Agenda packet, regular meeting — Portola Valley City Council, October 26, 2022

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Regular Meeting of the Town Council
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
7:00 P.M.

Craig Hughes, Mayor
Sarah Wernikoff, Vice Mayor
Jeff Aalfs, Councilmember
Maryann Derwin, Councilmember
John Richards, Councilmember

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM
To access the meeting by computer:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82804585290?pwd=ZVhOVktUZWx4RG1zK3pRUGhONjBPUT09 Webinar ID: 828 0458 5290
Passcode: 836382
To access the meeting by phone:
1-669-900-6833 or
1-888-788-0099 (toll-free)
Mute/Unmute – Press *6 / Raise Hand – Press *9

HYBRID MEETING
HISTORIC SCHOOLHOUSE - 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 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 Raise Hand button for those who attend the meeting online or by phone. Phone callers 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.

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 or by email at [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

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).

Residents have asked if they are able to see a list of participants in Zoom webinar-meetings. Craig Hughes has put together a simple website integrated with Zoom data to provide this for Town webinars. You can visit the site at https://pv-zooms.rungie.com/ which will show a list of meetings. Clicking on a meeting will then display all participants in the meeting, as well as those who had been in the meeting but have left. The site will only show meetings once they have started and the first participant has joined.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

3. 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.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1 of 137
Town of Portola Valley – Council Agenda
October 26, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

5. 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.
a. Approval of Warrant List
b. 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
c. Waive the Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Adopting the 2022 California Building Standards Code with Local Amendments to Those Codes and Direct the Sustainability Committee to Review, Analyze and Provide Recommendations on Updates to the Graywater “Ready” Infrastructure and Reduction of Potable Water Use on Turf Requirements with Their Review of MWELO and Other Water Conservation Measures
d. Waive the Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.04 [Definitions] and Sections 18.12.020 [R-E District – Principal Uses Permitted], 18.14.020 [R-1 DISTRICT – Principal Uses Permitted], AND 18.16.020 [M-R DISTRICT – Principal Uses Permitted] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Regarding Supportive and Transitional Housing
e. Approve the Land Acknowledgment Memo and Guidelines from the Race & Equity Committee f. Approve ADU Ambassador Program Changes. Colleagues memo from Vice Mayor Wernikoff.

6. REGULAR AGENDA
a. Receive Evacuation Recommendations from the Emergency Preparedness Committee b. Discuss the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Contract
c. Receive Recommendation for a Sheriff Citizen Oversight Group for the Sheriff of San Mateo County from the Race & Equity Committee
d. Receive Recommendation for Housing Inclusionary Fund Recommended Guidelines from the Race & Equity Committee
e. Receive and Discuss the Quarterly Council Priorities Report

7. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMITTEE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES REPORTS 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.

8. TOWN MANAGER REPORT
The Town Council does not take action under this agenda item. a. Town Attorney Summary of Builder’s Remedy Under the Housing Accountability Act

9. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Town Council meeting will be held on November 9, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. 2 of 137
3 of 137
4 of 137
5 of 137
housing density bonus. The current property owner’s assurances aside, once the Town goes down the path of rezoning 4394 as proposed, it can guarantee nothing, beyond the fact that existing residents will have 3-story apartment windows looking down in to their backyards.

I object to the 15-foot and 20-foot setbacks being proposed. With the exception of those of us who were born here, I suspect that for most of us our love affair with Portola Valley began the first time each of us drove Alpine Road. Don’t destroy it. Keep the 50 ft setbacks. And if that means that not as many housing units can be built on a given parcel, c’est la vie.

And then there is the parking. Where are all the cars going to go? This proposal could easily add 100 cars to the Nathorst Triangle area, far more that currently exist in the neighborhood. Combining that with the heavy traffic expected from the opening of the Hawthorns Open Space, and Alpine & Portola will be the same traffic/parking meltdown that Alpine & Arastradero has become, due to the popularity of Rossotti’s, I wish to endorse a modest suggestion that I believe you will hear tonight from other of my neighbors: that we need a two week extension to study this further and come up with an alternative that will work for our neighborhood and the Town. In light of the fact that this proposal was just put before us, 3 or 4 days ago, and contains so much we did not expect, and in recognition of the fact that we are residents who stand to lose the most, it is a reasonable request.

Thank you.

Ron Eastman
6 of 137
apachreg Town of Portola Valley ntanori 10/20/2022 13:00 Page 1 Check Register
Check Vendor Vendor Name Check Check BW CheckNumber Number Amount Date TypeChecks for Cash Account: 910-11011-000 2618 21 ALMANAC 790.00 10/26/222619 41 AT&T 335.41 10/26/222620 78 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 8,863.99 10/26/222621 80 CALPERS 61,965.44 10/26/222622 124 COMCAST 276.29 10/26/222623 135 CSG CONSULTANTS INC 19,751.75 10/26/222624 200 GRANICUS 10,557.00 10/26/222625 276 KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES 2,716.79 10/26/222626 332 N.C.E. 3,836.25 10/26/222627 334 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC 13,475.20 10/26/222628 367 PG&E 1,225.44 10/26/222629 412 SAN MATEO SHERIFF 373,461.25 10/26/222630 428 SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS 60.35 10/26/222631 437 SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TR 1,505.50 10/26/222632 447 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 197.91 10/26/222633 489 VERIZON WIRELESS 442.21 10/26/222634 846 CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS LLC 8,670.00 10/26/22Check totals: 508,130.78ACH totals:EFTPS totals:Wire transfer totals:Payment Manager totals:GRAND TOTALS 508,130.78Check totals: 508,130.78ACH totals:EFTPS totals:Wire transfer totals:Payment Manager totals:GRAND TOTALS 508,130.78 7 of 137
.
apapdinv2 ntanori Town of Portola Valley Page 1
13:00 10/20/22 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 10/26/2022 to 10/26/2022
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice Number Date Number Amount Invoices
Paid
Vendor: 21 ALMANAC
10/26/22 2618 August Publishing 790.00 790.00 76682
Vendor: 41 AT&T
2619 September Statement 335.41 228.83 000018883652
September Statement 53.29 000018883651September Statement 53.29 000018883653 Vendor: 78 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO
2620 Water Service 09/13/22 - 10/11/22 8,863.99 8,863.99 SEPT-2022 Vendor: 80 CALPERS
2621 July Retirement- CLASSIC 61,965.44 17,806.86 100000016833945 July Retirement- PEPRA 8,589.49 100000016833957August Retirement- CLASSIC 18,152.65 100000016866550August Retirement- PEPRA 8,484.77 10000001686658October Unfunded Liability 8,931.67 100000016953045 Vendor: 124 COMCAST
2622 WIFI 10.16.22 - 11.15.22 276.29 276.29 7290-OCT22
Vendor: 135 CSG CONSULTANTS INC
2623 August Applicant Charges 19,751.75 19,751.75 AUG-2022 Vendor: 200 GRANICUS
2624 Gov Access Plus Edition 9/24/2022 - 9/23/2023 10,557.00 10,557.00 156671 Vendor: 276 KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES
2625 August Plan Checks 2,716.79 2,716.79 81940
Vendor: 332 N.C.E.
2626 2022-2023 Street Resurfacing Through 09/09/2022 3,836.25 3,836.25 424275507 Vendor: 334 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC
2627 August Applicant Charges & PW Support 13,475.20 13,475.20 AUG_2022 Vendor: 367 PG&E
2628 September Statements 1,225.44 1,225.44 SEPT-2022
Vendor: 412 SAN MATEO SHERIFF
2629 FY2022-23 Q2 Law Enforcement 373,461.25 373,461.25 PS-INV104296 Vendor: 428 SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS
2630 September Copies 60.35 60.35 9004006219
8 of 137
.
apapdinv2 ntanori Town of Portola Valley Page 2
13:00 10/20/22 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 10/26/2022 to 10/26/2022
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice NumberDate Number Amount Invoices Paid
Vendor: 437 SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TR
2631 November Dental/Vision 1,505.50 1,505.50 NOV-2022
Vendor: 447 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN
2632 September Statement 197.91 197.91 2814-SEPT22
Vendor: 489 VERIZON WIRELESS
2633 September Cellular 442.21 442.21 9916682047
Vendor: 846 CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS LLC
2634 Recyclist Program Tracker: Annual Subscription 08/22 - 07/23 8,670.00 8,670.00 INV-2575 Check Date Totals 508,130.78
Grand Total 508,130.78
9 of 137

