Summary: Existing law establishes in state government the Ocean Protection Council. Existing law requires the council to, among other things, establish policies to coordinate the collection, evaluation, and sharing of scientific data related to coastal and ocean resources among agencies. Existing law establishes the State Coastal Conservancy with prescribed powers and responsibilities for implementing and administering various programs intended to preserve, protect, and restore the state’s coastal areas.This bill would require the council, in consultation with the conservancy, to develop the Sea Level Rise Revolving Loan Pilot Program for purposes of providing low-interest loans to local jurisdictions for the purchase of coastal properties in their jurisdictions identified as vulnerable coastal property located in specified communities, including low-income communities, as provided. The bill would require the council, before January 1, 2024, in consultation with other state planning and coastal management agencies, as provided, to adopt guidelines and eligibility criteria for the program.
The bill would authorize specified local jurisdictions to apply for, and be awarded, a low-interest loan under the program from the conservancy, in consultation with the council, if the local jurisdiction develops and submits to the conservancy a vulnerable coastal property plan and completes all other requirements imposed by the council. The bill would require the conservancy, in consultation with the council, to review the plans to determine whether they meet the required criteria and guidelines for vulnerable coastal properties to be eligible for participation in the program. This bill contains other related provisions.
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
AB 2656 (Ting D) Planning and zoning.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. To print.
Summary: Current law requires the planning agency of the city or county to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Planning and Research, and the legislative body of the city or county, by April 1 of each year, an annual report that includes, among other things, the city or county’s progress in meeting its share of the regional housing needs. This bill would require the planning agency to provide the annual report on or by March 31 of each year.
AB 2668 (Grayson D) Planning and zoning: housing: streamlined, ministerial approval.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. To print.
Summary: Would prohibit a local government from determining that a development, including an application for a modification, is in conflict with the objective planning standards on the basis that application materials are not included, if the application contains sufficient information that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards. This bill contains other existing laws.
AB 2705 (Quirk-Silva D) Housing: fire safety standards.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. To print.
Summary: Current law requires the State Fire Marshal to prepare, adopt, and submit building standards and other fire and life safety regulations to the California Building Standards Commission for approval establishing minimum requirements for the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials. Current law requires the State Fire Marshal to seek the advice of the Secretary for Environmental Protection in establishing those requirements. This bill would prohibit the legislative body of a city or county from approving a discretionary entitlement, as defined, that would result in a new residential development project, as defined, being located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the city or county finds that the residential development project will meet specified standards intended to address wildfire risks, as specified.
AB 2762 (Bloom D) Housing: parking lots.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. To print.
Summary: Current law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would allow local agencies to build affordable housing on parking lots that serve public parks and recreational facilities, as provided.
SB 1292 (Stern D) Accessory dwelling units: setbacks.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. Article IV Section 8(a) of the Constitution and Joint Rule 55 dispensed with February 7, 2022, suspending the 30
calendar day requirement.
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Current law prohibits a local agency’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance from imposing a setback requirement of more than 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
This bill would remove the above-described prohibition on a local agency’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance, and would instead provide that the rear and side yard setback requirements for accessory dwelling units may be set by the local agency. The bill would authorize an accessory dwelling unit applicant to submit a request to the local agency for an alternative rear and side yard setback requirement if the local agency’s setback requirements make the building of the accessory dwelling unit infeasible. The bill would prohibit any rear and side yard setback requirements established pursuant to these provisions from being greater than those in effect as of January 1, 2020. The bill would specify that if the local agency did not have an accessory dwelling unit ordinance as of January 1, 2020, the applicable rear and side yard setback requirement is 4 feet. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
SB 1410 (Caballero D) California Environmental Quality Act: transportation impacts.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. Article IV Section 8(a) of the Constitution and Joint Rule 55 dispensed with February 7, 2022, suspending the 30 calendar day requirement.
Summary: CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop proposed guidelines for the implementation of CEQA by public agencies and requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt those guidelines. CEQA requires the office to prepare, develop, and transmit to the secretary for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the guidelines establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, as defined, that promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Existing law requires the office to recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts, as specified. CEQA authorizes the office to adopt guidelines establishing alternative metrics to the metrics used for traffic levels of service for transportation impacts outside transit priority areas. This bill instead would require the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas to only promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would retain the metric for traffic levels of service for projects outside transit priority areas, and require the potential metrics described above to only apply to projects within transit priority areas.
