Portola Valley City Council
April 13, 2022

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Remote Meeting Covid-19 Advisory: On September 16, the Governor signed AB 361, amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) to allow legislative bodies to continue to meet virtually during the present public health emergency. AB 361 is an urgency bill which goes into effect on October 1, 2021. The bill extends the teleconference procedures authorized in Executive Order N-29-20, which expired on September 30, 2021, during the current COVID-19 pandemic and allows future teleconference procedures under limited circumstances defined in the bill. Portola Valley Town Council and commission and committee public meetings are being conducted electronically to prevent imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The meeting is not available for in-person attendance. Members of the public may attend the meeting by video or phone linked in this agenda.

Remote Public Comments: Meeting participants are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. Please submit your comments using this online form by 1:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Time permitting, your correspondence will be uploaded to the website. All received questions will be forwarded to Council, Commission, or Committee members for consideration during the meeting and included in the public record. Additionally, the public body will take questions using the Q&A button for those who attend the meeting online or by phone. Finally, if you call in, you may provide comments by pressing *9 on your phone to "raise your hand" and *6 to mute/unmute yourself. The meeting Chair will call on people to speak by the phone number calling in.

We encourage anyone who has the ability to join the meeting online to do so. You will have access to any presentations that will be shown on your screen and can easily ask questions using the “raise your hand” feature when the Chair calls for them.

Below are instructions on Virtual Participation via Zoom.

To access the meeting by computer:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84376673701?pwd=U1NEd2Y4bXdQcFQwdGtNeGVSK1lMUT09 Webinar ID:
843 7667 3701
Passcode:
466655
To access the meeting by phone:

Dial 1-669-900-6833 or
1-888-788-0099 (toll-free)
Mute/Unmute – Press *6 / Raise Hand – Press *9
6:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Derwin, Councilmember Aalfs, Councilmember Richards, Vice Mayor Wernikoff, and Mayor Hughes ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION (4)

1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Government Code Section §54957(b)(1)
Title – Town Manager

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
6:00 PM – Special Meeting of the Town Council
Wednesday, April 13, 2022

THIS SPECIAL MEETING IS BEING HELD VIA

VIDEOCONFERENCE ONLY

Agenda - Town Council Meeting
April 13, 2022

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject may do so now. Please note, however, that the Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items, not on the agenda.

Speakers' time is limited to three minutes.

CONSENT AGENDA
The following items are voted on at once by the body, unless a member of the body requests an item be considered separately. Members of the public are permitted to comment on any item on the consent calendar before the body votes on the consent agenda.

2. Approval of Minutes – Action and Detailed Summary Minutes for March 23, 2022 (5)

3. Approval of Warrant List – April 13, 2022 (51)

4. Report by Town Manager – 2
nd Quarter Budget Report (57)

5. Appointment by Mayor – Member to the Emergency Preparedness Committee (58)

6. Recommendation by Town Manager – Town Permit Modifications to Support Wildfire Resiliency (59)

7. Recommendation by Town Attorney – Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the State of Emergency and (61) Need to Continue Conducting Town Public Meetings Remotely (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley Confirming Existing State of Emergency and Authorizing Continued Remote Public Meetings Under AB 361 (Resolution No. __)

8. Recommendation by Part Time Assistant to the Town Manager – Second Reading of Ordinance and (65) Waive Further Reading Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 of the Portola Valley Municipal Code and Adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to Implement SB 1383
(a) Second Reading of Title, Waive Further Reading, and Adopt an Ordinance of the Town Council of Portola Valley Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 [Garbage] and Adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to Title 8 [Health and Safety] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code (Ordinance No . __)

9. Recommendation by Public Works Director – Annual Street Resurfacing Project FY 2022/2023 – Surface (107) Seals Project No. 2022-PW01
(a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley Approving Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for the 2022/2023 Street Resurfacing Project Surface Seals No. 2022-PW01 (Resolution No. __)

10. Recommendation by Town Attorney - Approval of Two Affordable Housing Agreements between the Town (113) and Benedictine Fathers Priory Inc. governing (1) two of six apartments and (2) 102 Gambetta Lane

REGULAR AGENDA

11. Update from Fire Marshal Don Bullard, Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) Work (145)

12. Farmers’ Market Annual Report (146)

13. Request from Race and Equity Committee – Community-Based Town Seal Project (147)

14. Public Works Director – Presentation and Public Works Department Overview (148)

15. Public Works Director – Public Works Department Future Staffing Needs Discussion (149)

16. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMITTEE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES REPORTS (160) Oral reports arising out of liaison appointments to both in-town and regional committees and initiatives. There are no written materials and the Town Council does not take action under this agenda item.

17. TOWN MANAGER REPORT (161)

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

18. Town Council Digest – March 24, 2022 (162)

Agenda - Town Council Meeting
April 13, 2022

19. Town Council Digest – April 1, 2022 (189)

20. Town Council Digest – April 7, 2022 (196)
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION (211)

21. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section §54956.9(d)(2) conference with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation. Written communication threatening litigation (a Brown Act “cease and desist” letter from Lloyd (Rusty) day, Kristin Day, Ron Eastman, Bruce Roberts, Shirley Roberts, James Rooney, Jim Vernazza and Ellen Vernazza dated March 30, 2022).

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (650) 851-1700. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Portola Valley Library located adjacent to Town Hall. In accordance with SB343, Town Council agenda materials released less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, are available to the public at Town Hall, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028.

SUBMITTAL OF AGENDA ITEMS
The deadline for submittal of agenda items is 12:00 Noon WEDNESDAY of the week prior to the meeting. By law no action can be taken on matters not listed on the printed agenda unless the Town Council determines that emergency action is required.

Non-emergency matters brought up by the public under Communications may be referred to the administrative staff for appropriate action.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items.

If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).

#1
There are no written materials for this item

______________________________________________________________________________________

ACTION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2022, 7:00 P.M.

Remote Meeting Covid-19 Advisory: On March 17, 2020, the Governor of California issued Executive Order N-29-20, suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the statewide Shelter-In-Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines that discourage large public gatherings, Portola Valley Town Council meetings are conducted electronically via ZOOM.

Convene Special Meeting
Mayor Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

Roll Call

Present: Councilmembers Aalfs, Derwin, Richards, Vice Mayor Wernikoff, and Mayor Hughes
Open Communications
The following members of the public addressed the Town Council:
• Rita Comes
• Bob Adams
• “Meg”
• Betsy
Morgenthaler
• Karen Vahtra
• Dale Pfau
• Bob Turcott
• Danna Breen
• Rusty Day
• William Russell
• Janey Ward
• David Cardinal
• Sandy Jelich
Anderson
• Caroline
Vertongen
• Caryl Russell
• Bruce Roberts
• Ronald Eastman
• “Eckstein”
• Jon Silver
• Mary Hufty
• Alyson Illich
• Tom Hafkenschiel
Closed Session Report

1. Town Attorney – Report out on March 9, 2022, Closed Session

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
7:00 PM – Special Meeting of the Town Council
Wednesday, March 23, 2022

THIS SPECIAL MEETING WAS HELD VIA

VIDEOCONFERENCE ONLY

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

ACTION MINUTES

The Town Council directed staff to enter into an agreement with MRG, which performs the performance reviews of the Town Manager.

Consent Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes – March 9, 2022 Action and Detailed Summary minutes

3. Approval of Warrant List – March 23, 2022

4. Proclamation Declaring April as National Poetry Month

5. Recommendation by Wildfire Preparedness Committee – Proposed Charter Revision

6. Recommendation by Parks and Recreation Committee – Proposed Charter Revision

7. Appointment by Mayor – Member to Emergency Preparedness Committee

8. Appointment by Mayor – Member to Race and Equity Committee

9. Recommendation by Town Attorney – Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the State of Emergency and Need to Continue Conducting Town Public Meetings Remotely
(a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley Confirming Existing State of Emergency and Authorizing Continued Remote Public Meetings Under AB 361 (Resolution No. 2883-2022)

10. Recommendation by Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager – Fiscal year 2022-2023 Council Priorities Adoption
Motion
Councilmember Richards moved and Councilmember Aalfs seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The question was called and the motion was passed unanimously.

Regular Agenda

11. Update from Town Lobbyist on State Budget and Introduction Legislation The Council heard from the Town Lobbyist on recently introduced bills and the Governor’s proposed budget.

12. Recommendation by Part Time Assistant to the Town Manager – First Reading of Ordinance repealing Old Chapter 8.08 of the Portola Valley Municipal Code and Adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to implement SB 1383
(a) First reading of Title, Waive Further Reading, and Introduce an Ordinance of the Town Council of Portola Valley Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 [Garbage] and adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to Title 8 [Health and Safety] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code (Ordinance No. ___) The Council approved an ordinance updating the Town’s organic recycling process, per state law.

13. Update and Discussion on Housing Element Process
The Council received an update on the ongoing Housing Element update and approved a budget increase of up to $441,432 to both ensure that the Town meets State statutory requirements to complete the Housing Element on time as well as exploring recent ideas from the Housing Element Committee.

14. Council Liaison Committee and Regional Agencies Report All five Council members provided reports on the last two week’s regional meetings, local committee meetings, subcommittee meetings, and other items of note.

15. Town Manager Report
The Town Manager provided his regular report.

Written Communications
The Council reviewed written communications for the body over the last two weeks.

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:32 A.M.

1 PORTOLA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NO. xxx, March 23, 2022

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Derwin called the Town Council’s Special Teleconference-only meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ms.

Hanlon called the roll.

Present: Councilmembers Jeff Aalfs, John Richards, and Maryann Derwin; Vice Mayor Sarah Wernikoff; Mayor Craig Hughes

Absent: None
Others: Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager
Cara Silver, Town Attorney
Melvin Gaines, Assistant Town Manager
Howard Young, Public Works Director
Brandi de Garmeaux, Assistant to the Town Manager
Laura Russell, Planning & Building Director
Adrienne Smith, Senior Planner
Sharon Hanlon, Town Clerk
Attendees: Rita Comes
Bob Adams
“Meg”
Betsy Morgenthaler
Karen Vahtra
Dale Pfau
Bob Turcott
Danna Breen
Rusty Day
William Russell
Janey Ward
David Cardinal
Sandy Jelich
Caroline Vertongen
Caryl Russell
Bruce Roberts
Ronald Eastman
“Eckstein”
John Silver
Mary Hufty
Alyson Illich
Dale Pfau
Tom Hafkenschiel

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Danna Breen congratulated Town Clerk Hanlon on her last Council meeting before her retirement on March 31st, stating that Clerk Hanlon has been loved by residents, committees, and committee chairs, all of whom have been served by her organization and guidance, her calm presence and knowing smiling.

Clerk Hanlon helped her with her forms every year and was successful in getting her into the sexual harassment training that she needed. Ms. Breen announced a Last-Day Clap-Out for Clerk Hanlon the next Thursday at 5:00 and said she should be looking for many grateful residents to cheer her on as she turns the page into pottery, stained glass and dog-loving.

SUMMARY MINUTES

2 Bob Turcott agreed with Ms. Breen’s comments and conveyed appreciation for Clerk Hanlon’s professionalism and calming influence on the meetings, which is sometimes needed. He expressed that she will be missed, but he wished her the best in her well-deserved retirement. Mr. Turcott commented on the letter on red page 173 from the Chairs of the Geologic Safety Committee, Wildfire Preparedness Committee, and Emergency Preparedness Committee. The letter calls for engagement by the committees in the revision of the Safety Element. The letter surprised him because these committees have apparently been excluded from the Safety Element revision to date. The residents have been told that work on the Safety Element has been underway for months and that results have been feeding into the Housing Element Committee, but the letter from the Chairs indicates that whatever work has been done has excluded the public from the process. He said they have seen this before, when the Hazard Mitigation Plan submitted to FEMA grossly understated their wildfire hazard. He said that Mayor Hughes agreed, calling it “glaringly bad.” Clearly, a root cause of that was lack of public participation. The first opportunity for public review was after the deadline for correction had passed. He asked that the error not be repeated with the Safety Element revision. Secondly, he was surprised that the topic was not agendized for the current meetings, as residents have been calling for a start to the Safety Element revision for more than a year, highlighting that the work needs to be done in order to make informed decisions about meeting the RHNA mandate. The Town is now under enormous time pressure to complete the work on the Housing Element revision, and to do so without being informed by an updated and vetted Safety Element. He urged the Council to immediately direct staff to meaningfully engage the committees that focus on safety in the process of revising the Safety Element.

Mayor Hughes noted that this item is on the agenda under “Digest.” They normally discuss those at the end of the meeting and also take public comment there
Dale Pfau supported Mr. Turcott’s comments and said he didn’t see it actually named as an agenda item.

Mayor Hughes informed it was item number 17.

Karen Vahtra commented on the same item. She wanted to alert the majority of residents, who may tune out by then, to the importance of this item. She urged all residents to look at the very last section of the packet, particularly beginning on page 175. She said that an independent Safety Committee had drafted a wildfire section for the upcoming Safety Element because they just could not wait any longer. They need the Safety Element to guide decisions on where and how to safely accommodate the RHNA allocations.

With only one significant rain this year, California will likely suffer from a large number of wildfires in 2022.

Portola Valley is only partially ready by implementing a few easier projects, such as cleaning up Alpine and Portola Roads and finally passing the home hardening ordinance. She said they need a full, comprehensive analysis of the hazards and risks in town in order to drive the next stage of wildfire preparedness. At a bare minimum, they need to know where and how they can safely build for fire, create a real vegetation management program for large open areas, and a program to successful evacuate during an emergency, including the large number of children in the schools. She said, “Let us take the lead to prepare our town thoroughly from the looming threat of wildfire on our homes and our lives. We are all in this together and what we individually do affects each of our neighbors. Wildfire does not understand property lines. Let us work together to create a systematic approach, such as the one proposed at the very back of the packet.”
Rusty Day thanked and applauded Clerk Hanlon for her years of service to the Town, stating that she has been a breath of fresh air with her cordiality, and a welcome presence in Town Council. They will all miss her. Mr. Day raised the letter sent to the Council by the Chairmans of the Wildfire Preparedness, Emergency Preparedness and Geologic Safety Committees, pointing out that they have not been consulted in the review or preparation of the Safety Element. The Town says they embarked on this in August of 2021, which means they are close to eight months into the process, and although they keep hearing that the committees will be involved in providing input and oversight to protect the safety of residents and addresses their concerns, they have not been involved to date and have not received a response to their letter to the Council of 10 days ago. Although agendized for the meeting, this is by nothing more than including as item number 7 under a line item that reads, “Town Digest.” The item is scheduled to occur at the end of the meeting when a good majority of early participants may have gone to bed. He did not think it represented anything close to the level of importance or priority that the Town

3 should be assigning to development and preparation of a revised Safety Element, particularly under the State mandate which requires engagement in a comprehensive hazard and risk assessment of wildfire in the town. He asked why those committees are not involved and why the process is not being done in public. He wondered why there is a Housing Element Committee and not a Safety Element Committee.

He said he wrote and asked these questions of Town Manager Dennis on March 2nd and has received no response.

Betsy Morgenthaler said she couldn’t wait to clap for Clerk Hanlon on the 31st. She said the Town is working to create housing for Town employees, and she said Clerk Hanlon was grandfathered in, and she wished her to come, visit and stay.
“Meg” said the idea of rezoning private property with homes was a new idea to many. Her understanding was that RHNA requires that, especially low-income housing be disbursed around the Valley. Based on the drawings, they are failing to meet the RHNA requirements. She suggested ideas for other areas, saying it should be close to public transit if possible and areas where services are available. She noted that between Wayside and Hayfields, along Portola Road, there are some little lots, but behind them are some very big lots, some of which back up to Santa Maria, which needs a better fire exit. She suggested this as an area to be rezoned, from the church over to Hayfields, two lots deep, similar to the discussion on the Alpine Road site. She commented also that there are many large lots. The original Town plan suggested one acre per property. There are of properties that could be rezoned on Westridge and Blue Oaks, so that each lot with more than two acres could be turned into three separate lots for zoning purposes. An advantage would be that, as people age out and want to turn their property over to kids, their kids could sell one of the lots to help pay the taxes on the others. Elderly people may also find that selling off an acre would be very helpful. She encouraged the Town to rezone all lots over two acres to one acre each, with property lines to go around buildings. Lastly, she felt the Town should approve even very small ADUs. For example, ADUs that are garages and/or carports in the Ranch could be turned into ADUs for very low-income housing, which is what she thinks many people would like to see. She pointed out that the plan currently doesn’t meeting the State requirements, but if they are going to rezone, they should look at all of the options for rezoning and for scattering it throughout Portola Valley, per requirements of the State.

Bob Adams complimented the Ad Hoc Housing Committee members and acknowledged the tough job they are given. He said he had a poor reaction to the map being proposed on the 22nd and the 28th, but he thinks they have been admirable in trying to listen and understand and look at alternatives. He was very appreciative of this. He thought everyone should think about the 11 or 13 acres next to Blue Oaks owned by the Town. If 20 units of housing were put on two of those acres, it would provide more than half of the high-density housing required. Also, there was an extensive letter sent to the Housing Committee by Bill Russell, who outlined the choices and potentials. He felt every Housing Committee member should read this letter as it contains positive and reasonable thoughts. He appreciated Mr. Russell writing the letter.

Rita Comes commented on all that Clerk Hanlon has done for the town and described her as a breath of fresh air. She appreciated her thoughtfulness in accommodating residents with information on attendees at Town meetings. She hoped that Council will find a way to continue that. Ms. Comes thanked whoever put together the Geo-Safety Committee meeting the previous week, as she has been asking for that meeting for the past six months. She said there were two incredible and informative presentations at the meeting. She thought the meeting was recorded and is up on the website.

Mayor Hughes reiterated praise for Clerk Hanlon and expressed his enjoyment of the lunch with her and Town staff, sharing great memories of the past 21 years that she has been helping run and manage the Town.

Mayor Hughes invited staff to respond to any of the public comments, or to follow up online.

Clerk Hanlon shared it has been her honor and pleasure to perform her duties. She said she loves the town and will miss it. Town Manager Dennis interjected that the team gave Clerk Hanlon a token of appreciation, one of the old Alpine Road signs that had been up for about 30 years, presumably from the

4 corner of Alpine and Portola Road. It was an idea from Howard Young, Public Works Director, and he hoped Clerk Hanlon would hang it with pride.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
(1) Town Attorney – Report Out on March 9, 2022, Closed Session Town Attorney Silver reported that the closed session was in connection with the annual performance review of the Town Manager. The Town Council directed staff to enter into an agreement with MRG, which performs the performance reviews of the Town Manager. Staff has entered into that contract.

Mayor Hughes invited public comment on the item. Hearing none, he closed the item.

CONSENT AGENDA
(2) Approval of Minutes – Action and Detailed Summary Minutes for March 9, 2022 (3) Approval of Warrant List – March 23, 2022
(4) Proclamation Declaring April as National Poetry Month (5) Recommendation by Wildfire Preparedness Committee – Proposed Charter Revision (6) Recommendation by Parks and Recreation Committee – Proposed Charter Revision (7) Appointment by Mayor – Member to the Emergency Preparedness Committee (8) Appointment by Mayor – Member to the Race and Equity Committee (9) Recommendation by Town Attorney – Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the State of Emergency and Need to Continue Conducting Town Public Meeting Remotely. (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley Confirming Existing State of Emergency and Authorizing Continued Remote Public Meetings Under AB 361 (Resolution No. 2883-2022).
(10) Recommendation by Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager - Fiscal year 2022-23 Council Priorities Adoption
Mayor Hughes invited public comment on Consent Agenda items.

Caryl Russell had been unable to connect prior to the Consent Agenda due to technical problems. He wanted to comment on an earlier comment by Bob Adams, regarding the document he sent to the Town Council outlining his thoughts on the best options for the Housing Element solution. He wondered how many had been able to read it.

Mayor Hughes and Councilmember Aalfs replied that they have not seen it. Mr. Russell said he tried to outline all of the available options for adding housing, which are five. One, increasing the number of ADUs; two, making Town-owned vacant land available for development; three, acquiring privately-owned vacant land and making it available to developers; four, expanding the use of existing commercial properties; and five, up-zoning some or all of the single-family homes in town, against the wishes of the owners. He said in the document he analyzes from the perspective of the homeowners, all of the positives and negatives of all of the options. He asked if the Town Council is in favor of making Townowned vacant land available for development to the extent possible. If so, he asked what the Town and the Housing Element Committee is doing to make that a reality. He also asked if the Town agrees that the worst and last option is to up-zone single family residences. Finally, regarding his suggestion in the memo

5 that based on recent communications it is necessary for Mayor Hughes to recuse himself for the reasons stated in the memo. He hoped the Town Council would read the memo, consult with Counsel and respond on how they will proceed.

Mayor Hughes asked if staff had received a copy of the memo. Town Manager Dennis had not seen it.

Town Attorney Silver said it was not sent to her either.

Bruce Roberts commented on item number 9, the continuation of remote meetings. He quoted from California Government Code Section 54954.4, “Complete, truthful and uninterrupted compliance with the Brown Act is of overriding public importance. Nothing shall be interpreted to suspend, eliminate or modify the duty of the Town Council to comply with the Brown Act.” Mr. Roberts said the Town Council eliminates any emails among them from being disclosed, and he felt that they had no legal right to do that, and it is a great disservice to the community to allow Councilmembers to have communications that are not public during public meetings.

Ron Eastman agreed with Mr. Roberts’ comments that there is no reason to continue Town Council meetings on Zoom. The public cannot see who the Councilmembers are texting and who is feeding information during the meeting. He felt that everyone behaves better when in the same room, face-toface, and he felt this would be a huge positive for the community, especially in current times.

Mayor Hughes invited staff to respond to any of the comments, particularly any updates on the Schoolhouse readiness for hybrid meetings and any comments from Town Attorney Silver in response to the comment about emails.

Town Manager Dennis reported on installation of the hybrid system in the Historic Schoolhouse, which started the previous week. They hoped to begin testing in the next day or two and hoped to start using the Schoolhouse again for Council meetings, Commission meetings and Committee meetings. He said the reason they haven’t moved yet is primarily because they did not want any interruption in the ability of people to participate remotely, because they think that will continue to be popular.

Town Attorney Silver responded to the comment of Councilmembers receiving emails and texts during meetings, stating that it is a practice that can occur whether a meeting is in-person or via Zoom. She said staff has always taken the position that if public members want to text or email comments that they will be taken and should be directed to the Town Manager or Town Clerk. She said they are happy to read the comments into the record during a Zoom meeting if someone is not able to present them verbally through Zoom or cell phone. It is seen as an extra forum for participation in public meetings and she did not see it as Brown Act violation. Mayor Hughes asked if her opinion was that they are not enabling any new policy which changes rules with respect to the Brown Act, other than enabling Zoom meetings. Town Attorney Silver said this is correct, and that the State still authorizes Zoom meetings during the current state of emergency.

Town Manager Dennis added that the email Mr. Russell sent to the Town was received at about 2:00 p.m. but, unfortunately, was not addressed specifically to the Town Council, which is probably why it did not get to individual members immediately. He said they will distribute the memo the next morning.

Caroline Vertongen said it was her understanding that texts were not allowed and should be disclosed to the public. In regard to emails, she said they send Councilmembers emails when they know that staff has not received them. They have sent duplicates to the Town Manager and have been addressing this issue for over three years with nothing being fixed. She said there was a big announcement today regarding a Regular Agenda item, talking about the Housing Element. She said she has summarized a few of the documents that she has sent over years to the Planning Commission, to the Council, to other committees, which were not put in the public comments. She said it is not acceptable and it is not the first time they have mentioned it. She said it is a dysfunctional government and she agrees with fellow residents that think this is a violation of the Brown Act.

6 “Eckstein” commented it is a “black hole” sending messages to the Town. He has left many voicemails for various people and never hears back. It is a continuing problem and was worse when the offices were closed for a very long time. He has a friend in the “upzone area” who sent a letter to Town Manager Dennis and never heard back. They are very upset, being in the area being discussed for rezoning. He said because of the lack of response from the Town, people feel ignored. He said they have never taken a survey of residents and how they feel about the Town’s next steps. He thought the Town Council and Town Manager were supposed to help the residents as their primary role, and it seems they are more willing to fight the townspeople than to push back a little at the State and at least challenge them as to why they require something so outside the realm of the town’s situation. Also, with all the fire danger and the drought, he felt it was common sense to at least make an attempt to appeal the number of units. He asked where the Council’s loyalty lies – with the people who elected them, or with the State. He could not fathom blind compliance with the State and ignoring the requests of the residents.

Mayor Hughes reminded public commenters that they are currently on the Consent Agenda items 2 through 10 and invited comments on those particular items.

John Silver said he just joined the meeting during the last few speakers but having heard what was said felt he needed to comment, even though it an abuse of the Consent Agenda. He said, having lived in Portola Valley all of his life that he can remember, he finds it disheartening to hear the Town Council attacked the way he has heard. He knew all of the original five Town Councilmembers personally, who were venerated. He did not feel the current Town Council is fighting the townspeople but felt when they fight among themselves – which is happening – they only hurt their ability to respond effectively to the State. He acknowledged that no one in the town likes the requirements from the State. Having served three terms as Mayor of Portola Valley and been on the County Planning Commission for 13 years, he chaired the petition drive that got the southern part of the county, including Portola Valley, into the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District. This meant thousands of acres of land in Portola Valley are preserved permanently in open space. The idea of being required to plan for 300 new units was not something he looked forward to; however, the last thing they need to be doing is challenging each other’s integrity and goodwill. They need to figure out if there is a way to do this which will work within the Portola Valley ethic. If they cannot, he would agree with going to their State Senator or the Governor, but he had no illusion that they would get very far. He said the housing crisis has gotten so severe that rich communities like Portola Valley can be likened to flying a kite on the wrong side of the hill.

Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Hughes brought the Consent Agenda to the Council.