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Warrant Disbursement Journal
October 26, 2022
Claims totaling $508,130.78 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) _____________________
_______________________________ _________________________________ Melissa Thurman, Town Clerk Mayor
10 of 137
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Cara Silver, Town Attorney

DATE: October 26, 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 goes 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 (set to expire 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 remote meetings.

AB 361 applies to meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency and the legislative body has made a finding that meeting in person would "present an imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees". “State of emergency” is defined as a state of emergency declared by the Governor under Government Code Section 8625.

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 due to measures under the control of the Town, comments may not be required to be submitted in advance, and pre-registrations (except as required by callin or internet platform) are prohibited.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

11 of 137
Resolution Confirming Need to Conduct Remote Public Meetings October 26, 2022

Page 2 ends

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.

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
Town staff has installed a new system in the Schoolhouse to accommodate hybrid remote meetings. This system has also been installed in the Community Hall. On April 27, 2022, the Council conducted its first hybrid meeting and plans to continue meeting this way.

However, some members of the Council, its commissions/committees, staff and the public may want to continue attending remotely. Given the continued presence of COVID-19 in the community, in person meetings would present an imminent risk to the health or safety of certain attendees.

AB 361 requires the Council to make a regular finding confirming the state of emergency and the need for continued remote meetings. Staff will therefore be agendizing this finding on every Council meeting agenda until a decision to transition to completely 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.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution
12 of 137
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, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), which provides that a local agency legislative body may continue to meet remotely without complying with otherwise-applicable requirements in the Brown Act related to remote/teleconference meetings by local agency legislative bodies, provided that a state of emergency has been declared and the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and provided that the legislative body continues to make such findings at least every 30 days during the term of the declared state of emergency;
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; and effective February 14, 2022, the Town Manager issued updated work place guidelines imposing safety protocols on persons attending Town Hall facilities;
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;
13 of 137
2 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.

WHEREAS, the Council has again reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that the state of emergency continues to impact the ability of members of the Town Council, commissions and committees and public to meet in person because there is a continuing threat of COVID19 to the community, and because Town meetings have characteristics that give rise to risks to health and safety of meeting participants (such as the increased mixing associated with bringing together people from across the community, the need to enable those who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated to be able to safely continue to participate fully in public governmental meetings, and the challenges with fully ascertaining and ensuring compliance with vaccination and other safety recommendations at such meetings);
WHEREAS, persons experiencing any potential symptoms of COVID-19, or who test positive but are asymptomatic, or who are exposed to someone with COVID19, should follow medical advice regarding self-isolation or self-quarantine, avoiding public gatherings such as in-person meetings of public agencies, and should be able to do so without sacrificing their right to participate in public business during periods of self-isolation or selfquarantine; WHEREAS, the onset of symptoms of COVID-19 or a positive test may occur too close to the start of a meeting for alternative arrangements for attendance to be made consistently with the Brown Act, such that a remote attendance option for public meetings should be maintained for as long as COVID transmission remains a potential risk of inperson meetings; WHEREAS, the Town Council has an important interest in protecting the health and safety of those who participate in public Town meetings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members of the Town Council and its commissions and committees to meet safely in person and that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and the Council will therefore continue to invoke the provisions of AB 361 related to teleconferencing for meetings of the Town Council and its commissions and committees in order to provide its members as well as staff and members of the public with 14 of 137
3 the option of participating in its meetings remotely whenever necessary or advisable for them to do so.

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 hereby determines that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person presents 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 or in a hybrid format allowing officials and the public to attend virtually or in person, with Brown Act teleconferencing rules suspended. Public meetings conducted outside may be conducted in person.

4. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption and remain in effect so long as the Council confirms the continuing state of emergency and need for remote meetings as required under AB 361.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2022.

By: _________________________
Craig Hughes, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
Town Clerk
15 of 137
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Laura Russell, Planning & Building Director
Brandi de Garmeaux, Assistant to the Town Manager
Ron La France, Consulting Building Official
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: Conduct Second Reading and Adopt a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter

15.04 [Building Codes] of Title 15 [Building and Construction] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code to Adopt the 2022 California Building Standards Code with Local Amendments.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Staff recommends that the Town Council waive the full reading and adopt the proposed ordinance adopting the 2022 California Building Standards Code with local amendments to those codes. (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND
The State has adopted an updated Building Standards Code, to be effective beginning January 1, 2023. All local jurisdictions are required to enforce the newly adopted Code. For consistency with the State action, staff is proposing the adoption of the State Code with local amendments to address local geological, climatic, or topographic conditions.

