11] acknowledged with their very own name
[3:14] and I was so excited to have a real
[3:16] reason and a real representative. So
[3:19] thank you very much.
[3:20] >> Thank you.
[3:20] >> Gave me a reason to go.
[3:26] » All right. So with that let's move move
[3:28] on to 3B which is a presentation from
[3:30] Sano County Mosquito and Vector Control
[3:33] District.
[3:39] We can we even have electricity here.
[3:41] >> Wherever you like it. Where where you
[3:42] comfortable. Either either place.
[3:44] Wherever.
[3:44] >> I can see the screen from here.
[3:48] >> Oh yeah. No problem.
[3:51] Yeah. So I'm Brian Weber. I'm the
[3:52] district manager at Sontel County
[3:54] Mosquito.
[3:57] I just want to thank the council for uh
[3:59] honoring mosquito control awareness week
[4:01] with us. We really appreciate it.
[4:07] No problem.
[4:12] [laughter]
[4:21] » I have to say getting into the Naval
[4:23] Academy is not easy. That was a really
[4:25] impressive feat. So,
[4:27] >> it was it was certainly an impressive
[4:29] ceremony, too. It was fun.
[4:31] >> Oh, is that right? Yeah.
[4:32] >> Yeah. Who knew that California could do
[4:34] that kind of stuff?
[4:39] Okay,
[4:42] so do I just say next slide? Okay, we'll
[4:45] go to the next slide. So, um I only have
[4:48] five slides. Uh real quickly, I think
[4:51] one of the important things about us
[4:52] coming and talking to you all is um so
[4:55] you're aware of our services. Uh, I was
[4:59] just telling your board representative,
[5:01] Robert, that I think one of the biggest
[5:03] things that we're always trying to do at
[5:05] these type of events and um all of our
[5:08] outreach efforts is just understand that
[5:11] the public knows we exist. That's number
[5:13] one. And that they can call us for any
[5:16] one of these services. That's that's one
[5:18] of the most important things. We're the
[5:20] experts in the county and we want your
[5:23] residents to reach out to us. Um, so I'm
[5:26] going to go down this list and just
[5:28] briefly describe
[5:30] um how we deploy these services. So
[5:33] mosquito control, believe it or not,
[5:35] we're one of the oldest organized
[5:37] mosquito control districts in the
[5:39] country. So we've been operating for
[5:42] about um almost 120 years. And uh it
[5:46] started when people wanted of course to
[5:48] develop the peninsula and they hired a
[5:51] professor from Berkeley who came over
[5:53] and came up with an integrated program
[5:56] uh to treat the mosquito larvae in what
[5:58] was um the salt marsh. So I think the
[6:03] biggest thing is um to have the council
[6:06] aware is we do in-house testing of
[6:08] mosquitoes for Westnile virus. Uh that
[6:11] is the only virus currently of concern
[6:14] in the Bay Area. there. Not too long
[6:16] ago, there was a lot talked about of
[6:19] deni and Zika virus, things like that,
[6:22] uh, that were in the media, but as it
[6:24] currently stands, we do not have those
[6:26] mosquitoes in Sano County. Uh, long
[6:29] story, we had them back in 2015, but we were able to gain eradication status.
[6:34] However, those mosquitoes um invasive
[6:37] species called 80s Egypt eye, uh, they
[6:40] are in Santa Clara County and some of
[6:42] our surrounding counties. They do a
[6:44] great job at living uh and proliferating
[6:47] around people. So, we would expect that
[6:49] they're going to be back uh sometime
[6:51] soon. Uh mosquito fish. So, we breed
[6:55] mosquito fish on site. We have a rearing
[6:57] facility. Uh our mosquito fish, they
[7:00] only go into man-made containers, but
[7:03] residents can call us. They can either
[7:05] stop by the district and pick up a bag
[7:07] of fish like you would with a goldfish
[7:09] at a uh at a pet store or they can call
[7:14] the district and all our response time
[7:16] is always one business day. I've been
[7:20] there over 20 years. I can't think of a
[7:21] time where we weren't able to respond in
[7:23] one business day. So, um they can call
[7:26] we can drop the mosquito fish into those
[7:28] man-made containers, ornamental ponds.
[7:31] Sometimes people have wine barrels with
[7:33] a little fountain so um they can tell us
[7:36] the size of the feature and we even will
[7:38] um uh some homeowners they're not able
[7:41] to take care of their swimming pool
[7:42] anymore. We'll also put fish into the swimming pool and they reproduce on
[7:48] their own and they eat all the mosquito
[7:49] larvae. It avoids us having to use uh
[7:52] control products.
[7:54] So, insect and tick ID
[7:58] residents, uh, anyone can bring an
[8:00] insect or email, uh, an insect, no
[8:04] matter what type, to the district and
[8:07] we'll identify it for them. If it's an
[8:09] insect of public health significance,
[8:12] um, then we'll come out to the
[8:15] resident's home and do an inspection and
[8:17] advise them on how to get rid of those
[8:19] insects. We we're not going to do the
[8:22] control work like as we would mosquito
[8:24] control. However, um we'll advise them
[8:27] often give them a report if it's rodent
[8:30] or or raccoon skunk related and they can
[8:34] take that road map to a pest control
[8:36] operator or even do the work themselves
[8:39] that they need to do. Most of our
[8:41] residents in Santo County hire a pest
[8:43] control operator. But um in the instance
[8:47] of say our rodent inspections, we advise
[8:50] the homeowners on um our biggest thing
[8:53] is there are rodents in Sonteo County.
[8:55] There are always going to be our only
[8:58] concern is when they're getting into
[8:59] your living space. And so what our staff
[9:03] does is they go out and they recommend
[9:06] areas in your home that you need to fix
[9:09] or uh or shore up, put a put it put a
[9:12] new screen on. We'll give um just like
[9:15] with the insect ID, we'll give a roadmap
[9:17] on what to fix to keep rodents out of
[9:19] your house permanently. If they want to
[9:22] call a pest control operator following
[9:24] that, uh we'll actually come out and
[9:27] inspect the pest control operator's work
[9:29] to make sure that they did an
[9:31] appropriate job. Uh sometimes we'll even
[9:33] work with the pest control operator.
[9:35] Sometimes they don't love that, but um
[9:38] we we'll ensure that they did an
[9:40] appropriate job. And you know everything
[9:43] we recommend does not involve the use of
[9:45] rotic sites.
[9:47] Yellow jacket control. You'll see on the
[9:50] next slide that um of the service calls
[9:52] we get in Portola Valley the biggest
[9:54] ones we get is for yellow jacket
[9:56] control. So yellow jackets 99% of the
[10:01] control work we do are the ground
[10:03] nesting yellow jackets. And I know you
[10:06] all have them here. You probably have
[10:07] the little traps up. But um if you know
[10:11] where the hole is in the ground, then
[10:13] we'll come out and we'll either
[10:16] depending on the situation, we'll either
[10:18] put a treatment in the ground or we'll
[10:21] dig it up and remove it all together.
[10:24] Community education, I spoke a little
[10:26] bit about that and in a moment I'll talk
[10:28] about our open house. It's occurring
[10:29] this Saturday. And um disease
[10:32] surveillance. So I talked about we do
[10:34] have a laboratory that can do in-house
[10:36] testing for Westnile virus. We also test
[10:38] for Lyme disease and um of the ticks we
[10:42] collect in Sontel County, the Lyme
[10:44] disease prevalence is about 1 to 3%.
[10:48] Okay. And just uh briefly, there was a
[10:51] note at the bottom that obviously we're
[10:54] paid for by uh by taxes, but there is no
[10:56] additional charge for us to come out.
[10:58] So, you know, um there are houses we've
[11:02] been to 10 times in a in a year. So um
[11:05] it we always tell if you have one of
[11:08] these problems please call us. So thank
[11:11] you. Next slide.
[11:14] So this is uh 2025 snapshot for Portola
[11:18] Valley and considering so we have uh
[11:22] we're approaching 200 service requests
[11:25] and what these numbers tell me
[11:26] considering they're only 45 you know
[11:28] approximately 4,500 residents is that
[11:31] the the town residents are well educated
[11:34] and aware of our services and we always
[11:36] know we could be we'd uh be doing better
[11:39] but um so we had 177 service requests
[11:42] you can see of those were just for
[11:44] yellow jackets as I spoke about 51 for
[11:48] rodent requests. So um you know mosquito
[11:50] service requests pretty small. So, as
[11:52] you can tell in this um in your town
[11:55] anyway, uh the bigger issues are people
[11:58] calling out rod ends. And I know you all
[12:00] have done a lot of work um with um with
[12:03] how you approach rodent control in the
[12:05] town. And so maybe some of that uh also
[12:08] prompted people to call us and look at
[12:11] alternative approaches instead of
[12:12] putting bait out there. That could also
[12:14] be happening. But um site inspections,
[12:17] those are water. So, our staff uses a
[12:20] geospatial database. Site inspections
[12:23] are associated with water sources that
[12:25] we know have already produced mosquitoes
[12:28] in the past. We keep those in a database
[12:30] till they're gone or dried out or
[12:32] removed. So, it could be anything from
[12:34] an impounded area like a a willow forest
[12:38] that is seasonal or a um a bucket in a
[12:42] resident's backyard. So that that's the spectrum of everything that we'll
[12:47] inspect and work with the homeowner on
[12:49] remove. But um in 2025, our technician
[12:53] visited uh 839 properties in Portola
[12:57] Valley.
[12:59] And one of the positive things, no
[13:01] Westnile virus positive.
[13:04] Next slide. Okay. And as I said, the the
[13:07] biggest reason that we're here and um in
[13:10] any way that the town can help out is
[13:13] just getting residents to call us if
[13:15] they're getting mosquito bites. Um once we know someone has received a
[13:20] mosquito bite, we come out to the
[13:21] property and we'll talk to the
[13:23] neighboring residents. What what we're
[13:26] doing is looking for the water source
[13:27] and trying to eliminate it. So, um
[13:30] that's that's exactly what we do. Our
[13:32] technicians take the time, inspect the
[13:34] neighboring properties and work with the
[13:37] homeowners to either um eliminate the
[13:40] standing water or treat it. Next slide.
[13:45] And again, this just I already mentioned
[13:47] a lot of this, but reporting dead birds
[13:49] is is big. Um, one of the ways that we
[13:53] are um that that we identify Westnile
[13:58] virus in an area is when someone calls
[14:00] in a dead bird. And um what we'll often
[14:04] do, we'll test the dead bird. If it's
[14:06] appropriate for testing inhouse, if it's
[14:09] positive for Westnile virus, we'll come
[14:10] out and set traps in that area
[14:13] overnight, collect those mosquitoes and
[14:15] test them for Westnau virus. If it's if
[14:18] those mosquitoes are positive for
[14:19] Westnau virus, that's when we have to
[14:22] determine whether we would do an adult
[14:24] treatment. We haven't done one in over
[14:26] five years, but it does happen. And and
[14:29] what that would mean is there's adult
[14:31] mosquitoes flying around with with
[14:33] active virus. If they bit someone, they
[14:35] could transmit that disease. Um I talked
[14:38] about people dumping standing water.
[14:41] That's a list of you know breeding sites that we find on
[14:45] residential properties. Next slide.
[14:49] And I talked about our open house. Um, I
[14:53] think anyone who comes out would be
[14:55] pleasantly surprised, believe it or not.
[14:57] I know it probably doesn't sound like
[14:59] the most exciting thing to do is come to
[15:00] a mosquito district, but there we have a
[15:03] lot of um cool equipment that we use.
[15:06] And um we we have our laboratory. We
[15:08] have a lot of different insect
[15:10] collections from around the world. And
[15:13] um all of our staff are really engaged
[15:15] and and happy to educate residents on
[15:17] anything I spoke about today. So that's
[15:20] actually this weekend on the 27th from
[15:23] 12 to 4. And we we used to have it
[15:25] during the week, we moved it to the
[15:27] weekend to try and get more people to
[15:28] come. So um come visit our open house.
[15:36] I think that's it. Yeah. Was there any
[15:39] questions?
[15:42] Thank you, Brian. Questions for
[15:43] >> I have questions. I always love my my
[15:46] favorite organization, by the way. I I
[15:48] this is the closest I get to what I want
[15:51] in this town, which is the one health
[15:53] organization to dominate, which is that
[15:56] the community lives by the health of the
[15:58] environment and the health and the
[15:59] environment lives by the health of the
[16:01] people. So, and that's a CDC um project.
[16:06] Uh and this is a great organization. My two things with you guys is I thought
[16:13] you were just doing mosquitoes for the
[16:14] 20 first 20 years I dealt with you. Uh
[16:17] and then you gave up my favorite job,
[16:19] which was that you clean the the creeks
[16:21] for us.
[16:22] >> That's right.
[16:23] >> So every year I remind you that if we
[16:25] don't clean the creeks, we're still
[16:27] going to we're still going to get
[16:28] flooding and we're going to get
[16:30] mosquitoes and we're going to get
[16:31] whatever mosquitoes. So I'm keep hoping
[16:33] you'll put that back on. No hope.
[16:37] Any hope? Can you will you help us again
[16:39] with the with the
[16:40] >> Yeah, with the creeks. Any anything we
[16:42] can do like that? We're happy to work
[16:44] with with any city, any town. Um staff,
[16:48] [clears throat] like I said, are really
[16:49] engaging if there's something.
[16:50] >> We were pretty much told last time last
[16:52] year that there was no creek happening
[16:55] because of fishing game.
[16:56] >> Uh oh. Well, yeah. So, within our
[16:59] abilities, right? So, I know depending
[17:01] on what exactly the work is, you might
[17:04] need a stream bed alteration permit.
[17:06] There's a fine line sometimes with that,
[17:08] but you know, I could always talk to
[17:10] Okay, manager.
[17:10] >> I'll call you. Okay.
[17:12] >> Thank you.
[17:15] >> Go ahead.
[17:17] >> So, thank you for the presentation. Um,
[17:19] I've heard of you guys, but I didn't
[17:20] know is everything that you've done. Um,
[17:24] so this is great to know about ticks.
[17:26] Um, do you guys do anything around it?
[17:30] Didn't say anything. So, this is just a
[17:32] question. like I've been seeing more
[17:34] rattlesnake issues. Um, so I know this
[17:37] is more vector like [laughter] vector
[17:41] and but pest management, right? Because
[17:43] people have been definitely I'm
[17:46] definitely seeing more posts about
[17:47] rattlers. So
[17:50] >> yeah. So if somebody called about
[17:52] rattlesnakes, we could certainly advise
[17:54] them, but no, there's no control work
[17:58] that's done. I do know there are
[18:00] services, paid services in the county,
[18:03] um, that you can have if you have them
[18:05] on your private property and you want
[18:06] them removed, you can actually pay
[18:08] someone to do that. You know, I think
[18:10] it's somewhere in the vicinity of $300
[18:12] to $500. But anything that's a nuisance
[18:16] to residents of the county, we'll we're
[18:19] always happy to work with them. And you
[18:23] know, I we've been on kitten calls under
[18:26] a building and sometimes when there there's, you know, the residents
[18:31] have nobody to call, we're happy to at
[18:33] least come out, show our face and try
[18:35] and work with them whether it's exactly
[18:37] in our wheelhouse or not.
[18:39] >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, and then the
[18:41] last one would be it's a little beyond
[18:44] but because of the rodent situation to
[18:46] use to helping the owl population to
[18:50] help with owl boxes. Have you guys done
[18:52] anything around that?
[18:54] >> I did um years ago. I know that there
[18:57] was a I presented at um something a few
[19:01] years ago. So we've done outreach um
[19:05] maybe it was in Woodside but um that was
[19:07] talking about the owl boxes and I had
[19:10] presented on rodent control without the
[19:12] use of rodentic side. Um so we do often
[19:15] talk about that. I know that owl boxes
[19:19] can be successful but they're they're
[19:21] really hit or miss. We have worked with
[19:23] the Boy Scouts on that before where they
[19:25] put up a bunch in Hillsboro and um
[19:28] different things like that. But
[19:29] certainly our staff are educated on uh
[19:33] raptors and um you know educate
[19:38] homeowners on on their success with with
[19:40] rodent control. And obviously they can't
[19:43] control rodents to a population level,
[19:44] but as I spoke about earlier, when we're
[19:47] talking about rodents in a household,
[19:49] usually that has nothing to do, you
[19:51] know, getting them out of that household
[19:53] isn't going to impact any raptors.
[19:56] >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks for what you're
[19:57] doing.
[19:58] >> Sure. Thank you.
[19:59] >> Other questions for Brian?
[20:00] >> Yeah, I do. um for for areas that have
[20:03] like a seasonal pond that's just sort of
[20:06] dead, you know, the end of winter, it's
[20:08] sitting there and it'll dry out
[20:09] eventually, do you come out and put the
[20:12] fish in or mosquito dunks or something
[20:14] or
[20:15] >> Yeah. So, we do have um and quite often
[20:18] it's necessary, you know, that's a
[20:20] perfect example where um if we know
[20:22] something's going to dry out, we're not
[20:24] going to put mosquito fish in there. But
[20:26] we do have a variety of biorational
[20:29] products that when you're treating
[20:31] mosquito larvae, they only kill the
[20:33] mosquito larvae. They don't even kill
[20:34] the other aquatic invertebrates in the
[20:37] water column. So, um that's why it's
[20:40] always important for people to call us.
[20:42] Uh you would think, you know, mosquito
[20:45] control can be complex and depend every
[20:48] situation is completely different. So
[20:50] that's why we always recommend someone
[20:52] coming out evaluating it and um we would
[20:56] uh we're going to resolve the problem
[20:58] one way or another and working with
[20:59] them.
[21:00] >> And if you put mosquito fish in a
[21:01] swimming pool that's no longer kind of
[21:03] in use.
[21:04] >> Yeah.
[21:04] >> Do you need to feed the fish?
[21:06] >> No.
[21:07] >> So what recommend [laughter] not feed
[21:09] the fish so that they continue to eat
[21:11] the larvae and they reproduce rapidly. I
[21:15] can say that there are some swimming
[21:17] pools where we only put 20 fish and by
[21:20] the end of the summer there were a
[21:22] thousand fish in there. So they
[21:24] reproduce rapidly and they'll control
[21:27] their own population. So you don't have
[21:29] to feed them depending on how much food
[21:31] is available. Their population stays
[21:33] about that size. But we recommend not
[21:36] feeding
[21:36] >> and a rain tank. Do you recommend a fish
[21:38] or the dunks
[21:40] >> in uh in what was that barrel? rain tank
[21:43] like a 30,000gallon rain
[21:45] >> like a 30,000galon tank. So the fish do
[21:48] need access um you know
[21:50] >> sunlight
[21:51] >> to yeah to sunlight right so in that
[21:54] instance yeah we would recommend the
[21:56] dunks
[21:57] >> oh and um you had said that 1 to 3% of
[21:59] the ticks do have Lyme disease um is
[22:03] that in specific areas you've found or
[22:05] is it completely random or
[22:08] >> Yeah. So I don't know. So we we do
[22:10] what's called tick dragging. It's just
[22:12] as it sounds where you have a piece of
[22:15] felt and you drag it along all the
[22:16] public trails around here, pick the
[22:18] ticks off and then um and then we test
[22:21] them. So those numbers do vary. Um but
[22:27] generally, you know, if if we had a
[22:29] really high number, we would notify that
[22:32] community. Um however, we we haven't
[22:35] noticing we've been testing for a long
[22:37] time now, so we don't always get to
[22:40] every trail every year. It might be
[22:41] every third year, but I can't stand here
[22:44] and say that there was a abnormally high
[22:47] number in Pacifica or Portolo Valley or
[22:50] it's usually just always right around in
[22:52] that range.
[22:53] >> Uh and then in terms of biting bugs
[22:55] besides mosquitoes, do you do you have
[22:58] any recommendations for that? Yeah, I
[23:01] mean we there are always repellents that
[23:04] we recommend
[23:06] depending on the repellent in the
[23:07] situation.
[23:09] There are there are only a few products
[23:11] that are uh recommended by the EPA. So
[23:15] it's picaridin and de and so obviously
[23:19] with the higher percentage of that
[23:21] material the more effective it is.
[23:24] However um we often just recommend you
[23:26] put that on your clothes. Wearing long
[23:28] sleeves and long pants is always going
[23:30] to be best in areas where you have
[23:32] biting insects, especially of public
[23:34] health significance. But um but yeah,
[23:38] with with mosquitoes, if you add that
[23:40] additional layer of repellent, even with
[23:43] ticks, um a lot of those products can
[23:46] repel ticks as well. So I know there are
[23:49] some biting flies, not not to a great
[23:52] degree in the county, but sometimes a
[23:54] year that could be a concern as well.
[23:57] Yeah,
[23:58] >> I just want to thank you. Um Oh, is it
[24:01] my turn?
[24:01] >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I was
[24:02] going to say go ahead.
[24:03] >> I just want to thank you. I think it's
[24:05] one of the higher value uh lower profile
[24:09] services that our government provides.
[24:12] So, I do encourage the public to think
[24:14] about availing itself of education and consultation. So, thank you.
[24:21] >> Thanks.
[24:22] >> So, and I had two quick questions.
[24:24] something like glassywing sharpshooter.
[24:25] Is that something you guys go after or
[24:27] is that egg department?
[24:28] >> That's the egg department.
[24:29] >> Okay. Yeah, I thought it might be. Um,
[24:31] and then just because you piqu my
[24:32] curiosity, what happens when you have
[24:34] adult mosquitoes that have Nile, West
[24:37] Nile? Like, are you going to then, you
[24:40] know, fog the area or what do you do?
[24:43] >> Yeah. So, every situation's different.
[24:46] We always say we want a minimum of two
[24:49] pieces of scientific information to
[24:50] confirm the result. Um, so we have
[24:54] fogged before as I said the last time we
[24:56] did was 5 years ago but you know in
[25:00] accordance with the you know state
[25:02] health department guidelines it is still
[25:05] the only way to control adult mosquitoes
[25:07] actively carrying virus right so we have
[25:10] that extremely proactive larviting
[25:12] program because you can use those
[25:14] biorational products we have a database
[25:16] with over 10,000 water sources that we
[25:19] inspect on a regular basis to um to to
[25:24] ensure we're controlling mosquitoes at
[25:25] the larville stage. But yes, there are
[25:28] instances where we where we would fog
[25:31] and that is because we've determined
[25:33] that the risk to the public is too great
[25:36] that we we would have to do
[25:38] >> Great. Thank you. Yes.
[25:41] >> Sorry, but I have to follow up on that.
[25:44] >> Can I ask whether you have anything to
[25:45] do with the fogging at Jasper Ridge? Uh
[25:48] because nobody asked the question. So
[25:50] the
[25:50] >> uh we're we're currently I've been
[25:52] notified that we're fogging Jasper
[25:55] Ridge. Have they had West Nile that uh
[25:57] they reported or
[25:59] >> So Jasper Ridge what that actually is
[26:01] it's not a fogging. It's it's using the
[26:03] biorational larvides that I've talked
[26:05] about.
[26:06] >> Okay.
[26:06] >> Being applied by a drone. It used to be
[26:09] applied by helicopter. I think this is
[26:11] going on the 23rd year that this type of
[26:14] application has occurred. But there is
[26:16] as you know there are areas up there
[26:18] large inexp inaccessible to our
[26:22] technicians and it's such a great area
[26:24] it requires aerial application. So we
[26:27] have in the past three four years
[26:29] transition to drone use. It's uh less
[26:32] disruptive but yeah it's just applying
[26:35] the same product that we would put in
[26:37] someone's backyard fish pond or anywhere
[26:39] else. It's just on a greater scale.
[26:41] >> Thank you. Sorry.
[26:42] >> Yeah. No worries. So, I just wanted to
[26:44] say thank you. This has been very
[26:46] informative and hopefully we'll get some
[26:47] of this information in our next
[26:49] newsletter that we send out to everybody
[26:50] in the town. Yep.
[26:51] >> So, Brian, thank you very much for your
[26:53] time.
[26:53] >> All right. Thank you.
[26:56] >> All right. With that, I'm going to close
[26:58] 3B.
[26:59] >> Thank you.
[26:59] >> And move on to 3C.
[27:03] >> Uh, yeah, actually. Yeah, sure. We
[27:06] always do that. Thank you for the
[27:07] reminder.
[27:08] >> Do I have to? Do we [laughter] have to?
[27:09] >> Yeah, we have to. Come on.
[27:11] >> How about you can do it?
[27:12] >> Come on. Come on.
[27:15] >> No.
[27:39] One, two, three.
[27:45] » Thank you. Thank you so much.
[27:48] Appreciate it.
[28:05] Okay. So, now we'll move on to a
[28:08] presentation from PG&E.
[28:12] » Welcome.
[28:17] » Good evening. Thank you for having me.
[28:19] I'm thrilled to be back in the hometown
[28:21] of Pulla Valley. I am Marjgerie Ruizgo.
[28:24] I remain your senior local government
[28:26] affairs representative for Pug Genie
[28:28] serving the county of
[28:31] May I just say I'm I'm thrilled to be
[28:33] talking about safety today.
[28:36] That being said, um every meeting at P
[28:40] Gen starts with a safety message and
[28:42] tonight should be no different. So, I am
[28:44] sure that everyone woke up this morning
[28:46] to or you would have been awake before
[28:49] to hear your cell phones buzz buzzing
[28:51] from USGS's earthquake alert. And so, in
[28:55] that spirit,
[28:57] an emergency
[28:59] is not the best time to be prepared. And
[29:01] so, I'd love to remind the public that
[29:02] being prepared is critical. And a
[29:05] disaster supply kit with food, water,
[29:07] medications, emergency contacts can make
[29:09] a real difference when it matters most.
[29:12] If you need any ideas, tips, learn more
[29:14] at pg.comsafetyaction
[29:17] center.
[29:19] Please, it's okay. So, our agenda for
[29:23] the night, where we're going. So, we're
[29:24] going to learn about identifying and
[29:26] reducing wildfire risk. We're going to
[29:28] learn about enhanced power line safety
[29:30] settings, known internally as EPSS. P
[29:33] Gen has all of the acronyms and then
[29:34] we'll take questions at the end. So to
[29:37] kick us off, let's discuss how we
[29:39] identify and reduce wildfire risk.
[29:43] As you can see from this map, more than
[29:45] half of our service area is considered
[29:47] high fire risk. So for P Gen, that means
[29:50] we are laser focused on safety for our
[29:52] customers and communities. We use this
[29:55] map to help target our wild safety, our
[29:57] wild fire safety efforts in the areas
[30:00] that need them most. And so with that
[30:02] context, I'll walk you through the
[30:03] layers of wildfire protection that we
[30:06] use which are designed to reduce said
[30:08] risk and protect our customers.
[30:12] Thank you. So these are layers of
[30:13] wildfire protection. Last time I was
[30:15] here, I introduced the P Genie reported
[30:18] app and mentioned our safety toolkit
[30:21] which includes cameras, drones,
[30:22] helicopters, and foot patrols. But
[30:24] today, I want to expand further on this
[30:26] topic. Each year we evaluate wildfire
[30:29] risk and conduct safety work in these
[30:31] areas. And so this safety work includes
[30:34] as you can see situational awareness,
[30:36] operational mitigations, resiliency
[30:38] work. And these are the guiding
[30:40] philosophies that help us do our work.
[30:42] And sit so for example situational
[30:44] awareness tools like meteorology. We
[30:46] have an in-house meteorology team 247
[30:50] release weather reports three times a
[30:52] day. And these are the models that PG&
[30:55] relies on when planning um resiliency
[31:00] work, wildfire safety, EPSS settings
[31:03] during storm season. We will use these
[31:05] models to help inform us where we're
[31:07] going to pre-stage crews, equipment,
[31:10] anything to cut down that response time
[31:12] and have everyone in position should
[31:13] anything arise.
[31:16] Now, our long-term resiliency work
[31:17] includes installing stronger poles,
[31:20] covered power lines, as well as the
[31:22] undergrounding in the highest priority
[31:24] power lines. I'm sorry, undergrounding.
[31:27] It's a mouthful to get through these
[31:30] undergrounding in high fire threat
[31:32] districts. So, that's something else
[31:33] that we do as far as resiliency work. We
[31:35] also manage, you'll see our arborists in
[31:38] your neighborhoods. I imagine you've
[31:40] been seeing them here in Perola Valley.
[31:42] We manage our trees, vegetation,
[31:45] anything located near our power lines to
[31:46] help prevent outages and wildfires. We
[31:49] also conduct additional inspections and
[31:51] we maintain greater clearances in those
[31:54] areas that have fire threat districts,
[31:56] high fire threat districts um when there
[31:59] is an increased risk of wildfires,
[32:01] especially with the context of the
[32:02] weather. So, we don't just rely on any
[32:04] single one of these. We do all of these
[32:06] cohesively.
[32:07] For example, we'll install a stronger
[32:09] pole. We will come in and prune trees
[32:13] and we manage these with cameras, with
[32:16] drones, helicopters. We're constantly
[32:18] inspecting all of our assets. A lot of
[32:21] this is public. You can learn more about
[32:23] this wildfire safety progress through
[32:25] the years on our website at
[32:26] pen.comwfiresafety
[32:29] progress and you'll be able to track
[32:30] what we do there.
[32:33] Enhanced power line safety settings.
[32:37] These are advanced protective settings
[32:39] that make the electric system more
[32:41] sensitive to potential hazard. These
[32:43] they automatically shut off power in
[32:45] fractions of a second, sometimes within
[32:47] an eighth of a second when a threat is
[32:49] detected to help prevent power line
[32:52] related wildfire ignitions.
[32:56] Let's talk about this map. This is
[32:57] Portola Valley. You will see that white
[32:59] boundary there. And Portola Valley is
[33:02] fed by two circuits that come from two
[33:05] substations them there. the Menllo 112
[33:08] in green and the Woodside 111 in purple.
[33:11] Both of these circuits, the entirety of
[33:13] these circuits are EPSS enabled. And
[33:16] what that means is that these EPSS
[33:18] devices that detect anything foreign to
[33:21] the line live on those segments of the
[33:23] line.
[33:25] Slide, please.
[33:28] So, let's walk you through a scenario.
[33:33] A foreign object hits the line. the
[33:34] safety settings turn power off quickly.
[33:37] And so what that means is that and
[33:38] council member Walter, you've you've
[33:40] visited us so you'll you'll remember
[33:42] this. The line reclosure will open. The
[33:45] line reclosure lives on the line and as
[33:47] soon as it detects any foreign object,
[33:49] it'll automatically open and it will
[33:52] deenergize that line. It will try to
[33:54] reopen and if it doesn't detect that
[33:56] it's safe to do so, it will immediately
[33:59] deenergize and trigger a patrol. And so
[34:02] we'll come out here. We will inspect the
[34:04] entirety of that line. Until eyes are
[34:06] physically on it, I am not able to reize
[34:09] that line. Now, these patrols also
[34:11] inform the system improvement work we do
[34:13] to prevent similar hazards from causing
[34:15] future outages. We constantly monitor
[34:18] wildfire conditions to determine when to
[34:20] turn EPSS safety settings on or off. We
[34:23] are in fire season, so right now all of
[34:26] these circuits in the town of Portulla
[34:28] Valley are enabled.
[34:30] what in what guides us in turning on
[34:32] these settings. So we examine low
[34:35] humidity, dry fuels like dead leaves or
[34:38] grass and greater wind speeds. Those are
[34:40] the three ingredients that we are
[34:42] looking for to turn on these EPSS
[34:44] settings. EPSS is PG& developed
[34:48] technology. It came about in 2021. It
[34:51] has a 69 to 70%
[34:54] um safety setting. I'm sorry, reduction
[34:57] of ignition success rate. And it's it's
[34:59] been so successive that we are
[35:01] consulting on this in Maui, in the
[35:03] Palisades, in Oregon. It's it's become a
[35:06] lead safety instrument in the industry.
[35:11] Next slide, please.
[35:14] Now, that being said, in the middle of
[35:16] keeping everyone safe, we absolutely
[35:18] recognize that losing power is
[35:22] inconvenient and it is our priority to
[35:25] keep in customers informed in the event
[35:27] of a safety outage. Since the power
[35:29] turns off so quickly, sometimes within
[35:31] an eighth of a second, due to the
[35:33] potential safety hazard, it is not
[35:35] possible for me to notify in advance.
[35:37] However, we are able to provide
[35:39] customers with updates during and
[35:41] following an outage through their
[35:43] preferred contact method. This includes
[35:45] text messages, emails, andor automated
[35:48] calls. Once power is restored, we will
[35:51] also send a notification to confirm
[35:52] power is back on along with information
[35:54] on the outage cause if it is available.
[35:58] We have not always been able to do this.
[36:00] Um, we've not always been able to follow
[36:02] up with a cause in the past, but we do
[36:03] have a dedicated team internally that is
[36:05] working on developing and improving this
[36:08] communication system.
[36:10] Slide, please.
[36:12] And so, I'll take the opportunity here
[36:13] to say P Gen is only able to communicate
[36:17] with customers based on the customer's
[36:18] communication preferences. So, if anyone
[36:20] has any trouble, customers can see a
[36:22] step-by-step guide on how to update
[36:24] their preferred contact method by
[36:26] scanning that QR code on the screen or
[36:28] by visiting pg.com/preferences
[36:30] guide.
[36:33] Slide, please.
[36:35] So, for more information in work taking
[36:38] place in the area, we also have an
[36:40] interactive map that lets you see
[36:41] exactly where reliability work is taking
[36:44] place on power lines serving you. And
[36:46] this progress map can also be accessed
[36:48] by visiting pgen.com
[36:51] progress map or by scanning that QR code
[36:53] there.