Public Safety
AB 1732 (Patterson R) Emergency services: hit-and-run incidents: Yellow Alert.
Introduced: 1/31/2022
Status: 2/10/2022-Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and TRANS.
Summary: Would authorize a law enforcement agency to issue a Yellow Alert if a person has been killed or has suffered serious bodily injury due to a hit-and-run incident and the law enforcement agency has specified information concerning the suspect or the suspect’s vehicle. The bill would authorize the Department of the California Highway Patrol to activate a Yellow Alert within the requested geographic area upon request of the law enforcement agency if it concurs with the law enforcement agency that specified requirements are met. This bill would also require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to track the number of Yellow Alert requests it receives from law enforcement agencies. On January 1 , 2026, the provisions of this bill would be repealed.
AB 1909 (Friedman D) Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill.
Introduced: 2/9/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Referred to Com. on TRANS.
Summary: Current law prohibits the operation of a motorized bicycle or a class 3 electric bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, as specified.
Current law authorizes a local authority to additionally prohibit the operation of class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. This bill would remove the prohibition of class 3 electric bicycles on these facilities and would remove the authority of a local jurisdiction to prohibit class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. The bill would instead authorize a local authority to prohibit the operation of a class 3 electric bicycle at a motor-assisted speed greater than 20 miles per hour. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Public Works
AB 1717 (Aguiar-Curry D) Public works: definition.
Introduced: 1/27/2022
Status: 2/3/2022-Referred to Com. on L. & E.
Summary: Current law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, be paid to workers employed on public works projects. Current law defines the term "public works" for purposes of requirements regarding the payment of prevailing wages to include construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for using public funds, except as specified. Current law makes a willful violation of laws relating to the payment of prevailing wages on public works a misdemeanor. This bill would expand the definition of "public works" to include fuel reduction work paid for in whole or in part out of public funds performed as part of a fire mitigation project, as specified.
AB 1886 (Cooper D) Public works: definition.
Introduced: 2/8/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Referred to Com. on L. & E.
Summary: Current law requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, be paid to workers employed on public works projects. Current law defines the term "public works" for purposes of requirements regarding the payment of prevailing wages to include construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for using public funds, except as specified. Existing law makes a willful violation of laws relating to the payment of prevailing wages on public works a misdemeanor.This bill would expand the definition of "public works" to include street sweeping maintenance performed for the preservation, protection, and keeping of any publicly owned or publicly operated street, road, or highway done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.
AB 1932 (Daly D) Public contracts: construction manager at-risk construction contracts.
Introduced: 2/10/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
Summary: Current law authorizes, until January 1, 2023, a county, with approval of the board of supervisors, or a public entity, of which the members of the county board of supervisors make up the members of the governing body of that public entity, with the approval of its governing body, to utilize construction manager at-risk construction contracts for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any infrastructure, owned or leased by the county, subject to certain requirements, including that the method may only be used for projects that are in excess of $1,000,000.This bill would indefinitely extend those provisions, and would also make a nonsubstantive change.
SB 991 (Newman D) Public contracts: progressive design-build: local agencies.
Introduced: 2/14/2022
Status: 2/15/2022-From printer.
Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2025, authorizes local agencies, as defined, to use the designbuild procurement process for specified public works with prescribed cost thresholds. Current law requires specified information submitted by a design-build entity in the design-build procurement process to be certified under penalty of perjury. This bill, until January 1, 2033, authorizes local agencies, defined as any city, county, city and county, or special district authorized by law to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of any water from any source, to use the progressive design-build process for public works projects in excess of $5,000,000, similar to the progressive design-build process authorized for use by the Director of General Services. The bill would require specified information to be verified under penalty of perjury.
Transportation
AB 2237 (Friedman D) Regional transportation plan: Active Transportation Program.