The Council reviewed the draft ordinance adopting the updated State Code and local amendments at its October 12, 2022 meeting and acted to introduce the ordinance with a request for a change to refine the language associated with:
• Removal of an exception to the Wildland Urban Interface requirements for buildings over 50 feet from an applicable building; and
• The all electric requirements for all newly constructed buildings and gas-fired outdoor amenities (such as outdoor kitchens, grills, pools, spas, fireplaces, firepits and outdoor heaters.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
16 of 137
2022 Building Code Adoption Page 2
With Local Amendments October 26, 2022

DISCUSSION
Staff has modified Sections 15.04.020 [Amendments to the California Building Code],

15.04.030 [Amendments to the California Residential Code] and 15.04.080 [Amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code] of the proposed ordinance to include the language directed by the Council at its October 12, 2022 meeting. The proposed ordinance is included as Attachment 1. If the Council takes action to adopt the ordinance, the State Building Standards Code and local amendments will become effective January 1, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the Guideline Section 15061(b)( 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adoption of this ordinance is exempt as it does not have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. ___ amending Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code adopting The 2022 California Building Standards Code Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 and amendments thereto 17 of 137
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-xxxx

ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
PORTOLA VALLEY AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 [BUILDING CODE] AND CHAPTER 15.10 [GREEN BUILDING] OF TITLE 15 [BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION] OF THE PORTOLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING

LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND UPDATING

HOME HARDENING AND CAL GREEN REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the Town of Portola Valley ("Town") wishes to adopt a building code in accordance with law and to use the most updated regulations in the process of development in the Town; and
WHEREAS, because of the Town's unique local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions, as detailed in Exhibit A, the Town desires to make some amendments and additions to the California Building Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley does ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1: REPEAL OF CODE: Sections 15.04.010 [Building Code]; 15.04.020 [Amendments to the Building Code]; 15.04.030 [Administration of the Building Code];

15.04.050 [Temporary Occupancy Permit] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code]; and 15.10 [Green Building] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code are hereby repealed.

SECTION 2: AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 15.04.010 [Building Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby added:

The town's building code is comprised of the following uniform codes:

A. 2022 California Administrative Code (Part 1 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission; and B. 2022 California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2 (Part 2 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission Based on the 2021 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council (ICC), with modifications; and
C. 2022 California Residential Code (Part 2.5 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission and Appendices:

Appendix H: Patio Covers; Appendix K: Sound Transmission and Appendix V:

Swimming Pool Safety Act, based on the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC) published by the International Code Council, with modifications; and ATTACHMENT 1
18 of 137
2 D. 2022 California Electrical Code (Part 3 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission Based on the 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) published by the National Fire Protection Association; and
E. 2022 California Mechanical Code (Part 4 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission Based on the 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO); [and]
F. 2022 California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission based upon the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) published by the International Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) and Appendix K with modifications; [and] G. 2022 California Energy Code (Part 6 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission; and
H. 2022 California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24), California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission; and I. 2022 California Fire Code (Part 9 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission Based on the 2021 International Fire Code (IRC) published by the International Code Council; and J. 2022 California Existing Building Code (Part 10 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission; and K. 2022 Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) (Part 11 of Title 24) California Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Commission; and L. 2022 California Referenced Standards Code (Part 12 of Title 24) Adopted by the Building Standards Commission.

SECTION 3: AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.020 [Amendments to the California Building Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby added:

A. Subsection 101.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A] 101.1 Title.

These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of the Town of Portola Valley, hereinafter referred to as “this code”.

B. Subsection 105.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
19 of 137
3 [A] 105.1 required.

Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make an application to the building official and obtain the required permit.

C. Subsection 105.2 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A] 105.2 Work exempt from permit.

1. One-story detached accessory building used as a tool or storage shed, playhouse, and similar use provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet.

2. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five feet nine inches high.

3. Retaining walls that are not over four feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A Liquids.

4. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2:1.

5. Platforms and walks, not more than 30 inches above grade and not over any basement or story below.

6. Painting, papering and similar finish work.

7. Window awnings; supported by an exterior wall for Group R, Division 3 (Single Family Residence), and Group U (Private Garage) Occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches.

8. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade, and if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons.

D. Subsection 109.6 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read 20 of 137
4 as follows:
[A] 109.6 Refunds.

The Building Official may authorize refunding of:

1. Any fee paid hereunder, which was erroneously paid or collected.

2. Not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.

3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or cancelled before any plan reviewing is done.

The Building Official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days after the date of the fee payment.

E. Subsection 111.3 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A] 111.3 Temporary occupancy.

The building official is authorized to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy before the completion of the entire work covered by the permit, provided that such portion or portions shall be occupied safely. The building official shall set a time period during which the temporary certificate of occupancy is valid. Even if a temporary occupancy permit has been obtained, in no event shall a building be sold or transferred until the final inspection has been signed by the town's building official.

A. Upon request, the town's building official shall provide an applicant with an application for temporary occupancy permit and a list of the town's minimum requirements for temporary occupancy permit. The minimum requirements for temporary occupancy permit shall be developed by the town's building official at their sole discretion.

B. The town's building official may at their sole discretion issue a temporary occupancy permit for the use of a portion or portions of a building if, and only if, the applicant provides a surety deposit in the form of a letter of credit from a savings institution and made payable to the town of Portola Valley or a cashier's check in the amount of ten thousand dollars.

1. Any costs of the town in enforcing the terms of the temporary occupancy permit or removing occupants from the premises shall be deducted from the surety deposit. If the costs to the town exceed the amount of the surety deposit, the applicant shall be responsible for immediately paying the town any deficiency.
21 of 137
5 2. The town may in its sole discretion require further deposits or bonds, in an amount not to exceed the cost of completion of the project, plus up to twenty percent to cover any costs incurred by the town in completing the project.

C. The duration of a temporary occupancy permit shall not be more than one year from the date of approval of the temporary occupancy permit. Failure to complete the project within the lesser of one year or the time period indicated on the temporary occupancy permit may result in the immediate revocation of the temporary occupancy permit and eviction from the premises.