[36:59] This was a brief but I think it I've
[37:03] introduced the mechanics of how EPSS
[37:05] settings work. I'd love to take your
[37:06] questions now. Um we might want to keep
[37:08] up that presentation Darcy because I
[37:10] might use it to explain a few things
[37:12] depending on the questions.
[37:17] from the council.
[37:19] Becca,
[37:21] >> uh, thank you so much for coming to tell
[37:22] us all about this. Um, so we have two
[37:26] circuits that control large parts of
[37:28] Port all of Porto Valley.
[37:30] >> Yes. You know, in the past I can
[37:32] remember that when there were outings
[37:34] outages that somehow my home was
[37:36] frequently never got hit even though
[37:38] there's these two circuits. Have the
[37:40] circuits changed in some way? So yes
[37:42] actually we've sectionalized those
[37:44] circuits as a method to improve so that
[37:48] the entire line doesn't go down that
[37:49] means no one the everyone else goes
[37:51] down. So for example with site 1101
[37:54] which is that purple circuit uh it has
[37:57] it's been segmented or sectionalized 15
[37:59] times and that circuit has 20 EPSS
[38:02] devices. That means I have more EPSS
[38:04] devices than segments.
[38:07] That is how serious seriously we're
[38:09] taking this. Menllo 112 has 19 segments.
[38:13] I've sectionalized that line 19 times.
[38:15] And what that does is it allows me to
[38:18] switch customers back and forth along
[38:20] the line. So that if one section of the
[38:22] line is deenergized, I can shorten that
[38:25] restoration time, move them somewhere
[38:27] else on the line, and then switch them
[38:28] back. So a MENLO 112 has 19 segments and
[38:32] has 34 EPSS devices.
[38:35] So yeah, that was my second question is
[38:36] can you just switch people to a
[38:38] different circuit if part of it is
[38:40] damaged?
[38:41] >> So yes,
[38:43] usually that isn't always possible
[38:45] depending on the extent of the damage.
[38:47] So if it might there might be a
[38:49] difference
[38:50] encroaching on the line versus an entire
[38:54] tree branch with the which the coast um
[38:56] experiences with frequency like an
[38:58] entire tree coming down on the line. at
[39:00] that point the line is gone and it's not
[39:02] safe for me to switch because I the wire
[39:04] is down I wouldn't have a line to
[39:05] switch. So it depends on what the nature
[39:07] of the outage is. So I found the
[39:10] communications that we get reasonably
[39:13] helpful but what I always wonder is if
[39:16] we can't know why an outage occurred
[39:19] sooner than later. You know we don't
[39:21] seem to find that out till if ever you
[39:23] know until after it's all fixed. Is
[39:25] there no way to as part of the um alert say a tree fell on it or a
[39:31] squirrel got killed or you know whatever
[39:33] just so we have a better sense of kind
[39:35] of the magnitude of the problem.
[39:37] >> So it's not always possible. I can let
[39:39] me give you an example. If if I have the
[39:41] right amount of wind speed, low humidity
[39:45] and heat, it might be that the line is
[39:48] detecting the wind
[39:50] >> and it deenergizes until it's safe. And
[39:52] so I there wouldn't be a cause there
[39:54] available. Now I can't notify you
[39:57] immediately because these lines are
[39:59] quite long as all of them are. It comes
[40:02] I also those triangles are the
[40:03] substations that feed them. You can see
[40:04] they're right near the 101. And so
[40:08] it requires human eyes to see the line
[40:11] before I can re-energize. And so the
[40:12] line will detect well I'm sorry we'll
[40:14] detect that the line has been
[40:15] deenergized. Smart communications will
[40:17] trigger and it'll start notifying
[40:19] customers that are affected. But there's
[40:21] no way for me to follow up with cause
[40:23] until someone patrols the line.
[40:25] >> So if that particular ESP sensor is
[40:29] triggered, do you you still have to
[40:31] inspect the entire green line or the
[40:33] entire purple line or just that sort of
[40:36] segment that was triggered
[40:37] >> during normal weather conditions. So
[40:40] let's say in February, February, we got
[40:42] through most of the storms this year. It
[40:45] wasn't fire season yet. So those
[40:46] circuits were not EPSS enabled. When
[40:49] EPSS circuits are enabled, we have to
[40:52] patrol the line.
[40:54] >> I see. And then my last question is, I
[40:56] know that PG& does offer battery rebates
[41:00] for people who are affected a lot by
[41:01] these. Is there And I've gone on the
[41:03] website to see and I put in my address
[41:05] and I'm confused about the information.
[41:07] I just am not sure whether or not I
[41:09] would qualify for um
[41:12] >> So, you can always call 1800 PG5000 and
[41:15] those are local customer service
[41:16] centers. Those are Californians. They
[41:18] are your neighbors. They're your
[41:20] friends. They live right here. They can
[41:22] help walk you through that, but I can
[41:24] also follow up with more information.
[41:25] >> Okay.
[41:27] >> Yeah.
[41:30] Um, what was the statistic since
[41:33] 2021?
[41:35] 69%
[41:36] >> 69% of wildfire ignitions have been
[41:39] reduced. So this is this is incredibly
[41:42] successful
[41:43] >> within your district or what what's the
[41:46] geography that that cover
[41:47] >> enterprisewide throughout our surface
[41:49] territory.
[41:50] >> Okay. And what are you looking to do to
[41:54] further improve? I assume you're always
[41:55] trying to improve.
[41:56] >> We're always trying to improve. So
[41:58] sectionalizing the lines were part of
[42:00] that.
[42:01] But it also depends on what you mean by
[42:03] improve. So for example, are
[42:05] deenergizing the line within an eighth
[42:07] of a second is a major improvement. So
[42:09] if if you mean that we're going to
[42:11] continue to cut down that line. Now if
[42:12] you mean restoration
[42:15] then I imagine we're going to continue
[42:16] yeah going through the process safety is
[42:18] the priority.
[42:19] >> I mean I imagine you have thousands of
[42:21] different technologies pull in and
[42:23] you're evaluating over time in a
[42:26] separate but um it sounds like this
[42:29] technology has been very successful.
[42:31] >> Yes. Okay. Um, we we monitor these every
[42:36] day, 24/7. We decide the safety setting,
[42:40] when they're on, when they're off.
[42:41] Obviously, right now, they're going to
[42:42] be on all through 24/7 until we get
[42:44] through fire season. And sometimes it's
[42:46] within an eighth of a second. Um, I know
[42:48] we have zero second. It immediately
[42:50] shuts down in some districts, in some
[42:52] areas. It it it it depends.
[42:55] >> Yeah.
[42:55] >> Thank you. Very very interesting.
[42:57] >> Qu Hope hopefully a huge subject, a
[43:00] quick question. We have 38 crossings of
[43:04] our evacuation route uh with overhead
[43:07] high power electric lines in a a high fire risk area and we have a
[43:14] standing undergrounding committee that
[43:17] has never made an inch of progress and
[43:20] I'm wondering uh if uh we could put the
[43:23] spark in it so that we could start
[43:26] thinking at least put it on your radar
[43:28] that it would be a huge deal for us to
[43:31] actually get this done
[43:32] >> for that question. I promise you I'm
[43:34] your biggest advocate on this
[43:35] internally. But let's if we could Darcy
[43:37] put up that um put up Portulla Valley
[43:39] again please. So within that white shape
[43:43] boundary shape there are no high fire
[43:46] threat districts here. So it's not tier
[43:48] three. You have tier 2. It's a heavily
[43:50] vegetated area. So for us the priority
[43:53] here until we can get to that
[43:54] undergrounding
[43:56] goal is vegetation management. Now,
[43:59] that's not to say that undergrounding
[44:00] isn't coming to some of these areas, but
[44:02] that that will be something that I think
[44:04] we can discuss down the road.
[44:06] >> And that's because we're so good at our
[44:07] vegetation control. Or is because we
[44:10] were right in the middle of what you
[44:11] showed us, the high fire district.
[44:13] >> I think it's because you're adjacent to
[44:14] a high fire threat district. So,
[44:16] Woodside would be more of a tier three.
[44:18] You're not quite tier 2. And right now,
[44:20] we're prioritizing tier three per CPC.
[44:28] other question.
[44:29] >> Thank you. You're welcome, Ellen.
[44:32] >> So, thanks so much for coming. Super
[44:35] helpful. Um I love seeing where our um
[44:40] transmission lines are. Do we have
[44:43] redundancy considered redundancy here
[44:47] for the outages? Like when people are
[44:49] out, are the lack or is the lack of
[44:53] redundancy part of the restoration
[44:55] problem?
[44:56] Council
[44:58] member, do you mean by redundancy, do
[45:00] you mean do I have the ability to move
[45:01] people up and down the line across the
[45:03] circuit?
[45:04] >> Um, I meant like the redundancy where
[45:07] one line goes down, but you have another
[45:09] line that occurs, right? So, is that
[45:13] moving them up and down the circuit? I'm
[45:15] >> Yes, that's Yeah, it's called switching.
[45:16] So, we we switch people, we back tie
[45:18] people, we we move them around to keep
[45:19] as many customers energized as possible.
[45:23] >> Okay.
[45:23] >> Um, could you also speak? Obviously,
[45:26] we're lower density than Bayside, for
[45:28] instance. Um, and how you prioritize
[45:33] um when there are outages. Um, are we a
[45:38] like a lower priority because we are
[45:41] lower density?
[45:43] >> No. No. So, multiple factors go into
[45:46] this. One of the first things that we
[45:47] look at are we have a critical customer
[45:49] list. So, we look at who on that line is
[45:52] a critical care customer. Maybe they
[45:54] need an oxygen tank. Maybe they are in
[45:56] hospice care. So we we have a great
[45:59] customer team that would reach out to
[46:01] that customer directly. Whether it's
[46:03] phone, we try to get out here in person.
[46:05] These are one of the things that we
[46:06] measure. We also measure safety, the
[46:08] safety of our workers. So for example,
[46:10] during storm season, if it's not safe
[46:12] for me to put crews out there, then
[46:15] we'll we have to wait for the weather.
[46:17] It has to be safe for them to work. We
[46:19] have standards about the wind and who
[46:21] can get up on a bucket, who can get up
[46:22] on a pole given the wind conditions.
[46:25] It's usually about what are the most
[46:27] customers that we can restore and how
[46:29] can we mitigate the outage for as many
[46:31] people as possible. So sometimes you'll
[46:33] see outages where everyone's been
[46:36] restored and then there's one customer
[46:37] who's at the end of the line who will be
[46:39] out for the duration of the repair and
[46:41] we'll usually reach out to that customer
[46:42] directly, see if they need anything, if
[46:44] provide. Each outage is unique.
[46:48] >> Thank you. Thanks so much. Yeah,
[46:51] >> thank you. So, I had some questions. So,
[46:55] one of the things I was wondering is
[46:56] given that the San Andreas fault runs
[46:58] through Portola Valley, what are you
[47:00] guys doing special to deal with both
[47:04] electric and gas lines in a in an
[47:07] earthquake fault zone? I am not as
[47:10] intimately familiar at the moment with
[47:11] gas lines, but I can say that I'd love
[47:14] to follow up with you on that one. Now,
[47:16] internally, we have ways of shutting
[47:17] down the lines through SCADA, something
[47:19] called SCADA. Please don't ask me what
[47:20] the acronym stands for.
[47:22] >> I couldn't possibly remember at this
[47:24] point. So, we have ways of completely
[47:25] deenergizing those lines.
[47:28] >> And this is an electrical line or
[47:29] >> electrical. Okay. Yeah. I can follow up
[47:31] with you with gas.
[47:33] >> Okay. Because obviously both of those
[47:35] are concerned during an earthquake.
[47:36] >> Yep. Um, and then I guess you answered a
[47:39] little bit about undergrounding and
[47:41] covering the lines. I mean, obviously,
[47:43] you know, in our western slopes here,
[47:45] you know, we have steep slopes, heavily
[47:48] vegetated. If a fire caught there, it'd
[47:51] be very similar to Oakland Hills.
[47:53] >> Yes.
[47:53] >> Um, so, you know, I think there's a lot
[47:55] of concern within the community to make
[47:58] sure that it's safe. And to the degree
[48:00] you can, I think being able to explain
[48:02] to people that they're pro protected
[48:04] with EPSS or EPS, I mean, whatever.
[48:07] >> You know, you had it right. EPSS.
[48:08] >> Yeah. So that they have a sense because
[48:11] I think right now it's a little bit
[48:12] voodoo magic. It's like, well, I don't
[48:14] know. They the lines all look the same,
[48:16] I think people say. And so maybe you can
[48:19] find a way to say, no, we've got your
[48:21] this segment segment covered this way. I
[48:24] think that might go a long way. and we
[48:26] have an emergency preparedness committee
[48:28] um that I think would be a great place
[48:29] to provide some of that information
[48:31] because then they could get it out.
[48:32] >> So, I'm hopeful that tonight's council
[48:34] meeting is a good starting point for the
[48:36] residents of the town of Pulla Valley,
[48:38] but I want to emphasize that the
[48:39] entirety of these circuits are EPSS
[48:42] enabled. So, to to Council Member
[48:45] Walter's point about redundancies, I
[48:47] have 19 segments on one circuit. I think
[48:49] it's 11:02. Yes, it's 11:02. And 34 of
[48:52] those EPSS devices live on those
[48:54] circuits. So it's it's it's a crowded
[48:56] line of safety if if that makes any
[48:59] visual.
[49:00] >> Yeah. I guess what I didn't quite when
[49:02] Rebecca was asking the question I didn't
[49:03] quite understand that if one of them
[49:05] triggers does it take out the whole
[49:09] circuit or is it only the segment that
[49:11] it's responsible for monitoring? it'll
[49:13] take out that section. It and it and
[49:15] again it depends what if if the entire
[49:17] tree falls on the entirety of the line
[49:20] the then the entire line goes down and
[49:22] so everyone's out and we would try to
[49:23] switch everyone to the other circuit
[49:25] while we repair the line. It depends on
[49:27] the outage.
[49:28] >> Okay.
[49:28] >> Yep.
[49:30] >> Um and then the last one is on
[49:31] arborists. Um I think I certainly hear a
[49:35] number of complaints of PG just showing
[49:38] up and hacking. Like there doesn't seem
[49:41] to be an arborist involved. I mean, it's
[49:42] pretty clear they go, "Well, that's
[49:44] within 12 feet." And they just cut it
[49:46] without any concern for potential damage
[49:49] to the tree itself. So, I think calling
[49:52] it an arborist might be like a little
[49:55] bit too strong. Or maybe you could find
[49:57] a better way of communicating with the
[49:58] residents so they understand that what
[50:00] they're doing is actually healthy for
[50:02] the tree as well as protecting the
[50:04] neighborhood.
[50:06] So vegetation management is the highest
[50:10] priority on the P Gen desk and it's a
[50:13] bit difficult to so that's why we have
[50:16] annual permits and I imagine that that
[50:18] notification pro process as inspectors
[50:20] come out it it gets a little murky but I want to just say at the risk of
[50:25] sounding cliche that our vegetation
[50:28] management folks are tree huggers in
[50:30] their off time they go and plant trees
[50:32] and they invite everyone at P Gen to
[50:34] tree plant So that's a thought that's a
[50:38] very good note to take back to the team
[50:39] of how can we get it out there that
[50:41] actually our vegetation folks are doing
[50:43] the good work of the forest and you know
[50:46] working to keep trees as healthy and
[50:48] safe for the residents as possible.
[50:50] That's a good note, mayor. Thank you.
[50:52] >> And I and I'm thinking particularly the
[50:53] trees they're cutting. I mean it's great
[50:55] that they're planting other trees and
[50:56] they love trees. That's good. But sure
[50:58] often it just seems they're drawing
[51:00] their sphere around the line and cutting
[51:02] anything without thinking guy just
[51:04] climbs up and goes oh that one that one without actually at least from
[51:09] a resident's point of view saying look
[51:10] we carefully cut it at this place for
[51:12] this reason because keep the tree
[51:14] healthy. So I just think maybe a little
[51:16] more education on how they're going
[51:18] about the cutting not just what they're
[51:19] cutting.
[51:20] >> I understand but it's also important to
[51:22] remember that we don't set the clearance
[51:25] heights. It's it that's done by CalFire
[51:27] and so we have to meet that safety
[51:29] standard.
[51:30] >> Yeah. I'm not suggesting that you don't
[51:31] cut to the requirement. It's there's
[51:35] different ways you can cut a tree to be
[51:37] a healthy cut versus a hack
[51:39] >> and and right now the complaints I get
[51:42] is they're just hacked.
[51:43] >> Okay.
[51:44] >> So that's a good note.
[51:45] >> Yeah. So I mean this is great. Thank you
[51:47] for your presentation.
[51:48] >> Can I ask one other quick question?
[51:49] Yeah. So, um, there have been concerns
[51:52] in the town, maybe this isn't quite your
[51:54] department, but about how long it takes
[51:56] to get a permit, how long it takes to
[51:58] get a work, how long it takes to get
[52:00] connected to a grid when you're putting
[52:01] on solar or battery. Is there any kind
[52:04] of advice you can give or recommendation
[52:07] or for how that could be sped up or is
[52:09] there any kind of internal discussions
[52:11] about facilitating that so that we can
[52:13] get more solar connections and more
[52:15] batteries up faster? So, the number one
[52:18] thing that I'd like to emphasize is that
[52:19] everything starts with an application
[52:21] for service and and that runs in
[52:24] parallel to whatever permits any
[52:25] residents or business owners may need
[52:28] from the city. Our our process has its
[52:30] own timeline. And so the earlier, and
[52:32] this is my message across the county and
[52:34] anywhere that I am, frankly, whether
[52:36] it's a residence or it's a business or
[52:38] it's a developer, if you wake up and you
[52:41] think you're going to need service from
[52:42] PG, please file an application.
[52:46] So, or yes, that that that would be my
[52:49] number one suggestion. The second one I
[52:52] would have is we have a applicant
[52:53] journey map and you can see at each step
[52:56] of the process how much we estimate for
[52:58] something to take
[53:00] and I would recommend everyone go online
[53:02] to pg.com and you can type in customer
[53:04] journey map and you can see and you can
[53:06] estimate about how long it will take.
[53:08] Solar has been an experience. a lot of
[53:11] solar companies are going bankrupt or
[53:14] they stop operating from one day to the
[53:16] next and that that right now as of the
[53:18] last six eight six to eight months
[53:20] that's been the challenge that I've been
[53:22] hearing from constituents and your you
[53:23] know my customers your constituents is
[53:25] maybe they were midway through a project
[53:27] and their solar company went dark or
[53:28] they went under and and well that that
[53:31] brings about its own sets of issues
[53:33] unfortunately
[53:34] >> and the other you should look at is
[53:36] undergrounding I mean you know that
[53:37] we've had some permits that have taken
[53:38] like nine months to get approved
[53:40] for somebody who's trying to underground
[53:42] from the pole to their house. So, and
[53:44] that seems kind of excessive when you're
[53:46] trying to move move things along. So,
[53:48] it's just something an area you might
[53:49] look at look at.
[53:50] >> So, I so I each application like each
[53:53] outage is also unique. I would imagine
[53:55] that given the curves in the road, the
[53:56] lack maybe of public rideway that we
[53:58] have less room to work with here. It's rural. There are curves. I imagine
[54:02] that might have something to do with it.
[54:04] I would have to have an an example,
[54:07] mayor, so that I could truly speak to
[54:08] it. I think it's getting the engineers
[54:10] to look at the plan, but but let's not
[54:12] go into detail. We can talk later.
[54:14] >> We can.
[54:14] >> Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.
[54:15] >> Sure.
[54:16] >> Appreciate it. Thanks for coming.
[54:18] >> Okay, with that, thank you. You're very
[54:19] welcome.
[54:22] >> Okay, so with that, I'm going to close
[54:24] 3C and move on to the town manager
[54:26] report.
[54:31] » Darcy Smith, town manager. I don't
[54:33] really know that I can top that to be
[54:35] honest. mosquitoes,
[54:38] power lines, but do it my best. Um,
[54:43] town events coming up. One of my
[54:45] favorites, the Thursday night summer
[54:47] music series starting in July. Then
[54:50] August and September, PV Palooa, which
[54:53] is a little bit later this year,
[54:54] Saturday, August 29th. We have started
[54:56] the planning and the band rosters up.
[55:01] And last town picnic, Zots to Tutts. Be
[55:04] opening up registration [clears throat]
[55:06] for that soon. But make sure it's on
[55:08] your calendar for the fall. But if you
[55:10] don't have plans this Saturday or if you
[55:12] want to do something before going to the
[55:15] mosquito open house, we have our very
[55:18] own town emergency preparedness and
[55:20] safety day at station 8,
[55:23] 10:00 a.m. to 3 pm. I'll be there and
[55:26] there's going to be some really fun
[55:29] presentations. Maybe not bug
[55:31] collections, but
[55:34] it will have WPBERT, the amateur radio
[55:37] club, etc.
[55:41] 10:00 a.m. Yes, please come. You don't
[55:44] have to stay all five hours. You can
[55:45] just drop in.
[55:47] >> If I could just jump in. Um, for field
[55:50] day, if a member of the council shows
[55:53] up, they get extra points because
[55:55] there's there's a whole point system
[55:57] with a L um, when they do field day. So,
[56:01] I'm unfortunately out of town. So, if
[56:02] any of you are available, and I would
[56:04] suggest 10 to two, you know, by the time
[56:06] 2 o'clock, depends on the weather and
[56:08] the frequency bands, how well they're
[56:10] doing. Sometimes things wrap up. So,
[56:11] don't show up at, you know, 2:55 because
[56:14] they may be wrapping up, but sometime
[56:16] between 10 and two it would be a great
[56:17] time. So, any of you or all of you that
[56:19] would like to come, that would be great.
[56:21] >> Sorry, Darcy. Keep going.
[56:23] >> No problem. So, then some of you might
[56:25] recall I've announced in the past that
[56:26] we ran a community survey. It's titled
[56:28] the Cortell Valley conversation. Um,
[56:31] it's engagement with the town about
[56:33] protecting our emergency services, our
[56:35] financial stability, and looking at our
[56:37] town a
[56:39] recall we had a survey that was open to
[56:41] everyone. It was not selective. And I'm
[56:44] really happy to announce that we have
[56:47] published the rankings um for that
[56:50] survey. This is a lot to absorb. So this
[56:53] is on our website at the engagement web
[56:56] page and but more importantly we're
[56:58] working on our next Portell Valley Post
[57:01] and it will have this on the front page
[57:03] and this should be mailed out hopefully
[57:05] next week. So watch for this. We've got
[57:07] some great articles by the conservation
[57:10] committee about defensible space
[57:14] and we've got an article from the
[57:16] emergency preparedness committee and
[57:18] woodside fire and some sustainability
[57:21] tips and some trail tips. So, watch for
[57:23] this. But this community priority
[57:25] ranking was based on the priorities that
[57:28] were identified last year by our uh
[57:31] survey. Um, but you can see here the
[57:34] overwhelmingly number one ranked most
[57:36] important community priority is wildfire
[57:39] prevention services. That includes
[57:41] different services that the town and
[57:43] Woodside Fire does as well as homeowners
[57:45] can do themselves, but that's a huge
[57:46] priority. And then next up is 911
[57:49] emergency police patrols. And then maybe
[57:52] not as glamorous but still important,
[57:54] storm drains. and then preserving our
[57:58] autonomy and preventing what could be a
[58:00] potential county takeover of our local
[58:02] zoning land use. So, this is just a
[58:05] quick snapshot. We'll be talking about
[58:06] it more in the next few months, but I
[58:08] just wanted to share this this data that
[58:10] we analyzed and announced that the post
[58:13] will be mailed out next week. So, keep
[58:14] an eye out for that. Thank you.
[58:19] » Thank you. Any questions for Darcy?
[58:21] Yeah. On the survey, how many people
[58:24] does that reflect?
[58:28] >> Approximately 1% of our population.
[58:32] >> So 40 odd. Yep. Um and what is the
[58:37] purpose of it?
[58:39] >> The purpose of it is to inform the
[58:42] budget. So that's number one. We were we had this data before we finalized the
[58:47] budget. It's also important to inform
[58:51] the town about what the council
[58:53] priorities are. We already had our
[58:55] priority setting discussion and I think
[58:57] we we touched on all of these. Um, but
[59:00] it's also important to [clears throat]
[59:02] inform the community as we head into
[59:05] July and look at a potential ballot
[59:07] measure to identify revenue for the
[59:10] town.
[59:11] >> But this isn't to be confused with the
[59:15] polling that was done
[59:18] last year. Is it the one and the same or
[59:21] is it different?
[59:22] >> Different. They are different. The
[59:25] polling last year was very much a
[59:26] community focused poll around a
[59:29] potential ballot measure.
[59:30] >> Yeah.
[59:32] >> But we're not using statistics on how
[59:34] much this sample of 1% reflects the
[59:39] community.
[59:39] >> Correct. This is not statistically
[59:42] valid or stat scientific survey because
[59:45] it was open to everyone. anyone with a
[59:48] computer could participate
[59:50] >> and you have mechanisms to prevent
[59:53] double counting etc.
[59:55] >> Correct.
[59:56] >> I I have concerns of things like this
[59:59] being used as meaningful at that
[1:00:03] percentage. So I'll stay tuned and see
[1:00:06] how it plays out. Will you be giving
[1:00:07] reports periodically on numbers? Thank
[1:00:10] you. Yes.
[1:00:14] » Other questions for Darcy? Right. I will
[1:00:18] close out the town manager report and
[1:00:19] move on to oral communications. So, this
[1:00:22] is an opportunity for the public to me
[1:00:26] turn off the
[1:00:27] >> I'm trying. I I've turned it off a 100
[1:00:29] different ways.
[1:00:30] >> Okay. Uh [laughter]
[1:00:32] let's see who's trying to call Mary. So,
[1:00:35] oral communication. This is you can
[1:00:37] comment on anything that's come before
[1:00:38] presentations, town manager report, or
[1:00:41] anything else that's not on the agenda.
[1:00:43] So, is there anybody in the schoolhouse
[1:00:46] that has oral communications?
[1:00:48] So, I see no hands in the schoolhouse
[1:00:57] and
[1:00:59] I see two hands.
[1:01:02] So, a Zoom user
[1:01:04] might be Dana.
[1:01:10] » Uh, hi. Is PG& still there?
[1:01:14] >> No, I'm afraid she left
[1:01:16] >> because I had a hell of a lot of
[1:01:18] questions for her. Anyway, that's too
[1:01:21] bad.
[1:01:22] >> Yeah, my my apologies. That that would
[1:01:24] have been um
[1:01:26] >> I mean, they do a lot of things that are incorrect, especially with their
[1:01:31] trees, and it's and it's going to it's
[1:01:34] going to make fire danger worse. Okay.
[1:01:37] Thank you.
[1:01:38] >> Yeah. So, Dana, I did Dana, I did try to
[1:01:41] press her a little bit on that and maybe
[1:01:43] if you reach out to me, um, I can put
[1:01:45] you in touch with her and maybe we can
[1:01:47] get some of that information to her.
[1:01:49] >> Well, I think it would have happened a
[1:01:51] lot better in public
[1:01:53] >> had everyone heard what really happens
[1:01:56] with their street tree pruning. I
[1:01:59] >> I agree. That's what I was trying to
[1:02:01] pressure on as well.
[1:02:02] >> Thank you.
[1:02:03] Dana.
[1:02:05] Caroline, you're up next.
[1:02:18] Caroline, you're still on mute. There we
[1:02:20] go.
[1:02:24] » Can you hear me?
[1:02:25] >> We can. Welcome.
[1:02:27] >> Great. Thank you. Uh I was trying to
[1:02:29] raise my hand and I couldn't. So um I concur with several comments. Um
[1:02:39] PG&E has been a disaster, but I welcome
[1:02:42] the enthusiasm and the willingness of
[1:02:44] this young person who is trying to help
[1:02:48] Pulla Valley residents. Um I have
[1:02:51] several reports where staff has no clue
[1:02:54] what to do when there's a power outage.
[1:02:58] We have our own uh contacts and we have
[1:03:01] helped the town restore uh power outages
[1:03:06] for
[1:03:08] I'm I'm not involved because I have
[1:03:11] solar power but uh there's many
[1:03:13] districts in this area who suffer from
[1:03:16] power outages and luckily because we
[1:03:18] have our own local uh contacts and then
[1:03:23] they're willing to help us restore it.
[1:03:25] It's it's a shame that the staff does
[1:03:28] not know who to contact and I hope that
[1:03:31] they will take this person um and and
[1:03:34] provide contact information so we can uh
[1:03:38] build on a on a brighter future and and
[1:03:41] find solutions to uh bring reliable
[1:03:44] energy beh reliable energy to our
[1:03:48] community. Um
[1:03:53] so after this presentation from Pen I
[1:03:56] assume that you no longer are pursuing
[1:04:00] uh undergrounding
[1:04:03] um infrastructure
[1:04:05] and I advise you uh that might be best
[1:04:08] because Palmer Lane has had underground
[1:04:13] uh infrastructure and it has not helped
[1:04:15] because they don't maintain it. uh water
[1:04:18] goes in the lines and if PG&E doesn't
[1:04:21] maintain it um
[1:04:24] that's why we were forced even before um
[1:04:28] PCNE uh promoted uh their own energy uh
[1:04:33] solutions uh to have solar power because
[1:04:39] otherwise we would not function in Porto
[1:04:41] Valley and and and there's so many
[1:04:43] issues and I hope we can find people who
[1:04:48] are willing
[1:04:49] to come to uh common sense solutions
[1:04:54] because you continue to
[1:04:57] uh to rely on all these consultants
[1:05:02] planning and planning. if it it doesn't
[1:05:05] work, you have to come to real solutions
[1:05:10] uh because that will is the only way
[1:05:13] that you will keep residents happy in
[1:05:15] this town. Thank you.
[1:05:18] >> Thank you, Carolyn.
[1:05:23] » Patty, you're up next.
[1:05:29] Hey, good evening. Um
[1:05:35] good evening. Uh just another plug for
[1:05:37] the fair this Saturday. Emergency prep
[1:05:40] and safety uh wildfire preparedness
[1:05:43] committee will be there and we will have
[1:05:45] a booth that's focused primarily on
[1:05:48] firewise. We have a goal this year of
[1:05:52] covering Porto Valley 100% Firewise
[1:05:55] communities. We're 50% of the way there.
[1:05:59] If you'd like to stop by and wonder if
[1:06:01] you're covered, if you're not, if you'd
[1:06:04] like to know what it would take to be a
[1:06:06] leader or to be covered, we can help you
[1:06:09] um get awareness about what happens
[1:06:12] there. So, any kind of question about
[1:06:14] Firewise, stop by and see us. Thanks.
[1:06:18] >> Great. Thank you, Patty.
[1:06:21] All right. Anybody else in the room?
[1:06:24] Don't see any hands. Anyone else online?
[1:06:27] All right. I'm going to close oral
[1:06:29] communications and move on to the
[1:06:31] consent agenda. So, I will open the
[1:06:33] consent agenda up to public comment.
[1:06:37] Anybody in the schoolhouse wants to
[1:06:39] speak on the consent agenda? Don't see
[1:06:42] any hands.
[1:06:44] And Carolyn, I see your hand up the
[1:06:47] consent agenda.
[1:06:50] » So, once again, I would like to let you
[1:06:52] know that we cannot see whether our hand
[1:06:55] is up or not. that button doesn't
[1:06:57] function but thank you for allowing me
[1:07:00] to comment. Um, you got my public
[1:07:02] comment. Um, I have recused myself to
[1:07:06] participate in town council meetings and several subcommittee meetings
[1:07:12] because it's it's really it's it's it's
[1:07:15] draining. You know, you
[1:07:19] many of us have tried for over 20 years
[1:07:21] to find resolutions and and nothing gets
[1:07:24] done. So once again, I hope you will
[1:07:27] consider um what I the public comment I think I represent many owners in this
[1:07:36] residents in this community. Uh people
[1:07:39] have been silenced and so they wonder
[1:07:42] why they should speak up because nothing
[1:07:44] gets done. I hope you will reconsider
[1:07:46] that and provide us answer and really
[1:07:50] substantiate why you continue to work
[1:07:54] with an outdated contract, a contract
[1:07:57] that is so vague that does not allow
[1:08:01] accountability because you hold them
[1:08:03] harmless.
[1:08:04] And really, why do we need all these
[1:08:07] highly paid sheriffs when there's no
[1:08:11] crime, when there's no when they don't
[1:08:14] come out? when we report um
[1:08:18] illegal conduct. So really I think you
[1:08:21] have to resort to the data and then make
[1:08:24] your decision. So thank you so much for
[1:08:27] listening to me.
[1:08:29] >> Thank you Caroline.
[1:08:31] All right. Anybody else in the
[1:08:33] schoolhouse? Anyone else online?
[1:08:38] All right. Seeing none, I will close
[1:08:39] public comment, bring it back to the
[1:08:41] council. Um, are there any items that
[1:08:45] council members want to pull?
[1:08:48] >> I want to pull 6A just because I want to
[1:08:50] recuse myself and there's a one change I
[1:08:53] want to make to the notes.
[1:08:56] >> Um, and you need to abstain or
[1:09:01] >> Yes.
[1:09:02] >> Okay. Yeah. So, all right. So, so 6A for
[1:09:06] an extension. Got it. Any
[1:09:08] >> 6 D
[1:09:11] >> D is in dog. Okay.
[1:09:15] Anything else? Okay. And then um what I'm going to do rather than poll
[1:09:20] 6A, I'm going to basically do the same
[1:09:23] thing with 6J, which is the Woodside
[1:09:26] Highlands Road Maintenance District. Um
[1:09:28] we're just going to have separate votes
[1:09:29] on that. And that way you can abstain on
[1:09:32] 6A and I can abstain on 6 um J. I
[1:09:35] >> I also have a change I want to make make
[1:09:37] to the 6A. Okay. Then then we'll we'll
[1:09:40] pull it.