Introduced: 2/16/2022
Status: 2/17/2022-From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
Summary: (1)Existing law requires the Strategic Growth Council, by January 31, 2022, to complete an overview of the California Transportation Plan and all sustainable communities strategies and alternative planning strategies, an assessment of how implementation of the California Transportation Plan, sustainable communities strategies, and alternative planning strategies will influence the configuration of the statewide integrated multimodal transportation system, and a review of the potential impacts and opportunities for coordination of specified funding programs.This bill would require the council to convene key state agencies, metropolitan planning agencies, regional transportation agencies, and local governments to assist the council in completing the report. The bill would require that the report be completed by July 1, 2024, and additionally assess, among other things, barriers to the achievement of, and recommend actions at the state, regional, and local levels
to achieve, state and regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets related to the California Transportation Plan and all sustainable communities strategies and alternative planning strategies, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
SB 922 (Wiener D) California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: transportation-related projects.
Introduced: 2/3/2022
Status: 2/16/2022-Referred to Com. on E.Q.
Summary: CEQA, until January 1, 2030, exempts from its requirements bicycle transportation plans for an urbanized area for restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles under certain conditions. This bill would extend the above exemption indefinitely. The bill would also repeal the requirement that the bicycle transportation plan is for an urbanized area and would extend the exemption to an active transportation plan or pedestrian plan, or for a feasibility and planning study for active transportation, bicycle facilities, or pedestrian facilities.
SB 1049 (Dodd D) Transportation Resilience Program.
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Status: 2/15/2022-From printer.
Summary: Existing law generally provides for programming and allocation of state and federal transportation capital improvement program funds pursuant to the state transportation improvement program process administered by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law provides for allocation of certain other transportation capital improvement funds outside the state transportation improvement program process, including funds set aside for state highway rehabilitation under the state highway operation and protection program and funds from various other sources.This bill would establish the Transportation Resilience Program in the Department of Transportation, to be funded in the annual Budget Act from 15% of the available federal National Highway Performance Program funds and 100% of the available federal Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation program funds. The bill would provide for funds to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission for climate adaptation planning and resilience improvements, as defined, that address or mitigate the risk of recurring damage to, or closures of, the state highway system, other federal-aid roads, public transit facilities, and other surface transportation assets from extreme weather events, sea level rise, or other climate change-fueled natural hazards. The bill would establish specified eligibility criteria for projects to receive funding under the program and would require the commission to prioritize projects that meet certain criteria.
SB 1217 (Allen D) State-Regional Collaborative for Climate, Equity, and Resilience.
Introduced: 2/17/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-From printer.
Summary: Would establish, until January 1, 2028, the State-Regional Collaborative for Climate, Equity, and Resilience to provide guidance, on or before January 1, 2024, to the State Air Resources Board for approving new guidelines for sustainable communities strategies. The collaborative would consist of one representative each of the state board, the Transportation Agency, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Strategic Growth Council, along with 10 public members representing various local and state organizations, as specified. The bill would require, on or before December 31, 2025, the state board to update the guidelines for sustainable communities strategies to incorporate suggestions from the collaborative.
SB 1230 (Limón D) Greenhouse gas emissions: transportation.
Introduced: 2/17/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-From printer.
Summary: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The act requires the state board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would implement measures and programs that achieve the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets for the transportation sector identified in the 2017 scoping plan and that would minimize increases in greenhouse gas emissions in the electric power sector from transportation electrification through a combination of specified actions.
Waste Management
AB 2048 (Santiago D) Solid waste: franchise agreements: database.
Introduced: 2/14/2022
Status: 2/15/2022-From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.
Summary: Current law establishes in the California Environmental Protection Agency the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the department, generally regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. Current law authorizes each county, city, district, or other local governmental agency to determine aspects of solid waste handling that are of local concern and whether the services are to be provided by means of nonexclusive franchise, contract, license, permit, or otherwise. This bill would require the department to create and maintain a publicly accessible database of franchise agreements between contract waste and recycling haulers and any public agency.
Water
AB 2451 (Wood D) State Water Resources Control Board: drought planning.