The town's building official shall have sole discretion whether to revoke or extend the temporary occupancy permit in light of the evidence concerning the failure to complete the project. The town's building official shall have sole discretion as whether or not the revised scheduled is acceptable. Within ten days of the applicant presenting evidence and a revised schedule, the town's building official shall either extend or revoke the temporary occupancy permit.

E. If a temporary occupancy permit is revoked, the utilities will be disconnected from the project and abatement proceeding may occur in accordance with the town's municipal code and local, state and federal rules and regulations.

F. Subsection 113.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A] 113.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be the Town Council. The board shall render all findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the building official.

G. Subsection 114.4 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A] 114.4 Violation penalties.

Any person who commences any work for which a permit is required, such as, but not limited to: grading, demolition, or on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical, fire protection or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a fee established by fee resolution that shall be in addition to the required 22 of 137
6 permit fees. Double Building Permit Fees will apply at a minimum of $500.00 plus $500.00 fine may be added for each violation (type of construction) where a building permit should have been issued.

H. Subsection 701A.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
701A.1 Scope.

This chapter applies to building materials, systems and or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings, additions to existing buildings, alterations to existing buildings and additions with alterations to existing buildings as defined in Section 702A.

I. Subsection 701A.2 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
701A.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses.

J. Subsection 701A.3 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
701A.3 Application.

All New buildings, additions, alterations, and repairs shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. This shall include all buildings with residential, commercial, educational, institutional or similar occupancy type use, which shall be referred to in the section as “applicable building” (see definition in Section 702A) as well as new buildings and structures accessory to those applicable buildings.

Exceptions:

1. Group C occupancy special buildings conforming to the limitations specified in Section 450.4.1.

2. New Accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures specified in Section 710A shall comply with the requirements of that section.

3. Ornamental landscape structure (e.g. trellis, gazebo):
• With a projected roof area that does not exceed 120
square feet; and
• That is not within 30 feet of a property line.
23 of 137
7 4. An animal shade structure:
• With a projected roof area that does not exceed 120
square feet; and
• That is not within 30 feet of a property line.

K. Section 702A of the California Building Code is hereby amended to include the following definition:

NEW BUILDING. For the purposes of this chapter, alterations, additions and additions that include alterations to existing buildings for which building permit(s) have been issued within any 12-month period that collectively exceeds more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, 50 percent of the existing wall area or when the combination of the percentages of affected floor area and affected wall area exceeds 50 percent are treated as new buildings. In calculating these percentages, the following guidelines shall apply:
a Calculation of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA): The floor area of any addition, all rooms affected by any addition, and the floor area of all rooms affected by structural changes made in the building, such as walls, columns, beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, footings, piles or retaining walls or similar components, shall be included in computing the floor areas for applying this section.
b Calculation of Percentage of Affected Wall Area (PWA): The calculated wall area affected shall include all interior and exterior walls where no studs are proposed to be remain or if some studs remain and/or if the surface of both sides of the studs are proposed to be removed such that one can see through the wall. c Calculation of Combination of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA) and Wall Area (PWA): The combination of the percentage of affected floor as described above plus the percentage of wall area as described above (PFA + PWA > 50%).

L. Subsection 704A.4 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
704A.4 Alternative methods for determining ignition resistant material.

Any of the following shall be accepted as meeting the definition of ignition resistant material:

1. Noncombustible materials. Material that complies with the definition for noncombustible materials in Section 202.

M. Subsection 705A.2 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
24 of 137
8 705A.2 Roof Coverings.

The minimum roof coverings installed on buildings shall be Class A rated tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790 such as concrete, tile, metal or slate. Wood roof coverings are prohibited. Where the roofing profile has an airspace under the roof covering, installed over a combustible deck, a 72 lb. (32,7kg) cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 Standard Specification for “Asphalt Rolled Roofing (Glass Felt) Surfaced with Mineral Granules,” shall be installed over the roof deck. Bird stops shall be used ate the eaves when the profile fits, to prevent debris at the eave. Hip and ridge caps shall be mudded in to prevent intrusion of fire or embers.

Exceptions:

1. Roof covering replacement that affects 25% or less of the building structure.

2. Cap Sheet is not required when no less than 1 inch of mineral wool or other noncombustible material is located between the roofing material and wood framing or deck.

Alternately, a Class A fire rated roof underlayment, tested in accordance with ASTM E108, shall be permitted to be used. If the sheathing consists of exterior fire-retardant-treated wood, the underlayment shall not be required to comply with a Class A classification. Bird stops shall be used ate the eaves when the profile fits, to prevent debris at the eave. Hip and ridge caps shall be mudded in to prevent intrusion of fire or embers.

N. Subsection 705A.3 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
707A.3 Exterior wall coverings.

Exterior wall coverings and exterior columns supporting roof structures and trellises shall be of noncombustible materials.

Exception:

1. Alterations to existing exterior wall coverings that affect less than 10% of the exterior of the building.

2. Exterior columns supporting roof structures and trellises wrapped with noncombustible material. Ignition resistant or combustible veneers over noncombustible material is
prohibited.

O. Subsection 707A.5 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
25 of 137
9 707A.5 Open roof eaves.

Open roof eaves are prohibited.

Exceptions:

The following materials do not need protection:

1. Ignition-resistant fascia and other architectural trim boards P. Subsection 707A.6 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
707A.6 Enclosed roof eaves and roof eave soffits.

The exposed underside of enclosed roof eaves having either a boxed-in roof soffit with a horizontal underside, or sloping rafter tails with an exterior covering applied to the underside of the rafter tails, shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Boxed-in roof eave soffit assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section R337.7.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Boxed-in roof eave soffit assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.

Exception to Section 707A.6: The following materials do not require protection:

1. Fascia and other architectural trim boards.

Q. Subsection 707A.7 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
707A.7 Exterior porch ceilings.

The exposed underside of exterior porch ceilings shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for 26 of 137
10 exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section R337.7.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A3.

Exception to Section 707A.7: The following materials do not require protection:

1. Fascia and other architectural trim boards.

R. Subsection 707A.8 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
707A.8 Floor projections.

The exposed underside of a cantilevered floor projection where a floor assembly extends over an exterior wall shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section 704A.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section 707A.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.

Exception to Section 707A.8: Architectural trim boards.do not require protection.

S. Subsection 707A.9 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
707A.9 Underfloor protections.

The underfloor area of elevated or overhanging building shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of this chapter or the underside of 27 of 137
11 exposed underfloor shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section 704A.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section 707A.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A3.