Councilmember Richards moved to approve Consent Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Aalfs, the motion carried 5-0, by roll call vote.

REGULAR AGENDA
(11) Update from Town Lobbyist on State Budget and Introduction Legislation Town Manager Dennis introduced and welcomed Steve Cruz and Aubrey Ratajczak of Cruz Strategies.

He said the Town is operating in a different world than in the past, so the Council included a budgetary item in last year’s budget to bring a lobbyist onboard who will report on a variety of issues that could potentially affect the Town. He said they anticipate over the course of a calendar year a few conversations to be scheduled. During this time of year, staff plans to invite the lobbyist to report on newly introduced legislation starting to make its way through the Legislature and also make any comments about the state budget as proposed. There will be a second discussion in the early summer as bills have likely moved out of their House of origin and are perceived as real. A third conversation towards the end of the year will be a study session on issues of interest to the Council.

Mr. Cruz addressed the Council and said he has some experience in the county, having represented San Mateo County for a number of years and working in the Mayor’s office in San Francisco for a number of years. He said in reviewing the Town’s agendas for the past several meetings, he could see the impact of

7 state policies and challenges of implementing some of the new laws, as well as benefits that might come their way in terms of funding.

Ms. Ratajcak said the Legislature has been very busy over recent weeks with the bill introduction deadline on February 18th, although many of them are “spot bills,” or placeholder bills. The deadline to amend those into something substantive that could potentially move forward was on March 16 th
. She said
now that they can see what those bills actually are, it is a good time for a conversation with the Town.

They saw a flurry of bills amended into print the past week. The Legislature has also been holding budget subcommittee hearings to review the governor’s January budget proposal and will work on their legislative version of the budget to add or change items of importance to the assemblymembers and senators.

The first policy committee hearings for bills this year are starting to be scheduled. The rest of March and all of April will be filled with the first policy hearing committee hearings for all of the new bills. After that, everything will move to the Appropriations Committee, and then it will be known which bills will actually move forward.

Mr. Cruz talked about some of the important state budget items. The governor’s budget was released in January, and the Legislature began meeting in late February and March to start putting their imprint on it.

There has been much attention around the surplus announced in January, of approximately $45 billion.

He clarified that about half is available to spend, and the rest is for things such as education or reserves.

It is still a lot of money, and there are a lot of hands out and requests for it. The previous week, the Department of Finance updated their revenue forecast and added another $17 billion. Soon after, the governor announced more details on the gas tax rebate, and more details were shared that afternoon. It is a $9 billion plan and would be $400 per registered vehicle, up to two persons in a household. The Assembly has a similar plan for a gas rebate. The Senate has a broader interest in seeing rebates for inflationary costs for households, not just for gas. He said there was another proposal to suspend the gas tax, which did not garner enough votes, so they are pivoting to the gas tax rebate idea.

Mr. Cruz shared another item of interest in the budget – funding for transportation and funding for housing and homelessness. There has been a big focus on encampment cleanups and care courts, which are a kind of conservatorship, some alternatives to ensuring access to care, but navigating the complexities of the Petris Lanterman Act in regard to conservatorships. Other items in the budget included funding for drought; a bond bill, which may not make it to the finish line; and funding for home hardening - $44 million for Cal OES and Cal Fire for locals to do home hardening.

Other pending issues include continuation of either COVID or other new things, and the eviction moratorium. That protection was extended by the Governor through an EO and then the Legislature and will end March 31st for tenants. They talked with the Cabinet Secretary at the Governor’s Office, and there are discussions going on about extending that beyond March 31st, although not through Executive Order, but through Legislation. It would be fast-tracked because it has to be in print by March 28th.

Mr. Cruz commented on the organic waste implementation per SB 1383. There was $60 million in the budget last year, and now the League of Cities has put forth a request for $180 million. It is still not enough to build the facilities that are needed, but there are some further budget requests for that purpose.

Regarding drought, the Governor declared cutbacks to the state water project down to a five-percent allocation. Being the third year of a drought, they expect to see another executive order around the first week of April with further restrictions and probably some funding, if not through a bond, through the budget.

Mr. Cruz mentioned, regarding the Housing Element being discussed, of the190 jurisdictions which were due last January, 170 were not compliant, so there have been conversations with the administration and legislature on affording some relief there, given the challenges; however, there is not a lot of sympathy.

The Governor laid out his plan for 3.5 million units. Right now, there are probably 2 million planned, so not a lot of sympathy in provider relief. He thought there is a lot of concern coming forth about the loss of

8 affordable housing grants, loss of transportation dollars, so if not an extension of deadlines, at least some reprieve on the availability of grants, perhaps.

Lastly, he mentioned VLF (Vehicle License Fee) shortfall. They are aware of the issue of the State reimbursing the County and, subsequently, city special districts for their obligations under the VLF tax swap. They have been very involved in those conversations. Ms. Ratajcak said they have been working on the VLF shortfall process on behalf of San Mateo County and the Town. Last year, San Mateo and Napa Counties had put forward a proposal at the end of session to try to get a permanent fix in statute.

Right now the claims are filed in arears. As that number continues to grow there is concern over having to front the bill until the State ends up paying it. The proposal put forward would have established an upfront process to do that with a true-up process as the numbers potentially change, but so that when all districts turn in basic aid it could be up to $200 million for the County with that money flowing to the cities and special districts and the Town , et cetera. Mr. Cruz said they met with the Governor’s Office, Department of Finance and others in that regard.

Ms. Ratajcak said they had gotten good news from the Governor’s Office and thought there was a deal coming together, but then Department of Finance came out with a trailer bill about a week after the Governor’s budget came out, which included everything in the permanent fix in the upfront payment, but also included a “poison pill” in F1 of the trailer bill, which basically says that counties must use their excess ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) money before they can get the VLF shortfall continuous appropriation. So basically, they get a continuous appropriation, but first they have to use all of their own money, which doesn’t make sense. They have been working with the delegation.

Assemblymember Mullin has been a champion and has been talking with the budget committee and others to push back on this. She said the Town sent a letter, which was very helpful. Their delegation has made it a top priority, along with Napa’s, to ensure that the F1 portion of this is not passed in the budget this year.

Mr. Cruz mentioned a few important bills out of the 2,100 that were introduced before the February 19th deadline. The bond by Assemblymember Eddie Garcia and Senator Mullin, for $7.43 billion for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought, extreme heat mitigation and other items will be on the November ballot if passed. There are a number of housing bills, including Berman’s that would prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing affordable housing impact fees on density bonus units. Senator Stern has a bill to restrict development of housing in moderate, high and very high fire hazard severity zones.

This bill died last year and he is bringing it back, but Ms. Ratajcak advised that this is already the second year of a two-year session, so they don’t plan to move this forward. Mr. Cruz said Assemblymember Rivas has a bill to require city or county’s annual Housing Element report to include the locality’s progress in meeting the housing needs of extremely low-income households. Also, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva has a bill, 2705, on development of residential projects in very high severity zones, which is somewhat different than the one introduced by Stern. He heard ADUs mentioned again. Senator Wieckowski has a number of bills in this space, including another one to streamline, that offers some funding for construction of ADUs and includes some limitations on use of fire sprinklers.

Town Manager Dennis thought it would be very helpful if Councilmembers had heard anything in the bills mentioned that they would like to talk about, they would like to hear from them. He and Ms. Ratajcak will have a conversation in early April to review those bills and bring forward any of them to consider for opposition or support to the Council.

Mayor Hughes invited questions from the Council for the presenters.

Mayor Hughes mentioned the Housing Element update process and the substantial increase in the number of units they will be building in the coming cycle which will likely lead to a large amount of work on their Planning and Building departments once the element becomes active and they start having the houses constructed in Portola Valley. The Planning staff is already swamped, and he presumed every other town in the state will be facing a need to dramatically expand their staff. He stated that there are not enough trained planners, builders, building inspectors to do the job. He asked if the lobbyists had seen

9 any activity in the Legislature in regard to training people for these types of positions that will be needed in the next few years.

Mr. Cruz said a few years ago there was a sizable investment in funding for that. He thought it may have been depleted by now, but he has heard some conversations, although the broader push has been that it is not doable in many instances. He said the City of L.A. would be required to rezone half the city by October, which is obviously not doable, but he has heard more calls for funding. Also, during COVID, many cities’ planning and building folks were in the emergency operations centers, which seemed like a legitimate reason to extend the time, yet there was a lot of shaking of heads when the request was made.

He said they will look closer into the proposals they have heard about. He thought as denials come for extensions of time, it might be something to put out there as an option.

Mayor Hughes also was concerned if people do get their housing elements sorted out, whether on time or late, and eventually get them in, the volume of construction-associated activity will spike. Mr. Cruz agreed and added there are bills that actually require the applications be approved faster as well.

Mayor Hughes invited public comments on this item.

Rita Comes asked about fire mitigation and was not sure if it was a bill or something Commissioner Lara had proposed and is happening, but if someone does fire mitigation on their property, then there is help with getting insurance. She was wondering if this is a bill, and if so, what the bill was called.

Kristi Corley appreciated the update on bills. She asked for the number of the Rivas bill, as well as the Wieckowski bill. She asked for a more detailed explanation of Assemblymember Berman’s bill, since he is their Assemblymember for District 2063. She says the residents of the town are interested in CEQA and open space and asked for any bills in regard to these. She asked them to go over the two proposed bills for streamlining housing that were mentioned.

Rusty Day asked what services the lobbyist provides to the Town. He asked if they provided access to a website or database of information on pending legislation or administrative actions, or whether they provide periodic reports of actions on a weekly or monthly basis, or customized reports on specific legislative initiatives such as homeowners insurance, fire prevention, et cetera.

Mayor Hughes reminded attendees that the agenda item is an update on state budget and legislation and not on more general matters. He responded to Mr. Day’s contract that they can make available the contracts between Cruz and the Town that will clarify their services.

Ron Eastman commented regarding having to hire new Planning staff, pointing out that Santa Cruz County, faced with reconstruction of nearly 2,000 structures, hired an outside consultant firm to handle all of the CZU Complex Fire re-builds. He felt they should do this as well. The town is already burdened enough and should not have to pay for more staff if it can be outsourced and have the builders pay for it.

Mayor Hughes said there was a discussion at the last Council meeting about how to pay for it, and that the cost would be generally passed through to applicants for specific projects.

David Cardinal thought it was exciting that they have someone to be eyes and ears for the town and report on impact of bills and the budgets in Sacramento, instead of individually having to search out information and sort through what was pertinent, et cetera.

Alyson Illich echoed Mr. Cardinal’s comment, and approved of having the lobbyist onboard to give insight on the activity in Sacramento. She said she is intensely interested in it, particularly pertaining to the planning for housing issue. One of her questions was what the State is doing to help communities that want to do the right thing but feel unbelievably constrained in trying to make it happen. She said Josh Becker just introduced a bill, and there are probably many more being proposed to help developers, make it more feasible to develop in a town like theirs. Many of them are open to it, but it is just not a feasible

10 economic reality. She said with all the traffic of bills going on, she wondered if they could help in the future with letting the town know what actually might be coming about to help them and what they might be able to count on, to give a little hope and positivity in the situation.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Hughes asked the guests to address the questions about specific bill numbers. Ms. Ratajcak said the Rivas bill is AB 2238. The Berman bill is AB 2063. It prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing affordable housing impact fees on density bonus units. The other Robert Rivas bill was AB 2094, regarding the annual Housing Element report. The Wieckowski bill was SB 897, the Bay Area Council bill about ADU permitting. The Quirk-Silva bill is AB 2705.

Mayor Hughes asked if they had quick responses to any of the other questions from the public. If not, they would work to answer them offline. Mr. Cruz said they covered the specifics on the bill numbers and they appreciated the comments and questions. He said some of the bills are just getting underway, so it was not too late in terms of taking positions, whether oppose, support, or just making it better. He said they would prefer that more than staking out a hard position one way or the other. Providing technical and local input, there are many opportunities to share such ideas and suggestions. They will get them in contact with the right folks to do that.

Councilmember Aalfs asked regarding the annual report on Housing Element progress sounds like the initial test phase of AB 35. He wondered if it was already a rule and he thought AB 35 addressed consequences for falling behind on the Housing Element. He wondered if there was something more to the new bill. Mr. Cruz said it could just be an enhancement to the requirement on the low-income units that are required, but he didn’t think it was a drastic deviation from the existing law. He will get a more clear answer and provide to Town Manager Dennis. Ms. Ratajcak added this referred to AB 2094, the Robert Rivas bill.
(12) Recommendation by Part Time Assistant to the Town Manager – First Reading of Ordinance repealing Old Chapter 8.08 of the Portola Valley Municipal Code and Adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to implement SB 1383
(a) First reading of Title, Waive Further Reading, and Introduce an Ordinance of the Town Council of Portola Valley Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 [Garbage] and adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to Title 8 [Health and Safety] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code (Ordinance No. ___)
Brandi de Garmeaux presented an update on SB 1383 and was looking to the Council for consideration regarding the required ordinance. She welcomed Jack Steinmann from the County Office of Sustainability, who was available for questions regarding the edible food recovery portion of the ordinance. She thanked Town Attorney Silver for her assistance and guidance in development of the ordinance.

Ms. de Garmeaux recapped the goals of SB 1383. She listed a summary of actions the Council took on October 27, 2021, as well as information on grants they have applied for, a review of SB 1383 requirements, an update on the waiver that was received, and opportunities for the Council to consider and weigh in on the opportunities and applicability dates.

Ms. de Garmeaux recapped that SB 1383 is the most significant waste reduction mandate to be adopted in California in the past 30 years, requiring the state to reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025. It requires the state to increase edible food recovery by 20 percent by 2025. Organic waste, for the purposes of SB 1383 refers to green waste, yard trimmings, wood waste, food waste and also fibers such as paper and cardboard. Organic waste comprises about two-thirds of the waste stream with food waste being the largest waste stream for California. The goal of SB 1383 is to address negative impacts of climate change. Landfill and organic waste leads to anaerobic breakdown of material which creates methane. Landfills are responsible for 21 percent of the state’s methane emissions and landfills are the

11 third largest producer of methane. Methane is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year horizon.

The Town Council took action on October 27, 2021, to adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an MOU with the County to establish the Edible Food Recovery Program, with 20 of the cities in the county participating in the program. The Council also adopted an updated Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Practices Policy, which will help comply with the procurement requirements for SB 1383. The Council also directed staff to file the waiver on certain aspects of the mandatory organic waste collection requirements, as well as return with an ordinance implementing the remaining requirements of SB 1383. Since that meeting, Cal Recycle opened a grant fund through which the Town is eligible to receive $20,000. They have applied for those funds to complete three eligible projects. One is the mandatory recordkeeping, for which they hope to purchase the Recycler’s Program Tracker which will help them meet the reporting requirements for SB 1383 and also AB 341 and AB 1826, as well as their Annual Report. They will also participate in a Compost Broker Project to help with procurement requirements, and a Compost Quality Improvement Public Education Campaign led by the County to help them meet education and outreach requirements.

The SB 1383 requirements were reviewed extensively at the October 27th meeting. Ms. de Garmeaux gave some context for the Low Population Waiver and discussed some opportunities for Council to consider. The main requirements include providing organic collection services to all residents and businesses. This is part of what is covered by the waiver. Conducting education and outreach to the community will be a joint effort with the Town, Green Waste, and the County. Securing access to recycling and edible food recovery will be entirely handled by the County MOU, as well as the Food Recovery Program. Staff will be participating in the countywide program for procuring recyclable and recovered organic products and will also have to address some of the procurement requirements themselves.

Ms. de Garmeaux said they are also required to monitor compliance and conduct enforcement. The enforcement for the edible food recovery program will be conducted by the County and the rest by the Town. Staff filed for the Low Population Wavier with Cal Recycle on November 9th and received confirmation that a five-year waiver was approved on December 28th. The waiver exempts the Town from mandatory organic waste collection regulations which require local jurisdictions to provide organic waste collection service to all residents and businesses, and waste containers used for both curbside programs and indoor waste collection stations must follow a prescribed color scheme. The containers are also subject to labeling and contamination monitoring requirements.

The Town’s franchise agreement with Green Waste provides all residents and businesses within the town a base level of curbside service with separate containers for recyclable materials and mixed compostable materials including food scraps. For fully accessible areas, the franchise agreement also offers a third bin for separate collection of yard trimmings to further segregate the organic waste and ensure the highest use product. In addition, the mandatory collection services requires enforcement and inspection for compliance, as well as recordkeeping requirements. Jurisdictions that receive a Cal Recycle-issued waiver are still required to contribute the State’s organic waste recovery targets, the implementing and complying with all the other sections of the regulations. The recordkeeping will require a tremendous amount of recordkeeping, but in four areas the Town is not required to report until the end of the waiver.

Ms. de Garmeaux said that staff and the Town Attorney have reviewed the ordinance extensively, both to understand where compliance is required and where there are opportunities for waste diversion. They met multiple times with Cal Recycle, Green Waste and the County as well as adjacent cities to better understand how to implement the ordinance with the town’s unique situation, which is the franchise agreement negotiated in 2019 and which anticipated many of the provisions of SB 1383. Also, the way the waste is collected and processed by Green Waste is unique, as well as the Low Population Waiver received. Staff attempted to make the ordinance as clear as possible, given the unique way waste is collected, with the three-container, two-container system, as well as on-premises services. The Town franchise agreement provides all residents with that base level of service for recyclable materials and mixed compostable materials, which include food scraps and the third bin offered for yard trimmings.

12 Ms. de Garmeaux said staff is recommending that the Council consider adopting the requirement for mandatory subscription to a waste collection service for residential, commercial business and multi-family generators, as of July 1, 2023, ahead of the waiver expiration. Staff was also recommending mandatory subscription to yard trimmings service for commercial business and multi-family generators that generate four cubic yards or more of total solid waste per week, as well as mandatory subscription to recyclable materials service for all commercial and multi-family generators regardless of waste produced. While the Town has received a waiver for portions of SB 1383, they are still required to comply with the existing bills – AB 341, the mandatory commercial recycling ordinance, and AB 1826, the mandatory commercial organics recycling ordinance. Regarding residential specifically, staff has had discussions with Green Waste on implementation of mandatory service for residential. On one hand this would assist Green Waste with billing issues regarding vacation holds, but Green Waste also does not want to be in a position of incurring bad debt or becoming a regulatory entity because of a mandatory requirement to provide service. The ordinance puts the onus on the generator to subscribe to service, and the Town is responsible for enforcement. As far as the issue of incurring bad debt, the Town has the authority to apply a penalty to generators who do not subscribe. Staff believes that these changes should address Green Waste’s concern without a need to modify the franchise agreement and they will continue to discuss it with Green Waste.

Initial analysis of subscribers indicates that there are approximately 1,500 residential accounts subscribed, with 1,019 of them eligible for yard trimming service, and 418 are in limited accessibility areas or have walk-on and drive-on service, and therefore can’t have separate yard trimmings. Of the 1,019 eligible accounts, 979 have their trimming service, which is about a 96 percent participation rate. Ms. de Garmeaux pointed out that there is still opportunity for yard trimmings diversion in the residential sector, and given that the Town has approximately 1,800 households that are likely residential accounts that would have higher waste diversion if subscribed to the Town’s waste collection through Green Waste.

Further analysis would be needed. It is unknown how many of the 1,800 households may have a multifamily situation.

Regarding commercial yard trimmings for commercial businesses, staff has applied the same threshold.

Generators that produce more than four cubic yards of solid waste per week would have to arrange for organic waste recycling services. The Town has automatically been in compliance with AB 1826 because it is a way that their mixed compostable materials are collected and processed, and because they are already in compliance with AB 1826, they recommend the threshold of four cubic yards, which makes it more streamlined and consistent to understand who is already required to have recycling services.

Additional reasons for having mandatory yard trimming service for commercial include ensuring that yard trimmings are recycled for their highest purpose. Ms. de Garmeaux said that within the staff report it was mentioned that there are two ways that compostable materials are processed and mixed. Compostable materials which include landfill waste can be composted and then used only for landscape compost. They cannot be used directly on food crops that touch the ground. It could used in freeway medians or vineyards, et cetera, that do not touch the ground. Yard trimmings can be turned into certified organic compost which can be used for any type of compost application. Those two processes for processing mixed compostable materials into compost, versus yard trimmings into compost, the yard trimming process requires much less energy and resources to complete the process. Additionally, subscribing to yard trimming service for businesses could potentially save them between $70 and $2,000 per month.

Subscribing to the yard trimming is half the cost of subscribing to a mixed compostable bin. Right now there are approximately 15 commercial accounts that do not have yard trimming service which would meet the threshold of four cubic yards of waste or more per week and could benefit from the service. Ms. de Garmeaux advised that there is a provision that would allow a generator to apply for a waiver for either lack of space for a bin or lack of material that would not necessitate a separate bin.

Ms. de Garmeaux discussed the requirements for haulers. Within the ordinance, Chapter 8.08.070(a) addresses specific requirements that jurisdictions must enforce on haulers and other entities. While the Town is exempt from enforcing the regulations under the waiver, for the exclusive franchise hauler, Green Waste, these requirements were anticipated in the negotiated franchise agreement and therefore the regulations in the ordinance reiterate what already exists within that agreement. Other haulers would be

13 required to obtain a license from the Town to become a permitted hauler. This would ensure both that the Town is in compliance with the exclusivity in the franchise agreement as well as SB 1383 requirements when the waiver expires. It would also help understand where more of their organic waste is going and ensure it is being processed for the highest use purpose. The other requirement is for self-haulers, requiring them to become a permanent hauler, and ensuring that their operations don’t conflict with the exclusive agreement with the franchise hauler. Self-haulers that are taking their own waste aren’t required to get a permit or do recordkeeping. They are required to take it to a specific facility to be processed separately.

The last item for consideration was garbage regulations and a bin location requirement. The Town Attorney updated the old garbage regulations in Chapter 8.08 and included them within the ordinance as

8.08.120. The old regulations were from 1964 and needed to be updated to be consistent with terminology and nomenclature used within the franchise agreement as well as current practices. Some new regulations were added that clarify that garbage shall not be burned unless an appropriate permit is granted by Woodside Fire Protection District. Finally, to address repeated resident complaints, Section D, Refuse Containers Location, was added to clarify when bins are allowed to be placed out for collection and assists with complaints and code enforcement surrounding this issue.

Ms. de Garmeaux covered the applicability dates. Most of the provisions in the ordinance go into effect 30 days after the second reading of the ordinance. Staff and the Town Attorney are recommending a delayed applicability date of July 1, 2023, for the previously-described provisions. She noted that all of the provisions apart from mandatory yard trimming service for commercial businesses will become mandatory per SB 1383 on the expiration of the waiver. Implementing the provisions in advance of the waiver expiration will give staff and Green Waste time to determine which generators are subject to the provisions, assist them with getting service and allow Green Waste to purchase necessary supplies or make route changes. The implementation date was discussed with Green Waste, and they are comfortable with it. This will also allow staff time to implement the Recyclist Program tracker for recordkeeping and reporting and will put in place a mechanism to receive and issue waivers. Ms. de Garmeaux said they would appreciate the Council weighing in on whether the delayed implementation is reasonable.

Mayor Hughes invited questions from the Councilmembers.

Councilmember Aalfs inquired who a typical self-hauler would be outside of Green Waste, or who would have to get a license for this. Ms. de Garmeaux said there are a couple different types of self-haulers that are not governed by the exclusive franchise agreement, such as grease and oil from restaurants, construction and demolition, compacted cardboard and landscaping waste. Any of those that are commercial businesses would be required to get a business license and become a permitted hauler. But someone just doing clean-up at their house and needed to dispose of waste would be required by the ordinance to separate it and take it to a specific place but would not be required to get a permit or do any recordkeeping as the other entities are required to do.

Councilmember Aalfs asked regarding the commercial businesses that are expected to benefit from the yard waste bins if they are located in places where they produce enough yard waste to fill those bins. Of the four-cubic-yard bins, he wondered if most of it is actually yard waste or if it is actually mixed compostable. Ms. de Garmeaux said there are several of those commercial accounts that would benefit from yard trimmings bins, both from the cost perspective as well as producing a higher use product. They produce a lot of yard waste, and based on the acreage at the Town and the size bin the Town has, she felt they would produce enough to benefit. Those that don’t could apply for the waiver and would not have to have the separate bin.

Mayor Hughes said on the timeline there were items going out for the next three years for stages of things to do. He asked if there was a five-year waiver, if that was a non-renewable waiver, or if there were elements that were potentially renewable in five years. Ms. de Garmeaux said nothing is certain, but the guidance they have received from Cal Recycle was that at the end of five years they should be in full compliance. Currently, there is a gentle buildup for jurisdictions to come into compliance. What has been

14 outlined is the Town benefitting from a slow implementation so that when the five-year mark hits, they are fully in compliance. She said she would be very surprised if they received another waiver. Mayor Hughes asked if there will be anything left for them to do beyond what was mentioned. Ms. de Garmeaux did not believe so and said the way the Town Attorney Silver and she have tried to present this ordinance was that everything is in there that they know now. She said she felt that Cal Recycle is still sorting out some of the issues, so things could change, but with the Recyclist Program Tracker they are very much keeping track of guidance from Cal Recycle. Basically that program states exactly what is required to report on so if things arise it will be more like they see that they should be asking for something, but they will have the benefit of seeing it in the program in advance of having to produce the reports. She said the hope is that the program will be advising them all along what they need to do.

Mayor Hughes posed the question if he hired a gardener, and once a year they did a clean-up, producing a lot of waste, which he usually loads in his pickup to take to the dump, whether he would need a permit if it is not his main business. Ms. de Garmeaux said technically they should have a business license, but it is a gray area they are still figuring out with Cal Recycle and Green Waste. Green Waste has some kind of accommodation for an inconsequential amount of waste, which they are still sorting out with them.

There would probably be some threshold, but technically they would be a self-hauler based on the definition from Cal Recycle.