Introduced: 2/17/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
Summary: Would require the State Water Resources Control Board to establish a Drought Section within the Division of Water Rights, as specified. The bill would require the state board, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to adopt principles and guidelines for diversion and use of water in coastal watersheds during times of water shortage for drought preparedness and climate resiliency and for the development of watershed-level contingency plans to support public trust uses, public health and safety, and the human right to water in times of water shortage. The bill would require the state board to adopt those principles and guidelines no later than March 31, 2023, as specified.
Wildfire
AB 2610 (Friedman D) Wildlife Conservation Board: vegetation management: fire reduction.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. To print.
Summary: Would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation related to establishing a grant program, to be administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board, for vegetation management treatments that reduce the risk of fire.
SB 896 (Dodd D) Wildfires: defensible space: grant programs: local governments.
Introduced: 2/1/2022
Status: 2/11/2022-Set for hearing March 8.
Summary: Current law requires a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, shrub-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material to maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side. Current law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to establish a statewide program to allow qualified entities, including counties and other political subdivisions of the state, to support and augment the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in its defensible space and home hardening assessment and education efforts. Current law requires the director to establish a common reporting platform that allows defensible space and home hardening assessment data, collected by the qualified entities, to be reported to the department. This bill would require any local government entity that is qualified to conduct these defensible space assessments in very high and high fire hazard severity zones and that reports that information to the department, to report that information using the common reporting platform.
SB 1266 (Borgeas R) Income taxes: credits: designated wildfire zones.
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Status: 2/18/2022-Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. Article IV Section 8(a) of the Constitution and Joint Rule 55 dispensed with February 7, 2022, suspending the 30 calendar day requirement.
Summary: The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law.
This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028, in an amount that is equal to 50% of the amount incurred by a natural person or a small business, as defined, during the taxable year for the purchase of a backup electricity generator that does not exceed $7,000 or a solar battery that does not exceed $10,000, for use in a residence or commercial property in a designated wildfire zone, as defined. The bill would also include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure.
Total Measures: 79
Total Tracking Forms: 79
TOWN of PORTOLA VALLEY
Town Hall: 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 ~ Tel: (650) 851-1700 Fax: (650) 851-4677 February 25, 2022
The Honorable Sydney Kamlager
Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee #4 on State Administration and General Government 1021 O Street, Suite 6510
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Wendy Carrillo
Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #4 on State Administration 1021 O Street, Suite 5730
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Proposed Trailer Bill Regarding Insufficient Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Backfills--OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Chair Kamlager & Chair Carrillo:
On behalf of the Town of Portola Valley, I write to request that the proposed trailer bill currently titled “Insufficient Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Backfills” be amended from its current form. The proposed trailer bill would change the current VLF statute in a way that significantly harms counties and cities by using their own local tax revenues to pay the State’s inlieu Vehicle License Fee (VLF) obligation. Specifically, the proposal would take local agencies own “excess” or “returned” educational revenue augmentation fund (ERAF) dollars that are currently required to be returned to local agencies after all school districts have been fully funded and would use the local agencies’ funds to pay the State’s VLF obligation. This proposal ultimately will result in San Mateo County and its cities losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year when all schools in the County turn basic aid. These funds are already budgeted by many municipalities for important local public services.
The VLF “Swap” was an integral part of the 2004 Budget compromise in which counties and cities gave up significant revenue to address the State’s budget deficit. Under the terms of that compromise, the State permanently reduced annual VLF revenues, which were a significant funding source for counties and cities, by 67.5% and, for two fiscal years, the State also shifted an additional $1.3 billion in local property taxes away from all counties, cities, and special districts to pay the State’s school funding obligations. In exchange, the State guaranteed counties and cities an annual in-lieu VLF payment (adjusted annually for property tax growth) to compensate for the loss of the prior VLF revenues. The resulting VLF law, which codified this compromise and remains in effect, explicitly provides that counties and cities’ excess ERAF monies would not be #5
'i'o'Rcoc
•' 1 e,
.. ~ r
tit: -- ;
"' . . ('1 "' • Cffo'R'<'\
2 available to pay the State’s VLF obligation. Further, the State Legislature agreed to place Proposition 1A on the ballot that, as approved by the voters, amended the Constitution to ensure that future “shifts” of local agency funds would not be used to cover State obligations.