Exception to Section 707A.9: Structural columns and beams do not require protection when constructed with sawn lumber or glue-laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Sawn or glue-laminated planks shall be splined, tongue-and-groove, or set closed together and spiked.

T. Subsection 707A.10 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
707A.10 Underside of appendages.

The underside of overhanging appendages shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, or the underside of the exposed under-floor shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section 704A.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section 707A.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A3.

Exception to Section 707A.10: Structural columns and beams do not require protection when constructed with sawn lumber or glue-laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Sawn or glue-laminated 28 of 137
12 planks shall be splined, tongue-and-groove, or set closed together and spiked.

U. Subsection 709A.3 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
709A.3 Decking surfaces.

The walking surface material of decks, porches, balconies and stairs shall be constructed with one of the following materials:

1. Material that complies with the performance requirements of Section 709A.4 when tested in accordance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726.

2. Ignition-resistant material that complies with the performance requirements of Section 704A.3.

3. Material that complies with the performance requirements of both SFM Standard 12-7A-4 and Section 704A.3.

4. Noncombustible material.

V. Subsection 709A.6 of the California Building Code is hereby added to read as follows:
709A.6 Deck structure protection
Decks or similar structures less than four feet above grade shall be protected as follows:

1. The structure of exterior decks shall be enclosed from the underside of the deck to grade with solid, noncombustible or ignition resistant materials per 703A. of the California Building Code.

W. Subsection 710A.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
710A.1 General.

Group U occupancy accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures shall be constructed to conform to the requirements of this chapter.

X. Subsection 710A.3 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
710A.3 Where required.

Attached accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures shall be constructed in 29 of 137
13 accordance with the structure to which they are attached. Detached accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures, unless specially exempted per subsection 701A.3 or exempted from permit as specified in Section 105.2 shall be constructed as follows:

1. Fences and gates located within 10 feet of an applicable building shall be noncombustible. Fences and gates located 10 feet or more from an applicable building are not required to comply with the provisions of this chapter.

2. Accessory buildings and detached miscellaneous structures, including those with a floor area of 120 square feet or less, constructed at a distance of less than 30 feet from a property line shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.

Y. Subsection 710A.4 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
710A.4 Roof construction.

Roofs of accessory buildings required to be constructed entirely of noncombustible or ignition-resistant materials shall comply with the requirements of chapter 7A and chapter

15. Roof coverings shall comply with section 705A.2 as amended by this ordinance.

Z. Subsection R902.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R902.1 Roof covering materials.

Roofs shall be covered with materials as set forth in sections 904 and 905. A minimum Class A roofing shall be installed. Class A roofing is required by this section to be listed shall be tested in accordance with UL 790 or ASTM E 108. Wood roof coverings are prohibited.

AA. Subsection 903.2 of the California Building Code is hereby added to read as follows:
903.2 Where required.

An approved automatic sprinkler system in buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21.

Exceptions:

1. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall not be required 30 of 137
14 in existing structures where repairs, alterations, additions and additions that include alterations are made to unsprinklered, existing buildings when building permit(s) have been issued within any 12-month period that collectively do not exceed more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, 50 percent of the existing wall area or when the combination of the percentages of affected floor area and affected wall area exceeds 50 percent. The following guidance shall be used to calculate these percentages:
a. Calculation of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA):

The floor area of any addition, all rooms affected by any addition, and the floor area of all rooms affected by structural changes made in the building, such as walls, columns,
beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, footings, piles or retaining walls or similar components, shall be included in computing the floor areas for applying this section.
b. Calculation of Percentage of Affected Wall Area (PWA):

The calculated wall area affected shall include all interior and exterior walls where no studs are proposed to be remain or if some studs remain and/or if the surface of both sides of the studs are proposed to be removed such that one can see through the wall.
c. Calculation of Combination of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA) and Wall Area (PWA): The combination
of the percentage of affected floor as described above plus the percentage of wall area as described above (PFA + PWA > 50%).

BB. Subsection 1031.2 of the California Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
1031.2 Where required.

In addition to the means of egress required by this chapter, emergency escape and rescue openings shall be provided in Group R occupancies.

Basements and sleeping rooms below the fourth story above grade plane shall have not fewer than one emergency escape and rescue opening in accordance with this section.

Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, an emergency escape and rescue opening shall be required in each sleeping room but shall not be required in 31 of 137
15 adjoining areas of the basement. Such openings shall open directly into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.

Exceptions:

1. In group R-1 and R-2 occupancies constructed of Type I, Type IIA, Type IIIA or Type IV construction equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.

2. Group R-2.1 occupancies meeting the requirements for delayed egress in accordance with Section 1010.2.13 may have operable windows that are breakable in sleeping rooms permanently restricted to a maximum of 4-inch open position.

3. Basements with a ceiling height of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.

4. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior egress balcony that opens to a public way.

5. Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.

6. Storm shelters are not required to comply with this section where the shelter is constructed in accordance with ICC 500.

CC. Section 1405.1 of the California Building Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to read as follows:
1405.1 Combustible exterior wall coverings.

Exterior wall coverings shall be of noncombustible materials.

Exception: Alterations to existing exterior wall coverings that affect less than 10% of the exterior of the building.

DD. Section 1505.1 of the California Building Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to read as follows:
[BF] 1505.1 General.

The minimum roof coverings installed on buildings shall be Class A rated tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790 such as concrete, tile, metal or slate. Wood roof coverings are prohibited.

Exception:
32 of 137
16 1. Roof covering replacement that affects 25% or less of the building structure.

EE. Table 2308.6.1 of section 2308.6.1 of the California Building Code is hereby amended as follows:

The title of Table 2308.6.1 is amended to read:

Table 2308.6.1 Wall Bracing Requirementsa,f,g
Footnotes are added as follows:

Footnotes “f” and “g” are added to Table 2308.6.1, to read:
f. Methods PBS, HPS, and SFB are not permitted in Seismic Design Categories D or E.
g. Methods GB, DWB and PCP are not permitted in Seismic Design Category E.

SECTION 4: AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.030 [Amendments to California Residential Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby added:

Section 15.04.030
FF. Subsection R101.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R101.1 Title.

These regulations shall be known as the Residential code of the Town of Portola Valley, hereinafter referred to as “this code”.

GG. Subsection R105.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R105.2 Work exempt from permit.

Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:
33 of 137
17 1. One-story detached accessory building used as a tool or storage shed, playhouse, and similar use provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet.

2. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over five feet nine inches high.