Mayor Hughes invited public comments.

David Cardinal thought that on the commercial side most of the town’s businesses rent office space and may generate a lot of waste but they don’t have yards. He commented that it’s already hard enough to run a business, so requiring them to have some sort of thing they don’t have now and making them file for a waiver struck him as backwards. He said if it is economically advantageous, they should just market that and let people go about their business. Secondly, he said they are really trying to encourage people to take fuel load out of the town, so he didn’t think they should make it harder and require more permits just to take a load of sticks to the dump. Ms. de Garmeaux responded that commercial businesses for entities that Mr. Cardinal spoke of share bins, so it would not directly impact an individual business. For example, at Village Square there are only one or two subscribers, so it is not going to impact those individual businesses in the way that he might think.

Caroline Vertongen said this is one of many topics that she is concerned about. She hoped Ms. de Garmeaux would share her presentation on the Sustainability or Town Center page for everyone to see it.

She asked about the exemptions as they might apply to muti-family housing. She said they separate garden disposables and have three separate bins, and she was very frustrated that the Green Waste truck put it all together. She said she has learned from that with her many calls to Green Waste, and at least the recycling is now very separate, although there are still issues with the other two bins getting mixed on a regular basis. She appreciated staff’s efforts and thought many of the residents supported reducing waste through a very economical approach. Every time there is an effort to do spring or fall cleaning, there are contractors suddenly show up, probably having got a pass from a resident to dump their stuff. Ms. de Garmeaux addressed the question of multi-family units, stating that Cal Recycle considers any muti-family housing over five units to be treated as a commercial account.

Mayor Hughes questioned whether the ordinance items needed to be approved separately. Town Attorney Silver clarified that each section of the ordinance contains staff’s recommended implementation date, but the Council could vary those, and the ordinance could be adjusted accordingly. Mayor Hughes said for many of those it would not just be an impact on the Town but would also require Green Waste to change their operations and businesses to change service levels, et cetera, so would not be very plausible to do the implementation any faster. Ms. de Garmeaux concurred and said they originally discussed January 1, 2023 but given the time that it will take to implement the Recyclist Program Tracker and Green Waste and the Town to evaluate the different accounts, they felt July 1st was a more reasonable date. Town Attorney Silver added that Green Waste generally concurred that the implementation dates would not trigger a contract amendment from them.

Mayor Hughes invited discussion among the Councilmembers.

15 Councilmember Aalfs was comfortable with the timeline and ready to make a motion.

Councilmember Aalfs moved to approve the ordinance as written and adopt the timeline. Seconded by Councilmember Richards, the motion passed (5-0), by roll call vote.

Town Manager Dennis added that Ms. de Garmeaux has been working on specific projects for the Town.

They hope to continue that relationship into the next fiscal year and will have more to announce in that regard as part of the budget discussions in June.
[The Council took a five-minute break]
(13) Update and Discussion on Housing Element Process
Planning and Building Director Russell was joined by Adrienne Smith, Town Senior Planner, and Town Attorney Silver in reporting on the Housing Element, the work program, timeline and resources, including components of the complete Housing Element Update, consequences of non-certification, an update on progress so far with the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee and next steps in terms of the work plan and timing.

Planning and Building Director Russell explained the complicated process of working on the Safety Element and Housing Element concurrently, with elements of the Safety Element process feeding into the Housing Element and parts of it which feed into the zoning code. The Housing Element is implemented through the zoning code as well, and they have to do environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on each of those things at the same time in order to complete everything. Each step has its own requirements in state law as well as in local code, so the task was to weave all the different pieces together. She said it is possible to do the zoning code later, but there are implications.

Regarding the major components of the Housing Element Director Russell said they have learned a lot about Housing and Community Development (HCD) review. This is the department at the State that reviews the Housing Element and sets out all of the guidance. They have learned a lot from different regions. They heard earlier from the Town Lobbyist earlier about the small number of housing elements that are getting certified in some of the regions before the Bay Area. New information is coming in all the time. They now know they can expect more than one round of review. Other regions have had two or even three rounds of review. They have learned that they cannot rely on informal or expedited review as in previous Housing Element cycles. In fact, CSD has increased their own time to review while not increasing the Town’s time.

Planning and Building Director Russell shared the latest timing in regard to the Housing Element timing.

Certification is to be complete on January 31, 2023, and there is much conversation about the 120-day period that occurs after that and whether that is a grace period. After discussion and thought staff feels the best practice would be to not think of it as a grace period, but as a time for HCD to review a second, sort of final draft of the Housing Element. This means the Town will need to have public meetings – particularly Planning Commission and Town Council meetings – in October and December of 2022. The first HCD review of the draft Housing Element would happen between late June to late September. They don’t know the level of detail of comments that will be received back from HCD but do expect to get comments back during that time period. There is also a new requirement that requires a 30-day public review period, plus a ten-day response period. Director Russell thought this was added to address communities that don’t do a lot of public outreach, to make sure that there was a designated outreach period. For the Town, it would be somewhat redundant since they have been working with the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee for months already. Since they are required to do this, it means there will have to be a full draft Housing Element ready to start that formal public review in May of 2022, a couple months away.

16 Thinking about the zoning code amendments that go with the Housing Element update, Director Russell explained that in past Housing Element cycles, the typical process was if zoning code amendments were needed, they would be done after the Housing Element adoption. For varied reasons, the State has changed the laws so that they discourage people from doing that. They have created prescriptive zoning requirements applying specifically to the projects that have low or very low-income units. For those, if the zoning is done after Housing Element adoption, all of those sites need to be rezoned, listed in the site’s inventory of the Housing Element, and must allow for a minimum of 20 units per acre, which is called the default density. Those sites must be large enough to accommodate 16 units under the rezoning. If there are smaller sites, the density per acre must be increased, because that is the size where projects become more financially feasible.

Also important for the Town is that those projects would be considered “by-right” if the project has 20 percent or more of the units being affordable to the lower income households. In this context, the by-right meaning is similar to ADUs and SB 9 units. Different state laws use different language, so it’s challenging to keep it all straight. The basic idea is no Conditional Use Permit. No planned unit development. The project would not be subject to CEQA, and they could only do design review based on objective standards, so no ASCC subjective design review if it is one of the projects that is 20 percent affordable or more. Subdivisions are different and can still have discretionary review, so that could include in some cases condominium subdivision for ownership units. These rules are in place for the whole Housing Element cycle, for eight years.

The implications of those requirements if the zoning amendments are done after January 2023 are that they would have less control over projects that are for low or very low-income residents. The lower income projects would have a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The example in the staff report if there is a 20-unit apartment project that came in under these rules, and there were 16 market rate units and four lower income units, there would be a by-right review, with no CEQA. Town committees would not be allowed to review for subjective things, but they could have objective standards that may apply. There has been discussion around creating checklists for these types of developments by the committees, as long as it is objective and consistently applied. Market rate projects could still have discretionary review but there are other housing laws that come into play, with some limitations, but there could still be a discretionary review process on market rate or less than 20 percent affordable.

Director Russell said until this point the Town has been proceeding under the assumption that the rezoning should happen by January 2023, consistent with the philosophy of trying to maintain local control, but the interpretation of the law has been evolving, so what they are presenting is the best available information. Six months ago when the process was started, staff did not understand the implications of doing the zoning either now to be completed by January of 2023, or considering doing it later, after the Housing Element is competed.

The current work plan and consultant scope includes minimal changes to the Town’s zoning code. Based on how the process is going so far, staff thinks it will not be sufficient based on current knowledge and the way the public process is going and the way the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee work is going. The best description she said is to say that some of the other code amendments the Town has done related to ADUs or SB 9 units, where they do it in-house through Town Attorney Silver’s office jointly with her office, they were going to do that level of work – technical, competent but not extremely detailed, not as comprehensive, not a lot of graphics and illustrations and options to be able to show people. This is a different kind of code amendment than what they have done before. One of her questions for the Council was whether completion of the code amendments by January of 2023 is still a critical priority.

Regarding environmental review, CEQA has its own process and all of its own timelines and requirements which they are trying to weave together with the other aspects of it. There are specific types of analysis that must be undertaken under CEQA in different category areas. CEQA implementation is guided by three things – state law, state guidelines and case law, because that is the way CEQA is enforced, through legal action. There is a lot of art and a lot of science involved with CEQA implementation. In order to complete the CEQA for the process and stay on schedule, they have to begin in earnest in April. Director Russell noted that if there are significant changes to the scope of the analysis

17 it could mean that the CEQA document would not be completed in time. They need to have a stable project description, to know what they are studying so that can finish it in a timely fashion.

Director Russell reminded the Council that they started a contract with Urban Planning Partners as Lead Consultant for this work. It did not include the full CEQA review at that time, because they did not know what the level of CEQA review was going to include. It was hard to create the budget and the detailed scope. They started early with one significant piece, related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is the method for traffic analysis. This is a detailed conversation they will be having, but it has helped with the timeline by starting it back in December.

Director Russell said now is the time when they need to plan for the full analysis and adjust the scope of work and the budget in order to do that. The budget they have is $153,000 approximately, and staff recommends a contingency for that. This is a little higher than expected but the scope is larger than initially figured. They will be studying a few more options, given the way that the public process is going for the site inventory. This budget time is required for completion of the Housing Element on time. Director Russell said they plan to do a mitigated negative declaration, called an MND, under CEQA. If the scope increases through the course of this and it turns out that an EIR is required, or they find unexpected impacts requiring an EIR, then the result is that they will not finish in time to meet the state deadline.

Town Attorney Silver continued the discussion with the topic of noncompliance. Housing Element compliance refers to two different phases – the adoption of the Housing Element and the planning process for adopting the document. Secondly, they look at the build-out, the implementation, of the Housing Element. Historically, there were penalties and consequences only for not planning for appropriate housing units, or not submitting a Housing Element to HCD for certification. Until recently there was never any consequence for failing to build the units. The Housing Element process was always considered a planning tool, with no ramifications by the State in the event that local agencies failed to actually build the units. This has changed at the state level and there are now consequences for failing to comply with the Housing Element as well.

The second change is the types of penalties are ramping up and being assessed at different stages in the Housing Element planning process. First, there is a penalty associated with failing to rezone with the Housing Element adoption. HCD would like to see all of the rezones being done at the time that the Housing Element is adopted, which is a better enforcement mechanism for them. If the rezonings are not performed in conjunction with the Housing Element adoption, they must be done within three years of the adoption, and also if not done concurrently, the Town must have zoning that permits by-right all projects containing at least 20 percent affordable units, defined as low or very low.

Third, all of the rezoned sites that are rezoned after the Housing Element must have a minimum default density of 20 units per acre and they must accommodate 16 units. This is significant because if the rezoning is done before the Housing Element is certified there is more flexibility in terms of the density that is allowed. For example, there could be a zoning ordinance that allows for a zoning range of 1 to 20 units. They have heard that residents are concerned about being required to build denser units under the zoning code. That is the case if the Town were to delay the zoning until after the Housing Element, in which case they would have to designate a minimum default density of 20 units per acre. However, if the zoning is done beforehand, there are more zoning tools that would allow more flexibility as long as the zoning allowed up to 20 units per acre.

Councilmember Aalfs asked about the minimum default density, whether someone could come in and built 30 to 40 units per acre. Town Attorney Silver said the way it would work is that on the inventory they would have to designate what the minimum density will be. From a State standpoint, the minimum density that the Town designates must be at least 20. If they wanted to designate more, they could, and if they designated in the inventory, or created a program for 30 units, then a developer could build 30 or 40 units if the Town had designated that in the program.

Mayor Hughes commented that it is really the opposite of what they normally think of as a zoning limit.

This is the minimum, so if you have a half-acre lot and submit a proposal for eight units, it would be

18 rejected because you need at least 10. So all re-zoned sites cannot have low density development on any zoning that is done after the Housing Element is submitted. Town Attorney Silver said this was correct. If they wanted the particular site to count for low or very low-income housing it has to have a floor of 20 units per acre. It is one of the primary reasons why staff is recommending that the zoning take place before the Housing Element is certified. Town Attorney Silver said mixed uses are also discouraged if the zoning occurs after the Housing Element is certified. Another phase that the state law now provides penalties for is submitting a late Housing Element. If submitted late, then the rezonings must take place within one year. Rezonings occurring after Housing Element certification normally must be within three years if submitted late after the January 2023 date then the rezonings must occur in one year.

Director Russell explained the final set of consequences relate to what happens if the Council decides not to certify the Housing Element and does not submit a Housing Element to HCD at all. This is where most of the attention has been focused in regard to the penalties, which are very severe. Virtually every town, city and county ends up submitting their Housing Element to HCD for certification because the penalties are so stringent. During the fourth and fifth cycles they would see cities and towns just not submit a Housing Element and run the risk of being sued later by a developer. However, that is now virtually impossible because of the range of penalties, including a local resource impact where HCD requires that in the next cycle the Housing Elements need to be submitted much more frequently, putting a town or city on a performance schedule where they need to do three housing elements in an eight-year period instead of one.

State funding is no longer available for towns that do not submit housing elements. Portola Valley does receive some state grants that could be jeopardized if they don’t submit the Housing Element. The biggest penalty would be the loss of local control, where a developer can file a lawsuit which also now allows the Attorney General to file a lawsuit and allows HCD to maintain a private lawyer to file a lawsuit o their behalf if the Attorney General refuses to do so. There are also housing advocates who have standing to file lawsuits to enforce Housing Element compliance. In those lawsuits that are filed, they have seen the courts can order the town to approve various housing projects; courts that have ordered the town to stop issuing building permits until a Housing Element is certified. This occurred in Pleasanton when the town did not submit their Housing Element. The judge ordered all building permits, whether for a remodel or a repair, all building permits were stopped until the city prepared a certified Housing Element and submitted it to HCD.

Mayor Hughes asked if that meant that no construction can happen, or all construction can happen, without a permit. Town Attorney Silver responded that construction is prohibited, because under state law a person cannot do construction without a building permit. Town Attorney Silver said, practically speaking they may see a lot of illegal construction going on if that scenario were to occur. Regarding significant litigation costs, generally the town has to pay for defense of the lawsuit and then the housing advocate or developer almost always wins, and it is very difficult to defend this type of case. In that situation, if the housing advocate or developer were to win, then the town would also be responsible for the attorney’s fees of the other side. Most recently, they have seen increases in the monthly penalties that the State can issue against a town for not submitting their Housing Element in compliance with state law.

Town Attorney Silver described significant consequences related to not building the housing units that were planned in the Housing Element itself. This area has recently changed, and she cautioned that this is an area that they expect to continue to evolve and change. They expect to see more penalties coming down from the State in this area. It is the one area that still does not have a significant deterrent in place, so she thought they could expect some legislation here as well. The way Housing Element construction is monitored by the State, they need to submit an annual progress report to show the pro rata portion of the housing units that have been constructed that particular year, and the affordability of those particular units. Then, if the town has not complied with either the lower income or the moderate-income pro rata portion, then under SB 35, developers are given a right to build particular projects. The type of project that is subject to SB 35 is typically an infill project and has to meet a certain set of criteria, similar to the criteria in SB 9. She said in Portola Valley they don’t think that criteria can be met in very many cases, so currently is not a large deterrent for Portola Valley in terms of construction, but they do think that there will

19 be increased penalties over time, so it is something they do want to emphasize. Also, a project that is subject to SB 35 project must contain 20 percent affordable units.

Planning and Building Director Russell talked about the benefits in the Housing Element. The Council has indicated their wish to comply with the state housing law, and there have been significant conversations around housing in the community for many years. With the idea of creating inclusive communities with diverse housing options, there is a relationship to the Housing Strategic Plan in creating housing opportunities for the Town’s own residents – young people, seniors that wish to stay in the community, as well as the Town’s own workers. It also sets the stage for critical funding sources that come into place with a certified Housing Element. It is hard to get any kind of state funding or regional funding without Housing Element compliance. She suggested that it is very important to talk about the positive, and maintaining more local control creates better planning results, especially in a community like Portola Valley with the diverse topography, geologic and fire safety conditions.

Director Russell turned to the Town Process. The Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee has met eight times – every month, with one month off, and some months having two meetings since August of 2021.

They continue to move forward with their charge of developing a certifiable Housing Element that complies with the state law and maintains the town values. One thing critical to their work is recommending sites for the housing sites inventory. This has a specific definition in the law but is thought of as the list of the exact properties with addresses, APNs and sizes, that are suitable to residential development. That can include vacant sites or non-vacant sites that have potential for re-development.

The Committee first discussed housing sites at its October 18th meeting and again on February 21st and February 28th. All of those materials are online, including agendas, staff reports and memos, PowerPoint presentations and Zoom recordings.

At the October 18th meeting they had an analytical framework for the sites analysis and they walked the Committee through a series of maps which they already had. They discussed fire risk, geologic safety and topography. They reviewed some site scenarios, looking at different areas of the land and thought about the constraints and the market feasibility of different approaches to the site inventory. The Committee expressed support at that time to continue analyzing two main scenarios that had the highest number of units they thought could be created. Scenario B was increasing density in the commercial zoning districts and allowing residential where it wasn’t allowed and increasing the floor area. The second scenario was allowing multi-family and creating a new zoning district along Alpine Road and Nathorst Triangle areas. At the February 21st meeting, the Committee reviewed a new series of maps. They updated the old maps into modern standards into GIS for modern day mapping, and started to further refine the analysis of those scenarios that they call B and C.

The Committee supported ongoing consideration of both scenarios and also requested that the Stanford property, Glen Oaks, on Alpine Road also be studied as a potential site. At the February 28th meeting there was a very large of residents participating, over 160 people, where typical attendance is around 30.

There was a high volume of public comments in response to the housing site scenarios, B and C, and mostly in opposition and expressing concerns about rezoning single-family homes, retaining commercial businesses and similar interests. At that meeting the discussion essentially culminated in eight new items, the ”eight ideas.”
These eight ideas in terms of what would be most practical to be able to generate units included (in no particular order of importance or priority):

1. Explore new sites, including El Mirador behind Town Hall and the Neely property

2. Study potential for mixed use in the Town’s commercial zoning districts while preserving businesses.

3. Study development potential of the two vacant parcels along Alpine, the one fronting on Alpine and the one behind the businesses in Nathorst Triangle.

20 4. Explore an opt-in approach, where property owners could volunteer for upzoning.

5. Investigate dispersing housing sites throughout the community, potentially overlay zone allowing up to six dwelling units per acre.

6. Revisit the list of Town-owned property for development potential, going back to the work of the Townowned property committee that finished their work in 2019.

7. Think about how to use the Town’s affordable housing funds to potentially provide incentives for multifamily and/or ADUs.

8. Revisit the ADU process to see if any additional streamlining is possible.

Director Russell said at that meeting a couple things came together and they realized they needed to pivot and pause, because they were bringing together many different things – the latest information from HCD on the review process; a key staff member going out on leave that they needed to cover for; robust public participation, which they want to continue to foster; the work of the Ad Hoc of the Housing Element Committee itself and their discussion on the 28th and interest in looking at the eight new ideas. The original schedule and budget could no longer be met, looking at all of this together. Director Russell said at that point the question became, “What do we do now?” Staff and the consultant team has been thinking about all of the different options to create the best possible path forward. Through a series of meetings with their own consultant team, other consultants, numerous colleagues, other small towns in the county, including Hillsborough, Woodside, Atherton; talking to legal experts within Town staff and outside. The state laws are so new and so complex, and they learned that there are many different interpretations.

There are people working on very different processes in order to achieve their Housing Elements.

Director Russell said they tried to bring what they thought was the best of all of that together for the Council to consider.

The additional resources staff believes are critical for completion of the Housing Element include an augmentation of the budget with Urban Planning Partners, including the contingency. This would cover the leave of the staff member, the exploration of the eight ideas, additional work associated with bringing the Housing Element together in the midst of the complexities and also enhanced coordination with HCD that could increase the town’s likelihood of being certified after two reviews. Secondly, staff believes that hiring an economic consultant is critical as well. The budget for what they think is needed could be from $15,000 to $30,000, with the mid-range most likely based on a preliminary conversation with them. This would enable additional financial feasibility analysis. The consultant used previously was a sub consultant through 21 Elements, and they are not available to do any additional work. This would give staff more control over what they were studying. They are pretty sure this consultant will be available, but scheduling is tight. They do have another backup economic consultant that may be able to work for the Town if this one is not able to meet their timeline.

Director Russell spoke regarding the zoning code amendments. The range of these is in the range of $75,000 and $125,000 for a zoning code consultant. The benefits possible from that include the fact that they have more graphic and illustration capability, architects and urban designers on staff. Based on the way the Town’s process is going, staff thinks it might serve the community to understand better what some of the housing products would like by seeing some of the graphics. They also do work called a “form-based code,” which is a type of zoning standard where more prescriptive standards are written describing what buildings are going to look like, controlling the form and the massing more than with normal height and setback standards. Bringing on a zoning consultant would also open up space for Urban Planning Partners to be able to shift and do some other work if the Town needed it. All of Urban Planner Partners work is time and materials basis, so if they don’t need the money, they wouldn’t have to use it. This would give them more flexibility to be able to increase the chances of finishing the zoning code amendments by the end of the year if that is what Council would like to do.

Director Russell then discussed what the Town would get for that budget. At the low end, around $75,000, they would get the basic development standards, massing, site design, setbacks, adjacency to

21 other buildings. A consultant could look at some of this through a sustainability lens and could also do things like design standards that would help to minimize third stories. At the low end, there could be some graphics which would be helpful by urban designers and form-based code. At the high end, a budget of $125,000 there would be more graphics, more form-based code, more detailed objective standards written by them. Since there will be more by-right development, more objective standards will be helpful to maintain the expectations of the community. Some of those things could be zoning standards around mitigating privacy issues, details on materials and architecture, façade articulation in multi-family buildings – things the Town has not had to grapple with before. At this top end of the scope, this would be in two phases where the majority of the work to set the basic standards would be done by the end of 2022, so that the Housing Element could be adopted. Some of the detailed objective standards work would probably follow in 2023 early in the year, but they would have met the HCD state law requirements to have done the basic rezoning with the Housing Element.

Additional resources to consider included additional departmental staffing. With the complexity of the Housing Element update it is requiring extensive senior level resources, so the idea would be to add management analyst functions. Most cities have management analysts, usually master’s level generalists in local government, people who move the ball forward on many different tasks. The idea would be to have someone assist in the Planning Department for approximately three months, the intensive three months of the Housing Element process, to do things like contract amendments, reporting, grant administration, scheduling.

Director Russell shared the overview of the budget. Under the CEQA review, the full amount is required for completion of the Housing Element. Urban Planning Partners, $98,000 with contingency, staff recommends the full amount in order to have the best chance for completion. This includes analysis of the community’s eight ideas and creates a buffer in case they need to adjust a little bit. It does not cover any big changes, but only what they think will happen. Under Economic Feasibility, it may be possible to fall into the lower end, depending on the scope. Regarding Zoning Amendments would be between $75,000 and $125,000. This would not be necessary at this time if the Council decided the zoning amendments do not need to be completed by January of 2023. The work would need to be undertaken at some point, but at that point they could define a specific scope and budget. This item was a judgment call by the Council on how they wish to proceed. The last category was for the additional department staffing for $20,000. Director Russell did recommend this based on experience with the process so far. The total range for the entire budget was $376,432 to $441,433. Director Russell said this is not a complete budget analysis, given the timeline and the need to get something in front of the Council in order to continue on with the process. She said they expect that all off this would need to be funded by reserves.

Director Russell presented questions for the Council to discuss and give feedback and direction on. First, the overall timeline. There are some communities that are taking a riskier approach and risking some time without having a certified Housing Element. Staff has understood the direction from Council to be that the timeline is very important, but wanted to make sure that is their continued direction. Secondly, whether the Town should continue to pursue the zoning code amendments for completion by January of 2023.

Third, which of the resources suggested should be pursued? Fourth, she asked for any other direction, either for the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee or for staff as they move forward; any direction, on the work so far or any direction on the site inventory approach or the eight items the Committee has asked to explore.

Director Russell addressed members of the public and advised that if they want to stay involved in the process, the best way it to sign up for the e-notification system. Under “Stay Informed” on the Community section of the website, “Subscribe to Town E-notices” and select “Housing” and “Housing News.” Director Russell said she, Town Attorney Silver, Ms. Smith were all happy to take questions and looked forward to Council’s feedback and direction.

Mayor Hughes invited questions from the Councilmembers.

Councilmember Derwin asked Director Russell if it is possible to complete the zoning code amendments by January of 2023, even with the additional resources. Director Russell believed that it was possible, but

22 said honestly it will be very challenging. They will know better how things are going in May when they need to be done with the draft of the Housing Element. The next six to eight weeks are critical for the timeline, but as of now she thinks it is possible.

Councilmember Derwin asked what assurance there is of staying on track to make the deadline or what would derail it. Director Russell said if the eight ideas that the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee created so far do not get them to the number of needed units, or if they can’t reach consensus on how to go forward, those things would have the highest potential to derail the process. What they imagine is once they’ve gotten more of that compiled, they want to have a communitywide meeting and a check-in with the Planning Commission and the Council jointly so that if they start to get off the rails they would probably have to get into a joint meeting to see where they were at.

Councilmember Derwin said, having attended all of the Housing Element Committee meetings, at one of them they recommended only a few areas of town to be upzoned. She asked why those chose to focus on just a couple areas of town, rather than upzoning the entire town or at the very least upzoning the oneacre and larger properties? Director Russell said it was not necessarily a recommendation from staff.