The VLF Swap legislation identified two direct sources of funding to pay the State’s in-lieu VLF obligation to counties and cities: (a) ERAF distributions to non-basic aid schools; and (b) property tax revenues of non-basic aid schools. The State backfills the non-basic aid school districts for these amounts so schools do not suffer any financial loss from the in-lieu VLF obligation. The Legislature did not anticipate the identified funding sources would ever be insufficient to fulfill the State’s VLF obligation. In recent years, however, VLF revenue shortfalls have occurred and, as a result, cities and counties have been required to make special appropriation requests to receive their full amount of VLF in arrears.
Because of the importance of the State’s required in-lieu VLF payments as an annual funding source for local agencies, in 2021, the counties of San Mateo and Napa proposed a statutory fix that would streamline the timing and process for reimbursement of VLF shortfalls. Under the proposal, elements of which are reflected in the proposed trailer bill, counties would alert the Department of Finance of anticipated VLF shortfalls in time for the State to budget and allocate payment during the fiscal year in which the shortfall occurs, as opposed to the current process wherein the State pays its VLF obligation approximately 14 months in arrears. This would prevent disruption to necessary local public services or reductions in staffing at the County or its cities.
Rather than solve this issue, the Department of Finance’s proposed Budget Trailer Bill includes an amendment to Revenue & Taxation Code § 97.70(f)(1) which fundamentally changes the source of funds to pay the State’s VLF obligation to counties and cities. This change does not solve the VLF shortfall problem but actually harms local agencies by using their own local tax revenues to pay the State’s VLF obligation. A county with all -- or nearly all -- basic aid school districts will be financially harmed – severely and permanently -- if this proposed trailer bill is enacted in its current form.
As such, the Town of Portola Valley urges the following amendments to Revenue and Taxation Code § 97.70(f)(1) of the draft trailer bill. These amendments will return the section to current law:
(f) This section shall not be construed to do any of the following: (1) Reduce any allocations of excess, additional, or remaining funds that would otherwise have been allocated to county superintendents of schools, cities, counties, and cities and counties pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Sections
97.2 and 97.3 or Article 4 (commencing with Section 98) had this section not been enacted. The allocations required by this section shall be adjusted to comply with this paragraph. For the 2022-23 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, funds allocated to a city, county, or a city and county pursuant to subclause (III) of clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Sections 97.2 and/or 97.3, shall be counted by
3 the auditor toward satisfying the city’s, county’s, or city’s and county’s vehicle license fee adjustment amount.
In conclusion, the Town of Portola Valley opposes the current draft of the proposed trailer bill, absent the critical changes proposed in this letter. Without these changes, the current trailer bill reneges on commitments that the State previously enacted into law regarding the source of VLF funding, violates Prop 1A and the terms of the 2004 budget compromise between the State and local agencies, and ultimately takes hundreds of millions of dollars from local agencies’ budgets, their employees, and the critical public safety and health services provided by local agencies.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Dennis
Town Manager, Town of Portola Valley
CC: Senator Josh Becker
Senator Scott Weiner
Assembly Member Kevin Mullin
Assembly Member Marc Berman
Assembly Member Phil Ting
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County, County Manager Mike Callagy
1 Sharon Hanlon
From: Town Center
From: Loni Austin
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 5:12 PM
To: Maryann Moise Derwin <[email protected]>; Sarah Wernikoff <[email protected]>; Jeff Aalfs <[email protected]>; John Richards <[email protected]>; Craig Hughes <[email protected]>; Town Center <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Regarding housing
Dear Town Council and Ad Hoc Housing Committee,
I sent the below letter to Laura Russell today. I just want to go on record with our Council and the relevant committee as well.
Thank you,
Loni
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Loni Austin
Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 3:38 PM
Subject: Regarding housing
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Brent Austin , Loni Austin
Hi Laura,
We are not supportive of the RHNA housing being concentrated in one part of town. We are definitely not supportive of it being concentrated in the Nathorst Triangle.