[1:09:42] Okay, why don't we start with 6A?
[1:09:44] >> So, I I think we should list Aaron
[1:09:47] Fannon Steel's full name instead of just
[1:09:49] listing him as Aaron at Atlas Planning.
[1:09:52] It's on page two
[1:09:55] of that minutes. So, his last name is
[1:09:59] spelled P F A N E N S T I E L.
[1:10:05] [laughter]
[1:10:14] Okay. So, is that it? All right. Any
[1:10:17] other comments on 6A?
[1:10:20] All right. I would take motion for 6A.
[1:10:23] >> So moved.
[1:10:25] >> Seconded.
[1:10:27] >> A motion in a second. All in favor?
[1:10:29] >> I.
[1:10:30] >> Any nos? Any abstensions? One
[1:10:33] abstension. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's
[1:10:37] [clears throat] move on to 6D.
[1:10:41] » Go ahead, Judah.
[1:10:42] >> Okay. So, I have a question um and then
[1:10:45] a a comment. I'll ask my question, which
[1:10:48] is I understand the intent is that we're
[1:10:52] approving
[1:10:54] the costs that are set out in the
[1:10:56] schedule B. I guess the intent is
[1:11:02] well, what is the intent? Are we
[1:11:04] agreeing to that for four years or is it
[1:11:07] the intent to be one year?
[1:11:10] Can you explain?
[1:11:12] >> Yeah, the intent is to just approved a
[1:11:14] budget for one year. We do not have a
[1:11:17] budget for future years. The contract
[1:11:21] stipulates that the county must pro
[1:11:25] provide the proposed rates to the town
[1:11:28] by April 1st. So, we will get those next
[1:11:32] year.
[1:11:34] So logically speaking, we'll get them by
[1:11:37] April next year, but we have to give
[1:11:39] notice not less than 12 months prior
[1:11:43] uh to a termination. So essentially,
[1:11:46] we're we're signing up for a year and
[1:11:48] three quarters at a minimum.
[1:11:52] There is another provision for
[1:11:55] termination um 5.3
[1:11:58] y uh allowing the town to terminate um
[1:12:03] based on the town's unavailability of funds by providing
[1:12:07] written notice to county as soon as
[1:12:08] reasonably possible after the town
[1:12:10] learns of said is said unavail un un
[1:12:13] availability of funding. I do read that
[1:12:16] as allowing another path for termination
[1:12:19] in the event that the county increases
[1:12:22] the rates
[1:12:24] significantly for the next fiscal year
[1:12:26] that the town would not be in a position
[1:12:28] to pay for the increased service or
[1:12:31] increase charges. But is the legal
[1:12:33] standard of unavailability meaning
[1:12:35] there's a dime in the bank and you have
[1:12:37] to pay the dime or is it a decision by
[1:12:41] the council that this is not a sensible
[1:12:44] budget? Like what is unavailable?
[1:12:47] And if you don't know, we should at
[1:12:48] least admit that we're signing up for
[1:12:50] possibly a year and three quarters, I
[1:12:53] think.
[1:12:54] >> Yeah. It it is uh not a defined term in
[1:12:57] the contract.
[1:12:57] >> Yeah. So, we'd have to argue what what
[1:13:00] that means if that ever happened,
[1:13:02] >> right?
[1:13:03] >> Um
[1:13:05] Okay. Um and Craig, if I just make the
[1:13:08] comment and then see I have comments on
[1:13:11] this.
[1:13:11] >> Yeah, please. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
[1:13:13] Please.
[1:13:13] >> Yeah. I've said this before. This
[1:13:15] contract is a contract of adhesion as
[1:13:18] far as lawyers go. Um that means there's
[1:13:21] objectionable terms and we have no other
[1:13:24] choice. So, we are going to agree to it
[1:13:27] because we don't have another choice.
[1:13:29] Um, and we've tried to negotiate and see
[1:13:32] flexibility and there have been none. Is
[1:13:34] that correct, Darcy?
[1:13:36] >> That is correct.
[1:13:37] >> Yeah. So, I think, you know, I want to
[1:13:40] acknowledge the public's comments that,
[1:13:43] you know, this is a bad contract. It's one that's one-sided and the
[1:13:49] sheriff has sole discretion. This county
[1:13:52] has a huge amount of discretion. the
[1:13:54] allocation of costs that would normally
[1:13:57] in business be overhead and not
[1:14:00] chargeable or chargeable in part is uh
[1:14:04] not there. And I I do think we we all
[1:14:07] just ought to be acknowledging that for
[1:14:10] the public. And what that leads me to is
[1:14:14] a comment that the county at some point
[1:14:15] has to realize it's unsustainable for
[1:14:18] individual towns such as us and that
[1:14:21] there's got to be a better methodology.
[1:14:23] There's got to be a more transparent
[1:14:26] discussion. If the dollars are not
[1:14:27] there, they're not there. But this has
[1:14:30] been a very frustrating process and I've
[1:14:32] seen this for years. So, I I think we
[1:14:36] got to do what's right by the town to
[1:14:38] get some um support, but but I I just
[1:14:41] really want to express the frustration
[1:14:44] that I envision and really send a
[1:14:47] message that this is getting to the
[1:14:49] point of so much pain. we are going to
[1:14:51] be forced to evaluate and see what is
[1:14:54] the right level um relative to where we
[1:14:57] are today and what is it that we're
[1:15:00] going to be getting if we need to pair
[1:15:03] back given our financial situation. So
[1:15:06] um I might be saying the obvious but I
[1:15:08] do feel the need given the size of the
[1:15:11] contract and the proportion of our
[1:15:14] budget that it constitutes.
[1:15:17] >> Okay. Other comments on 6D?
[1:15:20] >> I I Yeah, go ahead. I do. Um
[1:15:24] yeah, I agree completely with what
[1:15:26] Judith is saying, but I also wanted to
[1:15:28] bring up, you know, I I felt the same
[1:15:29] that this contract is very vague and
[1:15:31] it's always in their favor. Um the
[1:15:34] overtime is um
[1:15:37] my theory about the overtime is that
[1:15:39] we're kind of being punished for the
[1:15:40] fact that they're unable to hire
[1:15:41] adequate staff. So they've taken the
[1:15:44] entire overtime and some people are
[1:15:46] making 700,000 a year because of over
[1:15:49] >> taken the entire sum and then subdivided
[1:15:51] it up per per you know per deputy and
[1:15:54] then voiced the cost on to to everybody
[1:15:57] regardless of whether they're the
[1:15:58] deputies that are actually patrolling us
[1:16:01] or generating overtime. Um and then the
[1:16:04] contract doesn't give us really any real
[1:16:06] details about how much time each deputy
[1:16:10] route is actually spending in our town.
[1:16:13] And instead it's the very contract
[1:16:15] starts at the very beginning with a
[1:16:17] comment about the fact that um
[1:16:21] the deputies routes do not necessarily
[1:16:24] just involve our town limit. that a
[1:16:27] deputy's route could very very clearly
[1:16:29] go through the middle of Menlo Park,
[1:16:31] then through Lera, then through us, and
[1:16:32] then through Los Trangos, and that would
[1:16:34] be their route for the day. And so, it's
[1:16:36] really unclear to me how much actual
[1:16:38] time we have for these people to be
[1:16:40] actually patrolling in our streets. And
[1:16:43] the one of the things that that I have a
[1:16:46] concern about is let me pull up the
[1:16:48] contract was um I think 2.5
[1:16:52] where it says that if a deputy if the
[1:16:55] sheriff determines that a particular
[1:16:56] deputy needs to work overtime
[1:17:00] o over and above their assigned route
[1:17:03] and they have to go overtime. But then
[1:17:04] we would get charged an additional
[1:17:06] overtime fee on top of what the overtime
[1:17:10] we're already paying for these people,
[1:17:11] which is 30% of their actual salary. So
[1:17:15] to me, 30% of someone's annual salary is
[1:17:18] what,
[1:17:20] three extra months or something of
[1:17:22] overtime. It it just the numbers don't
[1:17:25] quite work out for us. And I know we
[1:17:28] have no choice about this, but uh right
[1:17:30] now today, but I think we still need to
[1:17:33] continue to explore options. And I know
[1:17:36] they've refused to cut it down, but in
[1:17:38] ter giving us options of having a little
[1:17:40] bit less deputies or whatever, but we
[1:17:44] have to continue to explore options.
[1:17:48] >> Thank you, Ellen.
[1:17:50] >> So, I appreciate my colleagues comments
[1:17:52] on this contract. Um, I would also note
[1:17:54] that we seem to
[1:17:57] ha be overstaffed and I'm I I worry
[1:18:02] about overtime for like zots uh zots to
[1:18:05] tats or zot right what's it I always get
[1:18:10] the name wrong z to tats
[1:18:11] >> zots tots zots tots thank you [laughter]
[1:18:15] um but then like pb puzza which is not
[1:18:19] actually a town event but we we are you
[1:18:22] know we might have to pay extra for PB
[1:18:24] Palooa. So I am concerned that the
[1:18:27] contract doesn't you know clarify our
[1:18:30] special events. We do have the an you
[1:18:32] know very much the same annual events
[1:18:34] every year. Um so that is of concern to
[1:18:38] me as well. So um thank you.
[1:18:41] >> Thank you.
[1:18:43] >> Any comments? Mary?
[1:18:45] >> Um so the only other thing I would add
[1:18:47] on is we do have a new sheriff. Um, and
[1:18:50] we do have a new senior staff under the
[1:18:52] sheriff. And that's not to say that this
[1:18:54] is a good contract. I'm not going there.
[1:18:56] Um, but I would recommend that we get
[1:18:58] our list of issues and we bring them to
[1:19:01] the captain. Um, I found him to be open
[1:19:03] and receptive. It's not necessarily that
[1:19:05] things are going to change tomorrow, but
[1:19:08] they're at least opening to listen. And
[1:19:10] before I'm not even sure they were they
[1:19:12] were such disarray that they they
[1:19:14] couldn't even do that. Um, I can also
[1:19:16] say that they get a lot of pressure from
[1:19:17] the county in terms of expenses. So, it
[1:19:20] is a complicated thing and I'm I'm not
[1:19:21] trying to justify it, but I I have met
[1:19:24] their senior staff now. Um, and it is a
[1:19:27] market improvement over so it gives me a
[1:19:30] glimmer of hope. So, I I just would add
[1:19:33] that to it. So, okay. Um, so I would
[1:19:36] entertain a motion to approve 6D.
[1:19:41] » I move to approve 6D.
[1:19:44] Second.
[1:19:46] >> Second.
[1:19:47] >> Motion in a second. All in favor?
[1:19:50] >> I.
[1:19:51] >> All right. Passes unanimously. Right.
[1:19:53] The next one is 6J.
[1:19:56] This is the road maintenance district.
[1:19:58] Um I'm I would entertain a motion for
[1:20:00] this. I need to abstain.
[1:20:03] >> So moved.
[1:20:04] >> Second.
[1:20:06] >> All in favor?
[1:20:07] >> I.
[1:20:08] >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? I abstain.
[1:20:12] All right. And mayor, if I if I could,
[1:20:14] um just to clarify, your uh vote would
[1:20:17] actually be a recusal uh because you
[1:20:19] have a financial conflict of interest.
[1:20:21] Um whereas uh Council Flynn's um uh vote
[1:20:24] on the minutes was an abstension because
[1:20:26] that was simply because she was not
[1:20:28] present at the meeting.
[1:20:29] >> I I recused myself from
[1:20:30] >> Thank you. And because this is on
[1:20:31] consent, that's why because as a consent
[1:20:34] item, um council members do not need to
[1:20:36] leave the room uh for those items.
[1:20:38] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[1:20:39] >> Correction.
[1:20:40] >> All right. Which leaves us with a motion
[1:20:43] for the rest of them, which is 6 B C E F
[1:20:47] G H I K L M N O.
[1:20:50] >> So moved.
[1:20:52] >> Second.
[1:20:53] >> Thank you. I have a motion in a second.
[1:20:54] All in favor?
[1:20:55] >> I.
[1:20:56] >> Any opposed? All right. As unanimously.
[1:21:00] All right. Close out the consent agenda.
[1:21:04] Move on to the public hearing. So, the
[1:21:07] first item is public hearing on the
[1:21:11] recreation fees and the master fee
[1:21:12] schedule update. Tony, you have a staff
[1:21:14] report.
[1:21:27] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening,
[1:21:28] members of council.
[1:21:32] Presation, excuse me.
[1:21:54] I do have a very brief presentation.
[1:21:56] This is a continuation of the first
[1:21:59] public hearing [clears throat] where we
[1:22:00] adopted the planning, building and
[1:22:02] engineering and administration fees and
[1:22:04] continued uh the recreation fees uh for
[1:22:08] to tonight's meeting. Um and we were
[1:22:11] also directed to work with the parks and
[1:22:13] recck committee uh to review the
[1:22:15] recommended fees. Uh we did meet with
[1:22:18] the parks and recck committee uh
[1:22:20] representatives. Uh we did uh review
[1:22:23] some of the fees or we actually reviewed
[1:22:25] all the fees. Uh listen to their
[1:22:27] recommendations. One request that they
[1:22:30] have is that they want to have more time
[1:22:33] to uh do further analysis and study of
[1:22:38] the fees and possibly come back with a
[1:22:40] more formal uh recommendation either at
[1:22:42] midyear or for next year's budget. But
[1:22:46] to go through the um in your packet, you
[1:22:49] did receive um the amended fee schedule.
[1:22:53] Uh the red lines were the changes or the
[1:22:56] amended uh proposals. Um, but for my
[1:22:59] presentation, I'm going to review the fees that were changed. The first
[1:23:04] slide has uh the rentals for classes.
[1:23:08] Um, the first fee was a processing fee.
[1:23:11] The matrix had recommended $197.
[1:23:14] Uh, staff is recommending $45 and to be
[1:23:18] applied to only new instructors. Uh,
[1:23:21] existing instructors will be
[1:23:22] grandfathered in. Um, also an amendment
[1:23:25] is for the um, insurance at the town.
[1:23:29] >> Hey, Tony. Yeah, you might put this in
[1:23:30] presentation mode just so it's a little
[1:23:32] bit larger for people.
[1:23:34] [clears throat]
[1:23:35] >> I did. Apologies.
[1:23:37] >> Yeah, no worries.
[1:23:46] Okay. So, uh going back um for
[1:23:50] insurance, uh if the town is purchasing
[1:23:52] the insurance, uh the applicant is
[1:23:55] charged carrier rate. Uh we will also
[1:23:57] include a $45 processing fee. However,
[1:24:00] if you are a new instructor, we will
[1:24:02] wave the $45 processing fee because
[1:24:04] you're already paying the processing fee
[1:24:05] when we um sign up with the initial
[1:24:08] contract. Um, and then for the rentals
[1:24:12] of community hall, there will be a
[1:24:14] application processing fee of $492,
[1:24:17] which is the matrix recommended uh fee,
[1:24:20] and staff agrees. And this will only
[1:24:23] apply to when you're renting out the
[1:24:25] entire hall. Um, if you're renting the
[1:24:29] Buckeye or Alder room, it'll be a $45
[1:24:32] processing fee. Um, and then another new
[1:24:36] fee is a cleaning fee. Uh this is a $25
[1:24:40] per hour fee and this will be applied if
[1:24:42] the town has to do additional cleaning
[1:24:45] uh after the rental period is over and
[1:24:48] it'll be reduced from the initial
[1:24:50] deposit. If the amount of cleaning
[1:24:52] exceeds the amount of the deposit then
[1:24:54] obviously the the applicant will be um
[1:24:57] charged for the excess.
[1:24:59] And then another new fee is the public
[1:25:01] agency fee. Um this is going to be a,028
[1:25:05] per event. Um, we do have several uh
[1:25:08] public agencies, the county being uh
[1:25:11] probably the largest user of our
[1:25:13] community hall and for sometimes they
[1:25:16] have events that last three or four
[1:25:17] days. Um, and they have like department
[1:25:20] well wellness uh or wellness benefit
[1:25:24] fairs. Um, and so they they take up
[1:25:27] parking, they take up the community
[1:25:29] hall, they take up uh the entire town
[1:25:31] hall area. Uh, so we'll be implementing
[1:25:34] a [clears throat]
[1:25:35] $1,000 28 fee for public agency rentals.
[1:25:39] And then we're also adding a key deposit
[1:25:41] of $150.
[1:25:43] Um, matrix, oh, I'm sorry, I have that
[1:25:46] backwards. Matrix had recommended 140.
[1:25:49] We're recommending 150 as staff. Um, so
[1:25:52] that was for community hall rentals and
[1:25:54] for classes.
[1:25:55] >> And Tony, these are per day or per
[1:25:58] event.
[1:25:59] >> So if I have a three-day event, it's
[1:26:00] $1,000. Okay.
[1:26:05] And then [clears throat] moving on to
[1:26:07] the sport user fees. Um this was
[1:26:11] probably the item that had the most
[1:26:13] comments uh during the public hearing.
[1:26:16] Um after meeting with the parks and
[1:26:18] wreck uh committee members. Um the
[1:26:21] recommendation is to increase the fees
[1:26:24] by 10%.
[1:26:26] um still leaving the the local organized
[1:26:30] youth leagues like AYSO at $48 per
[1:26:33] person. Um and the local organized youth
[1:26:37] clubs go from 67 to 72. Um or sorry 74.
[1:26:42] Uh the local organized adult leagues 67
[1:26:45] to 74. Then the local organized adult
[1:26:49] clubs go from 100 to 110. Uh we have
[1:26:53] parsed out the town courts from the
[1:26:55] sport user fee uh category and uh
[1:26:59] adopted to not recommend a fee increase.
[1:27:03] So that fee will stay at $100 uh per
[1:27:06] person uh for picnic spaces of Little
[1:27:09] People's Park. We're recommending a $10
[1:27:11] increase uh to match with matrix
[1:27:13] recommendation. And then with the Ford
[1:27:16] field parking lot, uh there's a
[1:27:18] commercial rate that we're going to
[1:27:20] implement. It goes from 108 to $117.
[1:27:24] And um and I forgot to type in uh
[1:27:27] there's a staff consulting time fee. Uh
[1:27:31] the current rate was $65, but the first
[1:27:34] hour was free. Um and then the $65
[1:27:37] kicked in after the first hour was over.
[1:27:39] Uh we're implementing a $246
[1:27:42] fee, which is the amount of time it
[1:27:44] would spend for staff to spend one hour
[1:27:47] of consulting. So, the $246 will be
[1:27:50] applied as soon as the the first hour
[1:27:52] starts.
[1:27:54] So, that's a breakdown of the new fees
[1:27:57] in the uh recommended fee schedule for
[1:28:00] uh community hall rentals and park and
[1:28:03] field rentals. So, that concludes my
[1:28:06] presentation. Turn to back to council
[1:28:07] for questions.
[1:28:08] >> Thank you, Tony. Questions?
[1:28:11] Do you have any questions?
[1:28:14] Right.
[1:28:16] >> Um, thank you Tony and for uh these
[1:28:19] updates. Um,
[1:28:22] in terms of the
[1:28:25] uh per field per hour rate to simpler to
[1:28:29] bill versus the per user fee for field
[1:28:32] usage.
[1:28:33] >> Yeah, it's it's $48 per
[1:28:37] participant. Like so if a team has 10,
[1:28:40] it's $480. So it just it it works. So
[1:28:46] don't break it. But would it be easier
[1:28:47] to do a flat per field per hour kind?
[1:28:50] >> That's what the parks and recck
[1:28:51] committee wants to do with their
[1:28:53] analysis to actually look at whether to
[1:28:56] have a per hour rate or uh using the
[1:28:59] existing fee structure.
[1:29:01] >> Okay.
[1:29:01] >> But we just we didn't have enough time
[1:29:03] to complete that analysis because these
[1:29:06] need to be put into place by July 1st.
[1:29:07] >> Okay. Um,
[1:29:10] in terms of the Redwood Grove for group
[1:29:13] size, like you wouldn't want to do a a
[1:29:17] tier rate of like 25
[1:29:20] people, $50 for under 25 at $100 for 25
[1:29:24] and over kind of thing.
[1:29:25] >> Um, that would require more analysis,
[1:29:27] but again, it's something that we can do
[1:29:30] um for the next fiscal year. Um, and
[1:29:33] then what about the maintenance of a
[1:29:37] concrete? You know, concrete, I'm not
[1:29:39] clay, I don't know which is pickle ball
[1:29:42] court being
[1:29:45] lower maintenance than a field. So, the
[1:29:47] costs. So, for the budget this year, I
[1:29:51] did rearrange a little bit the parks and
[1:29:54] fields. I did there's a separate line
[1:29:56] item for court maintenance. Um and it's
[1:29:59] separate from parks and field
[1:30:00] maintenance. But yeah, it's we want to
[1:30:02] keep track of the actual costs for
[1:30:05] maintaining the courts.
[1:30:06] >> So because right now pickle ball the
[1:30:10] court users pickle ball and tennis are
[1:30:12] charged the same as the field users. So
[1:30:14] at this point we don't know
[1:30:15] >> right
[1:30:16] >> the maintenance difference. Okay.
[1:30:18] >> Um let me and then um I saw for sport
[1:30:22] groups I saw locally organized youth
[1:30:25] leagues versus clubs. AYSO for instance
[1:30:28] versus club soccer, right? Um, but I
[1:30:32] didn't see little league. Where does the
[1:30:34] little league fit into?
[1:30:35] >> They would be the leagues, the local
[1:30:37] organized youth leagues.
[1:30:38] >> Okay. And I think that's my questions.
[1:30:44] Yes, that's all. Thank you.
[1:30:46] >> Thank you, Helen. Mary,
[1:30:49] >> I have a tiny question of $25 per hour
[1:30:53] for cleaning. Uh is that a how do you uh
[1:30:56] how do you do that? Um, and why why
[1:31:00] >> I mean and and that does that cost cover
[1:31:03] the cost for an hour of cleaning and and
[1:31:06] why do we not have it?
[1:31:07] >> It probably would not cover the cost of
[1:31:10] an hour, but we did it's again have the
[1:31:14] applicant with a little skin in the game
[1:31:16] to keep the facility clean knowing that
[1:31:18] they will have to pay extra
[1:31:20] >> if um
[1:31:22] >> why not make it meet the cost? I mean,
[1:31:25] the the incentive is there to uh to just
[1:31:28] let you guys clean it at $25 an hour and
[1:31:30] take the
[1:31:31] >> If you want us to charge the hourly rate
[1:31:32] or the rate it costs for the cleaning,
[1:31:37] then we can we can amend the fee
[1:31:39] schedule.
[1:31:39] >> What's wrong with that? Because then
[1:31:40] they clean up after themselves.
[1:31:42] >> Do that. We can do that.
[1:31:43] >> Well, that would be my suggestion.
[1:31:45] >> Okay.
[1:31:46] >> I would I would need I would need
[1:31:48] concurrence of council to do that.
[1:31:50] >> Is that something we can do? It seems
[1:31:52] like too minor appointed, but it it
[1:31:55] jumps out at me because uh I'd be jump
[1:31:58] at the chance to get cleaning done for
[1:32:00] $25.
[1:32:01] >> But I mean it's we've we've the
[1:32:03] frequency of that happening is not it's
[1:32:07] been infrequent that um although we did
[1:32:11] have an example.
[1:32:12] >> Yeah. and and
[1:32:13] >> so but the the um the um we have not had
[1:32:19] to have additional cleaning after an
[1:32:21] event at community hall in quite some
[1:32:24] time.
[1:32:25] >> But can I just say the town contracts
[1:32:27] for our janitorial services and it's
[1:32:30] infrequent. So, I guess I would just be
[1:32:32] cautioner. I would caution you that we
[1:32:35] don't necessarily have a janitor a
[1:32:37] janitorial contract in place to support
[1:32:39] what you're describing or janitorial
[1:32:42] services are not daily. They're
[1:32:46] and we they're not necessarily available
[1:32:48] on call to do what you're doing.
[1:32:50] >> But it would staff would probably have
[1:32:52] to
[1:32:52] >> Yeah. And then staff would have to clean
[1:32:54] that. And that's not we don't really
[1:32:56] have this. We may not have the ability
[1:32:58] to do that from a staffing or
[1:33:00] contractual perspective.
[1:33:01] >> I don't get it. If you're if you're only
[1:33:02] charging $25 an hour for leaving it a
[1:33:05] mess, what kind of incentive is that for
[1:33:07] not leaving it a mess?
[1:33:10] >> Staff for being doing the work. That
[1:33:12] should be even higher.
[1:33:13] >> Yeah. I'd say if that if that's the
[1:33:15] case,
[1:33:16] >> we have the deposit though. That is what
[1:33:18] we use if someone leaves a unusual mess,
[1:33:22] >> which hasn't happened.
[1:33:24] >> I see what you're saying. Okay, I get
[1:33:26] it. I guess.
[1:33:27] >> And we are charging, you know, $2,777
[1:33:31] just to use the room. So,
[1:33:33] >> and we have a big deposit, right?
[1:33:35] >> And we have $1,000 deposit.
[1:33:38] >> Okay, I understand. Judith
[1:33:43] >> Mike.
[1:33:44] >> So I um just have a a framework question
[1:33:48] because the comments that were submitted
[1:33:50] by members of the parks and recck
[1:33:52] committee um you said that they want to
[1:33:56] do more analysis. So inherent in in that
[1:34:00] I think is we should not be adopting
[1:34:04] these without further analysis as as
[1:34:08] proposed by them and their comments or
[1:34:11] are we free to do that? Like what's the risk of considering them now without
[1:34:16] the analysis?
[1:34:17] >> Council can say we're not going to adopt
[1:34:20] these recommended fees. We're going to
[1:34:23] remain with the existing fees.
[1:34:27] But well, but some of these are new and
[1:34:31] they want to structure them differently,
[1:34:32] right? They're they're different dollar
[1:34:34] amounts.
[1:34:34] >> We want to implement new fees. Yes. But
[1:34:36] we also have existing fees that are
[1:34:39] being amended and adjusted.
[1:34:41] >> Yeah.
[1:34:41] >> Um if you you say no to this action
[1:34:44] tonight, then it's whatever the current
[1:34:47] fees are right now is what's going to be
[1:34:49] put in place
[1:34:50] >> for that item.
[1:34:52] >> Yeah. Um, I'm just trying to get to a
[1:34:55] point of is it practical to consider
[1:34:59] these now or should do I is I think
[1:35:01] forward because these are good ideas. I
[1:35:03] just don't know how to think about them
[1:35:06] six months or a year's time. It does
[1:35:08] seem like I'd be more
[1:35:09] >> a professional. We had a professional
[1:35:12] firm
[1:35:13] >> exactly
[1:35:13] >> review make recommendations.
[1:35:15] >> Yeah. and they've they've determined the
[1:35:18] actual cost
[1:35:19] >> for the town to perform that service,
[1:35:22] >> right?
[1:35:23] >> Um, you know, I I get the wanting the
[1:35:28] per hour.
[1:35:29] >> Um, that's more of analysis and and it's
[1:35:32] also they're going to look at more of
[1:35:34] the area, the the surroundings, which
[1:35:37] Matrix did.
[1:35:38] >> U, but um I mean, but they're the
[1:35:41] professionals. this is what they do
[1:35:43] >> and and this is the study is actually
[1:35:46] going to be more defensible than what
[1:35:49] the committee is going to come up with.
[1:35:53] >> Yeah. So that goes to the risk of our fees being challenged there.
[1:35:59] >> If we go with a professional
[1:36:01] recommendation, they're less subject to
[1:36:03] challenge. It's possible this committee
[1:36:05] can do an analysis that right helps us
[1:36:08] get more Okay, thank you. That's the
[1:36:09] framework I needed.
[1:36:12] And and you did incorporate some of
[1:36:13] their changes. I mean, some of the
[1:36:15] >> Oh, I did. Yeah.
[1:36:16] >> 10% increases.
[1:36:17] >> Yeah, they were, you know, just do a 10%
[1:36:19] increase. Uh they were also asking for
[1:36:22] the court maintenance to be separated.
[1:36:25] So, we did listen to what they were
[1:36:27] saying. Um but there's some fees that we feel as staff that we need to
[1:36:31] implement.
[1:36:32] >> Thank you,
[1:36:33] >> Rebecca.
[1:36:35] >> Yeah. I I wanted to clarify a comment
[1:36:38] you made um about the agency event hall
[1:36:45] [clears throat]
[1:36:45] >> fee of,028
[1:36:48] and I'm looking at um
[1:36:51] what was put in the packet and it says
[1:36:54] it's per day
[1:36:56] >> then I spoke.
[1:36:57] >> Okay, great. Because I was not in favor
[1:37:00] of five days for the same price of one.
[1:37:03] Um,
[1:37:04] okay. And then it seemed like that
[1:37:07] residents were not going to be charged
[1:37:09] at all.
[1:37:11] >> No, we're we're we're taking away
[1:37:14] resident fee, non-resident. We're just
[1:37:16] it's calling it rental fee.
[1:37:17] >> Okay. Okay. So then the rental fee
[1:37:20] whether they're resident or not, they're
[1:37:21] charged 277.
[1:37:24] Now I wasn't clear. Yeah. I think um
[1:37:26] Karen Asi in her comment also made the
[1:37:28] same comment about I wasn't actually
[1:37:31] clear what the full cost was going to be
[1:37:33] if somebody wants to rent the hall
[1:37:35] because you've [clears throat] got the
[1:37:36] 2777 you've got the $1,000 deposit
[1:37:39] you've got the 150 key deposit and then
[1:37:42] there's some other charges that may or
[1:37:43] may not apply applications fees.
[1:37:46] >> Yeah. So
[1:37:48] what you have in front of you is our
[1:37:50] master fee schedule. It lists all the
[1:37:52] fees.
[1:37:54] That's its purpose. Karen was more
[1:37:57] concerned about how's it presented.
[1:37:58] Well, that will be presented when we
[1:38:01] individual conversations with the
[1:38:02] applicant. This is how much it's going
[1:38:05] to cost and this is how much this is
[1:38:06] what your fee is going to cover. But we
[1:38:08] will have that conversation with the
[1:38:11] applicant and we're also going to have
[1:38:12] it on the web page. This is what your
[1:38:15] fee covers. So you're planning to have
[1:38:18] you have your master fee schedule will
[1:38:20] be one document [clears throat] and then
[1:38:21] you're going to have something on the
[1:38:22] website that'll say are you interested
[1:38:24] in v renting our community hall this is
[1:38:26] what it will cost if you're this kind of
[1:38:28] person. So you'll have all those fees
[1:38:30] listed so someone doesn't actually have
[1:38:32] to call in
[1:38:33] >> and ask right
[1:38:34] >> you want people to call in
[1:38:37] >> don't they get charged to do that though
[1:38:42] » regardless they're going to get a
[1:38:43] processing gap even if they do it
[1:38:44] online. No, but I mean I if I was
[1:38:47] planning a wedding, I'd want to know
[1:38:49] ahead of time how much it's going to
[1:38:50] cost. I wouldn't want to have to pay you
[1:38:51] to tell me how much.
[1:38:52] >> We also have to coordinate if they're
[1:38:54] doing a wedding. We have to coordinate
[1:38:56] with caterers, photographers,
[1:38:59] logistics of the area. So that's the
[1:39:01] part where the consultant time comes in
[1:39:03] with using staff and that's what Cindy
[1:39:06] has to do.
[1:39:08] >> I'm not quite following.
[1:39:09] >> Well, okay. If you're organizing a
[1:39:10] wedding and you're you want to have
[1:39:12] caterers, you want to have
[1:39:13] photographers, you have to have the
[1:39:14] logistics discussed at the community
[1:39:17] hall, you need to talk to somebody from
[1:39:18] staff. You can't just show up and do it.
[1:39:22] >> And you're saying that that logistics
[1:39:25] analysis
[1:39:27] will cost per hour a certain amount of
[1:39:30] fee. So if I were coming in to comparing
[1:39:33] prices from one place to the next for
[1:39:35] different venues to have a wedding,
[1:39:39] I I'm having a little trouble struggling
[1:39:41] to understand what the cost would be
[1:39:44] [clears throat]
[1:39:45] at Portola Valley versus going to some
[1:39:48] vineyard where they probably just give
[1:39:49] me the price,
[1:39:51] >> right? But if you call them, ask them
[1:39:54] what's the price, what does that cover
[1:39:57] and then they'll break down this is what
[1:39:58] you get. You get the room for x amount
[1:40:00] of hours. You get use of these two rooms
[1:40:03] for
[1:40:04] uh your bridesmaids can use this room,
[1:40:06] the groomsman can use this room. you
[1:40:08] have access to the PL. I mean, you still
[1:40:10] have to have that conversation
[1:40:13] >> list. They may say it's going to be this
[1:40:14] is what it covers, but you're still
[1:40:16] going to have to talk to somebody to
[1:40:18] kind of go over all that to confirm it
[1:40:20] and to also schedule it with the the
[1:40:23] vendor,
[1:40:24] >> but they don't charge for that
[1:40:26] conversation. Are you going to be
[1:40:28] charging for that conversation?
[1:40:30] >> Some do.
[1:40:31] >> It's included in the cost because it it
[1:40:33] is their time that's that's going to be
[1:40:35] baked into the cost. We as a local
[1:40:38] agency have to spell out what our costs
[1:40:41] are.
[1:40:43] >> All right. Well, okay. I'm just hoping
[1:40:46] there'll be a lot of information on the
[1:40:47] website so that people don't have to use
[1:40:50] the staff time for just to find out that
[1:40:53] >> we'll have the same with planning and
[1:40:54] building and with planning and building
[1:40:57] as well.