Staff started the process by analyzing a number of different scenarios that they presented to the Committee on October 18th. These were thought experiments as opposed to recommendations to explore different things. When that initial analysis came together with the safety maps created at the February meeting, it started to seem like the discussion was pointed towards those specific areas, because of the safety considerations, so it was more how the process evolved than a particular recommendation. There were some other scenarios that they looked at in October. The Committee didn’t necessarily say not to do it, but that there was higher potentially higher unit yield with the other approaches, so they were following that train of thought. There were some scenarios that would potentially increase density. There was a public comment talking about reducing the lot sizes down to one acre. They ran a scenario that would increase the density throughout town so that it would still be one unit per one acre. They also looked at some other lot split scenarios. These are things that they could weave back into the process based on how things are going. In terms of upzoning the whole town, it is not impossible but may not get what they are really looking for, because what they need for the Housing Element is the site inventory, which includes a specific list of properties. So even if they upzone the whole town, they would not have a specific list.

Councilmember Derwin asked what was meant by zoning overlay and how it would apply. Director Russell said commonly there is just a base zoning district which sets the standard. Sometimes there is a zoning overlay that sits on top of it. So the base zoning exists, but there is something special added on top. For example, a historic district overlay or an affordable housing overlay. It could be something that automatically applies or it could be something you could opt into if electing to do something different. In an affordable housing overlay, there might be properties where their base zoning stays the same, but if you wanted to do affordable housing, you could have a higher density.

Councilmember Derwin asked regarding number six on the list of ideas which was to revisit the list of Town-owned property to see if there is any development potential. She said she was on that committee which met for three years. There were 40 properties originally and maybe there were five or so that had potential, so she assumed if they revisit that they will go back and look at the very large site at Los Trancos, across from Blue Oaks, and they will look at Ford Field and at the Alpine Road remnant. Director Russell said they have not gotten into that level of detail but would be interested if the Council would provide direction on the road remnant since they have provided previous direction related to open space.

On the other sites, back in December of 2019, they committee did not say to expressly pursue it, but left a couple as neutral. The first two were left as neutral and the road remnant they directed to be open space.

Regarding ADUs, Councilmember Derwin thought it was stated at the last meeting that there is a certain ceiling on ADUs that HCD will accept, something like the Town’s historical number plus 20 percent.

Director Russell said that is approximately correct. The way they want ADUs to be projected into the future is to take the past few years and average them and project that forward. If they want to add to that number beyond past performance, they will have to make a strong case for it. They have been advised that with a strong case they could increase by possibly 10 or 20 percent. But they have been advised that

23 it is very unlikely that HCD is going to believe that they could dramatically increase ADU production because the way that the state law has streamlined ADUs, it will be hard to convince them that the Town could do a lot more. They have talked about this and she felt they could do a little bit more streamlining and probably could do more proactive ADU programs, but they are still only going to result in a handful of extra units. It wouldn’t be tens or hundreds of units. Councilmember Derwin said, in other words, ADUs will not be the answer and they are going to have to build some multi-family housing. Director Russell agreed on this.

Councilmember Derwin asked regarding the Housing Elements that are not getting certified in Southern California, why they are not getting certified. Director Russell said the most common trend she has heard is related to the Fair Housing requirement. They now have a requirement to affirmatively further fair housing, which is to dismantle the physical patterns of segregation. There was state guidance that came out after Southern California was already underway, so they did not have the benefit of the guidance.

People in Southern California are getting a ton of comments on Fair Housing, so they have an advantage in that regard. The other thing she has heard is that HCD has been giving in their first round of review fairly general comments and not specifics. Cities and towns have been having trouble responding to that first round of guidance and getting certified the second time around. Those two are the common comments she has heard. Other reasons seem to vary a lot among jurisdictions.

Town Manager Dennis pulled up a chart that was produced by the town-owned property committee for its final recommendations. The chart showed the four final properties reviewed and the criteria examined for each, including transportation, sewer service, legal issues, et cetera. The four properties were 4 Town Center, which resulted in a sketch prepared by one of the committee members at the time, a few units where the substation exists. It did not look at replacing any of the open space or recreational amenity at the site. The second was the Alpine Road remnant property adjacent to the Frog Pond road remnant.

There was a sketch of about 11 units that subsequent Council action designated open space. The third was the subdivision in Blue Oaks, which has an issue from a legality standpoint, that it was not apparent whether or not anything could happen there based on how it was acquired and it’s designated use. Ford Field was the fourth property, the undeveloped portion, not the baseball field or the parking lot. Based on how it was acquired in the early 1970s from a legal standpoint there could be some opportunity to do some development there.

Councilmember Aalfs returned to his question on the minimum densities if they were to not rezone as part of the Housing Element. They would be in a sort of limbo where they would have to rezone certain things. He said for example, on a one unit per acre lot somewhere in town, in this rezoning you would have to go straight to 20 units as the floor but that 20 units per acre is not the ceiling, so with a half-acre lot and someone wanted to build 15 units, they could do that. They would be creating a new a floor but there wouldn’t be a ceiling on it. A developer might come in and want to build 30 units per acre to make it pencil out. He asked if that could happen. Mayor Hughes suggested they would set a max in the zoning.

Director Russell agreed and said they would want to set a minimum and a maximum. They can set a maximum but the minimum has to be 20 in that scenario. The state law says that number can’t be the same. So some cities are doing 20 to 25 units per acre, for example. The idea of a minimum density is used in communities that already have many different multi-family districts. Minimum densities have become more common in zoning codes in the last 15 years or so. It used to be that any multi-family district would allow anything from single-family up to the maximum, but people wanted to encourage more intensity of development in certain places, such as around transit.

Councilmember Aalfs commented that the economic analysis they are thinking about sounds like its kind of a bespoke local economic analysis. The Mullin default is the 20 units per acre. He asked if that was based on countywide or statewide analysis. Director Russell said the Mullin density is set by state law based on the size of the metropolitan area and the jurisdiction. Portola Valley is 20; some neighbors are

30. Councilmember Aalfs said the customized economic analysis could find that because houses are so expensive here that the town’s Mullin default number is something more like 30 or 40? Director Russell said that may be possible. They need to think about how they would study the properties and what information they are trying to get out. She thought they would want to rely on the state default densities mostly. The economic feasibility would be to supplement that and to study any other scenarios.

24 Councilmember Aalfs agreed with this and hoped they wouldn’t find something that would push them higher than that range.

Councilmember Aalfs asked if they are going to push forward and try to have the draft element by May, what the Ad Hoc Committee would need, whether they would need two meetings in April and two in May.

Also, he wondered if staff can support that over the next two months. Director Russell said at present she thought it was possible, but it depends on what happens. They have tried to line up the resources both internal to her department and at Urban Planning Partners to make the schedule. Councilmember Aalfs said it sounds like the next two months are perhaps a bigger bottleneck than the CEQA or anything else between May and January. Director Russell said the biggest bottleneck is the next six to eight weeks for the Housing Element and for the CEQA analysis. The fall will hopefully go smoother because they will have gone through this big process.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff said her questions were around the process and sensing that these next six to eight weeks will be critical and how to accomplish that within the work the staff has to do with the consultants to vet the eight ideas and also have enough time for the committee to meet and chime in on them. She asked what Director Russell was thinking in terms of what would be required in terms of additional meetings, or if they would do the work with the staff and consultants and come back with a proposal based on those eight ideas. Director Russell thought they probably need four meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee, maybe only three. It is hard for everyone to go six hours in terms of good public process and keeping peoples’ concentration. They would try to develop as much as they could s staff and consultants to address Council’s ideas, bring them back and keep going as they develop more, bring it back, so that in about three meetings bring the pieces together hopefully. An important part in order to be successful will having everyone play their position, coordinating exactly who is going to do what. That includes the Council subcommittee, the Chair of the Ad Hoc, the communications team, the Planning team, the consultant team, because they will have to be very streamlined and focused.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff asked regarding the Town-owned properties, which she was not at all involved in but understanding it was a very robust three-year process. From her perspective in thinking about it, that process did not have the benefit of the information and the situation they are in today, so she wondered what the current thinking is about the opportunities to really narrow down on quickly with respect to the Town-owned properties. She wondered if they should only be considering those four. Although she had no experience with what was done in 2019 and preceding years, she wondered if there were parcels or Town-owned property beyond that list of four that with the information they have now, that could be reconsidered. Town Manager Dennis responded to the question, sharing a map developed during that process. He said the majority of properties that the Town currently owns outside of developed property, such as recreation, Town administration, Library and others are a goofy mix. Some are leftover from development that was impossible and could not have been developed. This was true especially with certain places up in the Highlands area. An example are the stretches of land they have along Alpine Road that basically are right-of-way or completely isolated. His sense was that the committee did a pretty thorough job concentrating on sites that had development opportunity. They did not discuss the current playing fields or those sites, such as Triangle Park, the Frog Pond, and a few other spots that now appear to start to become part of the public discussion. There was never any consideration for Zotts, for instance.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff said that was helpful and said there are obviously certain parcels, for fire risk, evacuation, slope, size, et cetera, that she assumes would not even be considered. However, with the time limit they have, she asked about a quick way to revisit the ones that do make sense. Trying to represent what she is hearing from a lot of people, she said if they are considering private properties, they should be considering all town properties, including fields. She acknowledged that is difficult for people to stomach because her understanding is that was a tough thing three years ago, but she felt it would need to be put out there, because the decisions need to be made quickly to make the timeline.

Mayor Hughes said he believes the committee actually went through a couple iterations of whittling the list down from the list of 40 odd properties. He thought there was an intermediate list of 15 or 16 or so where all of the ones that could be ruled out immediately as unbuildable were eliminated. Then there was a shorter list of about a dozen. Some of those had legal questions that were then deemed as unbuildable

25 for legal reasons. The final list of four he thought there may be one or two properties from the shorter list of 12 or so that might be re-considerable, but he though most were removed for quite specific reasons.

Town Center is on there, and Town Center includes several fields. It wouldn’t be a huge number if they were to look at it. It might be six instead of four. Town Manager Dennis said he was happy to lend any assistance to the Planning and Building Director in looking through this. In regard to the process, he said the Town-owned property committee discussions were explicitly in part about site selection to support the Housing Element that was coming up. It was part of what was considered at the time, that this map would essentially be available during that process, although not necessarily recommendations. He thought what Vice Mayor Wernikoff was suggesting would be good use of staff time, and he was happy to help out with it.

Vice Mayor Hughes replied that even if that were the case, the appreciation for this RHNA round is different now than it was in 2019. The regulations and severity of consequences has changed. They also have had a lot of dialogue about fire and evacuation, et cetera, so she wondered if Blue Oaks would fit the criteria. She noted that the first couple maps were really all about constraints for risks – fire, evacuation, seismic. Town Manager Dennis responded that site, although it remained on the list, there were a significant number of people who came primarily out of the Los Trancos community who were concerned about evacuation. It is a constrained site given its location next to a creek, and its slope. It also had legal issues. He said they could have had a conversation with the HOA but didn’t think that would be a successful conversation. Vice Mayor Wernikoff wondered how to efficiently have this kind of conversation given how hard it was to get through the process even a few years ago, with now having a fraction of the time to revisit this, and how to ensure that they are including the viable options of Town properties in the process.

Director Russell commented that the safety constraints maps that they created are an important part of that and she felt the direction from the Council has been very clear – to make this plan as safe as possible. All of that information is in the GIS system, and they can map anything against those constraints maps.

Vice Mayor Hughes commented that when they are looking at the Town-owned properties – based on community feedback – is Town-owned properties, including fields, that work within the constraints map.

He assumed those would have to be under consideration. Councilmember Aalfs responded in regard to the fields, saying there have been several public comments asking why they aren’t considering fields. He said he believed if they were to plow Ford Field or Rosotti’s Field, it would have a CEQA consequence because it’s elimination of parkland. He believed it might push them from MND into a full EIR. MND could be a few months, and full EIR would be over a year, and this is a serious concern. Director Russell thought that concept was correct. They would have to look at that very closely.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff said that was another of her questions – what triggers MND to an EIR, generally speaking. Director Russell said that CEQA is not so simple as that. Every topic area in CEQA has its own “threshold of significance.” She said the words mean things in the CEQA world. The level of impact is related to that proposed project or program compared to that threshold, and all the thresholds are different. They look at all the different CEQA topic areas and see if any of them push past the thresholds and to what degree, and if the level that they push past can be mitigated. This why they are thinking of doing a mitigated negative declaration, because if they find any potential impacts, they will be able to mitigate them. This is common for this type of environmental document because they have control over so many things, so that they can be mitigated.

Town Manager Dennis mentioned a conversation about conversion of the town’s fields would generate significant opposition from groups who have perhaps not yet participated in this discussion. He said a variety of things that would get triggered as they start such a conversation, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have it, but regardless of the way they approach it, it is very likely that they would see that commentary. Vice Mayor Wernikoff appreciated this, but pointed out that is on the eight ideas list.

Councilmember Richards said it was a great series of questions, and all of his had been answered.

26 Mayor Hughes had a number of questions, some from the staff report and others that had come up that night. On red page 127, where two of the goals of the sixth housing cycle are “affirmatively affirming fair housing,” which is described as at least partially involving affordable housing not located at one particular area. The next section is the Mullin default density that concentrates a lot of housing in one area. In a larger town, those two wouldn’t be in conflict. The Mullin density could be spread over a lot of area and if there is enough affordable housing requirement then there could be several apartment buildings spread all over town. However, in Portola Valley where a handful of 20-unit buildings would satisfy a lot of the need, how do those two interplay? Mayor Hughes asked how the fairly high-density requirement of the Mullin number interplays with not concentrating all the affordable housing in one place.

Planning and Building Director Russell said they have thought about that a lot. Most communities have different neighborhoods. In the regional planning world, there is a category called “high resource,” which in everyday language means “a nice place to live.” It has good schools, good amenities. Most cities have some areas that are high resource and some that are not, so you don’t want to concentrate all of the development in areas that are low resource, because that reinforces certain development patterns and segregation.

Mayor Hughes restated that the affirmatively furthering Fair Housing requirements to not locate in one particular area doesn’t really matter in Portola Valley because anywhere they put development in the town is high resource and would be satisfying this requirement. Director Russell said that is their understanding, and they did talk to HCD staff when they came for the site visit. They acknowledge that Portola Valley’s context is different in terms of those concepts.

Mayor Hughes commented that this is really around the timing of potential rezoning and the development of zoning code. In talking about penalties that would be faced by not implementing zoning changes alongside submission of the Housing Element. He questioned whether there was an option potentially to do something like they intended to do with SB 9. That is, temporarily create an ordinance that is quite restrictive, a zoning code that technically has minimum and maximum densities that will comply with the Housing Element that they put forward, but with the intention to revisit that zoning code subsequently. In other words, putting in place a temporary zoning that they have constrained as much as possible to try to prevent developers coming in and building something they don’t want in the near term, but then over subsequent year or so laid out as a program in the Housing Element, they revisit that zoning code and loosen its restrictions to something more suitable where they add in all of the non-discretionary objective standard reviews and take time to think about what they want the zoning to actually be. The temporary placeholder would technically meet the requirement of having done the zoning changes in time for the Housing Element submission.

Director Russell responded that she thought it was technically possible, but the zoning code submitted in January of 2023 would still have to be pretty well developed because they could likely receive scrutiny on it from potential developers and housing advocates saying they are being disingenuous in a way.

Mayor Hughes acknowledged this, but said his proposal would be to make clear what their plan is, to have a specific program within the Housing Element to revisit and revise the zoning code, so that it is very clear that they do not intend it to be permanent, but simply a technical placeholder to satisfy the requirement of having the zoning in place at the time of the submission of the Housing Element. It would give an opportunity to take a little bit longer to do it right. If they could create a simple zoning code that is fairly prescriptive – which might make the CEQA compliance part easier – but there is a program within the Housing Element to revisit that, then they could revisit it at their leisure as opposed to under this time crunch. He said it was just an idea to put on the table.

Town Attorney Silver mentioned one caveat to the idea from a legal perspective. If Mayor Hughes was thinking that they would adopt a broad kind of overlay zone that says that all RE properties will be allowed to go up to 20 units per acre, and then over time the Town revisited that and took out certain areas of the town where they didn’t want to have the increased density, so they have essentially up-zoned a large swath and then strategically went in and down-zoned, there could be some limitations to their ability to down-zone under the Housing Accountability Act.

27 Mayor Hughes said he was more thinking of how with the SB 9 implementation ordinance they had set the square-foot limits to be something smaller than they thought and potentially over the next five or ten years they might allow people a little bit more square footage under SB 9 and make it more liberal. But they wanted to make it less likely that on January 1st someone would come in with an application that they didn’t want, but it gives time to think about it properly instead of rushing it. This would be for whatever zoning code changes they want. Town Attorney Silver envisioned developing objective standards and those sorts of things.

Mayor Hughes referred to the topic on red page 130, the eight ideas. On the fourth, the opt-in approach, he wondered if there was any direction as to what that meant or if it meant that each parcel would be individually and separately zoned depending on whether the owner opted in or not. And if there was one chance to opt in or if you could opt out again or opt in later. Vice Mayor Wernikoff said they wanted to, for private residence, single-family properties, solicit people to see if they would like to opt in for re-zoning where they would not do any re-zoning unless someone had opted in. She assumed this would be the 1 to 20 density they had been discussing. Vice Mayor Wernikoff wondered how the opt-in approach could work in this compressed timeline. Mayor Hughes thought it would be more a question for the Housing Element Committee. He was curious what they had talked about so far in this regard. Vice Mayor Wernikoff said it was more just the essence of being able to opt in versus otherwise.

Councilmember Aalfs said he hoped there was a hope that maybe a handful of homeowners would come forward and offer to agree to up-zoning when they dispose of their property, and it would solve the problem of having to force up-zoning on people. Vice Mayor Wernikoff added that some people would perceive it as having more value.

Mayor Hughes asked on idea number five, for the overlay zone for increasing the maximum density to six per acre, for example, if there was a reason for doing that as an overlay zone as opposed to just a separate zoning designation. Director Russell said this was about maintaining the things that work about the code and maintaining people’s sense of connection to the existing code, keeping things in place and an added option, because it may not be in all areas, looking at the safety constraints maps. Mayor Hughes thought there may be other considerations such as HOA rules, et cetera. Councilmember Aalfs thought they started with two-acre properties and larger and then started thinking about maybe one-acre and larger as another screen for those.

Mayor Hughes referred to the bottom of page 131, regarding zoning code amendments, timing and penalties. He asked to what degree they are locked into the zoning code that is in place on the day that the Housing Element is submitted if they do re-zoning beforehand, as presumably they can change their zoning code anytime they want, as long as the changes are compatible with state law and the Town’s General Plan as it stands at the time. Anything they overlook in the original zoning, whether following his plan of creating and the revising or whether the normal way – getting it right the first time – they continue to be able to modify their zoning code anytime they want through the normal zoning code amendment process. He asked if there was any extra burden the State can impose in this RHNA cycle that they haven’t had in previous ones for zoning code updates. Director Russell said not beyond what they have talked about. The Town can always amend its own code, but it would have to be consistent with the new Housing Element because it has to be consistent with the General Plan. It could always be more permissive but they would have trouble if it is more restrictive and they would have to look very closely at that.

Mayor Hughes asked about the objective design review criteria. Related to the timing, if they create the zoning code by January of 2023 but haven’t finalized objective design criteria checklist or other specific technical details referred to from the zoning code, he wondered if the State would consider that they have the zoning code implemented. Director Russell said it would have to be adopted. Mayor Hughes suggested they would have to adopt a temporary checklist, not a checklist that may be published later.

Director Russell said it could be a checklist that would be published later the basic development standards that implement the Housing Element would be density, height, setback, the basic building massing, that would have to be done by January 2023. They could continue that work to develop the objective standards and all of the checklists in the following months. There would be two adoptions. They

28 would have to go through Planning Commission and Council two times. She felt phasing the work like that is probably the way to go. Mayor Hughes said the more they can push into 2023 and not have to do before January, the more likely they will finish the things that absolutely must be done by January. He asked if they did that and created the zoning but hadn’t yet published a checklist if a developer would be able to submit an application or not. Director Russell said a developer would be able to submit an application consistent with the Housing Element and whatever zoning they had in place. If they didn’t yet have objective standards and were only working on them, a developer wouldn’t have to comply with them, even if the zoning referred to compliance with a checklist that was not yet published.

Mayor Hughes commented with respect to CEQA. If they don’t have the zoning code developed by January, then developments that happen by right would be exempt from CEQA. He asked if the CEQA review of the zoning code itself would essentially cover what would have been covered by the CEQA review of the projects under the zoning code. Things done under the zoning code are CEQA-compliant, so why would they need to have individual projects reviewed if they have already met the zoning code? Director Russell clarified that the CEQA analysis for the Housing Element and the zoning code is a broad and would cover most projects that would come forward. For example, a project that is next to a creek or had biologic impacts, and they knew it would still require some CEQA analysis if it was not a by-right project. Mayor Hughes said if they knew because of the timing of all of this that the effect of the zoning code would be that certain projects would be projects would be exempt from CEQA that would not have a CEQA impact on the zoning code itself. The zoning code would say part of the zoning is in an area where there’s a creek, so there could be a project in that area, so you need to assess the impact of that as part of the program, as opposed to the project.

Town Attorney Silver said generally what you would do is have an analysis of program-level types of impacts. They know that a certain density of houses is going to cause a certain number of trips, for example. They know what the air quality impacts of those trips are. What they don’t know and can’t analyze at a programmatic level is the footprint impacts of the exact project, where exactly on the site it will be situated. That is something in Portola Valley, the biological resources, that are typically done at the project stage and would typically not be covered by the environmental analysis of the zoning code itself.

Mayor Hughes had questions about penalties and loss of local land use control, red page 135. He asked if a receiver has ever been appointed by the State to take over a planning department in California, since this is a possible penalty. Town Attorney Silver said the receiver remedy is relatively new in the legislation. She didn’t know of any recent case under that particular provision. She said it makes sense.

Instead of having a judge decide all these issues, to have a receiver that is better trained in planning issues to take over the planning department seems like a better remedy than the previous one, which was to have a judge who was not necessarily skilled in that. Mayor Hughes asked if a judge does appoint a receiver, if the receiver was responsible to anyone other than the judge. In other words, if they did not have a compliant Housing Element and the judge puts the planning department into receivership, if the receiver could unilaterally deploy the planning policies that the receiver likes as long as the judge signs off on it, or if they needed to engage in any kind of public process, hearings, et cetera. Town Attorney Silver said theoretically they could. The receiver remedy has not been tested.

Mayor Hughes asked what infill development is in the context of Portola Valley. Town Attorney Silver said there is a particular definition under SB 35. It basically has to be surrounded by somewhere around 75 percent by certain urban types of uses. Those urban uses are defined quite broadly, including residential, commercial, retail, school, institutional and those types of things. It would include Portola Valley residential lots. She said infill probably is triggered but other locational issues and requirements they went through with SB 9 may not be triggered for every property in Portola Valley. Councilmember Aalfs added that sustainability typically means that you’re not building new roads or infrastructure to support a new lot.

It's something that either was already developed or was intended to be developed like a subdivision or a new road.

Mayor Hughes had a question on the budget numbers. Some are before July 1st and some are after July.

He asked roughly what the split would be. Director Russell said they didn’t get into trying to figure to what work would be done exactly. For Urban Planning Partners, the next three months would be quite

29 intensive, but still less than half. The economic feasibility would be all during the current fiscal year.

CEQA review will be mostly next fiscal year. She thought that might need to be analyzed more closely.

The zoning amendments would be mostly next year, and the additional department staffing would be the current year.

Mayor Hughes asked on the timeline about the 30-days-plus-10 public review process starting in May. He wondered if they get through the public review process with comments or suggestions for changes if they then need to go through another 30-day-plus-10 review process. Director Russell said no, the purpose of that is to receive the public comments and make changes as needed so that what is submitted to HCD for the first review has had robust public participation. Mayor Hughes said in their case where there has been robust public review through the whole process, if it meant they have to stop work for 30 days plus 10, or if there is work they can be doing to refine elements and prepare things for submission to HCD.

Director Russell said they can be responding to some of the things that are coming in. if, early in the 30 days, they were receiving comments that everyone agreed with, they could be working on those. At the end of the 30 days, they would have made some use of that time. They are required to have the full draft available for those 30 days, so it has to be a reasonable draft to meet the intent of the law.

Mayor Hughes agreed it has to be a reasonable draft, but if there were some elements that needed refinement, the Housing Element Committee could continue working on it essentially through the public review comment process to refine some of the elements. Director Russell thought might be pushing it.

The changes should be in response to the public comments at that point.

Mayor Hughes brought up being late versus not certifying an element at all and what the distinction would be. The penalties for not having a certified element, he asked what the difference between that and being late was. Or, how late you have to be before you’re considered not certified. Town Attorney Silver said if you’re late it essentially means that you don’t have a certified element, so on day one, you are not certified. Director Russell said they hear from other regions that for those cities that are actively working with HCD and going through the submittal process the HCD or state penalties are not being enforced, somewhat like a good faith effort to get certified. There is some unknown, however, around housing advocates or developers, but as long as you're making good faith effort with HCD then it seems that you’re okay.

Regarding compliance and annual reporting, Mayor Hughes asked for small towns who are going to have statistically lumpy development over eight years of the cycle, are going to be treated differently or if the state is statistically too naïve to recognize that in year one they may have zero units of a particular category developed, because no projects happened that year. The next year they may get two 20-unit buildings and more than catch up. He wondered how the State will look at the annual reviews, especially now that they are planning on actually inflicting penalties on towns that are not on track. He wondered how badly off-track a town would need to be, especially if they have small total numbers like Portola Valley will have, and if the State will recognize that, even though they’re off by a huge percentage, that they are only off by a small number of units.

Director Russell was not sure but said they only started implementing this in the middle of the Housing Element cycle they are in right now, so they don’t know what they will do at the beginning of a housing element cycle when there is not much to show for it. She thought they would expect pipeline projects to turn into real building permit applications and will be looking for that, although she didn’t know if they would wait for the first two years before starting to count. She thought they would do annual reports after that, making it possible to get on a “naughty list.” She didn’t think they had a method to accommodate towns like theirs that have numbers that go up and down.