We are frankly not supportive of additional housing in our town at all. We realize we are stuck with this mandate, but we would like to go on record that we do not agree with it being concentrated in the Nathorst Triangle area due to the massive congestion of cars and residents this will create in one of the most important corners of our town which also happens to be the furthest area of town away from the freeway. Our town simply does not have the infrastructure to support additional housing at this level, let alone concentrated in this one area close to two schools (Corte Madera and Priory) and neighborhoods relying on only two roads as options for evacuation in case of fire or earthquake.
We realize we have been given these housing requirements by (an out of touch) State Government. Fire issues aside, to think that by creating a blanket mandate requiring towns to build more housing we can control market rates and fix the low income housing issue is simple thinking by ideologues. As we all know, this is a complex and multi-faceted issue and it is not as simple as "build housing and we will have housing for our service workers and low income neighbors." Market rates will dictate prices and we will be stuck with the problems created by high density housing in a town without infrastructure to support it.
What good urban planner would concentrate more housing in a town backed up to open space where severe drought and heat create fire conditions here in California we haven't seen in decades? And in a town like ours that has only two, one-lane roads in and out? We are literally "playing with fire." As a family who lives close to the Nathorst triangle, we can tell you traffic in this part of town is already more than our roads can handle. We are extremely worried about the current proposal to consolidate the 253 new units to this area of town. There are too many cars, driving too fast on our two roads that when built, were not meant to support a suburb which is what Portola Valley will become if more and more housing is mandated to #6
2 be built here. In case it needs to be pointed out, our town was designed to accommodate country traffic. We now have a major destination restaurant, four major schools (Ormondale, Windmill, Priory and Corte Madera) huge peletons of bikers coming through, more hikers than ever at Windy Hill due to flexible work from home schedules, and increased traffic due to a more affluent community that employs nannies, gardeners and constant ongoing construction. All of this flowing in and out of this tiny triangular corridor. Not to mention the residents that rely on getting in and out for their own daily schedules and rhythms. Even those who live in other parts of town, will be affected if everything is concentrated here.
We understand the ideology behind the housing, but it is simply not practical (infrastructure and services) or responsible (fire) to concentrate everything in one area of town. The wild fire evacuation issue is a real one, but even without it, it just makes absolutely no sense. Along with the housing, is the town going to add lanes to Portola and Alpine Roads? Traffic lights? Roundabouts? Proper cross walks? I have attended the meetings I can. I have written letters and signed petitions. I feel like we are not getting through here. Please listen to your residents.
Thank you,
Loni and Brent Austin
Echo Lane
March 2, 2022
To the Portola Valley Town Council, Planning Commission and Ad Hoc Housing Committee.
Hello,
We are Ellen and Jim Vernazza at 120 Nathhorst. We have lived in town for 35 years. We are asking that you NOT drastically change our town’s character by bunching up high density housing in residential neighborhoods. We understand that housing needs to be provided but to engulf a couple of areas with all of the high density housing changes the whole character of this beautiful town -much less the safety of its residents.
There are very good locations to put the very high density projects that would not affect its neighbors.
This town has two softball fields and two soccer fields.
The town center soccer field would be a perfect place to locate a very high density housing complex as it is:
1) a site already owned by the town
2) a site back off of the road that would lessen the visual effects of urbanizing our scenic corridors. 3) a site where the new residents would have access to the town center’s open space and library rather than living in a crowded more noisy and already busy intersection. 4) a site where its residents and many hundreds of cars would most likely exit town in an emergency down Sand Hill Road rather than coming through the very congested Alpine Road. and Portola Road intersection.
5) a site that would not put the burden of noise, cars, and loss of peacefulness on an existing neighborhood and change that neighborhood forever.
6) a site where you would not need to rezone residents’ single family homes to high density zoning diminishing their and their neighbors property values forever. 7) a site that would not make us lose the services we depend on such as Roberts, the hardware store, the salon and the offices that serve our community. Removing these businesses would just add more traffic and gasoline usage going out of town for food and services. Bianchinis does not have the capacity or parking to service all of us.
Making one very high density project in an area that does not ruin the scenic corridor makes so much more sense and it would leave the opportunity for much smaller density projects to be dispersed around the whole town and not change the rural feeling of our town.
Thanks for listening
Ellen and Jim Vernazza
#7
#12
There are no written materials for Closed Session item