[1:40:58] >> Okay. And then um [clears throat]
[1:41:03] uh so the for the court fees you you
[1:41:05] pulled it out into a separate line item
[1:41:08] because our professionals didn't
[1:41:10] actually look at the court fees.
[1:41:14] >> No, this was a request because the the comments that were being made is
[1:41:20] that the court fees were not included in
[1:41:21] the fee schedule. They were they were
[1:41:24] just included in the adult clubs.
[1:41:27] >> Okay. So that's the fees that were being
[1:41:29] used to charge the pickle ball users and
[1:41:32] the classes and the clubs for use of it
[1:41:35] was used. It was listed in the sports
[1:41:37] user fee category. All we've done is
[1:41:40] pulled it out and called it town courts.
[1:41:42] >> But the professionals looked at that in
[1:41:44] terms of grass fields or not or just
[1:41:47] >> they looked at maintenance across the
[1:41:48] board for all facilities.
[1:41:50] >> Okay. And then was there a reason why we
[1:41:53] decided not to have a different fee for
[1:41:55] resident versus non-resident?
[1:41:57] >> We just wanted to have one right now.
[1:41:59] But again, we'll do further analysis
[1:42:02] >> for next year. You're saying? Okay. Um,
[1:42:07] yeah, I guess that's those are my
[1:42:09] questions. Thank you.
[1:42:11] >> Thank you, Rebecca. And I'll just save
[1:42:14] mine for the discussion. So, is there
[1:42:16] any public comment on this item in the
[1:42:19] schoolhouse? Okay.
[1:42:23] And line.
[1:42:24] >> All right. We have one hand up.
[1:42:26] Christie,
[1:42:30] » welcome Christie.
[1:42:31] >> Yes. Hello. I was curious that you're
[1:42:34] going to charge parking lot from 108 to
[1:42:38] 117. That is so low
[1:42:42] for
[1:42:44] Can you remind me how many acres our
[1:42:47] parking lot is for
[1:42:49] this? And we need to get our land value
[1:42:55] for
[1:42:57] parking each car. So, what does each car
[1:43:01] cost if we have 60 parking spaces and
[1:43:06] you're only going to charge 108 and
[1:43:09] you're going to up it to 117. That is
[1:43:13] not getting land values for our dollars
[1:43:17] in Porta Valley. So, I'm concerned with
[1:43:21] that.
[1:43:23] and the $25 for a cleaning fee. No
[1:43:27] cleaners charge $25 anymore. So, I agree
[1:43:31] with what was said earlier and I think
[1:43:34] we need to go with cleaning fees that
[1:43:37] are available now in this valley.
[1:43:43] And I'm going to leave it at that. Thank
[1:43:45] you.
[1:43:46] >> Thank you, Christie. Patty, you're up
[1:43:48] next.
[1:43:50] Hi,
[1:43:54] good evening. Um, I already submitted my
[1:43:56] comments, so I'll keep it short. Tony
[1:43:59] mentioned that the professionals
[1:44:01] um came up with most of the numbers that
[1:44:04] you're looking at. Keep in mind that the
[1:44:06] town directed matrix to develop the the
[1:44:10] uh fees. um as it relates to cost
[1:44:15] recovery.
[1:44:16] Um two things. Parks and Rec looked at
[1:44:19] it in terms of what are the competitive
[1:44:21] [clears throat] rates because we truly
[1:44:23] believe that the people who use our
[1:44:25] fields and some of our facilities have
[1:44:28] options. Now the two are not just
[1:44:31] necessarily need to be you know at odds
[1:44:34] or separate. You can come up with both
[1:44:37] and compare them and reasonably look at
[1:44:39] them. But cost recovery and then
[1:44:42] deciding how you're going to subsidize
[1:44:44] it as you look at competitive rates was
[1:44:47] that parks and wreck wanted to um
[1:44:51] address.
[1:44:53] Second, um we did request that the court
[1:44:56] fees be pulled out separately and Tony
[1:44:59] complied. They are pulled out
[1:45:00] separately, but they're not different
[1:45:03] than the field fees. We asked for a cost
[1:45:06] recovery number on the um tennis courts.
[1:45:11] The town did not provide that, nor did
[1:45:13] matrix. So, they have no basis for the
[1:45:17] $100 other than it's what the fields.
[1:45:21] All we're asking for is look at it
[1:45:23] reasonably and say, should those be the
[1:45:26] same? We don't happen to think so. Um,
[1:45:29] we think [clears throat] parks and wreck
[1:45:31] can help over the next whatever year to
[1:45:36] move us closer to the type of rate
[1:45:39] structure that other towns are using,
[1:45:42] which is a per field, you know, per hour
[1:45:45] type of basis um versus the um per
[1:45:50] player cost recovery that the matrix and
[1:45:53] the town is proposing. Thank you, Patty.
[1:45:59] And can I add the the court user fee is
[1:46:02] actually $10 less than the adult club.
[1:46:06] There is there is a change.
[1:46:10] >> And presumably once you actually get
[1:46:12] costs then you may change it again.
[1:46:13] >> Yes.
[1:46:16] >> And in regards to the parking lot the value of the parking lot is based on
[1:46:21] the use of the parking lot and the other
[1:46:24] optional uses of the parking lot. The
[1:46:27] parking lot is only used for one and
[1:46:30] it's parking. And it's a dirt lot. And
[1:46:32] the maintenance costs for a dirt lot on
[1:46:34] annual basis are not that expensive,
[1:46:37] which is why it's $117.
[1:46:43] » Okay. So, one last chance for public
[1:46:46] comment. I see no hands in the room. So,
[1:46:48] no hands on the line on the line. So,
[1:46:51] I'm going to close the public hearing
[1:46:53] and bring it back to the council.
[1:46:56] Oh, final discussion on this item.
[1:47:02] » No, I think we need to get it passed.
[1:47:05] >> Okay,
[1:47:12] » Judah.
[1:47:14] >> Yeah. Um, you know, I would invite the
[1:47:16] parks and recck committee for the areas
[1:47:18] they want to explore further to do so
[1:47:21] over time. Um, you know, I think right
[1:47:25] now it's really important we approve new
[1:47:28] user fees so that we can start the next
[1:47:31] fiscal year or whenever they do apply um
[1:47:35] in a in a manner that's getting us uh
[1:47:39] better positioned to collect closer to
[1:47:42] value. Uh, so I'm pretty comfortable
[1:47:45] with this pretty much as it is, but I
[1:47:48] would be open to them coming back and
[1:47:51] looking at jurisdictions and seeing
[1:47:52] where we are in six months. Um, I'm
[1:47:55] really glad that we've done this and
[1:47:57] we're at the stage where we we have
[1:47:59] something to improve. Thank you,
[1:48:02] >> Rebecca.
[1:48:03] >> Um, in general, I do think we should
[1:48:05] move forward with this. I would raise
[1:48:07] the cleaning fees to probably $50 an
[1:48:11] hour just as a discouragement for
[1:48:13] leaving it dirty and also to at least
[1:48:15] recoup some of our costs. I would lower
[1:48:17] the court fees to probably $75 per
[1:48:20] person. Um and then yes, I think the um
[1:48:26] parks and recck should should continue
[1:48:27] to work on on more analysis so that we
[1:48:29] can uh understand the field versus the
[1:48:32] hour hourly rate versus the person rate.
[1:48:36] um and make modifications if it warrants
[1:48:39] next year.
[1:48:41] Otherwise, I think
[1:48:44] it is it is, you know, something we
[1:48:47] should move forward with with just those
[1:48:48] couple changes.
[1:48:51] >> Thank you, Helen.
[1:48:54] >> Um thank you. I support in uh the
[1:48:58] cleaning fee up to $50 an hour. Um the
[1:49:02] court fee seemed Yeah. $75 an hour. I
[1:49:06] support that. I actually would lower the
[1:49:08] cost for the rental hall
[1:49:11] um
[1:49:12] uh for residents.
[1:49:14] So, you know, um $500 or $1,000 less
[1:49:20] down from 2777.
[1:49:23] I think that it's a benefit to the
[1:49:25] community and to allow them um some, you
[1:49:29] know, to have community events here um
[1:49:32] at a lower rate. Um the parking lot, I
[1:49:35] actually agree. I would increase the
[1:49:37] Ford Field parking lot um to uh at least
[1:49:42] 150
[1:49:44] uh per day. And I I get that's per
[1:49:47] that's not per car, right? That's just
[1:49:49] total.
[1:49:49] >> It's per day to
[1:49:52] >> per day. Total 150. If someone wants to
[1:49:59] » [sighs and gasps]
[1:50:03] » So, so like if someone's having an event
[1:50:06] and they're going to have 30 cards there
[1:50:10] or whatever at Ford Field, as a
[1:50:13] resident, it's 108.
[1:50:15] >> Wow.
[1:50:23] » Again, I'll just emphasize it's really
[1:50:25] meant to be a camp, not a not
[1:50:27] necessarily a resident event. It's a
[1:50:29] special event fee for like a if we were
[1:50:33] to have a day camp teaching baseball to
[1:50:37] kids and they needed the parking in the
[1:50:39] field, it would be extremely rare that parking lot is rented.
[1:50:44] >> Got it. Okay. But are we So, but for
[1:50:47] instance, the um Alpine in so because
[1:50:52] they use it.
[1:50:54] >> Yeah. So they have a
[1:50:57] I'll say like grandfathered in
[1:50:59] short-term arrangement that would not be
[1:51:02] consistent with this fee schedule today
[1:51:05] >> and we are working on potentially a
[1:51:07] lease license agreement to
[1:51:10] uh get them a more formal arrangement
[1:51:13] >> and it's per day.
[1:51:15] It's 117 per day
[1:51:17] >> for
[1:51:19] the Ford fuel park.
[1:51:21] >> Yeah. But I want to emphasize it really
[1:51:23] is it is designed for a special event.
[1:51:25] >> Okay.
[1:51:26] >> Yeah.
[1:51:26] >> Don't think about it
[1:51:28] >> is mutually exclusive for
[1:51:30] >> Got it. Okay.
[1:51:32] >> Okay. Um and then the but the commercial
[1:51:36] is also at 108 or 117 now per day and
[1:51:40] commercial
[1:51:40] >> being 117 per day
[1:51:42] >> would be like a camp.
[1:51:44] >> Yes.
[1:51:46] and the the
[1:51:48] residential would be 108
[1:51:51] >> eight still.
[1:51:54] » Got it. Okay. Okay. Um
[1:51:59] >> can you clarify that if I wanted to have
[1:52:01] a baseball if I had a 10-year-old
[1:52:03] grandson who wanted to have a baseball
[1:52:05] party, I can call up and rent Fordfield
[1:52:09] and the and the uh parking for $107.
[1:52:14] parking lot would be $18 per day
[1:52:16] >> and the field
[1:52:17] >> field would be
[1:52:20] um
[1:52:22] it was a daily weight
[1:52:25] >> is that the special event permit?
[1:52:28] >> No,
[1:52:35] there's an informal group rate
[1:52:38] that's not that expensive. Um,
[1:52:49] so if you had 50 or fewer,
[1:52:52] >> yeah,
[1:52:53] >> it would be $100.
[1:52:55] And if you had greater than 50, I'm
[1:52:58] sorry, that's the deposit. So local
[1:52:59] informal group, it's $3 per person
[1:53:03] with a
[1:53:05] if if it's 50 or fewer, deposit would be
[1:53:08] 100. with greater than 50 or for 51 and
[1:53:11] more it would be $500.
[1:53:19] I don't know how you going to manage
[1:53:21] this. How do you manage this uh asset?
[1:53:26] Anyways, not my
[1:53:27] >> I know I actually I I actually would
[1:53:29] push the commercial fee for to have Ford
[1:53:32] Field at least up to 135 per day.
[1:53:36] I just think it I think I know it's for
[1:53:39] camp, but I think that I think we could
[1:53:42] ask a little bit more.
[1:53:44] >> So, this is for the parking lot.
[1:53:46] >> Yes. For the commercial and 135 even
[1:53:50] seems low to me, but
[1:53:52] >> it sure does,
[1:53:53] >> right?
[1:53:54] >> Yeah. Otherwise, the used car facility
[1:53:56] will be parking their car.
[1:53:58] [clears throat]
[1:53:58] >> It costs the town less than $5,000 a
[1:54:01] year to maintain the Ford Field parking
[1:54:03] lot.
[1:54:05] Yeah, I mean thing I would add here is
[1:54:06] the reason we get a professional group
[1:54:08] to and and do a fee analysis is because
[1:54:11] we're not allowed to make profits on
[1:54:13] these things. So if we start just
[1:54:15] setting it like what we feel like
[1:54:17] >> well we can for
[1:54:18] >> I make some but but I mean the point is
[1:54:21] we're we're trying to recover our costs.
[1:54:23] We're not trying to turn this into a
[1:54:24] profit center. And Tony's trying to make
[1:54:26] the point that a gravel parking lot
[1:54:28] doesn't cost very much. So there's not a
[1:54:29] lot of cost to recover. So, I I think
[1:54:31] we're getting we're starting to get a
[1:54:33] little crosswired in the we think it's a
[1:54:36] super valuable place because you have
[1:54:37] the privilege of, you know, being next
[1:54:39] to our field, but if you're trying to
[1:54:40] recover cost, that's not quite the right
[1:54:42] lens.
[1:54:45] >> Um, so can I make my comments? Good. Um,
[1:54:48] so I'm good with courts at 75 and
[1:54:51] cleaning fees going to 50.
[1:54:55] Personally, I'd love to see the resident
[1:54:57] um community hall be equal to the public
[1:54:59] agency. I really do think it's a
[1:55:01] benefit. I I won't go to the mat on that
[1:55:03] one this time. Um I'd like to see this
[1:55:06] reviewed at mid midyear budget.
[1:55:08] >> Um because that'll give park and wreck
[1:55:11] time to do this and we can also just
[1:55:13] start to see kind of what our usage
[1:55:15] pattern is and what kind of complaints
[1:55:16] we get, right? Which I think will help
[1:55:18] us decide because I appreciate we're
[1:55:21] trying to move this along, right? We we need to have something in place. So, I think with those two and then the
[1:55:27] general comment, um, public comment that
[1:55:30] we read and it was my comment as well
[1:55:32] looking at this is it feels like we're
[1:55:34] nickel and dimming people. Like $150 for
[1:55:36] a key deposit, you know, it's like we
[1:55:38] already, you know, got a $1,000 deposit.
[1:55:40] It's like it feels like a few of these
[1:55:42] we should just roll them up into one
[1:55:43] thing. It's a deposit. I don't care if
[1:55:46] it's $1,000 or, you know, $1,200. It's a
[1:55:49] deposit. and if you don't give us your
[1:55:51] key back, we're going to charge $150 is
[1:55:53] a part of that. But it just feels like
[1:55:55] itemizing all of these. And I think
[1:55:57] that's what Rebecca was trying to get
[1:55:58] out a little bit, which is I would
[1:56:00] expect if I call the town that they can
[1:56:02] give me an estimate of what it would
[1:56:04] cost to rent this hall. It may not be
[1:56:06] down to the dollar, but it shouldn't
[1:56:08] cost me $250
[1:56:10] to talk to somebody to find out how much
[1:56:12] it's going to cost. Like, that feels
[1:56:13] wrong.
[1:56:14] >> We are we are held to a higher standard
[1:56:17] because of state propositions.
[1:56:19] So we really have to itemize our fees,
[1:56:23] >> right? But a deposit
[1:56:24] >> otherwise it could be considered an
[1:56:25] exaction or a tax and then require a
[1:56:28] deposit.
[1:56:28] >> So that's why we have the list as it's formatted. You can go to any
[1:56:33] other city,
[1:56:34] >> right?
[1:56:35] >> And you look at their master fee
[1:56:36] schedule, it's going to be formatted
[1:56:37] very similarly. They're going to have
[1:56:39] the costs spelled out individually.
[1:56:42] >> But can it be under the deposit? You
[1:56:44] have one deposit and then you have the
[1:56:45] fees associated with that deposit. if we
[1:56:48] don't have it listed under
[1:56:50] >> Okay. So,
[1:56:51] >> and someone could challenge it.
[1:56:53] >> So, maybe what you're saying is this is
[1:56:55] the messy version and what goes up on
[1:56:57] the web will be something that says your
[1:56:59] deposit's $1,150.
[1:57:02] If you don't return the key, we're going
[1:57:04] to charge $150. If you give us all our
[1:57:06] stuff back, you're going to get your
[1:57:07] money back. And and and that's the end
[1:57:08] of it. And it's one line in the on the
[1:57:10] website, even though it's broken into a
[1:57:12] thousand little fees here. But I think
[1:57:14] the point I want wanted to get at is I
[1:57:17] expect somebody should be able to call
[1:57:18] up and have a 10-minute conversation
[1:57:20] with staff about renting a facility and
[1:57:22] not be charged $250.
[1:57:24] >> Right.
[1:57:24] >> Okay. So, is that but it's not clear
[1:57:26] from here. This
[1:57:27] >> the initial the initial call will not
[1:57:29] start the meter, but if they call back
[1:57:30] and say we want to have more
[1:57:33] consultations or we want to schedule a
[1:57:34] meeting with Yeah, then that's when the
[1:57:36] meter starts taking.
[1:57:37] >> I just wanted to be clear because that's
[1:57:38] it doesn't quite read that way. It's
[1:57:40] talks about initial
[1:57:41] >> and also a lot of times it's the the
[1:57:43] initial contact with town is an online
[1:57:46] application.
[1:57:48] >> Sure. And that just assumes that on the
[1:57:50] website there's enough information that
[1:57:52] I can tell that it's going to cost me
[1:57:54] $3,500 or whatever to rent the town hall
[1:57:56] because it's not 2777.
[1:57:58] >> Right.
[1:57:58] It's that plus all these other
[1:58:00] things. So, as long as there's some easy
[1:58:01] way to know
[1:58:02] >> Yeah.
[1:58:03] >> what I'm, you know, getting into within
[1:58:05] a couple hundred bucks. Hey, but um we
[1:58:09] need to clarify some things here because
[1:58:10] you kind of brought up No,
[1:58:12] >> I got we're we're coming we're coming
[1:58:13] back to that. We're we're coming back.
[1:58:15] I'm just finishing my comments. So um
[1:58:20] All right. So I I think I'm done with my
[1:58:23] comments. I would suggest that we amend
[1:58:27] the fees to include $50 cleaning and $75
[1:58:31] court fee and leave the rest of it alone
[1:58:34] for now. and then ask Tony to revisit
[1:58:37] this at mid-budget year review.
[1:58:40] >> Um, there was also a comment about
[1:58:42] reducing the the community hall
[1:58:44] facility,
[1:58:45] >> right? And and and I said I wouldn't go
[1:58:47] to the mat on that one. I'm I'm willing
[1:58:49] to wait until mid mid year, but if other
[1:58:51] people feel strongly, we could put it
[1:58:53] in. I I just trying to get us something.
[1:58:56] >> Yeah.
[1:59:00] I think there was a $100 versus
[1:59:03] >> Yeah,
[1:59:04] >> I think it's just a nod to we we believe
[1:59:07] it's likely going to be cheaper to
[1:59:09] maintain concrete courts, but we don't
[1:59:10] know yet. And that's Tony's putting in
[1:59:12] the mechanism. But but again, some of
[1:59:15] this is we're here as a town to service
[1:59:17] serve our residents. And so, you know,
[1:59:20] not nickeling diamonding from everything
[1:59:22] seems like a positive to me. So, that
[1:59:24] was sort of a nod toward that. Honestly,
[1:59:30] I think we got to keep in mind we have
[1:59:32] no money in this town and if we have to
[1:59:34] charge a little extra, it's not that
[1:59:36] much. So, I don't have a lot of patience
[1:59:38] for it, but I think I I could absolutely
[1:59:40] get comfortable with the $50 cleaning
[1:59:43] and $75 court. Um, and then course
[1:59:47] correct in six months.
[1:59:49] >> Yeah. And that's kind of why I left the
[1:59:50] community hall. We can always course
[1:59:52] correct.
[1:59:54] >> We can always course correct.
[1:59:55] >> Yes. Right. And and that's why I was
[1:59:57] suggesting if we do it mid-budget that
[1:59:59] rather than wait a full year. I think
[2:00:01] that would give us everybody a chance to
[2:00:03] weigh in.
[2:00:04] >> But okay. But I do think actually you're
[2:00:07] saying you want to give services to our
[2:00:09] community members, but you don't want to
[2:00:11] give a discount for the community hall.
[2:00:13] >> I think it's too big. I think that for a
[2:00:16] big event, you're already spending I
[2:00:17] mean, people are spending 20, 50,
[2:00:20] $100,000 on their wedding. I I think a
[2:00:22] $1,000 difference, you know, is is
[2:00:25] pretty minor. So, I I would course
[2:00:27] correct that. I mean, I I wouldn't mind
[2:00:29] going there, but that feels like a more
[2:00:31] complicated if we're going to get into
[2:00:33] resident versus non-resident fees, that
[2:00:36] feels more like something we should do
[2:00:38] at our next course correction. So, I
[2:00:40] guess that's my thinking, but again, I I
[2:00:42] brought it up because I mean, if
[2:00:43] everybody else thinks that that's what
[2:00:45] we should do, then we we could include
[2:00:47] it. I'm just trying to get us to a
[2:00:48] resolution that we could give to Tony.
[2:00:51] Not only do we need any resolution here?
[2:00:53] We just need to get Okay. So, yeah. No.
[2:00:56] So, but where where are people at in ter
[2:00:58] let's try to craft some some kind of
[2:01:00] motion dude.
[2:01:03] Comments on the community hall. I think
[2:01:04] that's the piece that's sticking out.
[2:01:07] >> Well, Helen, you had suggested taking it
[2:01:08] down 500 to a,000, right? For residents
[2:01:12] >> for 500. Yeah, I would do 500. So you
[2:01:15] would be 2277
[2:01:17] for residents
[2:01:19] >> and that's yeah just for that one
[2:01:21] >> I would be okay with that resident that
[2:01:23] and non-ren non-resident would stay.
[2:01:27] >> Any other comments? Um, one quick thing,
[2:01:30] it's sort of a process one. I notice
[2:01:32] every month with the warrants that for
[2:01:34] the parking for Rosadis, you're charging
[2:01:37] a $100 deposit and then you're refunding
[2:01:40] at the end of the month and then you're
[2:01:41] charging the deposit again the beginning
[2:01:42] of the funding at the end of the month.
[2:01:44] And is there some reason we can't just
[2:01:45] have one deposit that is carried over
[2:01:47] for the full year?
[2:01:52] » Well, we can. Um but part of the process
[2:01:55] why we do that is in the past checks for
[2:01:59] being held, not being deposited
[2:02:02] and getting lost. So this is an audit
[2:02:05] trail. This is a record. So we can't
[2:02:08] have a applicant say
[2:02:10] >> we did not uh return a check or we
[2:02:13] didn't deposit a check
[2:02:16] >> being held for the full year. Then you
[2:02:18] deposit it once and there it is and then
[2:02:20] at the end of the year it gets
[2:02:21] >> right. It's it's basically a new record.
[2:02:25] You know, once once the rental period is
[2:02:28] over, if they rent, it's another rental
[2:02:29] period.
[2:02:31] >> And so, we want to have a record of the
[2:02:32] rental period plus deposit, return of
[2:02:35] the deposit, close out. Closes out. It's
[2:02:38] process.
[2:02:39] >> It's an audit trail.
[2:02:40] >> Can we get these people on uh the AC?
[2:02:44] >> So, entirely up to them.
[2:02:46] >> So, Rebecca, could I could we just put
[2:02:48] this on hold because we got a lot to
[2:02:49] cover tonight. So, um, if everybody is
[2:02:52] okay, I think a proposal that we could
[2:02:54] get a motion on is $50 cleaning fees,
[2:02:57] $75 court fees, and $500 discount on the
[2:03:00] community hall. Is that
[2:03:02] >> for res? Thank you. For
[2:03:03] >> res how many resident bookings do we
[2:03:06] have per year? If I don't know that, I
[2:03:08] I'm not comfortable. So, I can wrote
[2:03:14] » Did anyone want to do anything about the
[2:03:16] parking lot as well?
[2:03:18] >> No. Because that's a lease problem.
[2:03:20] >> It's a It's a problem.
[2:03:24] >> It's an unsolved problem.
[2:03:26] >> Well, it's a different problem. It' be a
[2:03:27] lease rather than masterpiece.
[2:03:30] >> Yeah.
[2:03:31] >> So, we just need to solve that.
[2:03:45] » Yes. So in urgent
[2:03:46] >> in 2025 we had 11 rentals.
[2:03:51] >> Um but of the
[2:03:54] community hall um we had I mean we do
[2:03:58] have a lot of rentals for nonprofits.
[2:04:01] >> We're we're not charging anything. Um
[2:04:03] but for big events we had
[2:04:08] six.
[2:04:09] >> So why aren't we charging anything for
[2:04:10] nonprofits?
[2:04:12] >> We are we are now. We weren't
[2:04:13] >> Oh. We're t Well, no, we're town
[2:04:15] sponsored. We're not.
[2:04:16] >> Oh, town sponsored or not?
[2:04:18] >> Which which does include the nonprofits?
[2:04:19] That's part of the whole
[2:04:22] >> Which which nonprofit?
[2:04:23] >> That's all part of the grants.
[2:04:25] >> Oh,
[2:04:25] >> they're planter grant.
[2:04:26] >> Yeah,
[2:04:28] >> that's the that's the other component
[2:04:29] that we also have to comply with too.
[2:04:31] >> I thought it was over.
[2:04:32] >> No, we still have a couple more years.
[2:04:34] >> Getting close.
[2:04:36] >> Okay. So, again, trying to close this
[2:04:38] one out. I'm ask So, are would somebody
[2:04:41] be willing to make a motion? I'm com
[2:04:43] comfortable with moving ahead with your motion.
[2:04:46] >> Okay. All right. Then I'll make it as a
[2:04:49] formal motion that we
[2:04:52] increase the cleaning fees to 50, the
[2:04:54] court fees reduced to 75, and the
[2:04:57] community hall reduced by 500
[2:04:59] >> for residents.
[2:05:00] >> Four residents. Thank you for keeping me
[2:05:02] on the straight and narrow.
[2:05:05] and your the motion is to uh approve the
[2:05:08] revised fee schedule for the parks and
[2:05:10] fields and hall
[2:05:11] >> the rest of it as is.
[2:05:12] >> Thank you.
[2:05:13] >> And I'll second it.
[2:05:15] >> Okay, we have a motion, a second. All in
[2:05:17] favor say I.
[2:05:18] >> I.
[2:05:19] Okay, it's unanimous. All right,
[2:05:21] we're going to take a So, I'm going to
[2:05:23] close this public hearing. We're going
[2:05:26] to take a fivem minute break and then
[2:05:28] we're going to open up the next public
[2:05:29] hearing. Thank you everybody. They have
[2:05:33] water.
[2:05:35] >> Okay, I'm gonna call the I'm gonna call
[2:05:36] the meeting back to
[2:05:39] >> gonna call the meeting back to order.
[2:05:42] >> Thank you.
[2:05:44] >> Okay. Um before we start, I was asked
[2:05:48] whether we think we're going to get to
[2:05:50] 8D this evening,
[2:05:53] which is receiving um an update and
[2:05:56] provide direction for the housing
[2:05:57] element. So, we have an option to put it
[2:06:01] off to next meeting or we could move it
[2:06:04] up because we have our two lovely
[2:06:06] planning
[2:06:08] um department members here and it seems
[2:06:11] like we' be nice to not have them have
[2:06:12] to stay until 11:30 at night. So, are we
[2:06:16] okay either moving it up if we want to
[2:06:18] do the full agenda or postponing it now
[2:06:20] so they don't have to sit here?
[2:06:24] >> Okay, moving it up. I'm okay with it.
[2:06:26] Moving it up because you have three
[2:06:28] people here waiting.
[2:06:29] >> Okay.
[2:06:30] >> No, no, wait. So that just hang on. So
[2:06:32] all we're doing right now is finding out
[2:06:34] so that they know whether they're going
[2:06:35] to leave or not. I'm still going to do
[2:06:36] the public hearing. Going to finish that
[2:06:38] and then I'm going to potentially move
[2:06:40] this up in the regular agenda. I'm just
[2:06:41] using the break as a house some
[2:06:44] housekeeping here. So is everybody okay
[2:06:46] when we get to the regular agenda if we
[2:06:48] move 8D up? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay.
[2:06:52] Great. All right. So, we're going to
[2:06:54] finish the public hearing on the charter
[2:06:56] and then we'll get to you guys and then
[2:06:57] you guys can go home. Okay. So, let's
[2:07:00] start with 7B. So, who's giving the
[2:07:04] presentation?
[2:07:04] >> Me, Darcy Smith, town manager.
[2:07:06] >> Thank you, Darcy.
[2:07:06] >> I'll be fast because frankly this is the
[2:07:09] second public hearing. You already had
[2:07:12] the first one and there's actually
[2:07:14] nothing really new here.
[2:07:17] So your council priorities again these
[2:07:19] are maybe different than what I shared
[2:07:21] earlier from the community conversation.
[2:07:23] These are your six priorities and the
[2:07:26] one of the most important ones is the
[2:07:28] financial responsibility and long-term
[2:07:30] viability of the town. So this item is
[2:07:32] related to that. Tony will talk about
[2:07:34] the budget later but you've seen this
[2:07:36] slide with the forecast and know that we
[2:07:38] are running out of money tapping into
[2:07:41] our reserves tonight with the budget
[2:07:43] item that's coming up. we have a
[2:07:45] structural deficit and this
[2:07:50] black line is going to keep going down.
[2:07:52] In fact, it's going down even sharper.
[2:07:56] And so again, we've gotten community
[2:07:57] feedback from our survey that started
[2:07:59] last September with the Godby survey
[2:08:02] that identified three priorities for the
[2:08:05] community. The disaster preparedness,
[2:08:07] preparing for wildfires, protecting the
[2:08:09] town autonomment. We autonomy. We heard
[2:08:12] from residents that they don't want the
[2:08:14] zoning and land use planning decision
[2:08:15] made by the county. Remaining an
[2:08:17] incorporated town with stable finances
[2:08:21] preserves our local decision-making
[2:08:23] authority and then longterm fiscal
[2:08:26] stability. The residents have voice that
[2:08:28] they want to ensure the town can
[2:08:30] continue delivering our services.
[2:08:33] So right now, as you know, we're general
[2:08:36] law and we defer to state law even on
[2:08:39] municipal affairs and we c cannot adopt
[2:08:41] a real property transfer tax. So we're
[2:08:44] looking at the charter town. Um we're
[2:08:47] looking at it mainly to adopt a real be
[2:08:51] have the ability to adopt a real
[2:08:52] property transfer tax. Um, but it's just
[2:08:57] also something that other cities do for
[2:08:59] other reasons, but for us, the main
[2:09:00] focus right now is that tax.
[2:09:04] About 26% of California cities have
[2:09:06] charters, so we're not unique in this.
[2:09:09] Um, and many of our neighbors have them.
[2:09:12] And the council direction back in April
[2:09:13] was to utilize a brief, narrowly focused
[2:09:17] charter similar to the St. Helina model.
[2:09:20] It authorizes the tax I mentioned while
[2:09:22] keeping us subject to the other state
[2:09:24] laws that govern us to keep the process
[2:09:26] and the charter very simple and
[2:09:28] streamlined and that let us remain on
[2:09:30] schedule. The charter can be amended in
[2:09:33] the future by the voters but simplest
[2:09:36] charter has let us move this forward on
[2:09:38] schedule and present it for you tonight.
[2:09:42] So we are moving forward. This is our
[2:09:46] second public hearing. As I mentioned,
[2:09:48] we are marching forward towards a
[2:09:50] deadline if the council decides to make
[2:09:53] a decision in July to place this charter
[2:09:56] and potentially a ballot measure on the
[2:09:58] ballot. Um, and that would go before the
[2:10:00] voters in November. And in order to go
[2:10:02] in effect right now, the charter and the
[2:10:04] real property transfer tax requires a
[2:10:07] simple majority which is 50% plus one.
[2:10:11] So again, this is our second public
[2:10:12] hearing and you know, we followed the
[2:10:14] St. Helina model with a very simple
[2:10:15] brief charter. Um, we've researched a
[2:10:18] few things and research that we
[2:10:20] determined the town does not need to
[2:10:22] specify the form of government in the
[2:10:24] charter. Um, the charter that you see
[2:10:26] attached, which is still in draft
[2:10:28] format, has not been finalized and we're
[2:10:30] not looking for any vote tonight. We
[2:10:32] just have to have this meeting for
[2:10:34] public review and comment, but there is
[2:10:35] a small red line in the charter that
[2:10:37] you'll see in your packet. Um, so this
[2:10:40] is again a simple meeting tonight. We
[2:10:42] just want you to open and close the
[2:10:43] public hearing, receive public comment,
[2:10:45] and then we will return in July for you
[2:10:47] to make a final decision as to whether
[2:10:49] to place the final charter on the
[2:10:52] ballot. And you can make changes up
[2:10:55] until July. Probably unlikely at this
[2:10:57] point, but just important to note that
[2:10:59] there's no con this public hearing has
[2:11:01] no effect on whether the charter could
[2:11:04] still be amended in the future. That can
[2:11:05] be done up until you consider placing it
[2:11:07] on the ballot, um, which would be
[2:11:10] scheduled in July.
[2:11:12] So with that, Katherine and I are
[2:11:15] available to ask questions. And I also
[2:11:17] want to give a thank you to a staff
[2:11:19] member, Lauren Tarp, who's also been
[2:11:21] part of our team and been extremely
[2:11:22] helpful. So we're grateful for her work.