Mayor Hughes brought up funding and grant loss penalty. Mayor Hughes referred to the different sources of grants and wondered what dollar amount they might be talking about in terms of what they typically receive in a year from those sources. Director Russell thought it was probably more of a question for Mr.

Young. She said for the past many years there is not a grant application that is filled out anymore in which you check a box that says you're certified and this is for every kind of grant they’re used to applying for.

30 Mayor Hughes said probably a couple hundred thousand a year at least. Director Russell agreed with this estimate.

Mayor Hughes asked for the Southern California towns that are not compliant if they know what an estimated ETA might be for when they find out how hard they will be penalized by the State? There are potential penalties but when might they know what actual penalties may be for the kind of violation they may end up in January where they’re trying hard but may just need an extra month. Or HCD hasn’t finished getting back to them yet, et cetera. He said many of the towns in Southern California are like that and he wondered when they might know the consequences being imposed. Town Attorney Silver said it is an important question. Their sense is that HCD does take into account good faith efforts. Conversely, they take into account bad faith efforts. For example, Huntington Beach has been on their “naughty list” for a long time, and they have consistently seen with any major housing initiative that Huntington Beach takes HCD has been cracking down on them. It is one of the soft issues that come up with Housing Element compliance. In fact, it is one of the reasons that staff didn’t recommend appealing their RHNA numbers, because they do think that a continued showing of good faith effort goes a long way with this particular agency.

Mayor Hughes asked if the Mullin default density is a default minimum density or a default maximum. Do they have to allow up to 20, or does it have to be a minimum of 20 per acre? Director Russell said Town Attorney Silver and she have been working on this. Their current understanding is that if you do the zoning with the Housing Element then it can be at 20 units maximum. If they do the zoning after the Housing Element, it is a minimum. Mayor Hughes said this makes sense, so if they need to do it, doing it now would leave them with a more flexible zone in terms of what a developer could build with less constraints on what they are allowed to build. Town Attorney Silver added that it also allows for a flexible overlay zone. The base level zoning of one unit per acre and then the option of electing to opt in and have an overlay zone drop down. If there is no interest in the increased density and feel it will devalue property, they don’t need to elect to have that and exercise their right to the overlay zone. Mayor Hughes questioned if the overlay zone allowed up to 20 per acre, or more, that would be Mullin-compatible. Town Attorney Silver agreed, if it were done before January.

Councilmember Richards asked a follow-up to the question about opting in where homeowners could theoretically say they want to zone their property. He wondered if that would run into issues with spot zoning that he understands creates some legality issues in town. He wondered if it is really possible for one person to say what his one acre is zoned 20 units per acre when everyone around him is still 1 unit per acre. Town Attorney Silver responded that she thought the Housing Element Committee was talking about just the general concept and when staff would move to implement that concept, they would recommend a true overlay zone. Courts have held that overlay zones do not violate the spot zoning restrictions, so there is still practically the same, just opting in, and you would have a different zoning than your neighbor if you chose to take advantage of the overlay zone.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff asked if they thought through logistics of how this might work as far as opting in. she assumed they would only do outreach for opt-in along the lines of a constraints map as a starting point. She wondered if it would be mostly outreach along Alpine and Portola given the constraints, or if there was anything they had thought through about executing outreach for the opt-in, particularly in light of the time constraints. Director Russell said they haven’t developed the idea very far yet but thought they should start with the constraints map for safety reasons and then do direct outreach to people, thinking about what other criteria they were using for the that. With the overlay as Town Attorney Silver described, they could keep it fairly broad and then do something like schedule a meeting, explain to people what they are talking about, see if they’re interested and go from there.

Mayor Hughes opened the public comment period on this item, reminding that questions may or may not be immediately answered at the meeting, but would be followed up on in the coming days.

Sandy Jelich Anderson spoke on behalf of the Jelich family concerning the commercial property they own on Alpine and Portola Roads. They have sent a letter, and she commented that as owners of the commercial property known as Roberts Market located on 4420 Alpine Road, they are voicing opposition

31 to the rezoning of the property from commercial to multi-family. The property is leased to George Roberts, of Portola Valley Grocery Store. The property has been leased since 1976 and serves the town with its grocery needs. The current 55-year lease will not expire until September of 2031, nine years from this September. There are two 22-year extension options associated with the lease which will extend and execute to the fullest extent. The property has been in their family for three generations, and they intend to pass it on to the fourth generation. They will continue the lease agreement and the current use for many years to come. The Jelich stores are on 104 to 116 Alpine Road and Portola Roads and the office is at 150 Portola Road. Those leases and extensions go on beyond eight years. She said their main objection to the rezoning is that their property does not meet the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development requirement that there will be a change of use during the next eight-year planning period. They wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that the Jelich commercial property will not be available for many, many years when the Town makes its general plan. She said per their letter, they demand that the letter of objection to rezoning of their property be filed with the Town of Portola Valley submission to the HCD for their rezoning plan for low-cost housing. She said she couldn’t imagine that the residents of Portola Valley would want to see their commercial services gone and replaced with high density housing.

David Cardinal pointed out that one of the bones of contention has been any forced upzoning. He was excited to hear the notion of optional opt-in upzoning, which he thought was what Atherton is doing with their townhome corridor along its major streets. He encouraged that. Secondly, per the previous caller, he felt they need to find a way to maintain their current businesses, so anything they can do to further mixed use zoning or something creative to make sure business could stay, along with putting in housing would be great. Thirdly, he acknowledged Director Russell’s financial discussion but said the numbers are not that big compared to what they are talking about. He advocated for any amount they need to spend if it will make the situation better, because they are talking about tens of millions of dollars of their town and their livelihood. He did not think, regardless of how many meetings the Housing Element Committee has, as great as they are, they are going to come up with a silver bullet. He felt that the people or the Town Council are going to have to make some hard choices about where to put development. More meetings are great, but it will not kick the can down the road. It will come back to the Council at some point and will be contentious and not everyone will be happy. He is supportive but didn’t think they can just ignore that they will get to that point.

Rita Comes appreciated the staff report but said what is missing is the voice of the 4,500 people of Portola Valley. As it says in the general plan they should be included. She said the two February meetings of the Ad Hoc Housing Element were highly attended due to residents wanting to find out more and voice their opinions. There were a lot of messages between residents to make sure that people that were missing out on information showed up to find out what was actually going on. Some were very surprised that their properties they have been building equity in and raising their families in were on those maps without a conversation from the Town. She said the minutes for the two meetings in February are not available and the public also cannot see the public comments that have been submitted to the housing portal as people have been encouraged to post their information or comments on. She said she tried again to see what people have been submitting, and she still cannot see what other people have submitted. She appreciated that the community meeting the residents have been asking for has finally been scheduled for March 16th, and then it was cancelled or some reason. They try to do the transparency, help with communications. They hear this from the Town, but it is a two-way street and they have to show up. There was a public meeting on the 16th in front of the Town Hall. She was disappointed that none of the Council were able to come during that time, as the approximately 80 people in attendance would have appreciated seeing any of them there. The comments made by attendees will be sent to the Town and all of the committees. She said as she hears the budget talk, she asked to add a moderator or someone to talk to the community if there is no staff time to do so, instead of more consultants to figure out how to make this happen. She said the community is asking for that, so please listen.

Janey Ward said she is on the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee and put herself in the line of fire. She is a friend of the community for 20 years. She had an idea she wanted to share again, that perhaps they could start a community fund to develop their own housing solutions. It is usually for under-resourced

32 communities, but she thought they could take private money to create a community development corporation to potentially design and implement housing solutions. She said it would not be the charge of their committee, but perhaps Portola Valley Neighborhood United or others could start something like it and create their own designs to support this mission.

Danna Breen asked if there is also a deadline for the Safety Element as it parallels the Housing Element.

If so, she suggested that public needs to have a lot of comment and participation in the Safety Element.

She noted that, having been on the ASCC for 20 years, Director Russell’s comment about the ASCC being a subjective process, it is not a subjective process. It is an objective process that works with the General Plan, the Guidelines, the ordinances and the zoning. They have never been the style police. She thinks of the State taking away all of their ability to work in their own town and she thinks that language doesn’t help.

William Russell asked how many affordable housing units can be built on both Ford Field and the Town Center fields. Second, he asked which of the potential housing sites in the prior study were not considered because they involved Town-created open space that could now be changed to affordable housing by further Town action. To the extent that there are open space properties that were created by grant deed with deed limitations he asked if there is any reason they couldn’t return to the grantors and ask them to reconsider the limitations in light of the current housing crisis. Regarding Blue Oaks, he was confused at the mention of legal conversations, and they didn’t want to have conversations with the HOA.

He wasn’t sure what that meant. Next, he wondered what they have to show the State to qualify any given site as a qualifying ADU site. He asked if a letter of intent from a homeowner was sufficient or if architectural plans had to have been submitted. Lastly, he said it was somewhat confusing to understand the distinction between qualifying now and qualifying later in conjunction with the zoning ordinance. He asked if the zoning takes place concurrently with the creation of the Housing Element he thought they could then set a maximum of 20 units per acre, but you cannot set a maximum of less than 20 units per acre. He asked if this was correct.

Bruce Roberts had a couple questions, one regarding conversations about the El Mirador property and the Neely property. He wondered if those were in any way related to the Spring Down property. He said he would appreciate Town Manager Dennis putting the map up on the website, ,so that residents could easily access that page for reference. He said he is disappointed again that they are not having the community meetings earlier, as scheduled on Director Russell’s list to be in October and December when it’s almost a fait accompli. He thought the people in the town deserved to be part of the process much earlier than has been the case, especially if they propose to up-zone anybody’s property, they need to make absolutely certain that those people receive a mailed notice that their property is on the list. The vast majority of people they spoke to before the February 28th meeting did not know that they were on the list. Also, with respect to the Ford Field issue, it seemed to him that one of the great benefits of the property is that people would be making a right turn to get out if they have to escape in the case of a fire; whereas a lot of the other properties have left turns required and especially on Alpine Road he is very concerned that if they ever had an emergency evacuation like in Paradise a left turn would be a disaster on Alpine Road. He encouraged anything they can do to develop right turn lanes whether at Ford Field or Rossotti Field would be good. Also, with respect to the Town Center playing fields, he said they will have the opportunity of exiting on Portola Road, taking a little bit of stress off of Alpine Road. Portola Road is more likely to be a better escape route because of its proximity to 280.

Mary Hufty thought while listening to Director Russell’s great presentation that who the consultants are, they are already $20,000 in with Urban Planning Partners, and she was struck that they are truly urban planners and Portola Valley is not an urban community. She asked if there was a possibility that some of the next $100,000 or so that the Town will be giving them, if there is somebody who might be a little bit more qualified to deal with a community such as Portola Valley, which is definitely an intermix of WUI, not urban, and not doing urban planning, but something much more creative – a village model, not an urban model. She thought it looked like they are relying heavily on consultants, and she would like to see them be more creative in the choosing more appropriate consultants.

33 Bob Adams disagreed with Ms. Hufty in that he was very glad the Town was using consultants given the time pressure staff is under. He thought this was the time to really put in the effort and not do anything differently than they’re doing. After all the presentations staff has done, he gives much credit for what they are trying to do in a very short time and he thought Director Russell is doing a magnificent job trying to keep this all together. Firstly, he wanted to make sure that most people on the call understand that he has not heard one person say they didn’t want to keep the commercial business. There’s a lot of support for the commercial businesses. He did not see them eliminating those businesses. Secondly, he loved Vice Mayor Wernikoff’s presence at the Housing Element meetings because she understands what it is they are trying to do and he appreciates her comment that they looked at things in the past but we did not look at them under the present circumstances, which are much different. He appreciates her view that they are going to try to look at everything. Thirdly, he felt that the fields are a very good place to look. He heard what Councilmember Aalfs said about the park and hoped that Ford Field is not designated as a park, because he understand the difference, the two levels of inspection for the environmental, so he is hoping not. It would be a good location because it would be at the edge of town and not in the center of town.

Using that property as much as possible would be a great thing. He commented next on using the town fields. He thought that they do have town fields that they could be looking at. He wouldn’t want to start there, other than starting with either Blue Oaks or Ford Field, which tend to be the ones that have the most value, the biggest areas that could be used. Knowing he would irritate some people in his area, he felt that the White property is a good place to put a multi-family unit housing as it is between two areas that are already commercial or multi-unit. Lastly, he encouraged the Council to spend the money on all of the things they saw in the proposed budget. He will send a few more dollars if it can help. Staff has a lot to do in a short time, and he thanked them for all the work they are doing and the great job in explaining all of it to them.

Alyson Illich agreed with Bill Russell a hundred percent. She had a question about the opt-in possibility.

Her understanding regarding the constraints they are under is that any parcels identified need to be developable within the next eight years. If she for example, opted in to have this overlay on her property to be multi-family housing if it was even going to count and that they should be realistic about that.

Secondly, she commented that she would love to have a developer at the Housing Element Committee meetings as well as an appraiser, to tell the homeowners exactly what this means if they were to opt in, if there were to be an overlay situation if it came to that what that would mean for them, because she didn’t think they really know. She wondered if it increased their value or decreased their value and by how.

From a developer’s perspective, she wondered whether any of the sites they are talking about even make sense economically.

Dale Pfau appreciated the letter about safety being included as item 17. He has said for months that they are giving short shrift to safety. The Safety Element won’t even be done by the time the Housing Element has to be completed or at least the draft in May. It is not going to be on the agenda in the committee’s April meeting which means that the first time they can look at it is going to be the May meeting. He said as far as he is concerned, the Safety Element is probably the most important thing they are undertaking this year. It is a big job, and they haven’t been involved, haven’t been told anything, and he was frustrated with the whole process.

Tom Hafkenschiel had two comments. One, it seems that SB 9 and SB 10 and whatever other ones apply were made largely because the thought was that housing was too expensive in California and that was how these things got passed. His guess is that they were really pushed by developers, and because of that he wondered whether they can in the zoning require the new housing be low-income housing.

Because that was the intent of the law and they really don’t need any more high income housing in Portola Valley. Perhaps there really is a need for low income, so he asked if they can somehow meet their requirements by specifying that it must be low-income housing. Secondly, he asked what the endpoint of all of this is. He knew it is not up to the Town Council, and they are limited by state law and other constraints, but really, they seem to be putting in more and more requirements each year. He wondered at what point does this blow up, meaning if they say the town needs 250 more housing units in the next three years, at what point is their infrastructure going to be unable to cope with this? And then what happens? What is the result of all of this?

34 John Silver remarked about a prior speaker who was upset at having to stay up until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. he said as one who spent more than 30 years going to public meetings, he remembered the times he would answer constituent questions at what is now Roberts Market, which was then John’s Market, when he was trying to buy food, get home and cook dinner before going to a public meeting. He would buy the food. He would have his constituent office hours at the market when he was trying to do so. He would get home and there was no time to cook anything. It was before the era of microwaves. He would have a piece of whole wheat toast with a little butter. It was nutritious and then about 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. he would get home and cook dinner. It would take another hour after eating dinner to calm down enough, because he cares about this town so much. To calm down emotionally enough to actually fall asleep. He would get up four hours later to go to work. He stated that democracy is hard work and get used to it. He did. If they want a vacation, go to the former Soviet Union, and discover what it’s like to live where you don’t’ have to stay up late for public meetings. He spent a few weeks there more than once, and it was so relaxing, but he wouldn’t want to stay there forever or have the central government do planning for his town. Mr. Silver encouraged folks to have patience and not shoot the messenger who is bringing the bad news. He said just because they are just learning about how draconian current state policies are, don’t blame the Town Council and Town government for bringing them the news of that. Be part of the solution.

He was glad to hear many people talk about that tonight. He added that he doesn’t think one of the parts of the solution is destroying their playing fields or getting the State to pass laws that allow them to condemn open space. He said he and others have worked so hard to preserve them. He said they need to find a way to meet the goals in a way that will not destroy their town. He didn’t know if they could do it, but they surely need to try. If they can’t they’ll deal with it then and talk to their state representative.

Kristi Corley thanked Director Russell for her presentation with all the information and she thought they were starting to get through to the residents what this all really means. She said she is for housing not only on Alpine Road and Portola Road, but she is for housing throughout Portola Valley. She was concerned about the high-density bonus law and the proposed 20 unit per acre can actually be increased under bonus density law, which applies to multi-family and mixed use property. The 20 units might even be doubled depending on the developer’s offer to build below-market-rate units. It depends on how much below-market-rate units the developer is willing to include. Then there are exceptions to the zoning laws.

For example, more units, greater heights, less setbacks and less parking spaces. She wanted residents to realize that the proposed 20 units per acre could actually end up being more units based on BMR units offered by the developer. The developer is entitled by law to a certain benefit and able to build more units with a set maximum. She said she is for a developer’s re-zoning to take place at the time of the application per parcel, rather than grouped parcel re-zoning and up-zoning. If it were to be her home to be re-zoned – of which she is a couple blocks away – she could not build an ADU or add a room to her house. She felt this is a lot to ask of a resident, and she said she needs to learn more about the overlay mentioned and wanted to fully understand all of that better. She said there was another comment that you would not be able to show lots of illustrations or an option for the public to see. She said she is all for illustrations, so anytime they can really show the residents what these units will look like – such as those she sent over to Director Russell after the last meeting – she would like to see architectural drawings and then they can all get behind it and then do the zoning and all feel better, being able to see it.

Bob Turcott thanked Director Russell and Town Attorney Silver for distilling this complex information into an accessible form and also for their hard work. He said he would vote with David Cardinal and others in terms of spending the money. He felt the amount of budget they’re talking about compared to the potential impact cumulatively on property values justifies it. His main comment was concern that they may be painting themselves into a corner with respect to CEQA. He said MND would certainly be convenient.

He said he doesn’t know enough about this area to have a strong opinion but did understand that an EIR is required if there may be a significant impact with respect to hazards, heath and safety and evacuation.

In response to Mr. Hafkenschiel comments about continued growth, he said his understanding is the CEQA laws make clear that it is the cumulative effects rather than incremental and the 14 percent increase in population seems as if it would have a potentially significant impact. He urged staff and the Council to carefully the question of MND versus EIR and hopefully have some confidence that they are on the right path, because if it turns out later that an EIR is required, that would set them back significantly.

35 “Eckstein” questioned what the Town’s annual budget is. He asked if the RHNA numbers they’re trying to comply with is a new law passed, or something that has always taken place, something that if political winds change could go away at some point, especially with a lot of pushback. He referred to someone saying it would be great to have more housing available for seniors and kids and wondered if there is any priority for locals to qualify first or if it is for anybody whether they live in town or in the state or the country. He questioned who they are building this for and finds it surprising that they are talking about the consequences, losing state grants, except they don’t know how much they even get from them. If he was weighing the consequences, he would at least have an idea of what they would be losing. He would be happy to lose state funding and make it up in his property taxes if he didn’t have to comply with an unreasonable law. He said he finds it abhorrent that people are considering taking away all of their playing fields and questioned if they care about the younger people in the town, who are their community and where their town gathers. He said the Town Picnic is at the Town Center and questioned the thought of paving it over for housing. He said if that’s the case they might as well pave over Town Hall. He didn’t see how they can consider penalizing all the families and kids so they have no community here. Talking about money in the penalties, but he they are going to spend a minimum of $400,000 minimum, just to comply with this. He would rather put that money towards lobbying against this, finding a reason in the fire safety why they should not have to build at such high density or high numbers. He supports adding a few houses here and there that make sense and grow organically but to have this jammed down their throat on an unreasonable timetable is something that needs to be pushed back on. He wondered if the Town is so buried as it is issuing permits to existing people with whatever project they have, how they will ever comply or help locals with their projects if there will be 300-plus units to deal with moving forward. He said they will never be heard from again.

Ron Eastman mentioned that there was a Chronicle article that mentions that 10 percent of the real estate purchases in Portola Valley in 2021-2022 were by financial investors, so he said they should think hard about the discretionary lot conversion idea. He said Wall Street has noticed Portola Valley, and it will happen.

Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Hughes invited staff to give any quick responses and advised that staff would get back to people with questions offline if they answered at the meeting.

Town Manager Dennis stated that the Town’s annual budget, the General Fund, is approximately $7 million, another couple million a year depending on the year it related to capital improvement. He also commented about communications and advised that every resident was sent a postcard over the past week-and-a-half to two weeks with a very provocative title to encourage participation in the Housing Element process. He shared that communication is a very challenging endeavor as it relates to public engagement. He asked staff to prepare some information about what they saw post the postcard how many people were actually going to the Housing Element sites. He reported that on the busiest day – Monday, the 21st – they saw about 22 unique visits to the Housing Element page, through the QR code.

This speaks to the challenge in reaching people and making sure that the things they would like people to participate in rises to the level of import. Communication continues to be a significant part of what they do. They are one of a handful of cities in San Mateo County that have a full-time communications manager. They encourage people to take proactive steps to participate in the process and sign up to the webpages in the link, but there is no easy solution there.

Planning and Building Director Russell offered to answer a number of the shorter questions that would benefit the overall conversation and asked participants to email [email protected] if their question is not answered, and staff will follow up. Regarding public comments being available that are going into the portal, she said the public comments were attached to the last Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee meeting on Monday. Residents can go to that packet and review the comments there, which is how staff will continue to make them available. Regarding the community meeting scheduled on March 16th, it was postponed because of the outcome of the February 28th Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee meeting. They needed more time to be able to prepare the materials as well as have this meeting before Council before having the full communitywide meeting. She said additional community meetings will be forthcoming.

36 Regarding the deadline for the Safety Element, she said it is another thing that is up for interpretation.

The State law says they have to be doing it concurrently with the Housing Element, but there is not a clear deadline, and there is not a penalty. Her latest information is that in San Mateo County, eight cities and towns have not even started their Safety Elements yet and are waiting to do them later. She thought Portola Valley had started theirs earlier than anyone else compared to people who weren’t doing a whole comprehensive update. The question about the ASCC process being subjective, she said their review right now is partially subjective and partially objective, according to state law. The part where ASCC reviews compared to the numeric standards in the Code, or the numeric standards in the Guidelines, would be considered objective, but when they use the findings or the aspects of the guidelines that are not highly specific, that would be considered subjective, discretionary review according to state law definitions currently in effect.

Planning and Building Director Russell addressed the question regarding the zoning with the Housing Element and density of 20 units per acre. She explained that they can set a max of 20 units per acre if they do the zoning with the Housing Element prior to January. She thought the question was whether they can set a max that is less than 20, and she answered they cannot set a maximum less than 20, but can set a minimum less than 20. If residents have questions on this, she asked that they email them, and they will try to get that information into some FAQ documents.

Regarding whether El Mirador and Neely is the same as Spring Down, she said the Spring Down Winery is the same as Neely. Town Manager Dennis interjected that it was Spring Ridge Winery. The question was in regard to Spring Down. He commented that right next to Town Center is the Spring Down Equestrian Center. In front of it is the Spring Down Open Space Preserve, which the Town acquired a number of years ago. It was acquired as a permitted open space. El Mirador, or Morshead, is behind Town Hall. What looks like an orchard is that land going up into the mountains, about 300 acres. The Neely property is right next to the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, with the Jelich Ranch in between. So, Neely is the same as Spring Ridge.

Director Russell addressed the question about the consultants and their qualifications. She said Urban Planning Partners has extensive experience working in the WUI and have been working with Paradise on their Housing Element, for example, She responded to the density bonus law question and whether the 20 units per acre could be increased using density bonus law. The answer was that it is a complex law but in general it is possible for those densities to be increased even more using the state density bonus law, and it is possible for them to ask for concessions or waivers of certain types of standards. Mayor Hughes asked her that interplays with the Mullin density limit and if it would be possible to craft something that with the density bonus would get to a base of 20 per acre. Director Russell said they just asked that same question and the advice they received was maybe, but it is a hard sell, because they would have to demonstrate to HCD that they have a past history of approving those projects. She said they will think about this more, but should not count on it at this time. Mayor Hughes thought they may, by the end of the year, have the Whites project, which has been approved, the Wedge project, which is in process, so it is possible they will have a history of approving projects like that. Director Russell agreed and said that was their thinking, and they will analyze it further.

Director Russell addressed the question of whether it’s possible to do the rezoning at the time of the applicant and not in a group in advance. She thought this would not be possible because it would not comply with the Housing Element sites inventory requirement so they wouldn’t have enough zoning to accommodate the number of units they need. Regarding the question about for the affordable housing units if there could be a priority for local people to live there, she said the answer in general is yes, it could be possible, by creating a “preference program” that would give first opportunity to people who live or work in the community. However, those kinds of programs have to be very carefully crafted to avoid imposing on any Fair housing Restrictions.

Director Russell said they are working on an FAQ document and are happy to integrate any comments/questions not addressed in that format.

Mayor Hughes brought the item to the Council for discussion.

37 Councilmember Richards talked about Portola Valley history and the preservation of the character of the town, which is the reason he joined the ASCC in 1985 and has served on the Council since 2010. He said many know that he has lived in town for quite some time and, while that doesn’t give him any special standing, he has memories to offer of what the town was like before 1964, what it was that they were trying to protect with their famous ’64 Consensus. This was a time when the population of California was less than half what it is today. Portola Valley’s population was close to what it is now, with lots of young families looking for an inexpensive place to live way out in the boonies. His dad was a Stanford professor.

Across the street was a high school teacher. Next door was a Lockheed engineer on one side and on the other side a cabinet maker. It was fairly diverse, at least economically. When he was young he was fortunate to be able to walk or ride his bike to school pretty much every day from their home on Corte Madera Road down to Portola Valley School where they now have their Town Center. He said Corte Madera Road, Canyon Drive, Crescent and Echo Lane were all unpaved country roads at that time. On their way to school every day he and his friends would make their way down to Portola Road where they could often look across the road to where the Priory now stands and see cattle grazing. Up the road where the Sequoias is now there was more open, rolling fields, more cows, an old barn where the Windy Hill parking lot is now. Jelich Ranch was active in the apple business, and sometimes they would stop in and grab an apple and chat with Walter. After school, he and his friends might wander down to what became Willowbrook Drive. At that time there was a plum orchard covering almost the entire valley floor.