3. Retaining walls that are not over four feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A Liquids.

4. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2:1.

5. Platforms and walks, not more than 30 inches above grade and not over any basement or story below.

6. Painting, papering and similar finish work.

7. Window awnings; supported by an exterior wall for Group R, Division 3 (Single Family Residence), and Group U (Private Garage) Occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches.

8. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 Occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade, and if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons.

HH. Subsection R108.5 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R108.5 Refunds.

The Building Official may authorize refunding of:

1. Any fee paid hereunder, which was erroneously paid or collected.

2. Not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.

3. Not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or cancelled before any plan reviewing is done.

The Building Official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days after the date of the fee payment.

II. Subsection R110.4 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
34 of 137
18 R110.4 Temporary occupancy.

2. The town may in its sole discretion require further deposits or bonds, in an amount not to exceed the cost of completion of the project, plus up to twenty percent to cover any costs incurred by the town in completing the project.

D. If the project is not completed in the time set forth in the temporary occupancy permit, which in no event shall exceed one year, the applicant shall show cause for the failure to complete the project and submit a schedule for completion. The applicant must show cause and present a schedule to the town's building official within ten days of the expiration of the temporary occupancy permit or no extension or reinstatement of the temporary occupancy permit will be allowed. The town's building official shall have sole discretion whether to revoke or extend the temporary occupancy permit in light of the evidence concerning the failure to complete the project. The town's building official shall have sole discretion as whether or not the revised 35 of 137
19 scheduled is acceptable. Within ten days of the applicant presenting evidence and a revised schedule, the town's building official shall either extend or revoke the temporary occupancy permit.

JJ. Subsection R112.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R112.1 General.

KK. Subsection R113.4 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R113.4 Violation penalties.

Any person who commences any work for which a permit is required, such as, but not limited to: grading, demolition, or on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical, fire protection or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a fee established by fee resolution that shall be in addition to the required permit fees. Double Building Permit Fees will apply at a minimum of $500.00 plus $500.00 fine may be added for each violation (type of construction) where a building permit should have been issued.

LL. Subsection R301.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R301.2 Climatic and geographic design criteria.

Buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of this code as limited by the provisions of this section. Additional criteria shall be established by the local jurisdiction and set forth in Table R301.2.
36 of 137
20 CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA
GROUND
SNOW
LOAD

WIND DESIGN SEISMIC
DESIGN
CATEGORY Speed f d (mph)Topographic
effectsk
Special wind
regionl
Wind-borne
debris zonem
No 91 -102 (Risk
category
dependent)
No No No D-E

SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM ICE

BARRIER
UNDERLAYMENT
REQUIREDh
FLOOD
HAZARDSg
AIR

FREEZING
INDEXi
MEAN
ANNUAL
TEMP Weathering j a
Frost
line
depthb
Termitec
No No No No PV Muni
Code
Section

18.32 NA 58.55
For SI: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa, 1 mile per hour = 0.447 m/s. a. Weathering may require a higher strength concrete or grade of masonry than necessary to satisfy the structural requirements of this code. The weathering column shall be filled in with the weathering index, "negligible," "moderate" or "severe" for concrete as determined from Figure R301.2(3). The grade of masonry units shall be determined from ASTM C34, C55, C62, C73, C90, C129, C145, 0216 or C652. b. The frost line depth may require deeper footings than indicated in Figure R403.1(1).

The jurisdiction shall fill in the frost line depth column with the minimum depth of footing below finish grade.
c. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table to indicate the need for protection depending on whether there has been a history of local subterranean termite damage. d. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the wind speed from the basic wind speed map [Figure R301.2(4)A]. Wind exposure category shall be determined on a sitespecific basis in accordance with Section R301.2.1.4. e. Temperatures shall be permitted to reflect local climates or local weather experience as determined by the building official.
f. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the seismic design category determined from Section R301.2.2.1.
37 of 137
21 g. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with (a) the date of the jurisdiction’s entry into the National Flood Insurance Program (date of adoption of the first code or ordinance for management of flood hazard areas), (b) the date(s) of the Flood Insurance Study and (c) the panel numbers and dates of the currently effective F1RMs and FBFMs or other flood hazard map adopted by the authority having jurisdiction, as amended. h. In accordance with Sections R905.1.2, R905.4.3.1, 8905.5.3.1, R905.6.3.1, R905.7.3.1 and R905.8.3.1, where there has been a history of local damage from the effects of ice damming, the jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with "YES." Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with "NO." i. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the 100-year return period air freezing index (BF-days) from Figure R403.3(2) or from the 100-year (99 percent) value on the National Climatic Data Center data table "Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32°F)."
j. The jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with the mean annual temperature from the National Climatic Data Center data table "Air Freezing Index-USA Method (Base 32°F)."
k. In accordance with Section R301.2.1.5, where there is local historical data documenting structural damage to buildings due to topographic wind speed-up effects, the jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with "YES." Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate "NO" in this part of the table.
l. In accordance with Figure R301.2(4)A, where there is local historical data documenting unusual wind conditions, the jurisdiction shall fill in this part of the table with "YES" and identify any specific requirements, Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate "NO" in this part of the table.
m. In accordance with Section R301.2.1.2.1. the jurisdiction shall indicate the wind-borne debris wind zone(s). Otherwise, the jurisdiction shall indicate "NO" in this part of the table.

MM. Subsection R310.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required.

Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have not less than one operable emergency escape and rescue opening. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, an emergency escape and rescue opening shall be required in each sleeping room. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way.

Exceptions:

1. Basements with a ceiling height of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) 38 of 137
22 shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.

2. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior egress balcony that opens to a public way.

3. Basements without habitable spaces and having not more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue openings.

4. Storm shelters are not required to comply with this section where the shelter is constructed in accordance with ICC 500.

NN. Subsection R310.7 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R310.7 Alterations or repairs of existing basement.

New sleeping rooms created in an existing basement shall be provided with emergency escape and rescue opening in accordance with Section 310.1. Other than new sleeping rooms, where existing habitable basements undergo alteration or repairs, an emergency escape and rescue opening is not required.

OO. Subsection R310.7.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby deleted.

PP. Subsection R313.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems.

An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in townhouses.

Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required where repairs, additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have automatic residential fire sprinkler systems installed when building permit(s) have been issued within any 12-month period that do not collectively exceed more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, 50 percent of the existing wall area or 50 percent of the combination of affected floor area and affected wall area percentages. In calculating these percentages, the following guidelines shall apply:
a. Calculation of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA):

The floor area of any addition, all rooms affected by any addition, and the floor area of all rooms affected by structural changes made in the building, such as walls, columns, beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, footings, piles or retaining walls or similar 39 of 137
23 components, shall be included in computing the floor areas for applying this section.
b. Calculation of Percentage of Affected Wall Area (PWA):

The calculated wall area affected shall include all interior and exterior walls where no studs are proposed to be remain or if some studs remain and/or if the surface of both sides of the studs are proposed to be removed such that one can see
through the wall.
c. Calculation of Combination of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA) and Wall Area (PWA): The combination of the percentage of affected floor as described above plus the percentage of wall area as described above (PFA + PWA < 51%).

R313.1.1 Design and Installation.

Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with section R313 or NFPA 13D.

QQ. Subsection R313.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R313.2 One and two-family dwelling automatic fire sprinkler systems.

An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one and two-family dwellings.

Exceptions:

1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required where repairs, alterations, additions and additions that include alterations to existing buildings for which building permit(s) have been issued within any 12-month period that do not collectively exceed more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, 50 percent of the existing wall area or 50 percent of the combination of affected floor area and affected wall area percentages. In calculating these percentages, the following guidelines shall apply:
a. Calculation of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA):

The floor area of any addition, all rooms affected by any addition, and the floor area of all rooms affected by structural changes made in the building, such as walls, columns,
beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, footings, piles or retaining walls or similar components, shall be included in computing the floor 40 of 137
24 areas for applying this section.
b. Calculation of Percentage of Affected Wall Area (PWA):

The calculated wall area affected shall include all interior and exterior walls where no studs are proposed to be remain or if some studs remain and/or if the surface of both sides of the studs are proposed to be removed such that one can
see through the wall.
c. Calculation of Combination of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA) and Wall Area (PWA): The combination
of the percentage of affected floor as described above plus the percentage of wall area as described above (PFA +
PWA > 50%).

2. Residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for an accessory dwelling unit, if all the following are met:

2.1The unit meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as defined in the Government Code section 65852.2

2.2The existing primary residence does not have automatic fire sprinklers.

2.3The accessory detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1200 square feet in size and is located in compliance with the setbacks of the base zoning district at required by the Portola Valley Municipal Code

2.4 The unit is on the same lot as the primary residence.

R313.2.1 Design and Installation.

Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with section R313 or NFPA 13D.

RR. Subsection R328.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R328.1 General.

Energy storage systems (ESS) shall comply with the provisions of this section.

Exceptions:

1. ESS less than 1 kWh (3.6 megajoules)
SS. Subsection R337.1.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.1.1 Scope.
41 of 137
25 This chapter applies to building materials, systems and or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings, additions to existing buildings, alterations to existing buildings and additions with alterations to existing buildings as specified in Section R337.1.3.

TT. Subsection R337.1.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.1.2 Purpose.

The purpose of Section R337 is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses.

UU. Subsection R337.1.3 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.1.3 Application.

All New buildings, additions, alterations, and repairs shall comply with the provisions of this section. This shall include all buildings with residential, commercial, educational, institutional or similar occupancy type use, which shall be referred to in the section as “applicable building” (see definition in Section R337.2) as well as new buildings and structures accessory to those applicable buildings.

Exceptions:

Group C occupancy special buildings conforming to the limitations specified in Section 450.4.1 of the California Building Code,

1. New Accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures specified in Section R337.10 shall comply with the requirements of that section.

2. Ornamental landscape structure (e.g. trellis, gazebo):
• With a projected roof area that does not exceed 120
square feet; and
• That is not within 30 feet of a property line.

3. An animal shade structure:
• With a projected roof area that does not exceed 120
square feet; and
• That is not within 30 feet of a property line.
42 of 137
26 VV. Section R337.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to include the following Definition:

NEW BUILDING. For the purposes of Section R337, alterations, additions and additions that include alterations to existing buildings for which building permit(s) have been issued within any 12-month period that collectively exceeds more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, 50 percent of the existing wall area or when the combination of the percentages of affected floor area and affected wall area exceeds 50 percent are treated as new buildings. In calculating these percentages, the following guidelines shall apply:
d Calculation of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA): The floor area of any addition, all rooms affected by any addition, and the floor area of all rooms affected by structural changes made in the building, such as walls, columns, beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, footings, piles or retaining walls or similar components, shall be included in computing the floor areas for applying this section.
e Calculation of Percentage of Affected Wall Area (PWA): The calculated wall area affected shall include all interior and exterior walls where no studs are proposed to be remain or if some studs remain and/or if the surface of both sides of the studs are proposed to be removed such that one can see through the wall. f Calculation of Combination of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA) and Wall Area (PWA): The combination of the percentage of affected floor as described above plus the percentage of wall area as described above (PFA + PWA > 50%).

WW. Subsection R337.4.4 Exception 3 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.4.4 Alternative methods for determining ignition resistant material.

Any of the following shall be accepted as meeting the definition of ignition resistant material:

1. Noncombustible materials. Material that complies with the definition for noncombustible materials in Section R202.

XX. Subsection R337.5.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.5.2 Roof Coverings.

The minimum roof coverings installed on buildings shall be Class A rated tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790 such as concrete, tile, metal or slate. Wood roof 43 of 137
27 coverings are prohibited. Where the roofing profile has an airspace under the roof covering, installed over a combustible deck, a 72 lb. (32,7kg) cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 Standard Specification for “Asphalt Rolled Roofing (Glass Felt) Surfaced with Mineral Granules,” shall be installed over the roof deck. Bird stops shall be used ate the eaves when the profile fits, to prevent debris at the eave. Hip and ridge caps shall be mudded in to prevent intrusion of fire or embers.

Exceptions:

1. Roof covering replacement that affects 25% or less of the building structure.

2. Cap Sheet is not required when no less than 1 inch of mineral wool or other noncombustible material is located between the roofing material and wood framing or deck.

YY. Subsection R337.7.3 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.3 Exterior wall coverings.

Exterior wall coverings and exterior columns supporting roof structures and trellises shall be of noncombustible materials.

Exception:

1. Alterations to existing exterior wall coverings that affect less than 10% of the exterior of the building.

2. Exterior columns supporting roof structures and trellises wrapped with noncombustible material. Ignition resistant or combustible veneers over noncombustible material is
prohibited.

ZZ. Subsection R337.7.5 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.5 Open roof eaves.