[2:11:26] >> Thank you, Darcy. Are there questions
[2:11:28] for Darcy before we move on? No. No. No.
[2:11:32] Okay, great. Then let me open up the
[2:11:34] public hearing on 7B, which is the
[2:11:37] proposed adoption of a town charter. Is
[2:11:39] there anyone in the room that would like
[2:11:40] to speak to the town charter? Okay, I
[2:11:43] see nobody here in the schoolhouse
[2:11:46] and I see one hand online. Christy C, go
[2:11:49] ahead.
[2:11:54] » Can you please explain a charter city
[2:11:58] versus the city we are currently
[2:12:01] involved in? Thank you.
[2:12:05] >> Okay. Well, that was the slide that
[2:12:07] Darcy put up. Um, so they're the the
[2:12:09] slides are in the packet, but for us the main consideration here is it gives
[2:12:14] us the ability to raise a real property
[2:12:18] transfer tax.
[2:12:19] >> Can you explain to the public what this
[2:12:21] means?
[2:12:24] >> Um, okay. Okay. Well, I mean that's what
[2:12:26] the slides were Christie, but this is a chance for you to comment, not sort of
[2:12:29] a
[2:12:30] >> Well, you know, since we didn't have a a
[2:12:35] open session with our residents, I think
[2:12:38] this is the time to do it.
[2:12:42] >> Okay. Well, thank you for your comment.
[2:12:49] » So, any other comments that you would
[2:12:51] like to make?
[2:12:57] Okay, I guess Christiey's muted, so I'm
[2:12:59] going to assume no. Is there anybody
[2:13:01] else who would like to comment on this
[2:13:02] item?
[2:13:07] All right, so is there anything um I'm
[2:13:09] going to close the public hearing? Is
[2:13:12] there anything else that you guys want
[2:13:14] to say about the charter that would help
[2:13:17] clarify?
[2:13:20] I guess I would um just uh refer um the
[2:13:25] council and the public to particularly
[2:13:26] page 218 of the packet which provides
[2:13:29] it's it's high level but provides the
[2:13:31] overview of the difference between a
[2:13:32] general law city which or general law
[2:13:34] town which we are right now versus a
[2:13:37] charter city or charter town. Um the
[2:13:40] different the key difference is that
[2:13:42] charter towns are are authorized to
[2:13:45] exercise local authority over uh
[2:13:48] municipal affairs and municipal affairs
[2:13:50] are defined in the constitution and also
[2:13:54] um case law determined by courts. Uh and
[2:13:57] so there are specific uh powers uh that
[2:14:01] charter cities can exercise that general
[2:14:04] law cities cannot. Um the key one that
[2:14:06] we've been talking about is the power of
[2:14:08] taxation and particularly the power to
[2:14:12] enact a real property transfer tax.
[2:14:14] There are other um other authorities
[2:14:17] that charter uh towns may exercise. They
[2:14:20] are not however included in the current
[2:14:22] draft of the charter.
[2:14:24] >> Right. Okay. Great. Thank you for
[2:14:27] providing some clarity.
[2:14:29] >> All right. So
[2:14:31] >> I I do think I mean this is a public
[2:14:33] hearing. that's the only reason we're
[2:14:35] having it. And if people aren't
[2:14:37] following
[2:14:38] um I get concerned. So if I if I my
[2:14:43] recollection is wrong, let me know. But
[2:14:45] when this first came up, the first
[2:14:47] hearing, we had a wholesome packet that
[2:14:50] actually, if I recall correctly, spelled
[2:14:52] out there's two types of towns. One's
[2:14:55] charter, one's general law. Here are
[2:14:57] some of the differences. So, if Christy
[2:15:00] or others want to
[2:15:03] um have a more comprehensive
[2:15:05] presentation that exists and maybe we
[2:15:08] could follow up with her to send the
[2:15:10] date that that was first discussed and I do think it's important for public
[2:15:16] understanding
[2:15:18] um what it is and isn't and you know
[2:15:21] it's on us as well as them to engage to
[2:15:24] understand it. So that's my only
[2:15:26] comment.
[2:15:28] >> And could I just ask also is there are
[2:15:30] [clears throat] we putting something up
[2:15:31] on the website about this or is there
[2:15:33] going to be an FAQ or what what is the
[2:15:35] plan for that?
[2:15:38] Yes. So
[2:15:41] we I think we have an FAQ. I'll double
[2:15:44] check, but yeah, we do have an
[2:15:45] engagement website that people can go
[2:15:47] to.
[2:15:50] And there is a description as Katherine
[2:15:52] mentioned in the packet in this packet
[2:15:54] as well. It's not as detailed I think as
[2:15:56] the first one but there's definitely
[2:15:59] um you know charter town municipal
[2:16:01] affairs etc.
[2:16:04] >> Okay. Other
[2:16:05] >> yeah question.
[2:16:06] >> So um I just it is under engagement but
[2:16:10] and Darcy and I went through this
[2:16:12] earlier this week because I was curious
[2:16:14] about it. It's a little bit tricky to
[2:16:15] find. So, I'll just let you know it's
[2:16:17] under community under engagement. Um, so
[2:16:21] which to me is not an obvious link. So,
[2:16:24] it'd be nice to have it more prominent.
[2:16:29] um to be honest. Um
[2:16:34] so and in terms of charter to me just
[2:16:40] you know general law generally is
[2:16:41] everything by state law and then charter
[2:16:45] is uh a little bit more cities get to do
[2:16:49] a little bit differently then they get
[2:16:51] to expand
[2:16:54] more things than what state law just uh
[2:16:58] the guidance is.
[2:17:00] So,
[2:17:02] >> right, but in our case, we've sort of
[2:17:03] chosen to do charter city light, which
[2:17:05] is just ch basically take all of general
[2:17:09] law and change the taxation.
[2:17:13] >> Right?
[2:17:13] >> So, just for most people's simple
[2:17:16] understanding is not much is changing.
[2:17:18] It's literally changing this taxation
[2:17:20] >> and right and then and that's um because
[2:17:25] July 22nd there will be on the agenda
[2:17:29] whether we put something on the ballot
[2:17:31] or not. There is that vote at that
[2:17:33] point.
[2:17:36] » Right. That's when we're going to decide
[2:17:38] whether to put the charter city on and
[2:17:40] whether to put property transfer tax.
[2:17:42] >> Exactly.
[2:17:44] >> Other discussion on this one?
[2:17:46] >> Yeah. I I just wanted to ask what seems
[2:17:49] to be the obviously I am a advocate for
[2:17:53] the charter uh town and have have been
[2:17:55] for a long time because it helps us uh
[2:17:59] individuate ourselves uh as a town. Uh
[2:18:05] however, Charter Light doesn't do
[2:18:07] doesn't perform that function. And so my
[2:18:09] question is always, do I have to go back
[2:18:12] all through this whole thing again? If
[2:18:14] we want to do another, if we want to
[2:18:15] actually make a robust charter, we're
[2:18:17] going to have to do these two public
[2:18:18] hearings. And uh and I mean, it's one
[2:18:22] thing to come up with a good charter,
[2:18:24] but it's another thing to spend a whole
[2:18:25] year trying to go through the
[2:18:27] bureaucracy of it. It's going to be it's time consuming. It's all get out
[2:18:32] and and staffing uh consuming but also
[2:18:37] late nights,
[2:18:39] >> right? But this is the decision we as a
[2:18:40] council made which was just
[2:18:42] >> right. But I'm asking the question of is
[2:18:43] it is it really just as arduous is this
[2:18:46] once you become a charter city do you
[2:18:48] have to go exactly isn't there some like
[2:18:51] modificate modifying our charter city uh
[2:18:54] program?
[2:18:55] >> Um generally speaking no the amendment
[2:18:57] process is the same as the adoption
[2:18:59] process. the two public hearings and
[2:19:01] then the placement on the ballot. Uh
[2:19:03] that said, I would say the the council
[2:19:05] is actually engaged in a much more
[2:19:08] robust discussion of of this particular
[2:19:10] proposal. I would say given that the
[2:19:13] council considered a range of options um
[2:19:16] over a course of several council
[2:19:18] meetings and so the the two public
[2:19:20] hearings are really I think just a
[2:19:22] portion of what this council did when it
[2:19:24] considered adoption of the charter in
[2:19:26] the first place. Um, so I I think it
[2:19:28] actually would be somewhat more
[2:19:29] expedited in comparison for an
[2:19:30] amendment.
[2:19:31] >> Thank you.
[2:19:32] >> And the finance committee also
[2:19:34] considered many many options over
[2:19:37] several meetings.
[2:19:41] » All right. Any other comments on 7B?
[2:19:46] All right. So, I'm going to close the
[2:19:48] Well, I guess I've closed the public
[2:19:49] hearing and now I'm going to close the
[2:19:51] agenda item 7B and move on to the
[2:19:53] regular agenda. So um as we agreed we
[2:19:57] will move on to 8D
[2:20:02] excuse me
[2:20:05] you just need a comment right there's no
[2:20:08] resolution
[2:20:08] >> correct the no resolution tonight um it
[2:20:10] was just the public hearing
[2:20:12] >> thank you
[2:20:17] » welcome welcome
[2:20:18] >> I'll just make a second to I don't think
[2:20:20] you've met Akoi
[2:20:22] Wilson our new senior your planner, but
[2:20:26] just for the record, she's an official
[2:20:28] staff member, not a consultant. And we
[2:20:30] are incredibly lucky to have such a
[2:20:32] talented individual with us.
[2:20:34] She formerly worked at Midpen, city of
[2:20:37] Half Moon Bay, and has a degree from I
[2:20:41] think Baylor environmental science and
[2:20:44] is
[2:20:46] grew up in Colorado and but still loves
[2:20:48] California. So, we're lucky to have her
[2:20:51] here. And she's focusing more on
[2:20:52] advanced planning. So, this housing
[2:20:54] element, the safety element, these are
[2:20:55] things she's working on in addition to
[2:20:57] lots of other fun things.
[2:21:02] » Thank you for that introduction, Darcy.
[2:21:05] Uh, and then if I could be promoted to a
[2:21:07] panelist to share the presentation.
[2:21:11] » And AOE, you see how I talk like I'm
[2:21:14] trying to get close.
[2:21:15] >> If you can't hear echo behind you, then
[2:21:17] you're not talking close enough.
[2:21:22] What I find is if I put it in front of
[2:21:24] my mouth, even if it's a little farther
[2:21:25] away rather than to the side, it's
[2:21:27] significantly better.
[2:21:49] Hey, good evening, Mayor Taylor and
[2:21:52] council members. Thank you for having me
[2:21:55] tonight. Uh my name is Acoi Wilson. I'm
[2:21:57] our senior town planner. Um and I will
[2:22:01] be presenting to you tonight on the
[2:22:03] housing element amendment. Uh
[2:22:05] specifically the second draft of the
[2:22:07] housing element amendment. Uh and we'll
[2:22:09] be seeking direction from the council
[2:22:11] tonight regarding next steps and
[2:22:14] potentially the authorization to submit
[2:22:16] to HC.
[2:22:19] I'll first walk us through some
[2:22:21] background uh on the housing element and
[2:22:23] the draft housing element amendment and
[2:22:26] then I'll provide additional feedback on
[2:22:28] the content of the housing element
[2:22:31] amendment. We'll discuss HCD's comments
[2:22:33] that were received in March and uh the
[2:22:37] updates in the current draft of the
[2:22:39] housing element amendment in response to
[2:22:41] those comments.
[2:22:43] A bit of background on the housing
[2:22:45] element. It was first certified back in
[2:22:47] January 2024 uh and then was reertified
[2:22:51] in 2025. Around that same time, there
[2:22:54] were some discussions regarding one of
[2:22:57] the existing sites in the housing
[2:22:58] element and whether or not it was a
[2:23:00] feasible site to remain in the housing
[2:23:03] element. Uh which led to the housing
[2:23:06] element amendment to be drafted. Uh
[2:23:09] which we'll discuss how that's being
[2:23:11] addressed. uh and that was officially
[2:23:14] drafted around late 2025 and was brought
[2:23:17] to uh the council back in December 2025
[2:23:21] and then was officially submitted uh in
[2:23:24] January 2026 after receiving that
[2:23:27] direction from council earlier in
[2:23:29] January. Uh and then most recently we
[2:23:32] received uh comments on that draft from
[2:23:35] HCD uh back in March and since then
[2:23:38] we've been working on addressing those
[2:23:41] uh comments and updating a second draft.
[2:23:46] So, the previous draft amendments
[2:23:48] included the removal of the Dorothy Ford
[2:23:50] site and to accommodate the site the
[2:23:54] units lost as part of removing that
[2:23:56] site, those units were reallocated to
[2:23:59] two new sites uh as well as one existing
[2:24:03] site that was revised with the draft
[2:24:05] amendment. The uh each of these three
[2:24:09] sites were also updated to have a
[2:24:12] proposed reszoning to a mixeduse
[2:24:14] highdensity zoning. Uh all of this
[2:24:18] maintained our site inventory. Uh it
[2:24:20] just redistributed how they were, but
[2:24:22] each category maintains the same amount
[2:24:24] of units as well as our overall reena
[2:24:27] number remains at 272.
[2:24:30] Um, and so none of that has changed with
[2:24:32] the draft and that remains the same with
[2:24:35] this draft as well.
[2:24:38] HCD had five main points in their
[2:24:40] comment letter. Uh, three of these stood
[2:24:43] out and two others were a bit more
[2:24:45] administrative. Uh the first two
[2:24:48] involved the need for additional site
[2:24:50] analysis as well as um some research
[2:24:53] into the site constraints and
[2:24:55] infrastructure specifically relating to
[2:24:58] the skyline open space site which was
[2:25:00] one of the new sites. So that has been
[2:25:02] addressed through adding additional
[2:25:04] language into the housing element
[2:25:06] amendment as well as uh new conceptual
[2:25:09] site plans that we'll look at here in a
[2:25:11] moment.
[2:25:12] Uh the third item involved just a
[2:25:14] reminder that staff will need to
[2:25:16] resubmit uh an electronic sites
[2:25:19] inventory, though this should be
[2:25:21] relatively simple given we're not
[2:25:22] changing our site inventory. Uh and then
[2:25:26] their fourth point was they recommended
[2:25:29] that we consider following our analysis
[2:25:32] that we update the housing element
[2:25:34] programs um or add additional programs
[2:25:36] to address the need for or to
[2:25:39] accommodate additional housing uh and
[2:25:42] affordable housing throughout the town.
[2:25:44] Um and specifically consider allocating
[2:25:48] funds to the skyline open space site for
[2:25:51] a program to do so. Uh, and then lastly,
[2:25:54] there was just a reminder that we'll
[2:25:56] need to complete program 1-1B, which is
[2:26:00] the reasonzonings for the three sites.
[2:26:04] So, basically what I just shared on the
[2:26:06] last slide, but just reiterating that
[2:26:08] this draft just includes additional text
[2:26:11] to sites that were already identified
[2:26:13] with the last draft. uh and just
[2:26:15] additional analysis for these sites to
[2:26:18] describe the feasibility of housing and
[2:26:21] the number of housing units that were
[2:26:22] identified on each of the sites. Uh as
[2:26:25] well as conceptual site plans for each
[2:26:27] site. Um but just as a reminder, these
[2:26:29] are conceptual. So with the submittal in
[2:26:32] the future, these could certainly
[2:26:33] change, but the goal is to show that
[2:26:36] these sites could accommodate the number
[2:26:38] of units that are identified in our
[2:26:40] housing element. And then the main uh
[2:26:45] new addition would be a new program
[2:26:48] which is program 4-5. And this is
[2:26:51] committing the town to publishing a
[2:26:53] notice of funding availability or a NOA
[2:26:56] uh which will provide uh opportunities
[2:26:59] for applicants to come in and apply for
[2:27:03] affordable housing fund uh funds to
[2:27:07] build their sites within certain
[2:27:09] parameters that would be identified in
[2:27:11] the NOA that we would have to we have an
[2:27:14] early draft of but would have to
[2:27:15] continue to work on and then publish
[2:27:18] publicly.
[2:27:21] So the first site is the village square
[2:27:23] site. Uh this with a proposed amendment
[2:27:26] has uh identified 20 very lowincome
[2:27:30] units as well as five above moderate
[2:27:33] income units. Uh and so the conceptual
[2:27:36] site plan shows 25 units and this is a
[2:27:39] mix of one and twobedroom units. Uh the
[2:27:42] main site constraints that we were
[2:27:43] seeing with this site is just the Saucil
[2:27:45] Creek setback in the rear of the site.
[2:27:49] uh as well as uh the goal to maintain
[2:27:52] the required parking for the existing
[2:27:54] commercial uses um as well as
[2:27:56] accommodate parking for the new housing
[2:27:58] units. And this site plan does uh
[2:28:02] include enough parking to accommodate
[2:28:04] both of those things within the town's
[2:28:06] code.
[2:28:10] The Christ Church site was a previously
[2:28:12] existing site that was updated with the
[2:28:14] last draft. It proposes 14 very
[2:28:18] lowincome units and one median income
[2:28:20] unit. Uh so a total of 15 units that
[2:28:23] you'll see on the site plan here. And uh
[2:28:26] it would be a twotory set to the far
[2:28:29] rear back of the site. It maintains the
[2:28:31] parking for the church as well as all
[2:28:33] the existing church uses. Um the main
[2:28:36] constraints on this site exist actually
[2:28:38] more towards the front of the site. So
[2:28:40] there were pretty minimal sight
[2:28:42] constraints when looking at where to uh
[2:28:45] propose the new units.
[2:28:49] And lastly, the Skyline open space site.
[2:28:52] This was a new site added with the draft
[2:28:54] amendment. Uh it proposes 16 very
[2:28:57] lowincome units. Uh and for the
[2:29:01] conceptual site plan, we've included 16
[2:29:03] one-bedroom units. Uh this is to have a
[2:29:07] more lowp profofile uh look of the site
[2:29:11] and considering that Skyline Boulevard
[2:29:13] is a scenic corridor. Um and it also
[2:29:16] accommodates the 200 foot scenic setback
[2:29:19] off of Skyline though uh there would be
[2:29:22] the potential for a 100 foot setback. So
[2:29:24] we've shown that as well. Um but we are
[2:29:27] going with the greater of the two. Um
[2:29:30] and so again these are one-bedroom
[2:29:31] units. Uh this is also uh to accommodate
[2:29:35] some of the infrastructure needs. Um so
[2:29:38] because of the limited utilities on the
[2:29:40] site uh there were discussions that um
[2:29:43] there would need to be on-site
[2:29:45] wastewater treatment systems and it's
[2:29:47] best to accommodate these through uh
[2:29:49] smaller unit sizes. Um and so that's why
[2:29:53] we've gone with showing 16 individual
[2:29:55] one-bedroom units on the site.
[2:30:00] The new program the language exact
[2:30:02] language is here if you want to take a
[2:30:04] moment to read it. Uh in summary it's
[2:30:07] would focus on establishing the NOA as
[2:30:10] discussed earlier um which would support
[2:30:14] the development of 100% affordable
[2:30:16] housing projects and it would include
[2:30:18] incentives specifically for the housing
[2:30:20] element sites. Um, and these incentives,
[2:30:23] while they're not identified yet, um, an
[2:30:26] idea of it would be something like
[2:30:28] increase per unit subsidies over what
[2:30:31] some of the other affordable units might
[2:30:33] be able to receive or apply for.
[2:30:39] So, next steps, uh, tonight we're
[2:30:41] looking to receive direction from the
[2:30:43] council. Uh, and we'd like to ask the
[2:30:46] council consider by motion um
[2:30:49] authorizing staff to submit the draft
[2:30:51] housing element amendment to HCD. Uh,
[2:30:54] the public comment period will remain
[2:30:56] open through June 30th, 2026. So, um, we
[2:31:00] would not submit until that public
[2:31:02] comment period is closed. Um, and then
[2:31:06] following that, we would have 60 days
[2:31:08] that we'd be waiting to hear back from
[2:31:10] HCD. Uh and then we would receive a
[2:31:13] response from HCD as to next steps. Um
[2:31:17] and then following that we would if HCD
[2:31:21] were to not have additional comments to
[2:31:23] address we would be bringing it forward
[2:31:25] to the town council for adoption. If
[2:31:28] there were additional comments we would
[2:31:29] be going through this process again. And
[2:31:32] lastly would just be implementation um
[2:31:35] which many of the items to implement the
[2:31:37] draft housing element amendment are
[2:31:39] already in draft um or complete.
[2:31:44] Thank you.
[2:31:47] >> Thank you. Clarifying questions.
[2:31:56] » Um
[2:31:57] okay. So I want to just confirm there's
[2:32:00] nothing
[2:32:02] This is in response only to the HCD
[2:32:05] comments that you listed. We're not
[2:32:08] trying to change anything else. And from
[2:32:11] your perspective, the changes are
[2:32:13] consistent with the prior housing
[2:32:16] element, but updated like there's
[2:32:18] nothing no surprise.
[2:32:19] >> Correct. Yeah. The only new addition
[2:32:21] would be that program. Everything else
[2:32:23] is just language that most of which
[2:32:26] would have already been discussed at
[2:32:27] public meetings or a discussion of
[2:32:29] establishing the sites. We've just
[2:32:31] bulked up the site analysis and content
[2:32:34] uh relating to each of the sites.
[2:32:36] >> So on page 126 of 407
[2:32:41] [clears throat]
[2:32:42] um it talks about mi mixed use zoning
[2:32:45] districts and there's a little more
[2:32:46] redlinining in there than I thought was
[2:32:49] needed. Can you just confirm you were
[2:32:52] trying to clarify something there? It's
[2:32:54] just above the site's inventory.
[2:32:57] Um,
[2:32:59] it page six adequate site.
[2:33:02] >> Sorry, you said page 126.
[2:33:05] >> 126.
[2:33:08] Yes. Of 407. I'm clicking through the
[2:33:11] online link. So, I think that should be
[2:33:14] accurate. But it's a section entitled
[2:33:17] mixed use zoning districts
[2:33:19] >> or it's 119 if you're just looking at
[2:33:23] your packet. So Judith number is in the
[2:33:25] packet and it's 119 in the actual
[2:33:27] document
[2:33:29] >> depending on which you're looking at.
[2:33:31] >> I'm in the actual document or I'm on the
[2:33:33] linked.
[2:33:34] >> Right. Well, the page number at the
[2:33:36] bottom of that page is 119.
[2:33:38] >> Yes. Yes.
[2:33:39] >> Even though I agree that PDF says 126.
[2:33:41] So I was just trying to help her
[2:33:42] depending on how she's trying to look it
[2:33:44] up because she's got paper in front of
[2:33:46] her. [laughter]
[2:33:47] >> I came prepared. I knew I was gonna have
[2:33:49] to screen share. Um so yeah the two the
[2:33:52] mixed use zoning districts section.
[2:33:55] >> Yeah
[2:33:55] >> correct. Let me just give it a brief
[2:33:57] look over.
[2:33:59] Yeah. So all of this language would have
[2:34:01] been related to the last draft. So we
[2:34:03] haven't altered this in in any way. It's
[2:34:06] really to address the
[2:34:10] uh updated mixeduse zoning um for each
[2:34:14] of these three sites. Um but nothing
[2:34:16] with that has changed since the last
[2:34:17] draft. Well, it's redlined.
[2:34:20] So,
[2:34:22] thank you for asking that because it'll
[2:34:23] help provide some additional
[2:34:24] clarification. We did add um a
[2:34:27] supplemental document um online that
[2:34:31] highlights the version uh to try to
[2:34:34] differentiate between what red line is
[2:34:37] associated with the overall draft
[2:34:39] housing element amendment and the
[2:34:42] sections that were added as part of the
[2:34:45] uh this second draft if that makes
[2:34:47] sense. So just because it's red line
[2:34:50] doesn't necessarily mean we've added it
[2:34:52] with this current draft. We're
[2:34:54] maintaining the red line throughout the
[2:34:56] entire draft housing element amendment
[2:34:58] while we're submitting to HCD. Uh just
[2:35:01] to ensure that there's clarity for them
[2:35:03] as to what's been updated from our
[2:35:05] original housing element.
[2:35:08] >> So it's a cumulative red line.
[2:35:10] >> Correct. Yeah. For the draft for the
[2:35:12] Yeah.
[2:35:13] >> Okay. Um, so there really isn't that
[2:35:16] much cumulative change. If I look at
[2:35:19] this amount of redlinining, there's not
[2:35:22] it's very targeted. It looks like an
[2:35:24] incremental red line.
[2:35:27] >> Yeah, the overall red line throughout
[2:35:29] the document should be relatively
[2:35:31] minimal. You're going to see the bulk of
[2:35:32] it in terms of the housing the actual
[2:35:35] sites themselves um as those were
[2:35:37] deleted and updated. So there's a lot
[2:35:39] more red line there. But otherwise
[2:35:41] throughout the document, the red lines
[2:35:43] would mostly be associated with the
[2:35:46] updated mixed use uh high density zoning
[2:35:49] and then um a little bit in the sites
[2:35:52] inventory just showing where some of
[2:35:55] those units moved around during the
[2:35:56] previous draft. But again, the sites
[2:35:58] inventory numbers remain the same as our
[2:36:01] original housing element.
[2:36:04] >> Okay. So this round you didn't make
[2:36:06] changes in that paragraph,
[2:36:08] >> correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[2:36:11] Becca. Um, so I I just want to clarify
[2:36:16] this redlinining situation because I
[2:36:18] looked at the link
[2:36:21] to the second draft version. So you're
[2:36:24] saying that the even if it's red line
[2:36:27] that doesn't distinguish what HCD has
[2:36:29] already seen.
[2:36:32] Correct. So the red line would have
[2:36:35] carry over would have carried over from
[2:36:38] the previous draft housing element
[2:36:40] amendment. So going back um to prior to
[2:36:45] January 23rd, 2026.
[2:36:48] Um so there's red line. If you have the
[2:36:50] document that's just redline that's the
[2:36:53] essentially clean in a way. Um that
[2:36:56] version is going to be anything that's
[2:36:59] been added to our housing element
[2:37:01] associated with the draft or deleted. Uh
[2:37:04] and then we added a version on the
[2:37:06] website where staff went through and we
[2:37:09] added yellow highlight to anything that
[2:37:12] was added just with this draft.
[2:37:15] >> So how does HCD know whether or not you
[2:37:17] responded to their question to their
[2:37:19] letter? We checked with HCD as to what
[2:37:23] they wanted to receive and they wanted
[2:37:25] the red line for the entire draft. So, I
[2:37:29] think they want to continue to see how
[2:37:31] it's cumulatively changing. Not that I
[2:37:33] can speak for them, but assuming they
[2:37:35] want to see what's cumulatively changing
[2:37:37] from our original housing element before
[2:37:40] fully approving our draft amendment.
[2:37:41] >> Seems like more work for them, but who
[2:37:44] knows? They put it through AI anyway. I
[2:37:47] know that for a fact. Um,
[2:37:51] uh, so I had one substantive question
[2:37:54] and then I wanted, well, before I get to
[2:37:56] that one, I just wanted how do you want
[2:37:57] to handle typos and errors, the tiny
[2:38:01] little problems that I've seen in the
[2:38:03] document? How would be best to handle
[2:38:05] that? Because I have about 10 of them.
[2:38:09] I may defer to our town manager or our
[2:38:13] attorney, but I think if you wanted to
[2:38:15] provide those just in writing or in
[2:38:18] comments to us after the fact, we could
[2:38:20] go through and and fix any very minor
[2:38:23] typos.
[2:38:24] >> Okay. So then my substantive one is
[2:38:26] related to this new total new program,
[2:38:29] the 45 NOA program. Um,
[2:38:33] how was the decision made to word that
[2:38:36] so that it only accommodates 100%
[2:38:39] affordable housing
[2:38:42] projects as opposed to mixed affordable
[2:38:45] housing?
[2:38:47] We worked with a consultant who has
[2:38:51] worked on these in several
[2:38:52] jurisdictions. this was their
[2:38:53] recommendation in terms of the NOA
[2:38:56] language but I think there could be room
[2:38:58] to discuss um if there is something that
[2:39:00] might better suit the town and our
[2:39:02] priorities. Did you discuss the idea of
[2:39:04] limiting of not having it for 100% but
[2:39:06] instead having it phrased so that the
[2:39:10] funding would go to VLI and LI unit
[2:39:14] regardless of whether or not the whole
[2:39:16] project is 100% or not but because what
[2:39:19] we need is VLI units more so than 100%
[2:39:22] affordable which could include moderate
[2:39:24] affordable as well um could even include
[2:39:28] 100% um moderate affordable which is the
[2:39:31] last thing we need. So um was there any
[2:39:34] discussion of just spelling out that we
[2:39:37] you know this would be money for VLI and
[2:39:39] LI unit?
[2:39:41] >> Not specifically.
[2:39:43] >> Okay. Um can I just jump in? I I think
[2:39:47] that could be reasonable though because
[2:39:50] I don't think this town has
[2:39:52] well
[2:39:54] affordable housing housing is new to
[2:39:56] this town. We don't know exactly what
[2:39:58] we'll get. But I think if you if you you
[2:40:00] look at what we're trying to accomplish
[2:40:02] in the housing element, it's to
[2:40:03] accomplish very low and low income. And
[2:40:05] I think we just would be grateful for
[2:40:07] any opportunity we have to provide
[2:40:09] assistance.
[2:40:12] Um
[2:40:15] let's see. 47 page document.
[2:40:19] Um
[2:40:21] let's see. I have a typo. I have a
[2:40:22] correction. Substantive. We talked about
[2:40:24] that. Um, so, um, what was HCD's advice
[2:40:28] about correcting the document?
[2:40:32] Um, there's a lot of things that have
[2:40:34] changed since this original document was
[2:40:37] um, passed back in May or whatever, two,
[2:40:40] a year ago, two years ago. Um, and
[2:40:43] things that we've accomplished since
[2:40:44] then. So, we've put in place all these
[2:40:47] new zonings. We've done all this other
[2:40:49] stuff that we committed to doing, we did
[2:40:51] it. Now,
[2:40:53] what was HCG's advice about kind of
[2:40:55] updating some of these things where we
[2:40:57] say we will do the redo the zoning in
[2:40:59] March of 2024 and now we've done it. So,
[2:41:02] they said not to just just to leave it the way it
[2:41:07] was or
[2:41:09] >> uh yeah, HCD didn't provide any comments
[2:41:12] on that um in their letter specifically
[2:41:14] this time.
[2:41:18] >> Planning building director. So, one of
[2:41:19] the other things to look at is that this
[2:41:21] plan is a moment in time.
[2:41:23] >> Adoption date is the adoption date and
[2:41:26] we're tracking other progress outside of
[2:41:28] the plan. So, going back and amending it
[2:41:30] truly is look very specific amendments,
[2:41:33] you know, when we're doing the updates
[2:41:34] to the sites and then to address the
[2:41:36] comments, but not to go back and, you
[2:41:39] know, have this as like a living
[2:41:40] document.
[2:41:41] >> Okay. And then um we discussed a little
[2:41:44] bit about the the idea of going our our
[2:41:47] current multif family is a 20 to 23
[2:41:51] um and then we had a discussion a little
[2:41:53] bit about the 20 to 25. Um could you
[2:41:57] talk a little bit about that that the
[2:41:58] decision to go to 20 to 25 as opposed to
[2:42:01] staying at the 20 to 20?
[2:42:08] Um, so that was previous discussions
[2:42:10] with town council and planning
[2:42:11] commission that was decided upon and
[2:42:14] approved for the submitt of the last
[2:42:17] draft. Um, from my understanding.
[2:42:20] >> Okay. Okay. The rest of mine are all
[2:42:23] little typo things.
[2:42:24] >> I can add a little bit more on to that.
[2:42:26] There still is a 20 to 23 in there and
[2:42:30] that's for our multif family. these
[2:42:32] sites are the only sites that are going
[2:42:33] to have the mixeduse high density and
[2:42:35] that's the only sites that are going to
[2:42:37] go up to 25. Um, and so I think that's
[2:42:40] just to accommodate additional units
[2:42:42] that were necessary um to meet our arena
[2:42:46] numbers.
[2:42:47] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[2:42:50] very
[2:42:54] » the NOA program is sort of new to me and
[2:42:58] can you help me just a little bit
[2:43:00] understand whether there's any uh any uh
[2:43:05] point of pressure that the town actually
[2:43:07] has some ability to adjust where we see
[2:43:10] the NOA funds being done or is there any control or are we just
[2:43:16] saying go for it with this? So the town
[2:43:19] would have
[2:43:22] essentially [clears throat] a document
[2:43:23] which would be the actual NOA itself. Um
[2:43:26] so the notice would contain uh
[2:43:28] provisions as to what can apply for the
[2:43:32] available funding, what funding might be
[2:43:34] available, how much of it you could
[2:43:38] identify per unit, you could identify
[2:43:40] how much per um the affordability level.
[2:43:44] So there's a lot of things that the town
[2:43:46] would have control over in terms of what
[2:43:48] we would incorporate into the actual NOA
[2:43:52] itself. Uh and so that's the program is
[2:43:56] not tying us to those exact provisions
[2:43:59] other than maybe
[2:44:02] the 100% if that was direction we
[2:44:04] received. But having the program in
[2:44:06] there itself is really just committing
[2:44:08] us to at least publish a NOA. So
[2:44:11] publicly developers that are interested
[2:44:14] in building affordable units would know
[2:44:16] that we have x amount of funding
[2:44:18] available and how much they might be
[2:44:20] able to come in apply for. Um and then
[2:44:22] we would be selecting if they could and
[2:44:25] how much they could receive. And so
[2:44:27] there's a lot of flexibility in there
[2:44:29] still that we would be able to
[2:44:30] incorporate in the physical NOA itself.