They would sometimes work their way up to Alpine Road and explore the Bovay Ranch where the cattle grazed around the Frog Pond, Corte Madera School and Portola Valley Ranch did not yet exist. They had fun exploring the beginnings of the Westridge development on the other side of the valley and sometimes would go down to the corner store, the Valley Super, at Alpine and Portola Road, for a Coke long before Roberts Market existed.

This was a time when the remnants of their agricultural past were still vibrant, before 200 homes went in at the Ranch, 35 or so on Willowbrook, a dozen on Applewood, 39 at Blue Oaks, the entire Sequoias development which is a fairly dense cluster of housing accommodating more than 300 town residents, plus much of Westridge and Alpine Hills and many more. Councilmember Richards said these developments represented a massive change to what they started with and were inspired to protect by 1964. The fact that people are turning out in force to protect what they now have tells him clearly that they have managed to uphold the ’64 Consensus pretty well. He said along the way these developments received enthusiastic pushback. Most of them were subject to the constraints of Town ordinances developed and guided by their excellent General Plan. They went through the same processes and procedures that are being used to address the current housing challenge. Hundreds of residents have followed this process, including his own home. Over time they have adjusted, responded with constructive input and ended up with a town that everyone is determined to preserve.

Councilmember Richards said today they are confronted with the failure of almost every community in the state to adjust to an ongoing housing crisis, so the State has decided it’s time to step in and get them all to do their part. The energy with which some in town oppose the latest change tells him that cooperatively following the processes established by the Town’s founders and refined over 60 years is more important than ever. While there are certainly new factors and forces to consider by continuing with established protocols for information-gathering and public input their Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee and staff have been following the path that is most likely to lead to success. He said no one on the Council or in the town administration wants these changes to be imposed on them, but if they approach it as an opportunity to enrich their community he believed it can be a win for all of them. Councilmember Richards went on to say that his feeling on these matters is that they need to provide guidance to staff on how to proceed, and he is a firm believer in the local control that has been so successful in preserving Portola Valley and the ethos of it to date. He therefore felt they should proceed as quickly as possible to meet the timeline imposed by the State, including pursuing the zoning code amendments necessary to preserve as much local control possible. If this means digging into reserves to engage additional assistance, that is what they need to do. If major overlay zones will help, for example, he said they should do it. Even though they have a tight timeframe to work in, they are still in the early stages of figuring out what is possible, so everything should be on the table. There is no question that this is, and will continue to be, a painful process, so he said they should reaffirm their commitment to cooperation, and get it done.

38 Councilmember Aalfs appreciated Planning and Building Director Russell and Town Attorney Silver’s efforts, as well as staff’s, for a comprehensive presentation. He said he has been thinking about this for a long time, but it was a great background for anyone coming into the discussion for the first time and even for those coming into it for 20th time. It was encouraging, although daunting, to hear the thought that they are still in a position where they can get across the finish line in time. He said they have come to some small amount of comfort around the idea of not making the deadline, but he still feels much better making it and agreed with Councilmember Richards that the resources they would put in now will get them across the finish line in time, he was still very uncomfortable with the small risk they would be taking. He said the politics across the state are not working in their favor right now. Housing advocates and others would love to find a lovely hillside community like Portola Valley and make an example of it to compel others to comply, and he does not want to be that community, so he is risk averse with their natural resources to the point of being a little bit more profligate with their financial resources and concur that they should push forward with this and try to stick with the deadline.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff agreed with Councilmember Richards and said it was awesome to hear his perspective so well spoken and meaningful. She agreed that they should approve the budget presented, because she feels that they have wide consensus that maintaining as much local control as possible is critical. Going forward, in regard to Councilmember Aalfs’ concerns, she agreed that it will be critical is the tight timeline, and they will all need to work together very well, with good faith and discipline to be able to get through the eight ideas in a disciplined way, and support staff in every way possible to make sure they get it done, so she was fully in favor of approving the budget.

Councilmember Derwin responded yes on the timeline – online, on time completion is the primary goal and a critical priority. Two, she said zoning code amendments are also a critical priority and should be done at the same time. To the resources question, she said they have to spend the money and also felt they should give Town Manager Dennis to spend as needed so that he did not have to come back to Council all the time. She mentioned that she would remove numbers 7 and 8 from the eight ideas list. Her direction for the Committee and staff was that there has been incredible work by the Committee and nobody is doing anything like this in the county. For all those who think there is not enough communication, she said they are communicating more and gotten people more involved than any other city in the county, and they have the smallest staff and probably close to the smallest budget. She said there’s been great work from the Committee, but she advised Councilmember Aalfs and Vice Mayor Wernikoff and Director Russell, to corral them because of the time critical piece. She said to basically have them stop generating more work for staff and deal with the work they have already got. She said anything that threatens to derail them from the timeline must be set aside. She concurred with the other comments that they are going to have to make the decision. It is not going to be easy. There will be many in town who are not happy, which is the way it is in politics – half the town likes you; half the town hates you, but they have to do this because there is no other choice.

Councilmember Derwin said if they don’t do this on time the State – forget the penalties; they are the smallest piece – will come in and essentially tell the Town how they’re going to zone and at what density.

Her last comment was a reminder that this is not happening in a vacuum, but is a direct response to the unprecedented housing and homeless catastrophe in California that was brought on by a number of factors, including the fact that for decades cities and towns – like theirs – just have not built enough housing for all income groups. She has been talking about this for about a decade. She predicted that one day the Town would have to face the music, and that day is here. It is far worse then she imaged and is a much more herculean task. Councilmember Derwin said the part of it is in the Fair Housing piece, the equity piece, this is about dismantling the legacy of residential segregation, which was created by blockbusting and redlining, which barred people of color from home ownership, which is the principal way everyone builds wealth, and also located them in areas of the state that were less than desirable. She said Portola Valley is a classic example of economic and racial segregation. On her CC&Rs in Westridge, even though it doesn’t exist anymore, she can read the Racial Covenant which would have made it impossible for people who were in the Zoom room that night to buy in Portola Valley. So providing an opportunity for people of different economic, cultural and racial backgrounds to live here is a step in the right direction. She said they just need to put their heads down, do the work and get this done on time.

39 Mayor Hughes agreed with the other Councilmembers that they need to get this done on time or make an effort to do so. Even if they try and don’t quite make he said they will be in a much better position with the State to be showing that they have been doing this in good faith, that they are doing everything they can to get it done on time. If something beyond their control makes that, he hoped that, given what is going on in Southern California with the number of people unable to get theirs done, that they will get credit from the State for that, and they will minimize the penalties. He was supportive of the extra expenditure to help keep this on track and also added to the point around everyone working together and collaborating closely to keep things moving at the pace that they will need to move at in a way that doesn’t give short shrift to people who might want to participate their ideas to be fully fleshed out and so forth. He said to Director Russell that one of the risks to the timeline would be if consensus cannot be reached and things are not moving fast enough that he would hope they will be keeping an eye on that and if it seems likely to become a problem she would come back to the Council to help keep things on track, if need be. Or, if the Housing Element feels that they don’t want to step in the hornet’s nest and the hornet’s next is going to come to the Council anyway they are aware that there is going to be painful outcomes in the process and he suggested if it will keep them on track, to bring it back to Council sooner rather than later, even it is then sent back to Housing Committee. They can at least give them direction and take the heat for them if necessary.

Regarding the zoning code, Mayor Hughes had initially thought for the zoning code that they might be able to do it, but he didn’t understand the distinction between maximum density and minimum density.

Now that he does, he felt it was very important to get the zoning done concurrently with the Housing Element and not delay it until after, unless they figure out how to do what he suggested with some kind of zoning amendment that is easier and quicker. If there was a lower threshold zoning amendment that they could do and refine afterwards, it would give them a little more breathing room. But if, in staff’s view, that is not practical, then he advocated getting the zoning done concurrently with the Housing Element.

Town Manager Dennis thought the feedback offered was sufficient to move forward, and staff planned to bring on April 13th a sizeable budget amendment with a bunch of items the Council has discussed in previous meetings.

Mayor Hughes noted the suggestion by Councilmember Derwin regarding giving Town Manager Dennis authority to spend more beyond this if necessary to keep things on track. He thought there may be some changes when they come back with the budget for next year, but he urged the Town Manager to not be shy about coming back and asking for more money if needed to keep this on track. Town Manager Dennis responded that he understood Councilmember Derwin’s suggestion. The Council has been directed them in all of these things, but that the staff has some flexibility to do the things needed in the order needed and not add beyond the amount suggested. He said if they need to they will come back.

Director Russell said the only logistical thing she didn’t know the solution to was that they may need to get into a contract with the economic consultant right away that might be above the authority of Town Manager Dennis for a normal contract. Town Manager Dennis said his limit now is $25,000. Mayor Hughes thought perhaps they could break the contract in two. Town Manager Dennis could sign the first $25,000 and then bring back the balance. Director Russell said they could bring back an amendment to increase the amount to Council.

Councilmember Aalfs commented that he was taking the conversation as direction to him and Vice Mayor Wernikoff through them to the Ad Hoc Committee to stay focused. He invoked the Council saying that this deadline is very important to them, and at some point they may have to say no to some ideas from the Committee, he wanted to make sure that everyone was okay with him or Vice Mayor Wernikoff taking that authority on the full Council’s behalf, within reason. Mayor Hughes was okay with that. Mayor Hughes voiced his assent.

Town Manager Dennis and Director Russell appreciated the discussion. Vice Mayor Wernikoff and Mayor Hughes expressed thanks for staff’s tremendous efforts. (14) COUNCIL LIAISON COMMITTEE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES REPORTS

40 Councilmember Derwin reported on C/CAG. They had a presentation by Commute.org. they had a presentation from Josh Abrams from 21 Elements about everyone working on their housing elements. He emphasized that this is the hardest one ever. There was a Leg Committee report. They reviewed and approved the updated San Mateo County Priority Development Area, Investment and Growth Strategy.

They went over the OBAG 3 call for projects. The most important part of the meeting was election of a new Chair and Vice Chair – Davina Hurt from Belmont and Ricardo Ortiz from Burlingame. In June they will meet in-person.

Regarding roundabouts on Alpine, Councilmember Derwin said she, Don Horsley, Chris Hunter had a meeting with Senator Becker and his aid, Helen Wolter. They gave them the same pitch as they gave Assemblyman Berman and will see where it goes. They had an Express Lanes meeting where there was an update on the southern segment which opened in February including much data. Their agreement with the BAWTA [phonetic] contractor for transponders. There was an update on their $100 million loan. It was CFO Derek Hansel’s last meeting, as he was leaving to go to MTC. There was an update on the equity program and they had a good training with Samaritan House and all nine nonprofit agencies. They will go live on March 21.

The ASCC met on the 14th, with one item to review – an application for a new spa, deck, pathway and alterations to the residence. Everyone like it, and it passed. They discussed whether they would like to continue meeting at 4:00. They might change this. They used to have a site visit and then a meeting at 7:00, but site visits have to change because it all has to be ADA compliant. It was interesting that Kennny Cheung cannot be available from 5:45 to 6:30 because of his family schedule. His wife actually called in an explained the situation and after considering all of this the Commission decided to start their meetings at 6:30 when Commissioner Cheung is available and will have to figure out the site meetings before that.

Councilmember Derwin attended an RMCP (Resource Management Climate Protection) meeting. There is a laundry-to-landscape proposal which is in the stage of needing a lot of money, but it would be a cool thing to do. The idea is to teach people in the county how to do laundry-to-landscape systems. They will actually do some pilots, and she would love to get some in Portola Valley. They got their BAWSCA update which was bad because of the drought, but for their area, since they are Hetch Hetchy, it is not as bad, because Hetch Hetchy is somewhere around 82 percent full. However, as the Governor says, it is a statewide drought, so even thought their area is good, pretty much every other area is suffering. Shasta is at 38 percent and should be at 50 percent. Orville is at 46 percent and should be 69 percent. It doesn’t look like they are getting much more rain, so in their third drought year they won’t make an announcement until April regarding whether there will be mandatory rationing. She said for some reason, Tom Francis doesn’t think there will be in their area, but she found that hard to believe. They had an update on the microgrid in La Honda, and there was a presentation on incentives for single- and multifamily units in low income areas to get rebates for electrifying.

She attended a Sustainability Committee meeting. Nature and Science wanted to know if the Sustainability Committee wants to help with Compost Day, which they are planning in the fall. Lovey ran into the Cal Water guy by her meter, who was marking buried water valves. Lovey said, “Who takes care of the fire hydrants? You or the WFPD?” Cal Water said, “We both do,” and that was distressing to Lovey.

The solar backup battery finally made it back to the Library but still can’t be lent out. There were website updates. At the next meeting Josie Gaillard and Tom Kabat from Menlo Park are going to present on their work on electrification of existing homes and doing it with 100-amp panel. They will try to advertise to the wider community for this. They went over their priorities which consisted of a lot of items and an interesting discussion.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff attended a CAC meeting, and the Committee is on fire, doing great work. They are planning a kid’s movie night for this summer which is going to be an addition to the things they do. They will have their summer concert series, with dates and bands selected and planned. They are planning an Instagram campaign where they are going to feature different topics about the town, starting with town history. They will pivot into local artists, photographers and their work, et cetera. There will be PV Palooza, for which they’re launching a robust website and will have content for the Town’s social media.

41 They will be soliciting sponsorships and other support through PV Donates. They plan two stages, with 12 bands.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff attended the Housing Element Committee meeting where they covered much of what was discussed previously in the meeting. The main agenda item for the meeting was housing policy – the policies the Town could put into place to incentivize development. There are details from that meeting in the packet.

Vice Mayor Wernikoff shared that there wasn’t a WPC meeting, but she advised the Mayor at their meeting on the 14th, that she wants to resign that committee, as her commitments to the Town are massive at present, and those are two very time-intensive committees, and she needs to conserve some of her time. Mayor Hughes added that they will need a volunteer for Vice Mayor Wernikoff’s spot on the Wildfire Committee and to let him know in the next few days to schedule that appointment at the next meeting.

Councilmember Aalfs reported on the Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee as well. They reviewed programs in the current Housing Element. Staff brought forward a proposal for a new, slightly updated list of programs, which he thought the Committee was very happy with and staff got some helpful feedback as well. The February meetings obviously threw some monkey wrenches into the process, as previously discussed. Fortunately, Director Russell and Ms. Smith were able to put together a meeting so that the Committee could keep working while waiting for the Council to ponder the questions discussed tonight. It was a productive meeting and a break from the complicated zoning arguments.

Councilmember Aalfs reported that the Geologic Safety Committee met for the first time in five years.

They established a meeting time, looked at their charter briefly. They might make some changes to it. He felt they were geared up for receiving the Safety Element and are eager to look at it. They had two very good presentations, one by USGS. Keith Knudsen from the U.S. Geologic Survey talked about earthquake hazard and risk. Tim Dawson from California Department of Conservation talked about state maps and reports. He suggested that anyone interested check the packet and the website.

Councilmember Richards attended a Conservation Committee meeting. One item of interest was the concern expressed by several members regarding potential use of some of the Town’s open space and other spaces for housing and how they might be affected, including the road remnant at Spring Down.

They understood the fact that it will probably be part of the conversation but will be very interested in the outcome.

Mayor Hughes attended the Trails and Paths meeting on March 16th. They welcomed Jacquelyn Davis as the new member of the committee. They received an update from Mr. Young on trail work and conditions.

The Trail Map Subcommittee is making good progress and have a lot of their data in their map and will be bringing that back to the committee before too long. The Horse Fair which they normally organize, they have decided to cancel this year, because there is a nasty virus going around the horse community that is killing horses and causing horrible problems for them. It was the Committee’s opinion that that the Horse Fair, unfortunately, can’t happen this year. There was also a communication that came in the weekly newsletter from the Town last week. He announced that if someone sees horses in Portola Valley and the horse comes over and wants to interact, they should not touch the horse. Or, if they do, do not then walk near or touch another horses. He said don’t feed the horses right now because of this virus going around.

It is very important to social distance with the horses until this epidemic is passed.

For his town committee meetings, Mayor Hughes said he has also had four or five PV Donuts meetings altogether. The most recent, about two weeks ago, was hosted by Bill and Hope at Parkside, and was a business-focused meeting. There were maybe a dozen different business owner/ tenants in town who all got together. He was not sure that had ever happened before, as there is no chamber of commerce in Portola Valley where they get together. Part of the discussion was around how the Town can better communicate with them, how they can communicate better with each other as a community with shared interests and issues. During COVID they were trying to do lot of outreach to businesses with various COVID relief funds, et cetera, both from the Town and from the federal government funds. They found it a

42 bit difficult to get in touch with a lot of the businesses without some work. Setting up a better communication method with them is an important element of what they need to do. They had a good discussion about mixed use zoning and the impacts on businesses and what kinds of things they would like to see, which is one of the reasons for his questions about zoning in the earlier discussion, and how much time they have to implement them, because if they were to do mixed use zoning in the existing commercial areas, there are a lot of protections that they want to put in to ensure that even if the Jelichs don’t want to redevelop Roberts, the other property owners that are leased to businesses, such as the Parkside shopping center or other commercial properties in town, might be more than happy to redevelop the property in exchange for redeveloping the property and building housing that they could sell for a lot of money. He said they want to encourage the housing production, but they also want to keep their businesses in town and make sure that they would not be disrupted by construction activity, not have their rent massively increased when they have the new building and other such topics. There were eight to ten folks from Nathorst and six or seven from the Corte Madera neighborhood at that meeting at Karen Askey’s. There was good discussion about options around housing and topics discussed earlier in the evening, with more back-and-forth discussion, giving people more than three minutes to talk and understand the issues and where people are coming from better. He said it was helpful for him that deeper discussion.

Mayor Hughes said that there is now a page on the Town website with a sign-up link that makes it very easy for people to sign up to host a PV Donut meeting. Currently, Vice Mayor Wernikoff and he have their schedules in the calendar and it is easy for Councilmembers to mark their availability. He said if the other three Councilmembers would like to add their names, they can now that it has been set up and is working. He had his first PV Donuts booked through that calendar, and he highly recommended the PV Donut experience. He said he could help get the Councilmembers set up on the Calendly system.

Mayor Hughes invited public comment on this item.

Kristi Corley said she was reminded that the Planning Commission was cancelled, and she was curious as to why when they are going through so much on housing and it is an advisory board to the main governing body and all of the planning and development issues. Secondly, the Commission ensures that the General Plan is implemented by reviewing development applications on a case-by-case basis. She said they were appointed by Council and yet the meeting is cancelled. She said she would like to hear their discussions about what is going on.

Hearing no more public comments, Mayor Hughes closed the item. (15) TOWN MANAGER REPORT
Town Manager Dennis said there was a meeting of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District that same day, where they discussed Hawthorne property goals and visions were discussed. He submitted some comments that were read at the meeting. In his comments he wanted to ensure that some issues were discussed. These included the parking issue that the Town would like to make sure is mitigated to the maximum extent possible with development of the Hawthorne property. In particular, minimizing parking on residential streets and in the commercial properties across the street from the open space. He requested again on the trail connectivity issue that Town representatives, including those at the Ranch, are at the table as part of those conversations and that the Town welcomes further review of any wildfire mitigation activities that need to take place at the property. He thanked Mary Hufty, who attended the meeting and heard his comments and set him a nice email.

Town Manager Dennis mentioned the CoDA hybrid meeting materials are being installed into the Historic Schoolhouse. They were able to give the Mayor a brief tour and he was happy to report that they are very much able to keep the Schoolhouse intact with its most cherished elements still there.

He announced that the Town has hired a new Town Clerk, Judy Herron. She is the current City Clerk of Menlo Park and has extensive experience in their community and has also worked as the Deputy Clerk in Atherton and Redwood City. They are happy to have her come onboard starting on April 11th.

43 Town Manager Dennis shared a few photos from a volunteer project that happened over the past couple weeks. Some residents affiliated with Little League in town wanted to do some work at the batting cages.

Town Manager Dennis showed before and after photos of the volunteers’ wonderful work. They were out there late at night, and he appreciated Andrew Allen and the team for their efforts on the town’s behalf and commended their volunteer spirit.

Town Manager Dennis announced Town Clean-up Day is coming up next month, and everyone should have received a flyer for it. The Wildfire Community meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 28th.

More information will be published in the coming days and they hope people will attend. This is the meeting that was cancelled on March 24th because Woodside Fire was unable to attend.

Mayor Hughes invited public comments on this item.

Rita Comes said there is a nearby Bay Area town where things were discovered in a recent audit. She said she has asked before about the status of Portola Valley’s audit and received information about the 2019 audit, but she understood that the 2020 audit and 2021 audit have been postponed or put aside because of a problem of some kind. She wanted to know the status of those audits. Before coming to the town, she knew that there were some issues, and she was quite concerned, as a person who has chaired audit committees in the past for non-profits. When talking about such large dollars for more contractors and consultants and budgets, she was concerned that there was no audit done since 2019. The nonprofits she referred to, even during COVID they had to do extra steps and best practices in order to get them completed. As a taxpayer in the town, she was concerned that an audit has not been done for 2020 and 2021. She wanted to know if that is in the works, or if auditors are on the property. She sent a message to the Finance Committee asking when their next meeting was and the status of the 2020 and 2021 audits.

Mayor Hughes said his understanding was that those year numbers are the first year of the budget cycle, so 2019 was not done in 2019. It would have been done after the end of the 2019 year. So there is one missing, which would be 2021, and 2022 has not ended yet and is not complete. Town Manager Dennis explained that 19-20 audit was delayed, and they are expecting it to be completed next month and in fron to the committee shortly therefore. The 2021 audit is maybe a month behind but not a result of any staff issues. The ’19-’20 delay was a result of a variety of challenges associated with COVID primarily and availability of the auditor to do the work at certain times during the year. He was not anticipating any issues with those. That will be coming soon.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
(16) Town Council Digest – March 10, 2022
(17) Town Council Digest – March 17, 2022
ADJOURNMENT [ 12:32 a.m.]
Mayor Hughes adjourned the meeting.
_____________________________ _________________________ Mayor Craig Hughes Sharon Hanlon, Town Clerk

apachreg Town of Portola Valley ntanori 04/07/2022 08:19 Page 1 Check Register
Check Vendor Vendor Name Check Check BW CheckNumber Number Amount Date TypeChecks for Cash Account: 910-11011-000 2034 34 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC 987.93 04/13/222035 44 BANK OF AMERICA 10,492.06 04/13/222036 78 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 5,794.56 04/13/222037 80 CALPERS 27,052.60 04/13/222038 110 CITY OF FOSTER CITY 520.00 04/13/222039 121 SCA OF CA, LLC 1,782.06 04/13/222040 124 COMCAST 188.16 04/13/222041 176 EXCEL LD 23.12 04/13/222042 212 G. BORTOLOTTO & CO 26,715.27 04/13/222043 213 HILLYARD INC 456.68 04/13/222044 218 MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT 30,130.28 04/13/222045 239 JAMES D. PARKER 153.20 04/13/222046 276 KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES 18,961.25 04/13/222047 332 N.C.E. 12,387.14 04/13/222048 362 PERFECT PITCH PLUMBING 1,160.00 04/13/222049 364 PERS HEALTH 12,438.59 04/13/222050 380 PURCHASE POWER 529.99 04/13/222051 445 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. 572.52 04/13/222052 448 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUND 5,315.25 04/13/222053 505 WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR 41,462.81 04/13/222054 513 CAROL BORCK 8.19 04/13/222055 518 GOT GOPHERS? 1,050.00 04/13/222056 553 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO-PSC 17,028.25 04/13/222057 740 ALESSANDRO MORUZZI 576.00 04/13/222058 752 FEHR & PEERS 7,126.88 04/13/222059 803 CODA TECHNOLOGY GROUP 61,395.15 04/13/222060 804 BASH SALON 10,000.00 04/13/222061 805 CHRISTOPHER BUJA 84.00 04/13/222062 806 MATT ROLLEFSON 1,600.00 04/13/222063 807 CHEYANNE BROWN 561.42 04/13/22Check totals: 296,553.36ACH totals:EFTPS totals:Wire transfer totals:Payment Manager totals:GRAND TOTALS 296,553.36

Check totals: 296,553.36
ACH totals:EFTPS totals:Wire transfer totals:Payment Manager totals:GRAND TOTALS 296,553.36

.
apapdinv2 ntanori Town of Portola Valley Page 1
08:20 04/07/22 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 04/13/2022 to 04/13/2022
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice Number Date Number Amount Invoices
Paid
Vendor: 34 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC
04/13/22 2034 Document Conversion to Digital Copies, Records Request 987.93 987.93 2557124 Vendor: 44 BANK OF AMERICA
2035 February Statement 10,492.06 10,492.06 1388-FEB22
Vendor: 78 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO
2036 Water Service 02/10/22 - 03/10/22 5,794.56 5,794.56 FEB-2022 Vendor: 80 CALPERS
2037 February Retirement-CLASSIC 27,052.60 18,299.84 100000016675974 February Retirement-PEPRA 8,752.76 100000016675977
Vendor: 110 CITY OF FOSTER CITY
2038 CalOpps Job Posting - Town Clerk 520.00 520.00 14632 Vendor: 121 SCA OF CA, LLC
2039 February Litter/Street Clean 1,782.06 1,782.06 102474CS Vendor: 124 COMCAST
2040 WIFI 03.21.22 - 04.20.22 188.16 188.16 1945-APR22
Vendor: 176 EXCEL LD
2041 March Telephone LD Service 23.12 23.12 1191988800
Vendor: 212 G. BORTOLOTTO & CO
2042 Retention Payment - Street Resurfacing 2021 - 2022 26,715.27 26,715.27 4937RET Vendor: 213 HILLYARD INC
2043 Janitorial Supplies 456.68 67.88 604671615
Janitorial Supplies 388.80 604683227
Vendor: 218 MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT
2044 Defer Comp, February 2022 30,130.28 15,065.14 FEB2022_DEFCOMP Defer Comp, March 2022 15,065.14 MAR2022_DEFCOMP
Vendor: 239 JAMES D. PARKER
2045 Reimbursement - Covid-19 Masks for Town Hall 153.20 153.20 REIMB_COVID_SUP Vendor: 276 KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES
2046 February Plan Checks 18,961.25 18,961.25 77058
Vendor: 332 N.C.E.
2047 2022 Street Resurfacing Project Through 3/11/2022 12,387.14 12,387.14 424275501

.
apapdinv2 ntanori Town of Portola Valley Page 2
08:20 04/07/22 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 04/13/2022 to 04/13/2022
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice NumberDate Number Amount Invoices Paid
Vendor: 362 PERFECT PITCH PLUMBING
2048 Plumbing Repairs at Town Center/Library 1,160.00 1,160.00 1180 Vendor: 364 PERS HEALTH
2049 April Health 12,438.59 12,438.59 100000016746115
Vendor: 380 PURCHASE POWER
2050 Postage Meter/Fees 529.99 529.99 7931_MAR22
Vendor: 445 STANDARD INSURANCE CO.
2051 LTD/Life Premium 572.52 572.52 2022-MAR
Vendor: 448 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUND
2052 WC Premium, 03/19/22 to 4/19/22 5,315.25 5,315.25 1000669668 Vendor: 505 WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR
2053 01/01/22-03/11/22 Fire Mitigation Support Crew Roadside Veg 41,462.81 32,041.52 WFPD CREW-1012 CERP Coordinator January - March 2022 9,421.29 130_PV
Vendor: 513 CAROL BORCK
2054 Reimbursement - Mileage: Westridge/Buck Meadow 08.19 08.19 REIMB_MILEAGE Vendor: 518 GOT GOPHERS?
2055 Town Fields Gopher Trapping - March 2022 1,050.00 1,050.00 25845 Vendor: 553 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO-PSC
2056 PD Dispatching Services 01/2022 - 03/2022 17,028.25 17,028.25 PVPD 22-03 Vendor: 740 ALESSANDRO MORUZZI
2057 Winter 2022 Classes 576.00 576.00 WINTER-2022-3
Vendor: 752 FEHR & PEERS
2058 PV Evacuation Study 01/29/22 - 02/25/22 7,126.88 7,126.88 153001 Vendor: 803 CODA TECHNOLOGY GROUP
2059 Zoom Room Hybrid Upgrade 61,395.15 61,395.15 6691
Vendor: 804 BASH SALON
2060 COVID Business Assistance Grant Program 10,000.00 10,000.00 CBAG_2022 Vendor: 805 CHRISTOPHER BUJA
2061 Reimbursement - Tree Removal Permit, Wayside 84.00 84.00 REIMB_TREE_REMO Vendor: 806 MATT ROLLEFSON

.
apapdinv2 ntanori Town of Portola Valley Page 3
08:20 04/07/22 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 04/13/2022 to 04/13/2022
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice NumberDate Number Amount Invoices Paid
04/13/22 2062 Reimbursement - Tree Removal, Wayside 1,600.00 1,600.00 REIMB_TREE_REMO Vendor: 807 CHEYANNE BROWN
2063 Reimbursement - Education/Training 561.42 561.42 REIMB_EDU/TRAIN Check Date Totals 296,553.36
Grand Total 296,553.36

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Warrant Disbursement Journal
April 13, 2022
Claims totaling $296,553.36 having been duly examined by me and found to be correct are hereby approved and verified by me as due bills against the Town of Portola Valley.

Date _____________________________ ________________________________ Jeremy Dennis, Treasurer
Motion having been duly made and seconded, the above claims are hereby approved and allowed for payment.

Signed and sealed this (Date) _____________________
_______________________________ _________________________________ Sharon Hanlon, Town Clerk Mayor

______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager
DATE: April 13, 2022
RE: Second Quarter Budget Report

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council review the Second Quarter Budget Report.

BACKGROUND
The following is the Second Quarter Financial Report for the period beginning October 1, 2021 to December 30, 2021. It has been prepared to inform the Town Council, Town leadership and the public of the Town’s fiscal status.

LINK TO BUDGET REPORT
https://stories.opengov.com/portolavalleyca/published/SrAt3oelg

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

1 Sharon Hanlon
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: Committee Application
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: Committee Application
Date & Time: 03/31/2022 9:35 AM
Response #: 157
Submitter ID: 6254
IP address: 2a02:26f7:c348:8011:0:504c:b63e:5f92
Time to complete: 5 min. , 53 sec.

Survey Details

Name of committee which I am interested in serving on (please note that only committees currently seeking volunteers are listed):
(○) Emergency Preparedness
Applicant Information
Full Name Lynn Eisberg
Email Address
Street Address Wyndham Drive
City/Zip Portola Valley, CA 94028
Number of years in
Portola Valley
39 Cell Phone
Home Phone
Other Phone Not answered
Emergency Preparedness Not answered
Preferred Phone Contact Number
(○) Cell
Please state why you have an interest in this committee, and state any background or experience you may have that may be useful in your service to this committee.

I was an EPrep committee member in the 1990s. I am a retired RN. I have my HAM radio license, don’t use it, but would like to. And I love my town.

Do you have any personal or financial interest that could be perceived by others as a conflict of interest relative to your service on the committee? If so, please describe.

No.

______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager
DATE: April 13, 2022
RE: Town Permit Modifications to Support Wildfire Resiliency

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council modify the Town’s Significant Tree Removal and Encroachment permit requirements to support wildfire resiliency for a pilot program

BACKGROUND
Since 2019, the Wildfire Preparedness Committee provided recommendation to the Town Council on wildfire resiliency and adaptation strategies. One project of note championed by the Committee is a pilot project on Alhambra Court, where the majority of residents have agreed to work together to reduce vegetation fuels on private property and Town right of way.

The program, which was recommended by the Committee at their April 5 meeting, provides for an assessment by the Woodside Fire Protection District that will inform a group purchase of vegetation management services. The program is expected to get underway later this fiscal year.

DISCUSSION
In order to support this pilot program, Town staff recommends the following:

1. Waive fees for significant tree removal and encroachment permits (should residents wish to fund work in the Town right of way)

2. Allow for after the fact significant tree removal and encroachment permits (in front of each property) as long as they are ultimately accompanied by a correspondence from the Fire District supporting the work; this is already informally in place with the District

3. Modifying the Town’s right of way vegetation management team to redirect work on Alhambra Court as/when needed to assist in the program.

Items one and two require Council approval – item three is a staff level decision that has already been approved.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

These modifications to the Town’s existing permitting shall support the pilot program only at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant impact to the Town’s resources by waiving the fees as described above. Some staff time is anticipated to ensure the program’s success.

______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Cara Silver, Town Attorney
DATE: April 13, 2022
RE: Adoption of Resolution Confirming the State of Emergency and Need to Continue Conducting Town Public Meetings Remotely

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached Resolution Confirming the State of Emergency and Need to Continue Conducting Town Public Meetings Remotely.

BACKGROUND
On September 16, the Governor signed AB 361, amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) to allow legislative bodies to continue to meet virtually during the present public health emergency. AB 361 is an urgency bill which went into effect on October 1, 2021 and expires on January 1, 2024 (portions of the bill applying to the State legislature and school districts expire earlier). The bill extends the teleconference procedures authorized in Executive Order N-29-20 (which expired on September 30, 2021) during the current COVID-19 pandemic and allows future teleconference procedures under limited circumstances defined in the bill.

Effective October 1, 2021, cities must comply with AB 361 if they want to conduct entirely remote meetings.

AB 361 varies from Executive Order N-29-20 in several key areas, including:
· Scope: AB 361 applies to meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (“State of emergency” is defined as a state of emergency declared by the Governor under Government Code Section 8625.) It also applies to other states of emergency proclaimed by the Governor where holding in person meetings would “present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees”. An example of this is an ongoing wildfire in the area. The legislative body must make an initial finding that meeting in person would "present an imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees".
· Requirements during meeting: AB 361 requires several procedural safeguards, such as giving the public ability to address the legislative body directly, providing information on how to address the body, providing either a call-in or internet-based service option, requirement to stop meeting if call-in or internet-based option fails, comments may not be required to be submitted in advance, and pre-registrations (except as required by call-in or internet platform) are prohibited.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

Resolution Confirming Need to Conduct Remote Public Meetings March 23, 2022

· Comment periods: Public members must be given a reasonable time to register to provide public comment and agencies that provide a timed public comment period shall not close the public comment period until that timed period has expired. · Renewal of emergency findings: If the legislative body desires to continue using the teleconference exception, it must confirm the circumstances of the state of emergency 30 days after the first teleconference meeting and every 30 days thereafter.

DISCUSSION
Staff is planning on returning to in person meetings soon. However, some members of the Council, its commissions/committees, staff and the public may want to continue attending remotely. To accomplish this, staff has been working with a vendor to install equipment in the Schoolhouse to accommodate hybrid remote meetings. Until that service is installed, staff recommends that all public meetings continue to be remote.

SB 361 requires the Council to make a regular finding confirming the state of emergency and the need for continued remote hearings. Staff will therefore be agendizing this finding on every Council meeting agenda until a decision to transition to in person meetings has been made. Council will also be requested to make these findings on behalf of its commissions and committees as well, so there is a uniform policy on public meetings.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with continued remote meetings. There will be a cost associated with the new hybrid meeting platform and staff will be bringing forward a separate funding request for that contract.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution

1 RESOLUTION NO. ____

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF PORTOLA

VALLEY CONFIRMING EXISTING STATE EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING CONTINUED REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS UNDER AB 361
The Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley does RESOLVE as follows:

WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency, as defined under the California Emergency Services Act, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the State of Emergency remains in effect; WHEREAS, beginning in March 2020, the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended Brown Act requirements related to teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice, accessibility, and other requirements were met, and the public was allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting; WHEREAS, Executive Order N-08-21 extended the previous order until September 30, 2021;
WHEREAS, the Town Council and the Town’s boards, commissions, and committees have conducted their meetings virtually, as authorized by the Executive Order, since March 17, 2020;
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed into law AB 361, an urgency measure effective upon adoption, that provides flexibility to government bodies, allowing them to meet virtually without conforming to the Brown Act teleconferencing rules during a declared state of emergency if: (i) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; (ii) the legislative body is meeting to determine whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person presents imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or (iii) the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; WHEREAS, Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) require certain employers to implement social distancing requirements in the work place during the current COVID-19 pandemic; the Santa Clara County Public Health Department currently requires face masks in combination with other safety precautions when activities occur in shared indoor spaces to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission; effective February 16, 2021, the San Mateo County Public Health Officer will lift the face covering mandate for vaccinated individuals, but still require face coverings for unvaccinated individuals with a recommendation that even vaccinated people should wear a mask in indoor public settings as well as crowded settings is still a good idea and something we strongly recommended to be worn; and effective February 14, 2022, the Town Manager issued updated work place guidelines imposing safety protocols on persons attending Town Hall facilities;
ATTACHMENT #1

2 WHEREAS, in the last few months, while hospitalizations and severe illnesses have gone down, new COVID-19 variants have emerged and continued to impact the County’s hospital capacity;
WHEREAS, these variants are believed by medical experts to be even more contagious as previous variants, and data has shown the variant has increased transmissibility even among some vaccinated people;
WHEREAS, due to uncertainty and concerns about the continuing presence of COVID-19 variants, many workplaces that had announced a return to regular in-person operations have pushed back the full return date until later in the year or next year; WHEREAS, virtual meetings have not diminished the public’s ability to observe and participate and have expanded opportunities to do so for some communities; and WHEREAS, given the heightened risks of the predominant variant of COVID-19 in the community, holding meetings with all members of the legislative body, staff, and the public in attendance in person in a shared indoor meeting space would pose an unnecessary and immediate risk to the attendees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley that:

1. The Town Council adopts the recitals set forth above as findings of fact.

2. The Town Council finds that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

3. In accordance with AB 361, based on the findings and determinations herein, meetings of the Town Council and Town commissions and committees will be held virtually, with Brown Act teleconferencing rules suspended.

4. Staff is directed to return no later than thirty (30) days after the adoption of this resolution to consider making the findings required by AB 361 in order to continue meeting under its provisions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2022.

By: _________________________
Craig Hughes, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sharon Hanlon, Town Clerk

______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Brandi de Garmeaux, Part Time Assistant to the Town Manager Cara Silver, Town Attorney
DATE: April 13, 2022
RE: Second Reading: Waive Further Reading and Adopt Ordinance Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 [Garbage] and Adding New Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code to Implement SB 1383

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council waive further reading and adopt the attached ordinance Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 of the Portola Valley Municipal Code and adding new Chapter 8.08 [Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction] to implement SB 1383.

DISCUSSION
On March 23rd, the Town Council introduced the attached Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance. The ordinance establishes the enforceable mechanism required to comply with the mandatory provisions of SB 1383 including edible food recovery program, capacity planning, education and outreach, recovered organic waste product procurement and inspection and enforcement. While the Town received a fiveyear waiver from the mandatory organic waste collection services requirement, the Ordinance establishes a plan to come into full compliance with these regulations by the time the waiver expires, while also giving businesses, residents and haulers plenty of time to comply.

In addition, the old garbage regulations in Chapter 8.08 have been updated and included within the Ordinance as Chapter 8.08.120. The old regulations were from 1964 and needed to be updated to be consistent with terminology and nomenclature used in the Garbage Franchise Agreement, current practices and new regulations that allow for a different ways to select the franchised hauler in compliance with State law. The regulations also clarify that the customer is responsible for paying collection fees and if

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

2 nd Reading - Ordinance Chapter 8.08 April 13, 2022

those fees are not paid to the hauler, the Town can intervene to ensure the collector is made whole. A new regulation also clarifies that garbage shall not be burned unless an appropriate permit is granted by Woodside Fire Protection District.

Finally, to address repeated resident complaints, section (d) to 8.08.120 - Refuse Containers-Location – has been added to clarify to when bins are allowed to be placed out for collection and assist with complaints and code enforcement surrounding this issue.

The mandatory provisions within the Ordinance go into effect thirty days after the second reading. Below is a summary of the additional provisions and their applicability date.

Summary of SB 1383 Provisions in Ordinance:
1) Mandatory Subscription to Service for Residential
a) Town shall have right to review number and size of containers to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for proper separation of materials b) Applicability date: July 1, 2023
2) Mandatory Subscription to Service for all Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Residential
a) Town shall have right to review the number and size of containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity for proper separation of materials b) Commercial Businesses shall adjust their service level as requested by the Town. c) Applicability date:
i) Subscribe and right to review on July 1, 2023
ii) New bins/labeling into effect January 1, 2024; existing bins by 2036 per SB 1383
3) Mandatory Subscription to Yard Trimmings for Commercial Businesses and MultiFamily that generate more the four cubic yards of total solid waste per week a) Town shall have right to review the number and size of containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity for proper separation of materials. b) Commercial Businesses shall adjust their service level as requested by the Town. c) Applicability date: July 1, 2023
4) Requirements for Exclusive Franchise Haulers and Permitted Haulers a) Report on and transport materials to a facility, operation, activity, or property that recovers Organic Waste as defined in SB 1383
b) Comply with education, equipment, signage, container labeling/color, container contamination monitoring, reporting, and other requirements contained within its franchise agreement, permit, license, or other agreement with the Town. c) Applicability date:
i) 8.08.070(a): July 1, 2023
ii) 8.08.070(b): Capacity Planning effective immediately as required by SB 1383 5) Requirements for Self-Haulers

2 nd Reading - Ordinance Chapter 8.08 April 13, 2022

a) Source separate materials and haul to a facility that recovers those materials; offer option to haul Organic Waste to a High Diversion Processing Facility b) Comply with recordkeeping and inspection requirements. c) Self-Haulers that are Commercial Businesses must obtain a Permitted Hauler license with the Town.
d) Applicability date: July 1, 2023
6) Containers Permitted in Public Right-of-Way only on Day Preceding Collection and Day Following Collection
a) Applicability date: effective immediately

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested actions are exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance Repealing Old Chapter 8.08 of the Portola Valley and Adding New Chapter 8.08

1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XXX

ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
PORTOLA VALLEY REPEALING OLD CHAPTER 8.08 [GARBAGE]
AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 8.08 [REFUSE DISPOSAL AND COLLECTION AND MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION] TO TITLE 8 [HEALTH AND SAFETY] OF THE PORTOLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, State recycling law, Assembly Bill 939 of 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq., as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires cities and counties to reduce, reuse, and recycle (including composting) Solid Waste generated in their Jurisdictions to the maximum extent feasible before any incineration or landfill disposal of waste, to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources, and to protect the environment.

WHEREAS, State recycling law, Assembly Bill 341 of 2011 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on October 5, 2011, which amended Sections 41730, 41731, 41734, 41735, 41736, 41800, 42926, 44004, and 50001 of, and added Sections 40004, 41734.5, and 41780.01 and Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 42649) to Part 3 of Division 30 of, and added and repealed Section 41780.02 of, the Public Resources Code, as amended, supplemented, superseded and replaced from time to time), places requirements on businesses and Multi-Family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste to arrange for recycling services and requires Jurisdictions to implement a Mandatory Commercial Recycling program.

WHEREAS, State organics recycling law, Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 28, 2014, which added Chapter

12.9 (commencing with Section 42649.8) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to Solid Waste, as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires businesses and Multi-Family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, requires Jurisdictions to implement a recycling program to divert Organic Waste from businesses subject to the law, and requires Jurisdictions to implement a Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling program.

WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires CalRecycle to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. The regulations place requirements on multiple entities including Jurisdictions, residential households, Commercial Businesses and business owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Self-Haulers, Food Recovery Organizations, and Food Recovery Services to support achievement of Statewide Organic Waste disposal reduction targets.

Attachment 1

2 WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires Jurisdictions to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of SB 1383 Regulations. This ordinance will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption.

WHEREAS, Requirements in this ordinance are consistent with other adopted goals and policies of the Jurisdiction.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley, (the “Town”) does ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CODE. Chapter 8.08 (Garbage) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Chapter 8.08 (Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 8.08
Refuse Disposal and Collection and Mandatory
Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance

8.08.010. Definitions

8.08.020. Requirements for Single-Family

8.08.030. Requirements for Commercial Businesses

8.08.040. Waivers for Generators

8.08.050. Requirements for Tier one and Tier two Commercial Edible Food Generators

8.08.060. Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Services

8.08.070. Requirements for Haulers and Facility Operators

8.08.080. Self-Hauler Requirements

8.08.090. Compliance with CALGreen Recycling Requirements

8.08.100. Procurement Requirements for Jurisdiction Departments, Direct Service Providers, and Vendors

8.08.120. Garbage Regulations

8.08.130. Inspections and Investigations by Jurisdiction

8.08.140. Enforcement

3 8.08.010. DEFINITIONS
(1) “Back-haul” means generating and transporting Organic Waste to a destination owned and operated by the generator using the generator’s own employees and equipment, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(66)(A). (2) “Blue Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(5) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Recyclable Materials or Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste. (3) “CalRecycle” means California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which is the Department designated with responsibility for developing, implementing, and enforcing SB 1383 Regulations on Jurisdictions (and others). (4) “California Code of Regulations” or “CCR” means the State of California Code of Regulations. CCR references in this ordinance are preceded with a number that refers to the relevant Title of the CCR (e.g., “14 CCR” refers to Title 14 of CCR). (5) “Commercial Business” or “Commercial” means a firm, partnership, proprietorship, joint-stock company, corporation, or association, whether for-profit or nonprofit, strip mall, industrial facility, or a Multi-Family residential dwelling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(6). A Multi-Family Residential Dwelling that consists of fewer than five (5) units is not a Commercial Business for purposes of implementing this ordinance. Commercial Businesses that are Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with Edible Food Recovery requirements contained in the Requirements for Tier One and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators section of this Ordinance, including the selfhauling provisions. (6) “Commercial Edible Food Generator” includes a Tier One or a Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator as defined in this Ordinance. For the purposes of this definition, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services are not Commercial Edible Food Generators.
(7) “Community Composting” means any activity that composts green material, agricultural material, food material, and vegetative food material, alone or in combination, and the total amount of feedstock and Compost on-site at any one time does not exceed 100 cubic yards and 750 square feet, as specified in 14 CCR Section 17855(a)(4); or, as otherwise defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(8). (8) “Compliance Review” means a review of records by a Jurisdiction to determine compliance with this ordinance.
(9) “Compost” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 17896.2(a)(4), which stated, as of the effective date of this ordinance, that “Compost” means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic Solid Wastes that

4 are Source Separated from the municipal Solid Waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility.
(10) “Compostable Plastics” or “Compostable Plastic” means plastic materials that meet the ASTM D6400 standard for compostability, or as otherwise described in 14 CCR Section 18984.1(a)(1)(A) or 18984.2(a)(1)(C).
(11) “Container Contamination” or “Contaminated Container” means a container, regardless of color, that contains Prohibited Container Contaminants, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(55).
(12) “C&D” means construction and demolition debris.
(13) “Designee for Edible Food Recovery” means the County of San Mateo’s Office of Sustainability with which the Town of Portola Valley has a Memorandum of Understanding for the purposes of Edible Food Recovery including, but not limited to, inspection, investigation, and enforcement of the Edible Food Recovery provisions of this Ordinance. Contact information for the Designee for Edible Food Recovery can be found on the County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability website.
(14) “Edible Food” means food intended for and fit for human consumption and collected or received from a Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator. For the purposes of this Ordinance, “Edible Food” is not Solid Waste if it is recovered and not discarded. Nothing in this Ordinance or in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 requires or authorizes the recovery of Edible Food that does not meet the food safety requirements of the California Retail Food Code. (15) “Edible Food Recovery” means actions to collect, receive, and/or re-distribute Edible Food for human consumption from Tier One and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators that otherwise would be disposed. (16) “Enforcement Action" means an action of the Jurisdiction to address noncompliance with this ordinance including, but not limited to, issuing administrative citations, fines, penalties, or using other remedies.
(17) “Excluded Waste” means hazardous material, hazardous waste, infectious waste, designated waste, volatile, corrosive, medical waste, infectious, regulated radioactive waste, and toxic substances or material that facility operator(s), which receive materials from the Jurisdiction and its generators, reasonably believe(s) would, as a result of or upon acceptance, transfer, processing, or disposal, be a violation of local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or ordinance, including: land use restrictions or conditions, waste that cannot be disposed of in Class III landfills or accepted at the facility by permit conditions, waste that in Jurisdictions, or its Designee’s reasonable opinion would present a significant risk to human health or the environment, cause a nuisance or otherwise create or expose Jurisdiction, or its Designee, to potential liability; but not including de minimis volumes or

5 concentrations of waste of a type and amount normally found in Single-Family or Multi-Family Solid Waste after implementation of programs for the safe collection, processing, recycling, treatment, and disposal of batteries and paint in compliance with Sections 41500 and 41802 of the California Public Resources Code. Excluded Waste does not include used motor oil and filters, household batteries, universal wastes and/or compact fluorescent bulbs when such materials are defined as allowable materials for collection through the Jurisdiction’s collection programs and the generator or customer has properly placed the materials for collection pursuant to instructions provided by Jurisdiction or its Designee for collection services.
(18) “Exclusive Franchised Hauler” also referred to as “hauler” means the person or entity with whom the Town has contracted to collect, receive, carry and/or transport solid waste and other waste streams in accordance with the provisions of Chapter

8.08.070.
(19) “Food Distributor” means a company that distributes food to entities including, but not limited to, Supermarkets and Grocery Stores.
(20) “Food Facility” has the same meaning as in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code.
(21) “Food Recovery Organization” means an entity that engages in the collection or receipt of Edible Food from Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators and distributes that Edible Food either directly or through other entities, including, but not limited to:
(a) A food bank as defined in Section 113783 of the Health and Safety Code; (b) A nonprofit charitable organization as defined in Section 113841 of the Health and Safety code; and,
(c) A nonprofit charitable temporary food facility as defined in Section 113842 of the Health and Safety Code.

A Food Recovery Organization is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of this Ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).
(22) “Food Recovery Service” means a person or entity that collects and transports Edible Food from a Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator to a Food Recovery Organization or other entities for Edible Food Recovery. A Food Recovery Service is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of this Ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).

6 (23) “Food Scraps” means kitchen and table food wastes; food soiled paper, animal or vegetable wastes resulting from storage, preparation, cooking, processing, or handling of food or food stuffs and is included in Mixed Compostable Materials. (24) “Food Service Provider” means an entity primarily engaged in providing food services to institutional, governmental, commercial, or industrial locations of others based on contractual arrangements with these types of organizations. (25) “Food-Soiled Paper” is compostable paper material that has come in contact with food or liquid, such as, but not limited to, compostable paper plates, paper coffee cups, napkins, pizza boxes, and milk cartons and is included in Mixed Compostable Materials.
(26) "Garbage" means putrescible wastes including kitchen and table food wastes; food soiled paper, animal or vegetable wastes resulting from storage, preparation, cooking, processing, or handling of food or food stuffs; non-putrescible wastes that are mixed in the same container with or are contaminated by putrescible wastes; infectious wastes, such as used tissues, which are normally produced at residential premises; small dead animals not exceeding ten (I0) pounds in weight; and any putrefactive or easily decomposable waste material which is likely to attract flies, vermin , birds or rodents. Garbage does not include Recyclable Materials, Yard Trimmings, Manure, or Hazardous Material. Garbage includes Food Scraps and Food-Soiled Paper and is included in Mixed Compostable Materials. (27) “Gray Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(28) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Mixed Compostable Materials.
(28) “Greenhouse gas (GHG)” means carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and other fluorinated greenhouse gases as defined in this section.
(29) “Greenhouse gas emission reduction” or “greenhouse gas reduction” means actions designed to achieve a calculated decrease in greenhouse gas emissions over time.
(30) “Green Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(29) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste/Yard Trimmings.
(31) “Grocery Store” means a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods; fresh fruits and vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned within the store where the food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(30).