[2:44:33] So u I guess it comes under the heading
[2:44:36] of can we show preference in the NOA as
[2:44:40] to location.
[2:44:42] >> Our understanding is yes. Um we can
[2:44:46] identify certain sites in our housing
[2:44:48] element that uh we would like to
[2:44:52] encourage or provide those funds to. Um
[2:44:56] please correct me if I'm wrong,
[2:44:58] Catherine. Um, but my understanding is
[2:45:00] yes, you can provide that as long as
[2:45:02] it's clearly laid out in the in the NOA
[2:45:05] itself.
[2:45:06] >> Thank you.
[2:45:08] Amazing. That it, Mary.
[2:45:10] >> Yep.
[2:45:11] >> Thank you, Ellen.
[2:45:12] >> So, um, uh, I appreciate what you guys
[2:45:16] have done with the update um, and
[2:45:19] meeting HCDs around the infrastructure.
[2:45:23] um the NOA.
[2:45:25] Um a couple of things actually before I
[2:45:28] get into the NOA. Um Council Member
[2:45:30] Flynn's comments about 100% versus um
[2:45:35] BLI, I did want to flag Santa Clara now
[2:45:40] County, San Monteo, I am not finding it,
[2:45:42] but Sam Santa Clara County also now has
[2:45:45] acutely low income, which is 15%. Which
[2:45:48] I'd never seen before. Um so um I wanted
[2:45:53] to flag that so because that's even
[2:45:56] lower than extreme actually acute. Um so
[2:46:00] I you know um and I also I know
[2:46:06] sometimes developers have a hard time if
[2:46:08] they don't have access to for you know
[2:46:11] all the different levels. So
[2:46:15] just saying that um in terms of the NOA
[2:46:19] is it similar to community land trust
[2:46:22] kind of idea but it's not
[2:46:25] like
[2:46:26] >> I'm not sure. I think if you could
[2:46:29] rephrase or add on to your question
[2:46:31] maybe that'll help or
[2:46:32] >> Okay. Can you go to the slide about the
[2:46:34] NOA
[2:46:37] the new program? Right. So an affordable
[2:46:42] housing trust fund. So this is through
[2:46:45] um so community land trust is actually
[2:46:49] usually a separate entity but this is
[2:46:51] still managed by the town, right? This
[2:46:54] affordable housing trust fund.
[2:46:56] >> This is our fund,
[2:46:57] >> right?
[2:46:57] >> Yeah.
[2:46:58] >> Okay. Great. Okay. Just wanted to
[2:47:01] clarify that it was not a community
[2:47:02] trust fund.
[2:47:04] >> Yeah.
[2:47:05] >> Great. Those are my questions. Thank
[2:47:06] you.
[2:47:07] >> Thank you.
[2:47:09] Um, I just had a couple of quick
[2:47:10] questions. Um, I it doesn't sound like
[2:47:13] we have to define the NOA today, but I'm
[2:47:16] with Rebecca. I like the idea of a VLI
[2:47:18] and an LI rather than 100%. I I think
[2:47:21] that the more we can do to help
[2:47:23] encourage people to build um the better.
[2:47:26] So, I I would be in favor of that. Um,
[2:47:29] you said this would come back to the
[2:47:31] council. Does it also go to planning
[2:47:32] commission when it comes back
[2:47:35] >> for
[2:47:37] your in your timeline? It
[2:47:40] >> Yeah. Yeah. It comes back through. So I
[2:47:42] just you didn't have it there. I just
[2:47:43] wanted to clarify that. Um and then
[2:47:46] finally on the subsidies um through the
[2:47:48] NOA this is going to be like prevailing
[2:47:50] wage and things like I mean will will
[2:47:52] all that be whatever the requirements
[2:47:54] are will those be defined because I know
[2:47:56] when we were dealing with some other
[2:47:58] low-income housing here we ran into a
[2:47:59] bunch of problems where we wanted to
[2:48:01] help and then it was like oh well it's
[2:48:03] didn't have prevailing wage and this and
[2:48:04] that. So the NA clearly defines what you
[2:48:08] need to do to to meet the requirements
[2:48:10] for the funds in addition to what they
[2:48:12] could apply to.
[2:48:14] >> Correct. Yeah.
[2:48:14] >> Got Okay, perfect. That's my questions.
[2:48:16] Thank you.
[2:48:19] Okay. Um,
[2:48:22] so let me open it up for public
[2:48:24] comments.
[2:48:25] >> Could I ask one more quick question?
[2:48:27] What kind of comments in the public have
[2:48:29] you heard in general? Have you gotten
[2:48:30] anything submitted?
[2:48:32] >> We've received one public comment. Uh,
[2:48:35] so far, uh, staff received it late this
[2:48:38] afternoon, so we haven't had a chance to
[2:48:40] really look much into it. Um, generally
[2:48:43] speaking, I would say it's relating um
[2:48:45] more to traffic flow, those kinds of
[2:48:49] things.
[2:48:56] » All right. So, let me open up for public
[2:48:58] comment. Is there any public comment in
[2:48:59] the room? Please come up to the mic.
[2:49:08] » Welcome.
[2:49:08] >> Hi. Thanks. Um, I'm not sure there are
[2:49:11] comments or questions because I'm not
[2:49:12] sure exactly, but I can make them and
[2:49:14] they can be
[2:49:14] >> So, they can be
[2:49:16] >> Well, if you make them into comments
[2:49:17] because this is public comment, that's
[2:49:19] always the best. Um, if they're
[2:49:22] questions that other council members
[2:49:24] feel would help enlighten a council,
[2:49:26] they can sometimes ask to get them
[2:49:27] answered.
[2:49:28] >> Okay. So, um, one of the comments I have
[2:49:32] is I'm confused when you talk about
[2:49:33] developers and
[2:49:35] >> and you probably want to be closer to
[2:49:37] the
[2:49:37] >> Sorry, I'm confused with some of the
[2:49:39] comment about it's available for
[2:49:41] developers, but there are specific sites
[2:49:44] listed and some of them are developers
[2:49:46] themselves.
[2:49:48] So, is it related to those people only
[2:49:50] or anyone could come to those sites even
[2:49:53] though they're privately owned? So
[2:49:54] that's a little confusing to me as to
[2:49:56] what the relationship is between the
[2:49:59] generic term developers and the owners
[2:50:01] of those particular properties
[2:50:04] because they're not really open to any
[2:50:06] developer if I'm not mistaken
[2:50:11] » through the mayor. Do would you like me
[2:50:12] to address [clears throat] that?
[2:50:13] >> Uh if you
[2:50:14] >> I might suggest just so your time
[2:50:16] doesn't run out that if you have more
[2:50:18] questions maybe you can go through all
[2:50:19] of them.
[2:50:21] If one of the sites doesn't move
[2:50:22] forward,
[2:50:23] >> it's like the owner of that site decides
[2:50:25] they don't want to do this because it's
[2:50:26] economically not viable. How does the
[2:50:30] city get other sites since there's only
[2:50:32] a very limited number?
[2:50:35] And we're now I know at one point
[2:50:37] someone had raised a question in a
[2:50:38] different meeting that they called this
[2:50:40] low-income housing and they were
[2:50:42] corrected very vehemently that this is
[2:50:44] not as affordable housing. But by
[2:50:46] reading page 142, this is defined as
[2:50:49] very low-income, low-income, and ultra-
[2:50:51] lowincome. So, I think there might be
[2:50:53] some misunderstandings in the community
[2:50:54] that this is actually lowincome housing,
[2:50:57] and we should be very open and honest
[2:50:59] about that.
[2:51:01] Um, and the NOVA, does that go to the
[2:51:04] buyers of the property or the developers
[2:51:06] of the property? And not sure clearly
[2:51:10] how that was intended to work.
[2:51:13] Um,
[2:51:16] in the proposal there were a couple
[2:51:18] comments about um changes to
[2:51:22] environmental and other rules and
[2:51:24] regulations and specifically at the
[2:51:25] village site that there would be um some
[2:51:29] very large trees that needs to get cut
[2:51:31] down. And my question is not specific to
[2:51:33] that but just in general does does this
[2:51:35] wave any requirements by developers in
[2:51:39] any of the sites to not follow all the
[2:51:43] environmental and other legal
[2:51:44] obligations they have or are there
[2:51:46] remedies that are available for them to
[2:51:48] get around those?
[2:51:50] So, it wasn't clear for me in the
[2:51:51] description. Since it stated that they
[2:51:53] would have to be cutting down trees,
[2:51:55] that implies that that's an approved
[2:51:57] >> decision since it's stated in the
[2:51:59] document.
[2:52:04] » Those are sort of common questions.
[2:52:06] >> Those are my comment questions.
[2:52:07] >> Um, I don't know if you guys got those
[2:52:08] or not. If if you want to answer them
[2:52:10] now or the other thing we could do is
[2:52:12] potentially look at the recording,
[2:52:14] answer them and post them on the website
[2:52:16] so that they're publicly available.
[2:52:18] >> Whichever you prefer. I could answer
[2:52:20] some of them now and
[2:52:21] >> sure it yeah
[2:52:23] >> so relating to who could apply to the
[2:52:25] NOA uh that would be something that
[2:52:28] would be laid out in our published NOA
[2:52:31] uh it likely some of the draft language
[2:52:35] that we currently have would be it's for
[2:52:37] nonprofits for-profit organizations
[2:52:39] limited liability companies you know the
[2:52:41] list goes on so it could essentially be
[2:52:44] open to anyone who wanted to apply for
[2:52:46] that NA um The
[2:52:51] second question, sorry I'm trying to
[2:52:53] think through them all. Um, there's
[2:52:55] another question regarding uh their com
[2:52:58] the commitment to the tree removals and
[2:53:01] those kinds of things. Uh, nothing in
[2:53:04] the housing element or the housing
[2:53:06] element amendment is an approval of any
[2:53:09] sort. So, um, any applicant that's
[2:53:11] coming in, whether they're at a housing
[2:53:13] element site or another site, would
[2:53:15] still have to go through the required
[2:53:18] process, whichever is indicated. Um, if
[2:53:21] it's going through a discretionary
[2:53:23] review process, it would go through the
[2:53:24] appropriate discretionary review. If
[2:53:26] it's a streamlined ministerial approval
[2:53:27] project, it would go through that
[2:53:29] ministerial process, but everything
[2:53:31] would be reviewed with the town code and
[2:53:33] with state law. Um, I think I'm blanking
[2:53:36] on some of the other questions, but I
[2:53:37] hope that help. So, one of them was if one of the new areas didn't get
[2:53:42] built, what are the consequences? And my
[2:53:44] understanding is if we zone it, it's up
[2:53:47] to builders to build it. It's not up to
[2:53:48] us to force anybody to build it.
[2:53:50] >> Yeah, that's correct.
[2:53:51] >> And the next cycle, we may have to then
[2:53:54] rethink this, but in this cycle, it's up
[2:53:56] to a developer to decide to build it or
[2:53:58] not.
[2:53:59] >> Correct. Yeah.
[2:54:00] >> So, I think we got generally your
[2:54:02] questions. Is if there's more, please
[2:54:04] send them in.
[2:54:06] Also you you asked about the private
[2:54:08] property rights versus a developer. Um
[2:54:12] generally it's private property rights
[2:54:14] and they can work with a developer. They
[2:54:17] can develop it themselves. You know it's
[2:54:19] up to the property owner to how they
[2:54:22] would like to move forward. So for
[2:54:24] instance thea church which is you know
[2:54:27] is working with habitat for humanity.
[2:54:30] Something else about developers you need
[2:54:31] to be aware of is there are two types.
[2:54:33] There's at market rate and then there's
[2:54:36] affordable housing developers. So two
[2:54:39] different they get their capital stack
[2:54:41] from different sources.
[2:54:44] So generally affordable housing works
[2:54:46] with affordable housing developers. So
[2:54:49] different sources of uh of affordable
[2:54:52] housing uh capital to get it built.
[2:54:57] >> Thank you.
[2:54:57] >> Thanks.
[2:54:58] >> All right. Any other in the room? All
[2:55:00] right. Then I'll go online. Christie.
[2:55:08] » Yeah. I was wondering if you can just
[2:55:11] explain the differences between
[2:55:16] different developers and how they
[2:55:19] perform housing.
[2:55:24] » He's asking different kinds of
[2:55:26] developers. So I mean sort of nonprofit
[2:55:29] versus for-profit.
[2:55:32] Can you make it a quick
[2:55:35] >> Is that it, Christie?
[2:55:37] >> Yep.
[2:55:38] >> Okay, great. I We just don't want your
[2:55:39] timer to run out. Okay.
[2:55:40] >> So, yeah. So, Christie, I'll take this
[2:55:42] one if that's okay. I mean, affordable
[2:55:44] housing developers usually have five to
[2:55:46] nine sources of uh of places to of
[2:55:52] capital. Um they're, you know, 4%
[2:55:56] um lowinccome tax credits, 9% low income
[2:56:00] tax credits, um a more the mortgage,
[2:56:04] um the revenue from the rents that the
[2:56:06] people pay, you know, so it's and then
[2:56:10] local the local funding sources from the
[2:56:13] local cities. there are five sources for
[2:56:16] and then sometimes I was at a ribbon
[2:56:19] cutting a few weeks ago and they had
[2:56:20] nine sources you know sometimes the
[2:56:23] county comes in it just depends on the
[2:56:25] development um so um and that's how
[2:56:30] these projects get built it and it's a lot of paperwork and a lot of
[2:56:35] tracking and a lot of administration
[2:56:38] over it
[2:56:39] >> so and I'm happy to talk to you
[2:56:41] >> yeah the public needs to understand all
[2:56:44] this and so the more open sessions we
[2:56:48] can have to understand this please
[2:56:51] provide it. Thank you.
[2:56:54] >> Thank you Christie.
[2:56:56] All right. Anyone else in the
[2:56:57] schoolhouse? Anyone else online? All
[2:57:00] right. I'm going to close public
[2:57:01] comment.
[2:57:03] Bring it back to the council. So are
[2:57:06] there other um discussion points?
[2:57:08] Otherwise, um we to consider authorizing
[2:57:11] staff to submit this um draft housing
[2:57:15] element to this state HCD.
[2:57:18] So other comments before we
[2:57:23] » So I know we're dealing with a lot at
[2:57:26] the moment, but I I do have to say that
[2:57:31] having a 400page document to read on top
[2:57:34] of 300 on top of whatever all in one
[2:57:37] meeting.
[2:57:40] I don't think it does the public the
[2:57:42] service they're owed and I don't think
[2:57:45] it does the council
[2:57:47] well either because
[2:57:50] it's so easily interpreted
[2:57:54] as you know a rubber stamp or anything.
[2:57:58] So, I just want to put that out there
[2:58:00] because we do have to figure out how to
[2:58:04] build in a process so people can feel
[2:58:07] like they're they're informed while
[2:58:09] moving things at a time that's
[2:58:11] difficult. So, I just want to
[2:58:12] acknowledge that that's something we're
[2:58:14] all dealing with and we should continue
[2:58:17] to think about how to stage that. Um, so
[2:58:22] for something like this that's so
[2:58:24] important,
[2:58:25] um, I think you've done a nice job. I
[2:58:29] would have liked more time with it to be
[2:58:31] honest because it is so dense and the
[2:58:34] redlinining for me was extra confusing.
[2:58:37] Now you've you've done a great job
[2:58:39] clarifying it today. So thank you. Um,
[2:58:42] but I do think it seems in good shape.
[2:58:45] You've been thoughtful. I'm pretty
[2:58:47] comfortable with it. So, I I thank you
[2:58:49] for all your efforts.
[2:58:51] >> Thank you,
[2:58:53] Rebecca.
[2:58:54] >> Um, so my only um well, the main thing I
[2:59:00] have is the the NOA language. I really
[2:59:03] the reality is that Portola Valley
[2:59:04] doesn't need 100% affordable housing
[2:59:08] developments.
[2:59:09] um what we need is funding for VLI or or
[2:59:14] less or even acutely or extremely though
[2:59:16] I don't think we'll be able to support
[2:59:18] those that level of need but our housing
[2:59:22] you our housing element really requires
[2:59:24] VLI that's where we have a big gap um
[2:59:28] and we've learned from uh Habitat for
[2:59:30] Humanity that it that developer even
[2:59:33] affordable housing developers such as
[2:59:35] Habitat for Humanity have tremendous
[2:59:38] expertise in building affordable housing
[2:59:40] units. They cannot pencil out VLIs. Um
[2:59:44] so it's very important that we would
[2:59:47] dedicate um our affordable housing funds
[2:59:49] towards supporting the building of VIS
[2:59:52] and most of the developers that might
[2:59:54] come into the town, even affordable
[2:59:55] housing developers um will need the
[2:59:59] extra public support to put in some VLIs
[3:00:01] in addition to their other affordable
[3:00:04] units. I mean, as a principal, my
[3:00:06] personal preference, and I think it fits
[3:00:08] much better into Portol Valley, is to um
[3:00:11] have mixed income
[3:00:15] uh developments for multif family
[3:00:16] developments and mixed use to encourage
[3:00:19] mixed income units. Um I think it would
[3:00:22] fit much better into the town. Um so for
[3:00:26] that, I would change that language to
[3:00:28] say to support the development of VLI or
[3:00:32] LI units. I think VLI is broad enough
[3:00:35] term that it also includes lower even
[3:00:38] lower levels. Um
[3:00:41] so that would be my main change to the
[3:00:44] document.
[3:00:45] >> One clarifying do does the NOA language
[3:00:47] go to HCD or just that we'll have a
[3:00:50] notice?
[3:00:50] >> No, the NOA language is just done
[3:00:52] through the town's process.
[3:00:54] >> Right. So, I think we can fix that later
[3:00:56] to get what cuz
[3:00:57] >> No, I I I want it fixed in the safety
[3:00:59] element because I do not want it going
[3:01:01] to only 100% affordable projects. I want
[3:01:04] it to be able to go to we would this
[3:01:06] money would not be able to go to uh
[3:01:08] Valley Fair uh village would not be able
[3:01:11] to village would not be able to go to
[3:01:13] Christ Church um
[3:01:17] because neither of those are 100%
[3:01:19] affordable. So,
[3:01:20] >> right, what I meant was the draft
[3:01:21] housing element doesn't have the NOA
[3:01:24] language in it. So,
[3:01:25] >> it does it has that particular that
[3:01:27] little statement says it's the money
[3:01:30] will be used for 100% affordable
[3:01:31] projects.
[3:01:32] >> I thought I just asked so is do we have
[3:01:34] to update that in this amendment or
[3:01:38] >> I think if it's if we don't want to
[3:01:39] commit to 100% then I would recommend
[3:01:42] that we modify the language. If I could
[3:01:45] make a simple recommendation, I think um
[3:01:48] we could also leave there were
[3:01:50] discussions about this that we could
[3:01:52] leave the program more general which
[3:01:55] will give us more flexibility with the
[3:01:57] NOA itself. Um the caveat being um from
[3:02:03] our understanding HCD does like
[3:02:05] specifics. So, that could be something
[3:02:07] that they might come back with
[3:02:08] additional specifics, but we could go
[3:02:11] more general and simply just strike out
[3:02:14] um the 100% and say to support
[3:02:16] affordable housing projects. Um and then
[3:02:19] the NOA itself would define the very
[3:02:23] low, really low, whatever we want to
[3:02:25] define.
[3:02:26] >> I would be concerned that then we would
[3:02:28] have uh people who have moderate income
[3:02:30] projects wanting for to claiming that
[3:02:32] they should also be able to get this
[3:02:34] money. That's why I would prefer to have
[3:02:36] it just go to VI and LI and that's it.
[3:02:39] People know what to expect. VLI is a
[3:02:42] term that considers the lower levels and
[3:02:44] LI, you know, is is would make an option
[3:02:47] too. Um the NOA could then specify the
[3:02:49] VLI units would get a higher number
[3:02:52] higher amount of funding than an LI
[3:02:53] unit. Um, but the actual document I
[3:02:57] think should say VLI and LII because the
[3:02:59] reality is um there's a lot of funding
[3:03:01] available for 100% affordable housing
[3:03:04] projects.
[3:03:06] >> The state has it the uh
[3:03:07] >> no, it's overs subscribed. It's really
[3:03:10] hard to get in this area because of our
[3:03:13] cost of living. It's extraordinarily
[3:03:15] hard to get. So and as we talk to
[3:03:20] Habitat for Humanity, they can't build
[3:03:23] at those levels even if we support if
[3:03:25] you know like so this blocks out the
[3:03:28] potential potentially from more things
[3:03:31] getting built. So I like more affordable
[3:03:35] housing in general. So, I agree that I
[3:03:38] want to support VLI, but I'm really concerned by saying that it has
[3:03:43] to be VLI that we that developers are
[3:03:46] going to look at it and and they're not
[3:03:49] going to be able to build it VLI or LI.
[3:03:52] >> Yes, both. So, I'm worried about that by
[3:03:55] limiting it. You know, I would recommend
[3:03:58] personally what I would say is 100%
[3:04:01] affordable
[3:04:02] units, right? so that they could be in
[3:04:05] the mixed unit. Um and you know our like
[3:04:10] the state funds are
[3:04:13] hugely overs subscribed.
[3:04:15] >> Yeah. But then if you look at a mixed
[3:04:16] affordable development, there's no
[3:04:18] funding. One there's absolutely no
[3:04:20] funding for that type of thing. So you
[3:04:22] can get a a private developer who's
[3:04:24] willing to do some LI or VLI units. They
[3:04:27] just they'll never pencil out because
[3:04:29] they can't get any support. Whereas if
[3:04:31] you do a 100% affordable development,
[3:04:34] you can at least apply even though it is
[3:04:36] overs subscribed, you can at least apply
[3:04:38] for something. Whereas if you have a
[3:04:39] mixed affordable project, there's
[3:04:41] absolutely no money you can afford. So
[3:04:42] the reality in Port Valley is nothing is
[3:04:45] going to be built here at 100%
[3:04:46] affordable. There's it's just not going
[3:04:48] to pencil out with the cost of the uh
[3:04:50] the land. So if we have any hope of
[3:04:53] having VLI units, we have to allow
[3:04:55] market rate units for which we wouldn't
[3:04:57] be subsidizing those units. But maybe a
[3:05:00] developer would put in a VLI unit if
[3:05:02] we're helping to subsid.
[3:05:04] >> But that's when they get the
[3:05:05] inclusionary like by state they there
[3:05:09] are required inclusionary units that
[3:05:13] they can do with density bonuses.
[3:05:15] >> They you heard the Habitat for Humanity
[3:05:17] guys. He can't pencil out a VLI.
[3:05:19] >> Not for two units.
[3:05:22] >> No, he he can't. He He specifically said
[3:05:24] he can't pencil out a VLI unit because
[3:05:26] the the amount that they have to pay
[3:05:28] just in terms of property taxes, in
[3:05:30] terms of other things that they never
[3:05:31] could pencil out without, you know,
[3:05:33] pretty much public funding for it.
[3:05:35] >> So, can we can we move this back to
[3:05:37] Rebecca? Why don't you finish up your
[3:05:39] comments?
[3:05:40] >> Yeah, my comment is just to change that
[3:05:41] to support the development of VLI and LI
[3:05:43] units and not to
[3:05:44] >> Thank you.
[3:05:45] >> specify it. Um the rest are just small
[3:05:48] type of things pretty much.
[3:05:49] >> Mary.
[3:05:51] >> Okay. Thank you, Ellen.
[3:05:53] >> So, um could I get like um
[3:05:58] obviously 100% affordable is not always
[3:06:01] feasible. Um so could you I mean could
[3:06:06] we do it as VLI you or in units
[3:06:11] inclusionary units or you know the 10 or
[3:06:13] 15%?
[3:06:14] >> Yeah. Well, so
[3:06:17] you have a lot of discretion when it
[3:06:19] comes to actually implementing your
[3:06:22] adopted affordable housing fund policy
[3:06:24] and deciding how to allocate the funds.
[3:06:27] HCD has a different interest and I
[3:06:30] remember talking to HCD about this and
[3:06:32] talking to the consultant. So I'll just
[3:06:34] say that their view is that right now
[3:06:37] the units are on the VLI units are on
[3:06:41] town property and we would have the
[3:06:44] ability for example to do what a lot of
[3:06:46] cities do which is make that land
[3:06:48] available for free right and so there
[3:06:51] remove the land cost I think HCD is just
[3:06:54] interested in the town providing support
[3:06:57] and funding to pro affordable housing
[3:07:00] that's on now private property
[3:07:03] So I would
[3:07:05] suggest that we follow Ako's
[3:07:07] recommendation just remove the 100%.
[3:07:11] We can talk through it with HCD if they
[3:07:13] have follow-up questions but I think
[3:07:14] that the 100% could lead to a challenge
[3:07:17] in implementing our NOA.
[3:07:20] So that would be my recommendation just
[3:07:22] remove the 100% get it up to HCD and
[3:07:25] what we do when we submit to HD is we
[3:07:26] offer to meet with them and talk through
[3:07:28] things. we can talk through this and if
[3:07:31] they demand it, we will come back to
[3:07:32] you.
[3:07:33] >> Great. Are you okay with that?
[3:07:35] >> Well, as long as the the NOA, the actual
[3:07:38] NOA goes out and it it provides funding
[3:07:41] levels that only apply to VLI and LI and
[3:07:45] not moderate, I'm fine with that.
[3:07:48] >> Yeah, that's something I think we could
[3:07:50] accommodate.
[3:07:52] >> I support that. Thank you. And the only
[3:07:55] caveat I had, you could also say LI and
[3:08:00] lower. I'm not sure how to phrase lower.
[3:08:03] >> Um, there will be additional since I
[3:08:06] went to the Abag meeting, there are
[3:08:08] going to be additional lower, acutely
[3:08:10] low
[3:08:11] >> that come into the next housing element.
[3:08:14] So, um, like limiting it to two bands,
[3:08:18] we'll probably have to rethink that.
[3:08:21] >> Yeah. And that's something I would say
[3:08:22] we could implement in the NOA.
[3:08:24] >> Yeah. Okay.
[3:08:24] >> And just to clarify the facts right now,
[3:08:26] Habitat Humanities project is low
[3:08:28] income.
[3:08:29] >> It's not moderate. It's not VLI. And
[3:08:31] that's the only builder we're aware of
[3:08:35] right now that is interested in building
[3:08:36] deed restricted affordable units in
[3:08:38] town. So I think we're on a right path
[3:08:40] to success here.
[3:08:44] » I'm good. Thank you.
[3:08:45] >> Thank you. Right. I don't have any
[3:08:47] comments. Do you feel like you've got
[3:08:49] enough direction?
[3:08:51] >> Yeah, just to reiterate the direction I
[3:08:54] think staff has received tonight will be
[3:08:56] that we'll strike out pending the motion
[3:08:59] would be to strike out the 100% on the
[3:09:02] NOA language. Uh and then we'll receive
[3:09:06] any additional comments relating to
[3:09:08] typos. We'll address those and then
[3:09:11] we'll also be waiting for public comment
[3:09:13] to see what else comes through.
[3:09:15] impending town council's motion tonight,
[3:09:18] potentially be resubmitting to HCD if
[3:09:21] that sounds correct.
[3:09:23] >> And if you got more public comment,
[3:09:25] would that cause you to change the
[3:09:27] draft? Would it come back to us if you
[3:09:29] decided to change? I mean, it seems
[3:09:31] unlikely, but I'm just trying to
[3:09:32] understand the process.
[3:09:34] >> I I would say or I'll I'll let our
[3:09:36] director speak.
[3:09:39] I think if there was public comment that
[3:09:42] warrants f, you know, additional
[3:09:44] discussion or bringing back to town
[3:09:46] council, that's a consideration. I
[3:09:48] think, you know, like the one public
[3:09:50] comment we received so far. And also, I
[3:09:51] want to clarify that was through the
[3:09:52] public comment form online. It wasn't
[3:09:55] submitted as part of public comment for
[3:09:57] this meeting. So, that's why it wasn't
[3:09:58] in the packet, but um it will be
[3:10:00] provided later. Um, but you know, the
[3:10:04] goal is to hear the public comment and
[3:10:07] if there was anything that really
[3:10:08] warrants a a red flag, we we could bring
[3:10:10] it back to council, but we can um give
[3:10:13] you an update to you guys, too.
[3:10:15] >> Okay. Just
[3:10:18] >> All right. I mean, this sounds
[3:10:20] reasonable to me. Um, so I would
[3:10:22] entertain a motion.
[3:10:26] » So moved with the one change removing
[3:10:28] 100%.
[3:10:32] A second.
[3:10:32] >> Seconded.
[3:10:33] >> Okay, we have a motion, a second. All in
[3:10:35] favor?
[3:10:36] >> I I
[3:10:39] opposed. You're good. Good. Just didn't
[3:10:42] hear you. No, we're all good.
[3:10:46] >> Okay. Are are there abstensions?
[3:10:49] >> Are you abstaining? Like
[3:10:51] >> Okay.
[3:10:53] >> All right. So,
[3:10:55] four eyes, zero nazs, one abstension.
[3:11:00] All right. So, with that, I'm going to
[3:11:02] close
[3:11:03] 8 D
[3:11:06] and bring us back to 8A. Thank you,
[3:11:08] Tony, very much for patiently waiting.
[3:11:10] Um,
[3:11:15] » thank you, Akoi. Great presentation.
[3:11:30] » [clears throat]
[3:11:30] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and good evening
[3:11:32] again, members of council. Uh, tonight's
[3:11:35] item is the culmination of
[3:11:39] about four months of work. Um,
[3:11:43] beginning with
[3:11:46] March, the council study session.
[3:11:54] priorities for
[3:12:00] you.
[3:12:00] >> No, no.
[3:12:10] Again, these are the council priorities
[3:12:11] as defined in our March study session.
[3:12:13] Since then, um there's been several
[3:12:16] check-ins by council during this
[3:12:17] process. Um in one meeting we determined
[3:12:21] the our council approved a 2 and a half%
[3:12:23] coal increase and salary schedule. Uh
[3:12:26] the council also uh provided direction
[3:12:29] on town committee funding and nonprofit
[3:12:31] funding. Uh the town council also
[3:12:34] reviewed the capital improvement plan
[3:12:36] budget and provided direction. And at
[3:12:39] the last council meeting u council also
[3:12:42] received a preliminary review of the
[3:12:44] proposed budget. and tonight is the uh
[3:12:48] end result of that process.
[3:12:51] So again, these are the council
[3:12:53] priorities as as defined by council. Uh
[3:12:55] we also have uh some community
[3:12:57] priorities related to the PB
[3:12:59] conversation that we discussed earlier
[3:13:00] today and some of these items are in the
[3:13:03] budget. uh wildfire prevention,
[3:13:06] vegetation and rust management,
[3:13:08] um these patrols and maintain town
[3:13:11] autonomy. And uh but the one item that
[3:13:14] uh we probably need to consider for
[3:13:16] future budgets is uh investing in our
[3:13:19] deteriorating storm drain system.
[3:13:23] So in looking at general fund revenues,
[3:13:26] uh we're estimating about 8.4 million in
[3:13:29] general fund revenues. It's a $468,000
[3:13:32] increase or a 5.9%.
[3:13:35] Uh tax revenues are anticipated to
[3:13:38] increase about 310,000 and with the new
[3:13:41] user fees adopted um
[3:13:44] we're looking about an estimated
[3:13:46] increase of 158,000.
[3:13:51] This chart shows the breakdown of our
[3:13:53] sources of general fund revenues. As you
[3:13:55] can see, the majority of
[3:14:00] our revenue comes from property taxes.
[3:14:02] And we've had many discussions about
[3:14:04] property tax and the limitations that we
[3:14:06] have related to Prop 13. Our property
[3:14:09] tax growth is as a result of either new
[3:14:12] home sales or uh redevelopment that
[3:14:14] triggers a reassessment. Um then our
[3:14:18] other tax revenues
[3:14:20] um if you add them all up together
[3:14:23] approximately 75 to 77% of our general
[3:14:26] fund revenue. Uh sales and use tax is
[3:14:29] 4%. Um again and that's primarily driven
[3:14:32] by uh we have one
[3:14:35] business that generates about a third of
[3:14:38] our sales tax revenue.
[3:14:40] Um on the expense side we're looking
[3:14:43] about 9.1 million.
[3:14:45] um and resulting in a deficit of almost
[3:14:48] 679,000
[3:14:51] um [clears throat] and um but the the
[3:14:56] year-to-ate expense increase is um
[3:14:58] 884,000.
[3:15:00] Uh the largest increase is the serif's
[3:15:03] contract which we discussed earlier. Um
[3:15:06] about 488,000 is the sheriff's contract.
[3:15:09] Um use of consultants has increased a
[3:15:11] little bit. Um again it's providing more
[3:15:14] support to bu planning and building
[3:15:16] services. Also anticipating um cost
[3:15:20] increases related to um we did we are in
[3:15:24] the process of completing um a review of
[3:15:27] new IT providers. Um so we did increase
[3:15:30] the budget for IT website consultants um
[3:15:34] as well in the budget.
[3:15:38] So, looking at general fund expenses,
[3:15:40] um, as I stated earlier, 9.1 million,
[3:15:43] it's 10.8% increase. Sheriff's contract
[3:15:46] 488,000, consultants 158,000, and then
[3:15:49] salaries and benefits totaling 145,000.
[3:15:53] Part of it is the 2 and a half% coal
[3:15:55] increase. Also, we're starting the year
[3:15:58] with fewer vacant positions as we as we
[3:16:01] did in the in previous years. So,
[3:16:04] salaries and benefits will be higher. um
[3:16:07] in comparison to previous years.