7 (32) “Hauler Route” means the designated itinerary or sequence of stops for each segment of the Jurisdiction’s collection service area, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(31.5).
(33) “Hazardous Material” means any material or combination of materials which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may either: (a) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. Hazardous Material include, but are not limited to, hazardous wastes as defined under California or United States law or any regulations promulgated pursuant to such law, as such law or regulations may from time to time be amended.
(34) “High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility” means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of 14 CCR Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average Mixed Compostable Materials organic content Recovery rate of 50 percent between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025, as calculated pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18815.5(e) for Organic Waste received from the “Mixed waste organic collection stream” as defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(11.5); or, as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(33).
(35) “Inspection” means a site visit where a Jurisdiction reviews records, containers, and an entity’s collection, handling, recycling, or landfill disposal of Organic Waste or Edible Food handling to determine if the entity is complying with requirements set forth in this ordinance, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(35); For the purposes of Edible Food Recovery, “Inspection” means actions to review contracts and other records related to the recovery of Edible Food, and may occur off-site via email and other forms of electronic communication, as well as the on-site review of an entity’s records and collection, handling, and other procedures for the recovery of Edible Food to determine if the entity is complying with the requirements of this Ordinance. (36) Jurisdiction” means the Town of Portola Valley. Sometimes Jurisdiction is used interchangeably with “Town.”
(37) “Jurisdiction Enforcement Official” means the town manager or designee, enforcement official defined in the Town’s administrative penalty provision, county administrative official, chief operating officer, executive director, or other executive in charge or their authorized Designee(s) who is/are partially or whole responsible for enforcing the ordinance. See also “Regional or County Agency Enforcement Official”.
(38) “Large Event” means an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market, that charges an admission price, or is operated by a local agency, and

8 serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals per day of operation of the event, at a location that includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned park, parking lot, golf course, street system, or other open space when being used for an event. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) shall apply to this Ordinance.
(39) “Large Venue” means a permanent venue facility that annually seats or serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation of the venue facility. For purposes of this Ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a venue facility includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned or operated stadium, amphitheater, arena, hall, amusement park, conference or civic center, zoo, aquarium, airport, racetrack, horse track, performing arts center, fairground, museum, theater, or other public attraction facility. For purposes of this Ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a site under common ownership or control that includes more than one Large Venue that is contiguous with other Large Venues in the site, is a single Large Venue. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(39) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(39) shall apply to this Ordinance.
(40) “Local Education Agency” means a school district, charter school, or county office of education that is not subject to the control of city or county regulations related to Solid Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(40). (41) “Manure” means stable matter (manure and other waste matter normally accumulated in stables or in livestock or poultry enclosures) and does not include Recyclable Materials, Yard Trimmings (unless manure is collected as Mixed Compostable Material), Garbage (unless manure collected as Mixed Compostable Material), or Hazardous Material.
(42) “Mixed Compostable Materials Organic Collection Stream” or “Mixed Compostable Materials” means
a) For three-container collection service (Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container) Mixed Compostable Materials means Garbage (including Food Scraps and Food-Soiled Paper), and/or Manure that is separated from Yard Trimmings.
b) For two-container collection service (Gray Container and Blue Container) Mixed Compostable Materials means Garbage (including Food Scraps and Food-Soiled Paper), Yard Trimmings and/or Manure. c) Mixed Compostable Materials do not include Recyclable Materials or Hazardous Material.
(43) “Mixed Waste Organic Collection Stream” or “Mixed Waste” means Organic Waste collected in a container that is required by 14 CCR Sections 18984.1, 18984.2 or

9 18984.3 to be taken to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(11.5). This also includes Mixed Compostable Materials as defined Town’s franchise agreement with the Exclusive Franchised Hauler.
(44) “Multi-Family Residential Dwelling” or “Multi-Family” means of, from, or pertaining to residential premises with five (5) or more dwelling units. Multi-Family premises do not include hotels, motels, or other transient occupancy facilities, which are considered Commercial Businesses.
(45) “MWELO” refers to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.
(46) “Non-Local Entity” means the following entities that are not subject to the Jurisdiction’s enforcement authority, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(42):
(a) Special district(s) located within the boundaries of the Jurisdiction, including but not limited to: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District, Sequoia Healthcare District, West Bay Sanitary District and Woodside Fire Protection District. (47) “Notice of Violation (NOV)” means a notice that a violation has occurred that includes a compliance date to avoid an action to seek penalties, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(45) or further explained in 14 CCR Section 18995.4.
(48) “Organic Waste” means Solid Wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, including but not limited to food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(46). Biosolids and digestate are as defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a). (49) “Organic Waste Generator” means a person or entity that is responsible for the initial creation of Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(48).
(50) “Paper Products” include, but are not limited to, paper janitorial supplies, cartons, wrapping, packaging, file folders, hanging files, corrugated boxes, tissue, and toweling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(51). (50) “Permitted Hauler” means a person or entity who has a license from the Town to collect, receive, carry and/or transport any waste stream in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. Permitted haulers’ operations shall not conflict with the Town’s agreement with the Exclusive Franchised Hauler.

10 (51) “Printing and Writing Papers” include, but are not limited to, copy, xerographic, watermark, cotton fiber, offset, forms, computer printout paper, white wove envelopes, manila envelopes, book paper, note pads, writing tablets, newsprint, and other uncoated writing papers, posters, index cards, calendars, brochures, reports, magazines, and publications, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(54).
(52) “Prohibited Container Contaminants” means
(a) For a three-container collection service (Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container): “Prohibited Container Contaminants” means the following: (i) discarded materials placed in the Blue Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials for the Jurisdiction’s Blue Container; (ii) discarded materials placed in the Green Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste for the Jurisdiction’s Green Container; (iii) discarded materials placed in the Gray Container that are acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials and/or Source Separated Green Container Organic Wastes to be placed in Jurisdiction’s Green Container and/or Blue Container; and, (iv) Excluded Waste placed in any container. (b) For a two-container (Blue Container and Gray Container) collection service for Source Separated Recyclable Materials and Mixed Compostable Materials): “Prohibited Container Contaminants” means the following: (i) discarded materials placed in a Blue Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials for Jurisdiction’s Blue Container; (ii) discarded materials placed in the Gray Container that are identified as acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials, which are to be separately collected in Jurisdiction’s Blue Container; and, (iii) Excluded Waste placed in any container.
(53) “Recovered Organic Waste Products” means products made from California, landfill-diverted recovered Organic Waste processed in a permitted or otherwise authorized facility, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(60). (54) “Recovery” means any activity or process described in 14 CCR Section 18983.1(b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(49). (55) “Recyclable Materials” means those designated materials that have been Source Separated from other discards including Mixed Compostable Materials and/or Yard Trimmings. Recyclable Materials may be either a mixed stream of commingled Source Separated Recyclable Materials, or a stream consisting of a single type of acceptable Recyclable Materials (such as cardboard). Recyclable Materials includes small dry-cell batteries and compact fluorescent light bulbs in sealed (e.g., Ziploc®) plastic bags set out for collection as required. Recyclable Materials does not include Mixed Compostable Materials, Yard Trimmings, Manure, Excluded Waste or Hazardous Materials. Recyclable Materials are

11 outlined in Exhibit D of agreement with Exclusive Franchised Hauler and may change by mutual written agreement with Jurisdiction.
(56) “Recycled-Content Paper” means Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper that consists of at least 30 percent, by fiber weight, postconsumer fiber, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(61).
(57) “Refuse” means any and all collected waste streams, including but not limited to Solid Waste, Garbage Recyclable Materials, Mixed Waste, Mixed Waste Compostable Materials and Yard Trimmings.
(58) “Regional Agency” means regional agency as defined in Public Resources Code Section 40181.
(59) “Regional or County Agency Enforcement Official” means a regional or county agency enforcement official, designated by the Jurisdiction with responsibility for enforcing the ordinance in conjunction or consultation with Jurisdiction Enforcement Official.
(60) “Remote Monitoring” means the use of the internet of things (IoT) and/or wireless electronic devices to visualize the contents of Blue Containers, Green Containers and Gray Containers for purposes of identifying the quantity of materials in containers (level of fill) and/or presence of Prohibited Container Contaminants. (61) “Renewable Gas” means gas derived from Organic Waste that has been diverted from a California landfill and processed at an in-vessel digestion facility that is permitted or otherwise authorized by 14 CCR to recycle Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(62).
(62) “Restaurant” means an establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of food and drinks for on-premises or immediate consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(64).
(63) “Route Review” means a visual Inspection of containers along a Hauler Route for the purpose of determining Container Contamination, and may include mechanical Inspection methods such as the use of cameras, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(65).
(64) “SB 1383” means Senate Bill 1383 of 2016 approved by the Governor on September 19, 2016, which added Sections 39730.5, 39730.6, 39730.7, and 39730.8 to the Health and Safety Code, and added Chapter 13.1 (commencing with Section 42652) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time.
(65) “SB 1383 Regulations” or “SB 1383 Regulatory” means or refers to, for the purposes of this ordinance, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste

12 Reduction regulations developed by CalRecycle and adopted in 2020 that created 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 and amended portions of regulations of 14 CCR and 27 CCR.
(66) “Self-hauler” means a person, who hauls Solid Waste, Organic Waste or Recyclable Materials he or she has generated to another person. Self-hauler also means a person who hauls waste from a residence or business to a transfer/processing facility, composter or other Organic Waste recovery activity.

Self-hauler also includes a person who Back-Hauls waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(66). For the purposes of Edible Food Recovery, “SelfHauler” means a Commercial Edible Food Generator which holds a contract with and hauls Edible Food to a Food Recovery Organization or other site for redistribution according to the requirements of this Ordinance. Self-Haulers that are Commercial Businesses will be required to obtain a “Permitted Hauler” license from the Town to ensure that their operations do not conflict with the Town’s agreement with the Exclusive Franchised Hauler.
(67) “Single-Family” means of, from, or pertaining to any residential premises with fewer than five (5) units.
(68) “Solid Waste” has the same meaning as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40191, which defines Solid Waste as all putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes, with the exception that Solid Waste does not include any of the following wastes:
(a) Hazardous waste, as defined in the State Public Resources Code Section 40141.
(b) Radioactive waste regulated pursuant to the State Radiation Control Law (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 114960) of Part 9 of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code).
(c) Medical waste regulated pursuant to the State Medical Waste Management Act (Part 14 (commencing with Section 117600) of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code). Untreated medical waste shall not be disposed of in a Solid Waste landfill, as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40195.1. Medical waste that has been treated and deemed to be Solid Waste shall be regulated pursuant to Division 30 of the State Public Resources Code.
(69) “Source Separated” means materials, including commingled recyclable materials, that have been separated or kept separate from the Solid Waste stream, at the

13 point of generation, for the purpose of additional sorting or processing those materials for recycling or reuse in order to return them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products, which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402.5(b)(4). For the purposes of the ordinance, Source Separated shall include separation of materials by the generator, property owner, property owner’s employee, property manager, or property manager’s employee into different containers for the purpose of collection such that Source Separated materials are separated from Gray Container waste/Mixed Compostable Materials or other Solid Waste for the purposes of collection and processing as required for a three-container or two-container collection service. (70) “Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste” means Source Separated Organic Wastes that can be placed in a Blue Container that is limited to the collection of those Organic Wastes and Non-Organic Recyclables as defined in Section 18982(a)(43), or as otherwise defined by Section 17402(a)(18.7). (71) “Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste” means Source Separated Yard Trimmings that can be placed in a Green Container that is specifically intended for the separate collection of Yard Trimmings by the generator, excluding Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste, Mixed Compostable Materials, Recyclable Materials, Excluded Waste and Hazardous Waste. (72) "Source Separated Recyclable Materials" means any material designated to be separated from the waste stream as Recyclable Materials and and Source Separated Blue Container Organic Waste
(73) “Source Separated Yard Trimmings” means any material designated to be separated from the waste stream for purposes of Yard Trimmings composting. (74) “State” means the State of California.
(75) “Supermarket” means a full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, and which sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(71).
(76) “Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator” means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following:
(a) Supermarket.
(b) Grocery Store with a total facility size equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet.
(c) Food Service Provider.
(d) Food Distributor.

14 (e) Wholesale Food Vendor.

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) of Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) shall apply to this Ordinance.
(77) “Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator” means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following:
(a) Restaurant with 250 or more seats, or a total facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.
(b) Hotel with an on-site Food Facility and 200 or more rooms. (c) Health facility with an on-site Food Facility and 100 or more beds. (d) Large Venue.
(e) Large Event.
(f) A State agency with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.
(g) A Local Education Agency facility with an on-site Food Facility.

If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) of Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) shall apply to this Ordinance.
(78) “Town” means the Town of Portola Valley. Town is used interchangeably with “Jurisdiction.”
(79) “Uncontainerized Green Waste and Yard Waste Collection Service” or “Uncontainerized Service” means a collection service that collects green waste and yard waste that is placed in a pile or bagged for collection on the street in front of a generator’s house or place of business for collection and transport to a facility that recovers Source Separated Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 189852(a)(75).
(80) “Wholesale Food Vendor” means a business or establishment engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of food, where food (including fruits and vegetables) is received, shipped, stored, prepared for distribution to a retailer, warehouse, distributor, or other destination, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 189852(a)(76).
(81) “Yard Trimmings” means tree trimmings, including branches, that are less than six (6) inches in diameter less than two (2) feet in length, shrubbery prunings, vegetative garden wastes, dead plants, weeds, leaves, grass clippings and other

15 vegetative matter. Yard Trimmings also means Christmas trees that are cut to lengths of not more than 5-feet, and which are free of plastics or other contaminants. Yard Trimmings does not include Recyclable Materials, Garbage, Mixed Compostables, Manure, Excluded Waste and Hazardous Materials. Yard Trimmings are outlined in Exhibit D of agreement with Exclusive Franchised Hauler and may change by mutual written agreement with Jurisdiction.

8.08.020. REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
Applicability: This Chapter shall take effect on July 1, 2023.

Single-Family Organic Waste Generators shall comply with the following requirements and Single-Family generators that self-haul materials must meet the Self-Hauler requirements in Chapter 8.08.080 of this ordinance:
(a) Shall subscribe to Jurisdiction’s Organic Waste collection services for all Organic Waste generated as described below in Chapter 8.08.020(b). Jurisdiction shall have the right to review the number and size of a generator’s containers to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, Single-Family generators shall adjust its service level for its collection services as requested by the Jurisdiction. Generators may additionally manage their Organic Waste by preventing or reducing their Organic Waste, managing Organic Waste on site, and/or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c).
(b) Shall participate in the Jurisdiction’s Organic Waste collection service(s) by placing designated materials in designated containers as described below, and shall not place Prohibited Container Contaminants in collection containers. (1) For a three-container collection service (Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container): generator shall place Source Separated Yard Trimmings, except Food Scraps, in the Green Container; Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Blue Container; and Mixed Compostable Materials, including Food Scraps and Food-Soiled Paper, in the Gray Container. Generator shall not place materials designated for the Green Containers or Blue Containers in the Gray Containers.
(2) For a two-container collection service (Blue Container/Gray Container collection):
generator shall place only Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Blue Container. Generator shall place all other materials, including Food Scraps, Food-Soiled Paper and Yard Trimmings, (Mixed Compostable Materials) in the Gray Container.

16 8.08.030. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES
Applicability: Chapter 8.08.030(o) shall go into effect immediately; 8.08.030(c) and

8.08.030(d) shall go into effect July 1, 2024 and the remainder of this Chapter 8.08.030 shall take effect on July 1, 2023.

Generators that are Commercial Businesses, including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, shall:
(a) Subscribe to Jurisdiction’s three- or two-container collection services and comply with requirements of those services as described below in 8.08.030(b) and comply with the Self-Hauler for requirements in Chapter 8.08.080 of this ordinance. All Commercial Businesses, including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, shall subscribe to Recyclable Materials collection and Commercial Businesses and/or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings that generate four cubic yards or more of total solid waste per week shall subscribe to Yard Trimmings collection. Town shall have the right to review the number and size of a generator’s containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, Commercial Businesses shall adjust their service level for their collection services as requested by the Town.
(b) Participate in the Jurisdiction’s Organic Waste collection service(s) by placing designated materials in designated containers as described below. (1) For three-container collection service (Blue Container, Green Container, and Gray Container) generator shall place Source Separated Yard Trimmings, except Food Waste, in the Green Container; Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Blue Container; and Mixed Compostable Materials, including Food Waste, in the Gray Container. Generator shall not place materials designated for the Green Containers or Blue Containers in the Gray Containers.
(2) For Two-container collection service (Blue Container/Gray Container) generator shall place only Source Separated Recyclable Materials in a Blue Container. Generator shall place all other materials (Mixed Compostable Materials) in a Gray Container.
(c) Supply and allow access to adequate number, size and location of collection containers with sufficient labels or colors (conforming with 8.08.030(d)(1) and

8.08.030(d)(2) in this Chapter below) for employees, contractors, tenants, and customers, consistent with Jurisdiction’s Blue Container, Gray Container, and/or Green Container collection service or, if self-hauling, per the Commercial Businesses’ instructions to support its compliance with its self-haul program, in accordance with Chapter 8.08.080.

17 (d) Excluding Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, provide containers for the collection of Source Separated Recyclable Materials in all indoor and outdoor areas where disposal containers are provided for customers, for materials generated by that business. Such containers do not need to be provided in restrooms. If a Commercial Business does not generate any of the materials that would be collected in one type of container, then the business does not have to provide that particular container in all areas where disposal containers are provided for customers. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b), the containers provided by the business shall have either:
(1) A body or lid that conforms with the container colors provided through the collection service provided by Jurisdiction, with either lids conforming to the color requirements or bodies conforming to the color requirements or both lids and bodies conforming to color requirements. A Commercial Business is not required to replace functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the requirements of the subsection prior to the end of the useful life of those containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first. (2) Container labels that include language or graphic images, or both, indicating the primary material accepted and the primary materials prohibited in that container, or containers with imprinted text or graphic images that indicate the primary materials accepted and primary materials prohibited in the container. Pursuant 14 CCR Section 18984.8, the container labeling requirements are required on new containers commencing January 1, 2022. (e) Multi-Family Residential Dwellings are not required to comply with container placement requirements or labeling requirements in this Chapter 8.08.030(d) pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b).
(f) To the extent practical through education, training, Inspection, and/or other measures, excluding Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, prohibit employees from placing materials in a container not designated for those materials per the Jurisdiction’s Blue Container, Gray Container and/or Green Container, collection service or, if self-hauling, per the Commercial Businesses’ instructions to support its compliance with its self-haul program, in accordance with Chapter 8.08.080. (g) Excluding Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, periodically inspect Blue Containers, Green Containers, Gray Containers and/or Green Containers for contamination and inform employees if containers are contaminated and of the requirements to keep contaminants out of those containers pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b)(3).
(h) Annually provide information to employees, contractors, tenants, and customers about Organic Waste Recovery requirements and about proper sorting of and Source Separated Recyclable Materials and/or Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste.
----

18 (i) Provide education information before or within fourteen (14) days of occupation of the premises to new tenants that describes requirements to keep Source Separated Green Container Organic Waste and Source Separated Recyclable Materials separate from Gray Container Waste (when applicable) and the location of containers and the rules governing their use at each property. (j) Provide or arrange access for Jurisdiction or its agent to their properties during all Inspections conducted in accordance with Chapter 8.08.130 of this ordinance to confirm compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. (k) Accommodate and cooperate with Jurisdiction’s Remote Monitoring program for Inspection of the contents of containers for Prohibited Container Contaminants, which may be implemented at a later date, to evaluate generator’s compliance with

8.08.030(b). The Remote Monitoring program shall involve installation of Remote Monitoring equipment on or in the Blue Containers, Gray Containers and/or Green Containers.
(l) At Commercial Business’s option and subject to any approval required from the Jurisdiction, implement a Remote Monitoring program for Inspection of the contents of its Blue Containers, and Gray Containers and/or Green Containers for the purpose of monitoring the contents of containers to determine appropriate levels of service and to identify Prohibited Container Contaminants. Generators may install Remote Monitoring devices on or in the Blue Containers, Gray Containers and/or Green Containers subject to written notification to or approval by the Jurisdiction or its Designee.
(m) If a Commercial Business wants to self-haul, meet the self-hauler requirements in Chapter 8.08.080 of this ordinance.
(n) Nothing in this Chapter prohibits a generator from preventing or reducing waste generation, managing Organic Waste on site, or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c).
(o) Commercial Businesses that are Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with Food Recovery requirements, pursuant to Chapter

8.08.06. 8.08.040. WAIVERS FOR GENERATORS
Applicability: This Chapter shall go into effect July 1, 2023. (a) De Minimis Waivers. A Jurisdiction may waive a Commercial Business’ obligation (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the Organic Waste requirements of this ordinance if the Commercial Business provides documentation that the business generates below a certain amount of Organic Waste material as described in 8.08.040(a)(2) below. Commercial Businesses requesting a de minimis waiver shall:

19 (1) Submit an application specifying the services that they are requesting a waiver from and provide documentation as noted in 8.08.040(a)(2) below. (2) Provide documentation that either:
(A) The Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste collection service is four cubic yards or more per week and Yard Trimmings subject to collection in a Green Container comprises less than 20 gallons per week per applicable container of the business’ total waste; or, (B) The Commercial Business’ total Solid Waste collection service is less than four cubic yards per week and Yard Trimmings subject to collection in a Green Container comprises less than 10 gallons per week per applicable container of the business’ total waste. (3) Notify Jurisdiction if circumstances change such that Commercial Business’s Yard Trimmings exceeds threshold required for waiver, in which case waiver will be rescinded.
(4) Provide written verification of eligibility for de minimis waiver every 5 years, if Jurisdiction has approved de minimis waiver.
(b) Physical Space Waivers. Jurisdiction may waive a Commercial Business’ or property owner’s obligations (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the Recyclable Materials and/or Yard Trimmings collection service requirements if the Jurisdiction has evidence from its own staff, a hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer demonstrating that the premises lacks adequate space for the collection containers required for compliance with the Organic Waste collection requirements of Chapter 8.08.020 or Chapter 8.08.030.

A Commercial Business or property owner may request a physical space waiver through the following process:
(1) Submit an application form specifying the type(s) of collection services for which they are requesting a compliance waiver.
(2) Provide documentation that the premises lacks adequate space for Blue Containers and/or Green Containers including documentation from its hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer.
(3) Provide written verification to Jurisdiction that it is still eligible for physical space waiver every five years, if Jurisdiction has approved application for a physical space waiver.
(c) Multi-Tenant Waiver. Jurisdiction may waive a Commercial Business’ obligations (including Multi-Family Residential Dwellings) to comply with some or all of the Recyclable Materials and/or Yard Trimmings collection service requirements of the Jurisdiction if the Commercial Business provides documentation that the business

20 shares service with a Tenant that already subscribes to services through the Exclusive Franchised Hauler.
(1) Submit an application form specifying the type(s) of collection services for which they are requesting a compliance waiver.
(2) Provide documentation from the Tenant indicating the services subscribed to through the Exclusive Franchised Hauler and their authorization for the Commercial Business to share this service.
(3) Provide written verification to Jurisdiction that it is still eligible for a MultiTenant waiver every five years, if Jurisdiction has approved application for a Multi-Tenant Waiver.
(d) Review and Approval of Waivers by the Jurisdiction shall be conducted by the Town Manager or his or her designee.

8.08.050. REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER ONE AND TIER TWO COMMERCIAL EDIBLE

FOOD GENERATORS
Applicability: This Chapter shall go into effect immediately. (a) Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply with the requirements of this Chapter commencing January 1, 2022, and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply commencing January 1, 2024, pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3.
(b) Large Venue or Large Event operators not providing food services, but allowing for food to be provided by others, shall require Food Facilities operating at the Large Venue or Large Event to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, commencing January 1, 2024.
(c) Tier One and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Arrange to recover the maximum amount of Edible Food that would otherwise be disposed.
(2) Use the CalRecycle Model Food Recovery Agreement or the contractual elements contained in the Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services Chapter of this Ordinance to contract with, or otherwise enter into a written agreement with Food Recovery Organizations or Food Recovery Services for:
(A) The collection of Edible Food for Edible Food Recovery from the Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator’s premises; or,

21 (B) the acceptance of Edible Food that the Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator self-hauls to the Food Recovery Organization.
(3) Contract with Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services able to demonstrate a positive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from their Edible Food Recovery activity. A list of Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services is available on the County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability website.
(4) Shall not intentionally spoil Edible Food that is capable of being recovered by a Food Recovery Organization or a Food Recovery Service. (5) Allow the Town’s enforcement entity or their Designee for Edible Food Recovery to access the premises and inspect procedures and review records related to Edible Food Recovery and/or provide them electronically if requested by the Town or the Designee for Edible Food Recovery. (6) Keep records that include the following information:
(A) A list of each Food Recovery Organization or a Food Recovery Service that collects or receives Edible Food from the Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator pursuant to a contract or written agreement as required by this Ordinance.
(B) A copy of all contracts or written agreements established under the provisions of this Ordinance.
(C) A record of the following information for each of those Food Recovery Services or Food Recovery Organizations:
(i) The name, address and contact information of the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization.
(ii) The types of food that will be collected by or self-hauled to the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization.
(iii) The established schedule or frequency that food will be collected or self-hauled.
(iv) The quantity of food, measured in pounds recovered per month, collected or self-hauled to a Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery.
(7) No later than June 30th of each year commencing no later than July 1, 2022 for Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators and July 1, 2024 for Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators, they shall provide an annual Edible Food Recovery report to the Designee for Edible Food Recovery that