[3:16:13] So, the budget does support 15 full-time
[3:16:15] equivalent positions. Um this is a half a point decrease from the
[3:16:20] previous year. We no longer have a
[3:16:22] part-time uh associates working the
[3:16:25] front desk. We have um we will be
[3:16:27] filling one position, senior development
[3:16:30] review technician, building inspector um
[3:16:32] that will be managing the front desk. We
[3:16:34] also have uh some consultant support in
[3:16:36] that area as well. Um and
[3:16:39] [clears throat] then in finance, we'll
[3:16:40] be recruiting for a finance manager and
[3:16:43] an accountant one. Um but we will not be
[3:16:46] increasing the total number of uh
[3:16:49] personnel on staff.
[3:16:53] So contract services and consultants um
[3:16:56] for example the town attorney this
[3:16:58] contract uh public safety we have the
[3:17:01] county sheriff Woodside fire also
[3:17:03] dispatch services then consultants we
[3:17:06] have planning and building with good
[3:17:07] city CSG in west and shootings code you
[3:17:10] pass their contracts tonight and then
[3:17:12] with information and technology as I
[3:17:14] mentioned earlier um we we had six
[3:17:18] proposals received for it uh we did
[3:17:21] interview five firms. Um we've
[3:17:24] whittleled it down to two or three.
[3:17:26] We're in the process of uh determining
[3:17:29] which um provider to go with. We should
[3:17:32] have a selection in the next couple
[3:17:33] weeks. And uh the budget does assume a
[3:17:36] $30,000 increase from the previous
[3:17:38] provider.
[3:17:42] So just a history of the county sheriff
[3:17:45] contract, 2.5 million for 2627.
[3:17:49] It's as per the contract it's an
[3:17:51] increase of 197,000. However, we've
[3:17:54] discussed in previous meetings. Uh the
[3:17:56] impact to the general fund is 488,000.
[3:18:00] Uh and that is you know related to the
[3:18:02] 190 $197,000 increase the expiration of
[3:18:06] credits of 211,000 from the county. Uh
[3:18:09] the use of ARPA funds of 100,000 and
[3:18:11] then we were able to use $20,000 in in
[3:18:15] COP's funding to because it was 58. So
[3:18:18] we reduce it to 488. Um but um this was
[3:18:24] an increase that had been deferred for
[3:18:26] over the past three fiscal years. Um
[3:18:29] that's finally uh come home to the
[3:18:31] general fund.
[3:18:34] Our capital project budget is 1.45
[3:18:37] million with 986,000
[3:18:40] uh related to our streets. Our annual
[3:18:43] street resurfacing project has started.
[3:18:46] Uh we're looking for completion in the
[3:18:47] fall. Um and then uh post adoption,
[3:18:51] we're going to still have some decisions
[3:18:52] to make in regards to Fordfield bathroom
[3:18:55] uh the Valley Oak Trail Bridges and the
[3:18:56] Shauny Pass speed bumps or speed homes,
[3:18:59] excuse me.
[3:19:03] So looking at all funds summary, um
[3:19:08] looking at spending appropriation of uh
[3:19:12] 12.4 4 million in total revenue, 12.38
[3:19:16] in total expenses. Um these numbers are
[3:19:20] a little bit different than what's on
[3:19:21] the resolution and that's primarily
[3:19:23] because the resolution appropriation
[3:19:25] includes use of reserves on both the
[3:19:28] expense and revenue side. So um that's
[3:19:30] why the the re the resolution numbers
[3:19:33] are a little bit different than what's
[3:19:34] being reported on the all fund summary.
[3:19:36] But we need to have those numbers so
[3:19:38] that we can have the spending authority
[3:19:40] and also the the the revenue authority.
[3:19:45] So this is an update to the fiscal
[3:19:46] forecast. Um
[3:19:49] so by the end of 2627 we're looking at
[3:19:51] being at the 20% limit. Um and by fiscal
[3:19:55] year 3031 being at zero and this is the
[3:19:59] general fund reserve. uh being below the
[3:20:02] limits um uh will create some uh
[3:20:06] challenges for the town. If there's a
[3:20:08] natural disaster, there's a road
[3:20:09] failure, uh it could have some impact on
[3:20:12] the town's autonomy moving forward. Um
[3:20:15] and uh without new local revenue, we
[3:20:19] would be we would be looking at some
[3:20:20] significant service cuts uh just to keep
[3:20:23] us at the 20% level. Um [clears throat]
[3:20:26] and as stated, this is the culmination
[3:20:30] of um the last four months. I want to
[3:20:34] thank the council for their guidance and
[3:20:36] direction. Um I also want to thank staff
[3:20:39] for their um input. Um we've had many meetings and discussions about
[3:20:44] where we need to go. Um and I also want
[3:20:47] to thank the finance committee. um they
[3:20:50] have uh been um an excellent source of
[3:20:54] um guidance and um assurance in the work
[3:20:59] that we are doing. Um but uh as I stated
[3:21:02] the budget as presented is a snapshot of
[3:21:08] the town's current financial situation.
[3:21:11] There is a structural deficit that needs
[3:21:13] to be addressed. Um and this is going to
[3:21:16] be our issues moving forward. So with
[3:21:18] that, that concludes my report and I
[3:21:20] give it back to council for discussion.
[3:21:24] >> Thank you, Tony. So clarifying question
[3:21:27] on Tony's presentation,
[3:21:30] >> Rebecca.
[3:21:31] >> Um, yeah, thank you for the great
[3:21:33] presentation. Um, could you just clarify
[3:21:35] a little bit the 30k increase for the
[3:21:38] IT?
[3:21:39] Um, is that additional services or is it
[3:21:42] pretty much what we what you have now?
[3:21:44] >> Cost increase. Um all of the proposals
[3:21:48] came in higher than what the previous
[3:21:51] provider. We are getting more service
[3:21:55] and um um also more of a a virtual CIO,
[3:22:01] more strategic planning. Um they've all
[3:22:03] pretty much stressed that. So yeah,
[3:22:04] there will be an increased level of
[3:22:06] service uh with the new rates. And um
[3:22:11] just to confirm, I know you've told us
[3:22:13] this in the past, this does not include
[3:22:16] the potential extra VLF.
[3:22:19] >> Yes, I do not I do not budget the
[3:22:21] shortfall until I'm told it's coming.
[3:22:25] >> That's it for me. Thank you.
[3:22:26] >> Thank you. Good. Good. Mary.
[3:22:33] » So, as always, um, thank you for making
[3:22:36] this, uh, clear and easy to understand.
[3:22:40] So, a couple few questions. Um, could
[3:22:43] you talk about the trail rehabilitation
[3:22:47] and which pot of money that's coming out
[3:22:50] of?
[3:22:51] >> So, we have several pots of money. Um we
[3:22:55] have in our 401 capital projects fund we
[3:22:58] have about 20 25,000.
[3:23:01] Um we also have monies in gas tax and um
[3:23:05] some of our measure A measure M measure
[3:23:08] W money can be used in the right of way
[3:23:12] um if it's related to any type of
[3:23:14] safety. Uh but it's predominantly the
[3:23:17] capital projects fund and the gas tax
[3:23:19] fund that we're funding um vegetation
[3:23:23] management and trail and trail
[3:23:25] maintenance.
[3:23:26] >> Could I follow on that? Just so how much
[3:23:28] of that's coming out of the general fund
[3:23:30] versus these other special funds?
[3:23:31] >> The 25 is coming out of the general fund
[3:23:34] capital projects fund. The remaining is
[3:23:35] coming out of um gas tax,
[3:23:37] >> right? But the
[3:23:38] >> and we also have the Woodside Fire
[3:23:41] component as well. So that's about a
[3:23:43] hundred. So yeah, general fund is
[3:23:46] Woodside Fire for vegetation management,
[3:23:50] trails maintenance and then we also have
[3:23:52] uh general fund for our gas tax for um
[3:23:57] vegetation management.
[3:24:00] » Okay. Um in terms of uh salaries
[3:24:06] >> um for staff um we don't seem to have
[3:24:11] actual steps. We have a range.
[3:24:13] >> We have salary ranges. Yes.
[3:24:16] >> And what would it take to get steps and
[3:24:20] like would we need to bring that back to
[3:24:22] council if we chose
[3:24:23] >> any change to the salary schedule salary
[3:24:25] structure would require council approve.
[3:24:28] >> Okay. Thanks. Um
[3:24:32] uh could you talk about the 17,000
[3:24:35] of first um council dues from 25 that
[3:24:40] >> that was a
[3:24:43] um that was a
[3:24:46] an error. It should have been it was
[3:24:48] emergency services JPA was charged to
[3:24:51] council instead of non-EP departmental.
[3:24:54] >> Thank you.
[3:24:55] >> But it was still a general fund expense.
[3:24:57] >> Okay. Okay. Um
[3:25:02] uh in it looks like um can you explain
[3:25:06] under town manager for that the um
[3:25:10] salaries are supposed to go down to
[3:25:13] 713,000
[3:25:15] from 797.
[3:25:17] >> Yeah. That's related to the assistant
[3:25:19] town manager salary being allocated
[3:25:21] between town manager and finance whereas
[3:25:24] in this fiscal year was 100% town
[3:25:28] manager.
[3:25:31] >> Great. Thanks for explaining that. Um
[3:25:35] uh can you explain
[3:25:38] the
[3:25:41] um
[3:25:44] why the cafeteria plan is expected to go
[3:25:48] down in 27
[3:25:50] like 10,000? Like I just would expect
[3:25:52] things to go up from 80,000 this year 26
[3:25:55] to 70,000.
[3:26:02] I don't have an answer. [laughter]
[3:26:04] >> I stumped you. Sorry, I did not mean to
[3:26:07] stump you.
[3:26:08] >> The only thing I think it's just I mean
[3:26:10] it's just how it calculates. Um
[3:26:13] >> yeah.
[3:26:14] >> Okay. Sorry, I did not mean to stump
[3:26:16] you.
[3:26:17] >> Okay.
[3:26:18] >> But it's they fluctuate year to year.
[3:26:20] >> Okay. Part of it is also
[3:26:23] the actual number of employees we have
[3:26:25] compared to what we don't have.
[3:26:27] >> Yeah. I just would have expected it to
[3:26:29] go up. It's nice to see that it's
[3:26:31] supposed to go down.
[3:26:32] >> Well, okay. I'll tell you why. It was
[3:26:34] because we had positions budgeted that
[3:26:36] were not or that were not filled.
[3:26:38] >> Okay, that makes sense.
[3:26:40] >> Yeah. Um so we went from education and
[3:26:48] training to from zero for fiscal 26 to
[3:26:53] almost 13,000 for 27 for education and
[3:26:57] training.
[3:26:58] >> That's for one specific
[3:27:01] department because overall development
[3:27:03] is going way up from the previous year
[3:27:07] >> because what's going way up?
[3:27:08] >> Development training.
[3:27:09] >> Got it. Okay. Okay. Um
[3:27:17] could and I'm just confused. Um for
[3:27:22] town attorney expenses, fiscal year 26
[3:27:25] is showing zero
[3:27:28] >> and then some of the previous year
[3:27:30] reports were not picking up data.
[3:27:34] >> Got it. Okay.
[3:27:36] Um
[3:27:40] okay.
[3:27:44] Why does the Oh, you uh accounting and
[3:27:47] auditing expenses
[3:27:50] really fluctuates widely from
[3:27:52] >> Right. Because in 23 24 and 22 23 we're
[3:27:56] using Kish and company.
[3:28:00] Then we stopped using them in 23 24.
[3:28:02] >> Great. Okay. Um
[3:28:06] and Woodside Fire Services
[3:28:10] um looks like it would go down by about
[3:28:12] 50,000 from 330
[3:28:16] to 270. I guess that's 60,000 something
[3:28:20] going down for 27.
[3:28:24] That's on page 53
[3:28:28] of the budget package packet.
[3:28:36] Sorry.
[3:28:47] It looks like maybe the fuel mitigation
[3:28:49] program going down and the amount you're
[3:28:52] spending on.
[3:28:53] >> Yeah, we Yeah, we went from 80 to 60
[3:28:55] days,
[3:28:55] >> right,
[3:28:56] >> for vegetation management.
[3:28:57] >> Okay. Cutting where we can. Um
[3:29:03] Okay. Um,
[3:29:20] and let's see. Um,
[3:29:26] okay. the real property transfer tax
[3:29:29] that is being shown right now, that is
[3:29:31] from what we get from the county. Is
[3:29:32] that correct?
[3:29:33] >> That is what we're currently getting.
[3:29:35] Yes.
[3:29:36] >> Okay.
[3:29:38] And then um I don't know if you'll know
[3:29:44] this. Um you can get back to me if not.
[3:29:47] I know measure A is aging out,
[3:29:50] sunsetting out soon. Um, and what role
[3:29:54] would Portrol Valley take in
[3:29:57] re-uping that if possible?
[3:30:00] >> Well, that's a sales tax, so that would
[3:30:02] require a county vote.
[3:30:05] >> Okay. Okay. Those are my questions.
[3:30:08] Thank you.
[3:30:10] >> Thank you. Um, Tony, what's the VLF in
[3:30:14] Lou? I know you don't include it in our
[3:30:15] budget, but what what would we expect
[3:30:17] given hopefully the current budget
[3:30:21] negotiations? Is it like 200,000?
[3:30:23] >> Yes. Uh the So right now for 2223 and
[3:30:27] 2324 the total amount of the shortfall
[3:30:30] for the towns about 405,000.
[3:30:32] Um my understanding is that there is
[3:30:35] funding in place for the 2324 at 66%.
[3:30:38] Which is about 300
[3:30:41] um
[3:30:42] that amount is going to be about
[3:30:43] 200,000. if there's there's they have
[3:30:47] put in place funding for 2223,
[3:30:51] but the governor still has to sign the
[3:30:54] budget and he's got line item veto. So,
[3:30:56] we don't know if that's going to be in
[3:30:57] or not. Um, but if he does sign the
[3:30:59] budget with those two amounts in there,
[3:31:01] then yes, we we would be looking at an
[3:31:04] additional 400,000 in VLF,
[3:31:07] >> right? And that would go directly to the
[3:31:09] deficit.
[3:31:10] >> Yep.
[3:31:11] >> In in the general fund.
[3:31:12] >> Yes. I would I would not come back with
[3:31:15] a budget to say we're going to spend it.
[3:31:18] >> No. No. Yeah. Peace. I mean I I'm just
[3:31:21] >> saying that I mean it seems like one of
[3:31:24] those passing is reasonably likely. Both
[3:31:26] of them passing probably unlikely,
[3:31:28] >> right?
[3:31:29] >> But when people think about the deficit
[3:31:32] hopefully we're at least thinking that
[3:31:33] it's likely to be $200,000 or less than
[3:31:36] what you proposed. So
[3:31:38] >> that was my point. So okay. Um, with
[3:31:41] that, let me open it up to public
[3:31:43] comment. Is there anyone in the room who
[3:31:45] would like to speak? This is your
[3:31:47] chance, Mark. Thank you for hanging in
[3:31:48] here.
[3:31:49] >> Oh my gosh.
[3:31:52] » Very first public comment in any forum
[3:31:55] ever
[3:31:56] >> except on except on the finance
[3:31:58] committee.
[3:31:59] >> Except the finance. Is that is this on
[3:32:01] now?
[3:32:02] >> Okay. Um, so, uh, my name is Mark Wesar,
[3:32:06] and while I serve on the town's finance
[3:32:08] and audit committee, my comments tonight
[3:32:10] are my own. A key element of the
[3:32:12] committee's charter is to review and
[3:32:14] recommend for adoption the town's annual
[3:32:16] budget. The committee met on June 2nd to
[3:32:19] review the proposed budget, but we made
[3:32:21] no recommendation. I would like to do so
[3:32:23] tonight. Specifically, I recommend that
[3:32:26] the town council delay for two weeks
[3:32:28] adopting a budget with a significant
[3:32:30] deficit and instead request town staff
[3:32:33] to prepare a six-month balance budget
[3:32:35] from July through December. This will
[3:32:37] get us through the November election, at
[3:32:39] which time the town council will be able
[3:32:41] to adopt another six-month budget for
[3:32:44] the second half of the fiscal year.
[3:32:46] Knowing the will of the town's voters, I
[3:32:48] believe a balanced budget may be
[3:32:50] achievable for the next six months
[3:32:52] without reducing the cost of the sheriff
[3:32:54] contract. I highlight two possibilities
[3:32:56] as examples using annual estimates.
[3:32:59] First, the recent promotion of the
[3:33:01] town's finance director, which by the
[3:33:03] way, I think is tremendously
[3:33:04] wellreceived. We are very lucky to have
[3:33:06] Tony McFarland in our town. um that uh
[3:33:10] it created a vacancy for the finance
[3:33:12] director. Based upon the town's salary
[3:33:14] schedule and associated benefits, the
[3:33:16] estimated cost of the finance director
[3:33:19] role is about a4 million. If the
[3:33:21] assistant town manager continues in his
[3:33:23] duties as finance director for the time
[3:33:25] being, the town will save this amount.
[3:33:28] Second, the current budget includes
[3:33:30] paying $272,000
[3:33:32] to Woodside Fire Protection District for
[3:33:35] fire services. The taxpayers of Portola
[3:33:38] Valley contribute over one-third of
[3:33:40] Woodside Fire's annual budget. Last
[3:33:42] year, the district's revenues were $31
[3:33:44] million and expenses were $26 million,
[3:33:47] generating a surplus of $5 million. The
[3:33:51] current cash balance in the fire
[3:33:52] district's general fund is well over $30
[3:33:54] million. There must be a way to
[3:33:57] coordinate with Woodside Fire to provide
[3:33:59] fire services in our community without
[3:34:01] charging the town's taxpayers twice.
[3:34:04] These two items alone total two $522,000
[3:34:08] for the year, which closes the proposed
[3:34:10] budget gap for the general fund by 77%.
[3:34:14] These are just two examples. If the town
[3:34:17] council requests it, town staff can
[3:34:19] prepare a balanced budget for the next
[3:34:21] six months as a reasonable alternative
[3:34:23] to the budget in front of you tonight. I
[3:34:26] recommend the town council make this
[3:34:27] request. Even if the town council
[3:34:30] ultimately adopts a budget with a
[3:34:32] significant deficit, it should at least
[3:34:34] compare it to a balanced budget
[3:34:36] alternative. One of the town council's
[3:34:38] priorities is fiscal or financial
[3:34:40] responsibility. Financial responsibility
[3:34:43] means timely audits and balanced
[3:34:45] budgets. The town currently has neither.
[3:34:48] I suggest we start with a balanced
[3:34:50] budget for the next six months. Thank
[3:34:52] you all for your dedication and your
[3:34:54] time in leading our community.
[3:34:57] >> Thank you, Mark. And and just to
[3:34:59] reiterate, those are your personal
[3:35:00] comments rather than comments from the
[3:35:02] finance committee, but I appreciate your
[3:35:03] comments.
[3:35:06] Okay. So, anybody else in the room who
[3:35:08] wants to raise their hand? I don't see
[3:35:11] anybody in the schoolhouse. Um, anybody
[3:35:13] online?
[3:35:16] I'll wait just a moment. All right. I
[3:35:18] don't see any hands online, so I'm going
[3:35:20] to close public comment and bring it
[3:35:22] back to the council.
[3:35:26] Who would like to go first?
[3:35:30] I'll just
[3:35:32] >> follow up on Mark's um comment.
[3:35:37] >> Don't we have to approve the budget this
[3:35:40] week?
[3:35:41] >> Yes.
[3:35:43] >> And the ramifications if we don't are
[3:35:45] >> we have no spending authority. So we we
[3:35:48] can't spend a dime.
[3:35:51] >> Can't spend a dime. Um,
[3:35:54] so I don't know Tony if you have any
[3:35:58] thoughts around I mean we could do it
[3:36:00] the flip side which is approve it and
[3:36:02] then see if we get we can push things
[3:36:06] toward a balanced budget. Do you have
[3:36:08] any thoughts on that
[3:36:10] after the fact?
[3:36:19] The
[3:36:23] assuming or make keeping staying in the
[3:36:25] role of the finance director
[3:36:29] that is one option.
[3:36:30] >> Um
[3:36:32] it's not sustainable. Um because you
[3:36:35] know I do need to sleep. Um the um
[3:36:40] sorry Mark um but um you know I I am
[3:36:44] concerned about
[3:36:47] finding a finance manager. Um, so I mean
[3:36:51] it might be I'm going to be doing it
[3:36:54] anyway. Um, and we there there are some
[3:36:58] other areas that we could look into as
[3:37:00] well.
[3:37:01] >> Um, depending on how things um certain
[3:37:04] situations fall out. Um, but you know, I
[3:37:08] think
[3:37:10] there are certain areas that we can cut.
[3:37:13] Um, but I mean I'm not prepared to do
[3:37:17] them tonight.
[3:37:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I totally get that.
[3:37:20] >> It's it's um
[3:37:23] >> Yeah. And I I'm not trying to make you
[3:37:27] on your feet.
[3:37:27] >> Understand the understanding about
[3:37:29] Woodside Fire.
[3:37:30] >> Yeah.
[3:37:30] >> It's just, you know, one element that
[3:37:33] always seems to be getting overlooked is
[3:37:35] >> if Woodside Fire wasn't doing it,
[3:37:37] somebody else would be doing it and we
[3:37:39] would still be paying them to do it.
[3:37:40] Okay.
[3:37:41] >> It's it's it's you know, this is these
[3:37:44] are our responsibilities.
[3:37:45] >> Yeah.
[3:37:46] >> For the town. It's our right of way. So
[3:37:48] it's not Woodside Fire's responsibility
[3:37:50] to maintain our right of way.
[3:37:54] >> So um but we could probably still go
[3:37:57] back to Woodside Fire and say, you know,
[3:38:00] we can give them the same arguments, but
[3:38:01] >> see see if there's flexibility in some
[3:38:03] respects on that. Um and just because
[3:38:06] it's getting late, um Craig, is this the
[3:38:09] comment period? So you want to hear
[3:38:12] >> the discussion?
[3:38:13] >> This is discussion.
[3:38:14] >> Discussion. Okay. So, you know, from
[3:38:17] where I'm coming from,
[3:38:20] we're in bad shape. We we want to be
[3:38:22] fiscally responsible. I think Tony and
[3:38:25] team have done a a lot of work to get
[3:38:28] things understood, moved forward.
[3:38:31] [clears throat]
[3:38:32] Um, and I think our role in approving
[3:38:36] the budget tonight, because I do think
[3:38:38] we need to, doesn't mean that we don't
[3:38:42] continually look look at areas where we
[3:38:45] can save. And I think we should do that
[3:38:48] not necessarily waiting 6 months if
[3:38:51] there's opportunities that come up while
[3:38:53] staff and others are are looking at um
[3:38:57] the more obvious sources of potential
[3:39:00] savings. So I don't look at it as we
[3:39:02] can't do that and we're locked in for 6
[3:39:04] months myself. There's a limit to how
[3:39:07] efficient it is to keep looking at it.
[3:39:09] But you know maybe maybe toward the fall
[3:39:12] um onward we can look at um if anything
[3:39:16] else has come up we'll know more about
[3:39:18] the VLF for example and and might have
[3:39:21] some comfort around that. We might have
[3:39:24] some additional buffer there anyway
[3:39:27] depending on what happens in Sacramento.
[3:39:29] Um,
[3:39:31] so I I'm pretty comfortable um generally
[3:39:36] with with this budget myself. I do want
[3:39:40] to caution it because part of your
[3:39:41] presentation and I made the comment
[3:39:43] earlier talking about community
[3:39:46] priorities to me isn't the right thing
[3:39:49] to do when we're talking about our
[3:39:52] budget. If you're talking about 1%
[3:39:56] response rate on a non-scientific and
[3:39:58] non-statistically significant
[3:40:01] um poll, if it becomes statistically
[3:40:04] significant or if you want to disclose
[3:40:07] what that actually represents, I think
[3:40:10] that's fine. But as we go into a trustb
[3:40:14] building exercise with the public, as we
[3:40:17] move forward to the ballot measure and
[3:40:20] onward, um, we better be really firm on
[3:40:23] what we're saying and our basis for
[3:40:25] saying it. And I don't think we can be
[3:40:27] saying that those are anything other
[3:40:30] than choices that people can weigh in
[3:40:33] on. Like that's the way I would um uh
[3:40:36] phrase it because we do have a lot of
[3:40:39] trust building to do. Any footfall from
[3:40:42] here on in is is going to have
[3:40:44] significant
[3:40:46] um repercussions that
[3:40:49] we don't need to take undertake because
[3:40:52] you and your team have done so much over
[3:40:55] the last few years to set up as well as
[3:40:58] we can within the constraints of the
[3:41:00] auditor's backlog etc. So I I just urge
[3:41:04] us all to be cautious about that. But I
[3:41:07] do thank you so much for presenting and
[3:41:11] answering the questions and and
[3:41:13] exploring and um I don't I do want you
[3:41:16] to get sleep. So I'm I I I don't want
[3:41:19] you to feel any burden other than just
[3:41:21] to have considered the question and and
[3:41:24] we will all move on from my perspective.
[3:41:26] So those are my comments.
[3:41:29] >> Thank you, Rebecca.
[3:41:32] Um,
[3:41:35] uh, yeah, thank you again. This it's I'm continually impressed with the
[3:41:40] quality that's coming out of your
[3:41:41] department. Um, and I think your new
[3:41:44] promotion is excellent. Um, it's
[3:41:48] obviously not sustainable for you to be
[3:41:49] doing what's essentially now, I think,
[3:41:51] three jobs. Um, so I I do have the
[3:41:55] recommendation that the staff sit down
[3:41:58] and really think about what can be
[3:42:00] offloaded off your plate and performed
[3:42:03] by either some of your the analysts that
[3:42:05] we have on staff or as we think about
[3:42:08] needing more help in the public works
[3:42:10] department, you know, something in there
[3:42:12] for project management. So um so that
[3:42:16] some of these projects that we have the
[3:42:17] list of the capital projects for example
[3:42:19] have you know someone else that's not
[3:42:22] you dealing with them. Um and I think
[3:42:25] that would help tremendously. Uh it
[3:42:28] would also give you more time to fill
[3:42:30] the finance manager position because
[3:42:32] some of the jobs that are also on your
[3:42:34] plate would be taken off um for the for
[3:42:38] the grant for the PCE grant and again
[3:42:41] the library grant would be also part of
[3:42:43] it. I really want to make sure that that
[3:42:45] goes towards battery backup for the town
[3:42:48] center and not towards new fixture light
[3:42:51] fixtures. So I just want to put that out
[3:42:53] there. Um the main thing is we we do
[3:42:55] need to approve the budget today. Um I
[3:42:59] of course we want a balanced budget of
[3:43:02] course and we want full staffing so that
[3:43:04] our staff are not you know run off their
[3:43:07] feet and not getting sleep. Of course we
[3:43:09] want to be able to pay our staff you
[3:43:11] know adequately so that they feel um
[3:43:13] respected and appreciated. And we are
[3:43:17] not able to do that because we do not
[3:43:19] generate enough revenue in this town
[3:43:22] because we are essentially a bedroom
[3:43:24] community with very little commercial.
[3:43:26] And I think the people in town have got
[3:43:29] to understand that and recognize that.
[3:43:31] And right this minute, our staff is
[3:43:33] bootstrapping and doing an incredible
[3:43:36] amount of stuff. If if anything, we
[3:43:38] could just look at the last three or
[3:43:39] four town council meetings that have
[3:43:41] been packed solid with so many things
[3:43:44] that the staff on such a limited amount
[3:43:47] of people are doing. And I actually
[3:43:49] think that I mean, one, we have a
[3:43:51] reserve for this kind of purpose of kind
[3:43:54] of helping us get through. Um, but
[3:43:57] second of all, I think by ending up with
[3:43:59] a deficit right now, that is one of the
[3:44:02] best indicators to the town that we have
[3:44:04] a very serious problem that has to be
[3:44:08] solved in November with a revenue
[3:44:11] enhancement measure. So, you know, I
[3:44:13] think it's a pie in the sky to think
[3:44:15] that we can balance a budget on the
[3:44:17] backs of our staff or by, you know, not
[3:44:20] trimming the trees for our evacuation
[3:44:23] right away. You know, right as we're
[3:44:25] going into, we just heard PG& talk about
[3:44:27] how we are in a very high risk area for
[3:44:31] wildfires um that PG& is so concerned
[3:44:34] that they're going to be popping off our
[3:44:35] electricity the minute it blows wind
[3:44:38] more than 5 miles an hour. So, you know,
[3:44:40] cutting at that point for that I don't
[3:44:42] think is a good idea. So, my point is
[3:44:44] that, you know, you know, we we it is
[3:44:47] what it is. We don't have the money. If
[3:44:48] someone would like to give us half a
[3:44:50] million dollar, you know, donation,
[3:44:52] we'll be happy to take it and we'll have
[3:44:53] a balanced budget at that point. Um, but
[3:44:56] I think we do I think Tony's already
[3:44:57] shown that he's working very hard to
[3:44:59] control costs that we're even with the
[3:45:02] passing a balanced budget with the
[3:45:03] 700,000 deficit, we're going to continue
[3:45:06] for the next six months working to find
[3:45:08] where we can save
[3:45:09] and I think we're going to continue to
[3:45:11] do that. So, that's where I'm at with
[3:45:13] this. Thanks.
[3:45:16] >> Thank you, Mary.
[3:45:20] » We've had this discussion before and
[3:45:23] we're we're limping along. Um,
[3:45:28] all council has been committed to having
[3:45:30] a balanced budget, by the way. This is
[3:45:33] what we tried to do. We've tried it
[3:45:36] various different ways. Um, and we're
[3:45:39] trying to solve problems
[3:45:41] not that are not soluble actually with
[3:45:45] unless we go ahead and do something that
[3:45:47] generates more revenue. So, and we do
[3:45:51] have to get this budget done and I'm for
[3:45:53] going ahead with the budget because it
[3:45:55] has to be done. That's as simple as
[3:45:57] that. Uh, I was probably the person who
[3:46:00] was strongest in the beginning of trying
[3:46:02] to get this to be a a balanced budget
[3:46:05] and we put it out there. I think two
[3:46:07] years ago, we succeeded in thinking we
[3:46:10] were going to have a balanced budget and
[3:46:12] it just doesn't work. So, we we just
[3:46:15] slide back into where we are. Um because
[3:46:18] we're we're being honest with what our
[3:46:20] expenses are. So, anyway, good work.
[3:46:24] Thank you. Keep it up.
[3:46:27] >> Thank you, Mary Coen.
[3:46:28] >> Um so, you know, thank you for bringing
[3:46:31] it forward, right? It's always good to
[3:46:33] consider other options. Um, if you can
[3:46:36] send the comment too, I do better
[3:46:38] visually than auditorially. So, I would
[3:46:41] appreciate sending it just for future
[3:46:43] reference. I think at this point because
[3:46:45] of um, you know, we've got to be able to
[3:46:47] pay staff. They um, and so we have to
[3:46:51] pass it. Um, and uh, you know, I I and
[3:46:57] our number one reason to have government
[3:47:01] is to try to keep people safe. And so we
[3:47:03] need to spend the money on Woodside Fire
[3:47:06] and our right ofway. Um but I do it, you
[3:47:09] know, it does annoy me and if you guys
[3:47:12] are listening, Kim, you know, like um
[3:47:16] you know, they get 70 17 cents for every
[3:47:19] dollar in taxes that we pay and we get 5
[3:47:21] cents, right? Because usually most
[3:47:24] cities have other commercial
[3:47:25] opportunities for taxation and we don't.
[3:47:28] We get property taxes that are locked in
[3:47:31] under Prop 13. Um so and that was you
[3:47:35] know and that happens with special
[3:47:36] districts and it's frustrating. Um so um
[3:47:40] thanks to Tony for wearing multiple
[3:47:42] hats. We want you to get sleep. Um and
[3:47:46] thank you for what you've done. Um I
[3:47:48] will vote yes on this budget. So thank
[3:47:51] you for um for you know what you are
[3:47:55] doing.
[3:47:56] >> Thank you Helen.
[3:47:59] >> So I echo my colleagues. Thank you,
[3:48:01] Tony, for putting this together. Um, I
[3:48:04] would not be in favor of having you
[3:48:07] continue doing both jobs. I mean, I I
[3:48:10] appreciate you've been doing it. I'm,
[3:48:12] you know, thank thank you for your
[3:48:14] service, but this is not sustainable,
[3:48:17] and I don't think not having an
[3:48:19] assistant town manager is sustainable.
[3:48:22] So, having you drop back to just being
[3:48:23] the finance director, I don't think that
[3:48:25] works either. I mean, we need a
[3:48:26] functioning town. Um, and you've been
[3:48:29] doing a great job at both, but I can see
[3:48:32] when I meet with you, you're getting
[3:48:34] more and more tired. So, I mean,
[3:48:36] anything we can do to help you. Um, but please don't don't take hiring off
[3:48:42] the table. Um, I I don't think that
[3:48:44] makes sense on the Woodside Fire. I I
[3:48:46] mean, are we down to just um right away
[3:48:50] maintenance at this point? Is that there
[3:48:52] other thing because I know for a while
[3:48:53] there's some
[3:48:59] It's they're it's what it's vegetation
[3:49:01] management, the chipper program and um
[3:49:04] education is part of their budget,
[3:49:07] >> right? And the education we have I mean
[3:49:09] that's like a contract we have. So I
[3:49:12] mean that's something we have to pay for
[3:49:13] at least for a while. At some point we
[3:49:15] could decide to stop paying for that,
[3:49:16] >> right? But we have to negotiate that
[3:49:18] with the contract,
[3:49:19] >> right? So I I think that's something
[3:49:21] that we should potentially look at. And
[3:49:23] the other question that the citizens
[3:49:25] need to decide is, you know, chipping is
[3:49:27] something we're doing for the public,
[3:49:28] not a requirement of the town.
[3:49:31] >> Um, unlike the rightaways, th those are
[3:49:32] our responsibilities. So, I mean, that's
[3:49:34] another thing that we could drop,
[3:49:36] >> but I see that as an important service
[3:49:39] and we said that, you know, and we've
[3:49:40] seen it over and over again that, you
[3:49:42] know, wildfire preparedness is an
[3:49:43] important thing. So I'm I'm hardressed
[3:49:46] to drop that even though I think
[3:49:48] technically it's a
[3:49:49] >> and they going to I mean it went from 47
[3:49:53] I think to 35,
[3:49:54] >> right? And yeah, we've kind of reduced
[3:49:56] it. Um so so I think we're you know
[3:49:58] we've been working with Woodside. Um I
[3:50:01] think the education is the this for me
[3:50:03] the last one that's sort of hanging out
[3:50:04] there that feels like they could cover
[3:50:07] >> um with their budget.
[3:50:08] >> Um the it the 30k I'm completely in
[3:50:11] favor of. You know, I've been sort of
[3:50:13] trying to rally the troops. I mean, we
[3:50:15] need reasonable it here because we're all paying that cost. The public
[3:50:19] pays it every time. We can't do stuff in
[3:50:22] the room. Every time we have issues at
[3:50:25] town hall, we pay for it. So, so I think
[3:50:27] that's well um money spent. The one area
[3:50:31] I would ask you to look at, I'm not
[3:50:32] asking to change the budget tonight. Um
[3:50:35] I was a little worried the accumulated
[3:50:37] training costs. I mean, they do add up
[3:50:40] and there's I don't know 50 or 60K in
[3:50:42] there.
[3:50:43] >> Given the issues that we have right now,
[3:50:46] you know, that one feels I I believe in
[3:50:49] staff training. I think it's important.
[3:50:51] Um I guess I would hope that staff for
[3:50:55] the first half of this year would go
[3:50:57] light on that budget.
[3:50:58] >> Yeah. Um, so I'm I'm not asking for a
[3:51:00] change in it, but but I think that
[3:51:02] that's the the one area that the
[3:51:04] department heads could consider, you
[3:51:05] know, just trying to stay late until we
[3:51:08] get through to the midyear budget.
[3:51:09] >> But just as a reminder, when we balanced
[3:51:11] the budget in 2425,
[3:51:14] development was not cut.
[3:51:16] >> Yeah. No, I I understand. But but we
[3:51:18] also had a balanced budget then and now
[3:51:20] we have a deficit. So it's a slightly
[3:51:22] different. So, um, anyway, that's a
[3:51:25] request I'm making, you know, and and I
[3:51:26] think I'm make making it mostly of the
[3:51:28] assistant town manager who has some
[3:51:29] influence. Um, but other than that, um,
[3:51:32] thank you. I really do.
[3:51:34] >> Reinstitute. It's not in the budget.
[3:51:36] >> I'll reinstitute. It's not in the
[3:51:37] budget. That was that was the mantra in
[3:51:40] 2425 is it's not in the budget.
[3:51:42] >> There you go. Yeah. Perfect. So, um,
[3:51:45] well, this is in the budget, but I'm
[3:51:46] saying go go go light on it for
[3:51:48] >> we'll we'll we'll monitor we'll look at
[3:51:51] if things can be deferred in the second
[3:51:52] half. [clears throat]
[3:51:53] >> Exactly. That's
[3:51:54] >> we'll do all that. Yeah,
[3:51:55] >> that's the request. Great. Perfect. So,
[3:51:57] um, other than that, yeah, I'm in favor
[3:51:59] that this budget as well. I appreciate
[3:52:00] you putting it together.
[3:52:01] >> And also, I just wanted to add the the
[3:52:03] inner west contract will be for project
[3:52:06] management and public works assistance
[3:52:09] specifically. So,
[3:52:14] Okay. So, with that,
[3:52:18] get back to my agenda here. Um,
[3:52:23] so we need a resolution to adopt the
[3:52:25] fiscal year 2627 operating and capital
[3:52:28] project budget.
[3:52:29] >> So moved. So moved.
[3:52:31] >> Okay. I think I have motion by Helen,
[3:52:34] second by Rebecca.
[3:52:36] >> All in favor?
[3:52:37] >> I.
[3:52:39] >> Anyone opposed? Any abstensions? Okay,
[3:52:42] passes unanimously. Thank you, Tony. All
[3:52:45] right, closing 8A, moving to the very
[3:52:48] exciting topic of resolution to
[3:52:51] establish the GAN appropriation limit
[3:52:54] for 2026 2027. Tony, this is yours as
[3:52:58] well.
[3:52:58] >> Yes. And I do not have a PowerPoint.
[3:53:00] This is administrative. We have to adopt
[3:53:02] it every year.
[3:53:03] >> Thank you, Sarah. Good night. be uh
[3:53:07] taking last year's limit and m using
[3:53:10] factors of the increase in CPI and the
[3:53:12] change of population in the county.
[3:53:14] >> Yep.
[3:53:14] >> Um so that's the number that came out
[3:53:17] with the calculation. So we need a
[3:53:19] resolution to pass.
[3:53:21] >> Yeah. And and like I said, there was
[3:53:22] just a typo in the packet on the point
[3:53:26] 0.3 versus 0.0.
[3:53:28] >> It wouldn't
[3:53:29] >> Yeah, it's okay.
[3:53:30] >> Yeah.
[3:53:30] Yeah. I figured it was probably a
[3:53:32] rounding error, but just so you know,
[3:53:34] everybody knows and we can just fix
[3:53:35] that. So, are there any questions on the
[3:53:38] GAN limit? I mean, this is really very
[3:53:40] much a you know, turn the crank, come up
[3:53:42] with a number. So, any K. Okay. So, any
[3:53:46] comments from the public in the room?
[3:53:48] Mark, are you good on the GAN limit?
[3:53:49] Perfect. Thank you, sir. [laughter]
[3:53:52] You know, listen, you got to respect
[3:53:54] somebody's hanging in here until 11:30.
[3:53:56] [laughter]
[3:53:58] All right. Um, is there anyone online
[3:54:01] that would like to comment on the GAN
[3:54:02] limit? Christie, go ahead.
[3:54:13] Christie, you're muted.
[3:54:19] » There you go.
[3:54:19] >> Claim what you were
[3:54:22] referring to.
[3:54:24] >> The GAN limit that's in the packet.
[3:54:26] There's a full staff report on
[3:54:28] >> I want to hear what the description is
[3:54:32] for the public.
[3:54:34] >> Okay. So, the reason we publish a
[3:54:37] packet, Christie, is so the public can
[3:54:39] read it. Um, so I appreciate your
[3:54:42] comment. You would you would like maybe
[3:54:45] more information, but I think if you
[3:54:46] read the packet, it describes it in
[3:54:49] detail.
[3:54:51] >> I would like you to describe it now for
[3:54:54] the public.
[3:54:56] Thank you that I hear your comment.
[3:55:03] So, um, with that, yeah, no, I it's she
[3:55:07] can comment. So, that's her comment. She
[3:55:08] would like more commentary, but I
[3:55:11] believe we've got it in the packet and
[3:55:12] it's well documented. So, um, with that,
[3:55:16] I'm going to close public comment
[3:55:19] and bring it back to the council for
[3:55:21] discussion. Is there any additional
[3:55:23] discussion the council would like to
[3:55:24] have on this?
[3:55:26] >> Tony, do you have a two sentence
[3:55:28] description of the GAN limit? We are
[3:55:31] here to be visible to the public and
[3:55:34] asking them to read a thousand pages to
[3:55:37] keep up with us is simply unfair.
[3:55:40] >> The uh Right. But reading staff reports
[3:55:43] if you're interested in it, I mean it
[3:55:45] does.
[3:55:46] >> This is my request of
[3:55:48] >> Yeah, that's fine. I'm I'm good with
[3:55:50] that. I can even read the background for
[3:55:52] you if you like.
[3:55:54] >> So the GAN limit resolution is required
[3:55:57] by state law. It sets the appropriation
[3:56:00] limit. So basically it sets how much tax
[3:56:04] revenue we can generate and then how
[3:56:07] much we can spend against the tax
[3:56:09] revenue. And for um as as long as our
[3:56:15] appropriations subject to the limit are
[3:56:18] below the appropriations limit, we are
[3:56:20] in compliance with the GAN limit
[3:56:23] >> and that is the case.
[3:56:25] >> That is the case.
[3:56:26] >> Thank you.
[3:56:29] >> Okay. Any other discussion within the
[3:56:31] council?
[3:56:34] >> All right. Well, with that, I would for
[3:56:36] a motion to
[3:56:38] approve a res a resolution to establish
[3:56:40] the fiscal 2627 appropriation limit.
[3:56:44] >> So moved. Second.
[3:56:46] >> Okay.
[3:56:46] >> I have a motion in a second. All in
[3:56:48] favor?
[3:56:49] >> I.
[3:56:50] >> Any opposed?
[3:56:52] Any abstensions? All right. Passes
[3:56:54] unanimously. Thank you, Tony.
[3:57:11] All right. So, with that, we move on to
[3:57:14] 8C.
[3:57:17] >> Yes. Hi, Darcy Smith, town manager. I'll
[3:57:19] just make a brief oral presentation. So,
[3:57:22] this is an item that is a consideration
[3:57:26] to authorize and provide direction to
[3:57:29] the mayor to complete the ballot. It's
[3:57:31] for the West Ridge Architectural
[3:57:33] Supervising Committee 2026 reinstatement
[3:57:37] of the protective restrictions,
[3:57:39] conditions, covenants, and agreements
[3:57:41] for the West Ridge area, otherwise known
[3:57:44] as restrictions or CCNRs. And this is
[3:57:48] before you because the t town owns a
[3:57:50] piece of property in this restrictive
[3:57:53] area on Escobar Road. I want to point
[3:57:56] out it is unique property and that it's
[3:57:59] considered steep.
[3:58:02] I've heard it's unbuildable, but I guess
[3:58:04] with enough money you can build on
[3:58:05] anything and it was dedicated to the
[3:58:07] town with the subdivision in the early
[3:58:09] '7s.
[3:58:10] It appears to be dedicated as open
[3:58:12] space. Um, but we'd have to do more
[3:58:14] research on that. Um, so this ballot was
[3:58:18] sent to us. It is due uh July 2nd and
[3:58:22] the council may consider either voting
[3:58:26] yes to adopt it, no to adopt it, or just
[3:58:28] to abstain. Um, the staff report
[3:58:31] highlights what the changes were. This
[3:58:33] is essentially the first major update
[3:58:35] since 2008.
[3:58:38] Um, as you can infer from the name, it applies to land use. So it has a
[3:58:43] comprehensive set of land use
[3:58:45] restrictions.
[3:58:46] Um important to the town is that it does
[3:58:48] impose fi new fire safety obligations
[3:58:52] which include vegetation management
[3:58:53] requirements
[3:58:55] um removal of certain plants like poison
[3:58:58] oak and other requirements. Um there's
[3:59:03] also an increase in the assessment. It's
[3:59:06] not maybe not significant. Um, but it
[3:59:09] would go up a little bit. And so the
[3:59:13] town's in a maybe a unique position
[3:59:15] here, but I just want to emphasize that
[3:59:16] the town has no regul regulatory
[3:59:18] authority here. So you may have a lot of
[3:59:21] concerns about the content here. You may
[3:59:23] also question the legal authority. So I
[3:59:27] want to tell you we did not review these
[3:59:28] for any legal concerns at all. Um they
[3:59:32] are again private property restrictions.
[3:59:36] So the town's council's in a little bit
[3:59:38] of unusual boat here. Uh and staff does
[3:59:43] not make a recommendation. We can
[3:59:44] certainly give you our input if you want
[3:59:47] it. Um but with that I'll turn over to
[3:59:50] the council for discussion.
[3:59:53] >> Okay. Are there questions for Darcy?
[3:59:59] » I have questions. Would you like to
[4:00:01] start?
[4:00:02] >> No, you go.
[4:00:03] >> Well, I I just occurred to me. Have we
[4:00:05] ever voted on this before as the count
[4:00:08] as a do you have any way of finding that
[4:00:10] out? I suspect we never have.
[4:00:12] >> Um,
[4:00:14] >> we could not find any record.
[4:00:16] >> Um, question for Darcy. Um,
[4:00:22] no, I think I got it. Thank you.
[4:00:24] >> And Mary,
[4:00:25] >> and I am I I I'm I'm staying what I do,
[4:00:29] right?
[4:00:32] Yeah, I I understand that you were you
[4:00:34] decided to recuse on this item given
[4:00:36] that you reside in in the
[4:00:38] >> So, I'm not even allowed to say what I
[4:00:40] think about this.
[4:00:41] >> Correct. If you're recused, then then
[4:00:42] you
[4:00:43] >> I do have a thought about what I think.
[4:00:45] Anybody want to know what I think? I
[4:00:46] just thought of it. Okay. I'm not
[4:00:48] >> I I would suggest
[4:00:49] >> Don't go there.
[4:00:50] >> Yeah. Um and we can we can um hopefully
[4:00:54] call you back soon when this item is
[4:00:57] Thank you, Mary. You got a bite too.
[4:01:02] Get enough jack.
[4:01:05] >> Well, there's there's still one.
[4:01:09] >> Yeah.
[4:01:09] >> Right. But yeah,
[4:01:11] >> so the question.
[4:01:13] >> Okay.
[4:01:15] >> So I'm just trying to think if we take a
[4:01:19] position on this at all,
[4:01:23] it probably creates precedent. So we are
[4:01:26] now appining and buying into in a way
[4:01:31] the fact that this is all appropriate
[4:01:35] and I'm just wondering like there's
[4:01:37] overlapping jurisdiction on these
[4:01:39] properties right on the one hand and
[4:01:43] then the town has broader powers not not
[4:01:47] regulatory within was but but it so if
[4:01:51] we take a position
[4:01:53] but later we develop velop some rules
[4:01:57] that impact Wasque. Could that be put us
[4:02:00] in a compromised position?
[4:02:04] I'm not sure what this is, but I do
[4:02:06] worry that there could be, you know, a
[4:02:10] fire regulation that we want to adopt
[4:02:13] that somehow at odds with whatever
[4:02:15] they're doing here. Just one random
[4:02:17] example. So, I I don't know if you've
[4:02:20] thought that through. If so, what would
[4:02:22] you know your your framework for looking
[4:02:25] at that?
[4:02:28] >> Um, so the council is sitting in an
[4:02:31] interesting spot here. Um, this is not
[4:02:34] unprecedented in terms of other, you
[4:02:37] know, local governments have property in
[4:02:40] um, areas uh, where they, you know, vote
[4:02:43] on CCNRs and that kind of thing. Uh but
[4:02:46] this is a quite a comprehensive, you
[4:02:48] know, restatement of all of their rules.
[4:02:51] Uh and so, you know, the council is
[4:02:53] sitting in its in a seat as a property
[4:02:55] owner here, but the the council
[4:02:58] obviously acts as a regulatory body as
[4:03:00] well. And so, you know, it is difficult
[4:03:02] to separate those two roles. I I would
[4:03:05] say I I can't really say that there
[4:03:06] necessarily would be a precedent by how
[4:03:08] you vote on this matter, but I think
[4:03:10] that's worth considering uh those two
[4:03:11] rules. and and the president said you
[4:03:14] know basically you know what um uh yeah
[4:03:18] what what would happen in the future in
[4:03:19] terms of implementation.
[4:03:20] >> Thank you.
[4:03:21] >> That's all.
[4:03:24] >> Did you have a comment?
[4:03:25] >> Not a comment. Sorry question.
[4:03:27] >> Yeah. No. Um can I get clarification on
[4:03:32] um
[4:03:34] the HO I was looking for I thought I
[4:03:36] highlighted it but I can't find it right
[4:03:38] now. the HOA versus
[4:03:41] uh they call call themselves now here it
[4:03:45] is um
[4:03:47] uh an unincorporated association of
[4:03:51] property owners like what's the
[4:03:54] >> so they're yeah they're not an HOA
[4:03:57] they're they have covenants between each
[4:03:59] other rather than to an association
[4:04:03] >> okay so legally
[4:04:06] >> and they were never an HOA
[4:04:08] And they could never at this point they
[4:04:10] could never be an HOA.
[4:04:13] >> Okay.
[4:04:16] And it's grounding the committee's
[4:04:19] authority and equitable servitudes
[4:04:21] created by the original 1947 deed.
[4:04:25] Okay. Is what it says.
[4:04:29] Um [snorts]
[4:04:31] okay. though and
[4:04:35] we have no authority over their CCRs,
[4:04:38] right? Just
[4:04:39] >> correct.
[4:04:41] >> Okay. Okay, that's my questions. Thank
[4:04:44] you.
[4:04:44] >> Thank you, Rebecca.
[4:04:47] >> Um,
[4:04:49] so it's an unincorporated association of
[4:04:51] property owners with covenants between
[4:04:53] the properties itself. So they're kind
[4:04:55] of self agreeing to adhere to these
[4:05:00] particular rules. Legally, however, um
[4:05:04] do the individual properties have to
[4:05:06] comply with state law if it's in
[4:05:09] conflict with what's in these CCRs?
[4:05:16] » Uh generally speaking, yes. Um but in
[4:05:18] some some respects, the CCNRs can
[4:05:20] override um certain aspects of state of
[4:05:23] state law. And so this actually was uh
[4:05:25] was an issue with the accessory dwelling
[4:05:27] unit law um uh where uh HOAs were
[4:05:32] basically overriding uh uh members
[4:05:35] abilities to uh develop ADUs and the
[4:05:39] state legislature actually changed the
[4:05:41] ADU law to prohibit that uh so that even
[4:05:45] if the the HOA prohibits the ADU the
[4:05:49] property owner can still develop one.
[4:05:50] That is not the case with SB9 units as I
[4:05:53] understand it. However, so in in the
[4:05:55] context of SB9 units, um the HOA can
[4:06:00] prohibit
[4:06:02] uh
[4:06:03] >> split and and my understanding,
[4:06:05] >> this isn't an HOA,
[4:06:06] >> right? My understanding is Westridge
[4:06:08] doesn't think that the AU applies
[4:06:11] because they're not an HOA. They have
[4:06:13] these covenants. Do you know whether
[4:06:16] >> these uh and again we did not do a
[4:06:19] comprehensively review of this but I uh
[4:06:22] but the restated CCNRs do address ADUs
[4:06:27] and uh permit them with the conditions
[4:06:30] included in in
[4:06:32] >> but I'm saying they believe they can
[4:06:33] create ADU rules rather than have the
[4:06:37] state apply ADU rules to them is my
[4:06:40] understanding.
[4:06:41] >> Okay.
[4:06:41] >> Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah, the CCRs say
[4:06:43] that they can specify it's a
[4:06:45] discretionary decision on the part of
[4:06:47] their committee about I mean, you can
[4:06:49] have an ADU, but it has to go through
[4:06:50] their discretionary process. They they
[4:06:53] they've focused on site and every and
[4:06:56] design, which is not allowed in the law.
[4:06:58] So, I'm unclear about whether this
[4:07:00] overrides or not, but um regardless, the reality most of the CCRs don't apply
[4:07:07] to this lot because it's not because
[4:07:10] it's essentially not buildable. So, we
[4:07:13] wouldn't be going through the process
[4:07:14] because we're not necessarily going to
[4:07:16] be building on the lot. But, um
[4:07:20] I guess yeah, I guess those are my
[4:07:22] questions. I'm starting to get into
[4:07:23] discussion here. Sorry.
[4:07:24] >> Yeah. Thank you. Um so my question is um
[4:07:27] what if we what would it take for us to
[4:07:29] abandon this lot because my concern here
[4:07:31] is fire liability. Yeah.
[4:07:36] >> U so I can provide a pretty high level
[4:07:38] uh answer to that question. And I think
[4:07:39] that's really a separate conversation,
[4:07:41] but um uh jurisdictions can um sell or
[4:07:47] abandon uh property, but there is
[4:07:49] generally a process. Um the town needs
[4:07:53] to be compliant with the surplus lands
[4:07:54] act.
[4:07:56] Um unless an exception applies and I'm
[4:07:58] not we could do an analysis whether
[4:08:00] there are any exceptions that would
[4:08:01] apply here. If not, then there's a
[4:08:03] process where um the town would need to
[4:08:06] offer the parcel to a number of public
[4:08:09] entities and affordable housing
[4:08:11] developers before it can then go and
[4:08:13] actually um sell the property.
[4:08:16] Uh there may be other avenues um that we
[4:08:20] need to research a little bit more what
[4:08:21] kind of covenants I my understanding is
[4:08:23] there's some sort of open space easement
[4:08:26] or very some sort of easement perhaps on
[4:08:28] this property parcel and so we would
[4:08:29] want to research that as well um to see
[4:08:31] what kind of restrictions might apply
[4:08:34] there but yeah surplus lands act would
[4:08:36] guess be the biggest thing that we would
[4:08:37] need to um address in terms of
[4:08:40] uh
[4:08:41] >> right and just so assume we went through
[4:08:43] this process nobody wants to buy it. Um,
[4:08:46] we put it up for sale, nobody wants to
[4:08:48] buy it. Can I mean, I'm trying to
[4:08:50] understand, can can you truly abandon it
[4:08:53] given we're sort of the the public
[4:08:56] entity that this land exists in? Because
[4:08:58] it seems like this weird thing that we
[4:09:00] have land, we're a property owner, but now we're getting restrictions put
[4:09:04] on our property, not as a property
[4:09:07] owner, but as the jurisdiction
[4:09:09] underneath that owns all land that's not
[4:09:11] covered otherwise. So, that was the
[4:09:14] level I was trying to to get at in this
[4:09:16] question is and and I'm I'm fine for us
[4:09:19] to do more research. I don't think we
[4:09:21] need to answer it all research there. I
[4:09:22] mean, if it were a private property
[4:09:23] owner, we would just stop paying taxes
[4:09:25] and ultimately there would be some tax
[4:09:26] sale and we would get rid of the
[4:09:27] property that way, but um um I don't
[4:09:30] believe we're taxed on this property and
[4:09:32] so that would not be an avenue. So, we
[4:09:33] would have to do some more research on
[4:09:34] that question.
[4:09:35] >> All right. Thank you. Can I actually ask
[4:09:37] are we doing any fire mitigation in on
[4:09:42] this property?
[4:09:43] >> I'm checking with Woodside Fire, but
[4:09:45] they didn't give me an answer.
[4:09:48] But they are, as we recently reviewed,
[4:09:50] they are responsible for fire mitigation
[4:09:53] on town properties, town rightaways. But
[4:09:56] they this
[4:09:58] I have reviewed this property. I've
[4:10:00] survey it survey surveyed it and it is
[4:10:03] very thick. So I suspect they will
[4:10:05] charge us an additional cost to clean
[4:10:07] goats.
[4:10:09] [laughter]
[4:10:10] >> I don't I Yeah, it might be too thick
[4:10:13] for goats.
[4:10:15] >> Yeah, I guess my concern is that the
[4:10:17] Woodside Fire is not the ones who are
[4:10:20] creating the um
[4:10:23] the cleanup requirements. It's basically
[4:10:26] this
[4:10:29] unaffiliated [clears throat]
[4:10:29] association, whatever the guys call
[4:10:31] these guys, right? I mean, that's that's
[4:10:32] my concern is that they are putting
[4:10:35] restrictions on the town that that we
[4:10:37] don't really have a say on on a piece of
[4:10:39] property that's unbuildable. So, it has
[4:10:41] no value to the town unless the open
[4:10:44] space committee were to to come back and
[4:10:45] say, "We think this is highly valuable
[4:10:47] open space." But assuming that that's
[4:10:49] not the case, then it's a pretty odd
[4:10:53] situation. But we're starting to get
[4:10:54] into discussion. You I think you
[4:10:56] answered my question. Thank you.
[4:10:58] Okay. So, there's nobody left in the
[4:11:01] schoolhouse. So, let's get that. Um, and
[4:11:05] there are two participants online. So,
[4:11:08] I'm opening up public comments.
[4:11:12] So, I don't see any hands up.
[4:11:15] All right. So, I'm going to close public
[4:11:16] comment
[4:11:18] and bring it back to the council for
[4:11:20] discussion. So I think the the issue
[4:11:22] before us is
[4:11:25] are do we want to authorize me as
[4:11:29] somebody to vote and then are we
[4:11:32] authorizing me to vote for it against it
[4:11:34] or abstain?
[4:11:36] >> I'd make a motion to abstain.
[4:11:39] >> I'll second that. I don't think we
[4:11:41] should I don't think we should weigh in
[4:11:44] at this point.
[4:11:46] >> Any discussion on the motion?
[4:11:50] I I agree. I don't want to be on record
[4:11:53] taking a position. We don't have enough
[4:11:57] property there to make any difference to
[4:11:58] the vote. So, I don't think we like if
[4:12:01] we protest for whatever reason, I don't
[4:12:03] even know what what I would say, but we
[4:12:07] we'd be outnumbered. Um, and your point
[4:12:10] about the liability and the costs that
[4:12:13] we might incur, we we should look into
[4:12:16] that in the future. It might be too much
[4:12:19] of a burden for staff in the short run,
[4:12:21] but those are valid points from my
[4:12:23] perspective to be thinking about going
[4:12:26] forward.
[4:12:27] >> Okay. So, we have a motion. We have a
[4:12:29] second.
[4:12:30] >> But you asked if you're uh are we
[4:12:33] letting you be the signatory on the
[4:12:36] vote, which would be a vote to abstain.
[4:12:38] Is that or what?
[4:12:39] >> There there's only yes and no. We just
[4:12:43] need if you take action to abstain, I'll
[4:12:46] communicate back to them that we're not
[4:12:47] voting.
[4:12:48] >> So, no vote. Great. Perfect.
[4:12:50] >> Okay. So, I have a motion. I have a
[4:12:52] second. I think the discussion done. So,
[4:12:55] all in favor of the motion, which is to
[4:12:59] basically not vote.
[4:13:01] >> I
[4:13:03] >> All right. Great. Thank you. We get Mary
[4:13:06] back and somebody go grab Mary and then
[4:13:07] let's wrap this up.
[4:13:22] a
[4:13:22] >> leak.
[4:13:26] » Who's that? Public works. We have a
[4:13:28] public works volunteer.
[4:13:34] » No, no, it's not about raining. It is.
[4:13:37] There is a broken pipe out.
[4:13:45] I mean, I think
[4:13:48] >> it'll
[4:13:50] get
[4:13:52] >> Mary. Mary, sit down. We're been trying
[4:13:54] to finish a council meeting. We got it.
[4:14:01] » Yeah. No, I appreciate it. It's great.
[4:14:02] So, we got somebody on it. So, um All
[4:14:05] right. So, Mary Mary's back from
[4:14:07] recusing herself. So, we're moving on to
[4:14:09] item nine, which is subcommittee leaison
[4:14:13] and regional reports. Um, are there any
[4:14:15] in addition to the ones that were listed
[4:14:17] here, are there any oral reports?
[4:14:20] >> Yeah.
[4:14:21] >> Okay, Judith.
[4:14:23] >> So, I went to the Abag meeting in San
[4:14:26] Francisco. Lovely offices. Um,
[4:14:30] the cycle
[4:14:32] is starting next year. They are. Um, I
[4:14:36] will be posting a more detailed report
[4:14:39] for the next meeting in writing which
[4:14:42] will in turn include some excerpts of
[4:14:45] the PowerPoint that they presented and
[4:14:48] links
[4:14:49] um because it's a it's pretty dense
[4:14:52] material and um people ought to take
[4:14:55] time to absorb it
[4:14:56] >> and and just to clarify this is the
[4:14:58] Reena cycle that started
[4:14:59] >> the Rena cycle starts in 2027.
[4:15:03] Um there will be changes the some of the
[4:15:06] very high level I'm not prepared to get
[4:15:09] into it but um there there are going to
[4:15:13] be including these new extremely low
[4:15:17] income levels and there's going to be
[4:15:19] more levels that are required.
[4:15:23] They will in most likelihood
[4:15:26] numbers per jurisdiction will go up. Now
[4:15:30] they didn't say four-fold like last time
[4:15:32] but they will go up. Um
[4:15:36] there is a new uh statutory um ability
[4:15:41] or requirement to consider wildfire and
[4:15:44] certain other like there's a laundry
[4:15:46] list of considerations that can go
[4:15:49] toward you know the sighting but it
[4:15:52] doesn't really give you relief from the
[4:15:54] numbers. So, we all got to look at that,
[4:15:57] think about what what exactly will do
[4:16:02] those changes permit or not permit
[4:16:04] because it sounds great on the one hand
[4:16:06] they encoded what people have been
[4:16:11] already referencing as wildfire risks,
[4:16:13] but I'm not sure how legally it's
[4:16:16] operational. So, we we all ought to look
[4:16:18] at that. Um they are trying to get the
[4:16:24] number allocations
[4:16:27] reported out earlier because I guess one
[4:16:29] of the last cycle challenges was people
[4:16:33] didn't know what their final number was
[4:16:35] before they already had to be like
[4:16:37] producing quite a lot of work product.
[4:16:39] So they're trying to get that number out
[4:16:42] earlier. Whether they're successful or
[4:16:44] not, I don't know. It did seem like
[4:16:48] people in the audience really were
[4:16:51] asking questions having learned what
[4:16:53] this cycle was like to manage. And you
[4:16:57] know, I do think there's been a learning
[4:17:00] curve that will hopefully be
[4:17:02] incorporated into um the process for for
[4:17:06] this cycle. Um but I do, you know, I
[4:17:10] don't want people to get
[4:17:13] worked up yet. This is more of a notice
[4:17:15] to check out the reports and keep um
[4:17:18] current on the timelines for sure and
[4:17:23] the inflection points where data is
[4:17:26] going to be coming out and and we can
[4:17:29] make our case um with the different
[4:17:32] juris um bodies that weigh in on the the
[4:17:36] allocation. So, we really ought to be
[4:17:38] vigilant early in the cycle is my main
[4:17:40] point. And that means getting getting
[4:17:43] our bearings on it over the next year so
[4:17:45] we're ready when it starts to to execute
[4:17:48] because if you just sit by and observe,
[4:17:51] my impression is going to be you're
[4:17:53] going to it it's going to be a very
[4:17:55] reactive process
[4:17:57] >> and there might be a window to get more
[4:17:59] a little bit more proactive or at least
[4:18:02] understand these changes earlier rather
[4:18:04] than later. So, I'll I'll submit that
[4:18:07] separately. It was just too detailed to
[4:18:09] do it for this meeting.
[4:18:11] >> Well, thank you. We'll look forward look
[4:18:13] forward to your update.
[4:18:15] >> Any other oral?
[4:18:16] >> Yeah.
[4:18:17] >> Okay.
[4:18:18] >> Couple things. Um
[4:18:21] uh Westbase Sanitary District um has
[4:18:25] their meet had their meeting tonight
[4:18:27] concurrently. They uh there um they had
[4:18:33] repealed the five-year retroactive
[4:18:35] billing to three years of retroactive
[4:18:37] billing. Um
[4:18:40] uh my boss
[4:18:42] uh Josh Becker and Diane Papen now
[4:18:46] submitted a letter of concern. Um, and
[4:18:50] there is a threat of a class action
[4:18:53] lawsuit to deal with these retroactive
[4:18:55] billing situations with the ADUs um,
[4:18:59] from a man who lives in Athetherton. Um,
[4:19:03] so I don't So I'll try to keep you guys
[4:19:06] updated on that. um letting you know how
[4:19:09] the Howard Jarvis um ballot measure um
[4:19:12] has not so there is uh a piece of
[4:19:15] legislation I think it's 763 that was
[4:19:18] proposed that would cap um transfer
[4:19:21] taxes at 1.5%
[4:19:24] um LA is I think it's I can't remember
[4:19:28] it's bigger than that um so the Howard
[4:19:31] Jarvis they were hoping that Howard
[4:19:32] Jarvis would pull their ballot measure
[4:19:35] off of um the ballot they Howard Jarvis
[4:19:39] has until tomorrow to pull it off at
[4:19:43] this point. They have not pulled it off.
[4:19:45] The real litters also are now up in arms
[4:19:48] about transfer taxes and they're coming
[4:19:50] after the situation. So, um letting you
[4:19:52] guys know about that. Um ebikes, there
[4:19:55] are still nine um uh nine pieces of
[4:20:00] ebike legislation floating around. Um
[4:20:03] and we'll see what ends up. Um, if you
[4:20:05] want a matrix, I can send you a really
[4:20:06] good matrix. But definitely lots of uh
[4:20:10] concern over ebikes. Um, commute.org.
[4:20:14] Um, the it's such a great little um
[4:20:17] board and organization up there um that
[4:20:20] no one knows about. So, I'm talking um
[4:20:22] an office of sustainability for the San
[4:20:25] Monteo County is now looking at working
[4:20:28] with um uh they just hired a
[4:20:31] transportation program manager to and so
[4:20:34] they're talk, you know, they're looking
[4:20:36] at transportation in San Monteo County
[4:20:38] to try to manage and make it uh and
[4:20:41] reduce greenhouse gases for
[4:20:43] transportation. So, those are my report
[4:20:46] outs.
[4:20:47] >> Thank you. All right, I'll open up um
[4:20:49] agenda item number nine to public
[4:20:51] comment.
[4:20:54] Don't see anybody in the room. I don't
[4:20:56] see any hands online. So, I will close
[4:20:59] public comment for agenda item number
[4:21:02] nine and adjourn the meeting. Thank you
[4:21:05] everyone. Good night.
[4:21:08] She's done.