Open roof eaves are prohibited.
44 of 137
28 Exceptions:

The following materials do not need protection:

1. Ignition-resistant fascia and other architectural trim boards.

AAA. Subsection R337.7.5.6 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.6 Enclosed roof eaves and roof eave soffits.

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

5. Boxed-in roof eave soffit assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.

Exception to Section R337.7.6: The following materials do not require protection:

1. Fascia and other architectural trim boards.

BBB. Subsection R337.7.7 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.7 Exterior porch ceilings.

The exposed underside of exterior porch ceilings shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263. 45 of 137
29 4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section R337.7.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A3.

Exception to Section R337.7.7: The following materials do not require protection:

1. Fascia and other architectural trim boards.

CCC. Subsection R337.7.8 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.8 Floor Projections.

The exposed underside of a cantilevered floor projection where a floor assembly extends over an exterior wall shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section R337.7.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.

Exception to Section R337.7.8: Architectural trim boards.do not require protection.

DDD. Subsection R337.7.9 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.9 Underfloor protections.

The underfloor area of elevated or overhanging building shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of this chapter or the underside of exposed underfloor shall be protected by one or more of the following:

1. Noncombustible material.
46 of 137
30 2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section R337.7.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.

Exception to Section R337.7.9: Structural columns and beams do not require protection when constructed with sawn lumber or glue-laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Sawn or glue-laminated planks shall be splined, tongue-and-groove, or set closed together and spiked.

EEE. Subsection R337.7.10 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.7.10 Underside of appendages.

1. Noncombustible material.

2. Ignition-resistant material. The ignition-resistant material shall be labeled for exterior use and shall meet the requirements of Section R337.4.2.

3. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire resistance-rated construction on the exterior side, as tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263.

4. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in Section R337.7.11 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957.

5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal underside that meets the performance criteria in accordance with the test procedures set for the in SFM Standard 12-7A-3.

Exception to Section R337.7.10: Structural columns and beams do not require protection when constructed with sawn lumber or glue-laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Sawn or glue-laminated planks shall be splined, tongue-and-groove, or set closed together and spiked.

FFF. Subsection R337.9.3 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
47 of 137
31 R337.9.3 Decking surfaces.

The walking surface material of decks, porches, balconies and stairs shall be constructed with one of the following materials:

1. Material that complies with the performance requirements of Section R337.9.4 when tested in accordance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726.

2. Ignition-resistant material that complies with the performance requirements of Section R337.9.4.

3. Material that complies with the performance requirements of both SFM Standard 12-7A-4 and Section R337.4.3.

4. Noncombustible material.

GGG. Subsection R337.9.6 of the California Residential Code is hereby added to read as follows:

R337.9.6 Deck structure protection.

Decks or similar structures less than four feet above grade shall be protected as follows:

1. The structure of exterior decks shall be enclosed from the underside of the deck to grade with solid, noncombustible or ignition resistant materials per 703A. of the California Building Code.

HHH. Subsection R337.10.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.10.1 General.

Group U occupancy accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures shall be constructed to conform to the requirements of this chapter.

III. Subsection R337.10.3 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.10.3 Where required.

Attached accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures shall be constructed in accordance with the structure to which they are attached. Detached accessory buildings and miscellaneous structures, unless specially exempted per subsection R337.1.3 or exempted from permit as specified in Section R105 shall be constructed as follows:

1. Fences and gates located within 10 feet of an applicable building shall be noncombustible. Fences and gates located 10 feet or more 48 of 137
32 from an applicable building are not required to comply with the provisions of this chapter.

JJJ. Subsection R337.10.4 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R337.10.4 Roof construction.

Roofs of accessory buildings required to be constructed entirely of noncombustible or ignition-resistant materials shall comply with the requirements of Section R337 and chapter 9. Roof coverings shall comply with section R337.5.2 as amended by this ordinance.

KKK. Table R602.10.3(3) of subsection R602.10.3 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended as follows:

The title of Table R602.10.3(3) is amended to read:

TABLE R602.10.3(3)i, j Bracing Requirements Based On Seismic Design Category Footnotes are added as follows:

Footnotes “i” and “j” are added to Table R602.10.3(3), to read:
i. Methods PBS, HPS, SFB and CS-SFB are not permitted in Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2.
j. Methods GB, DWB and PCP are not permitted in Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2 where S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75.

JJJ. Subsection R902.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

R902.1 Roof covering materials.

LLL. Subsection R902.1.1 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended as follows:
49 of 137
33 R902.1.1 Roof coverings within fire hazard severity zones.

The entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 25 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one-year period, where the addition of new roof area exceeds 25 percent of the existing roof area, the entire roof covering of every new building and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing structure, shall meet the requirements of Section R337.5.2.

MMM. Subsection R902.1.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby amended as follows:

R902.1.2 Roof coverings in all other areas.

NNN. Subsection R902.2 of the California Residential Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.

R902.2 Fire retardant treated shingles and shakes. Fire- retardant treated wood shakes and shingles are wood shakes and shingles complying with UBC Standard 15-3 or 15-4 which are impregnated by the full-cell vacuumpressure process with fire-retardant chemicals, and which have been qualified by UBC Standard I5-2 for use on Class A, B or C roofs. Fire retardant-treated wood shakes and shingles shall comply with ICC-ES EG/07 and with the weathering requirements contained in Health and Safety Code Section 13/32.7 (j). Each bundle shall bear labels from an ICBO accredited quality control agency identifying their roof-covering classification and indicating their compliance with ICC-ES EGJ07 and with the weathering requirements contained in Health and Safety Code Section 13132.7U).

Health and Safety Code Section 13132.7 (j) No wood roof covering materials shall be sold or applied in this state unless both of the following conditions are met:
(1) The materials have been approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal as complying with the requirements of this section. (2) The materials have passed at least five years of the 210-year natural weathering test. The 10-year natural weathering test required by this subdivision shall be conducted in accordance with Standards 15-2 of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code at a testing facility recognized by the State Fire Marshal. 50 of 137
34 SECTION 5: AMEMDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.040 [Amendments to the California Electrical Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby added:
(Reserved)
SECTION 6: AMEMDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.050 [Amendments to the California Mechanical Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby added:
(Reserved)
SECTION 7: AMEMDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.060 [Amendments to the California Plumbing Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby added with the following:

OOO. Subsection 1211.8 Earthquake Actuated Gas Shutoff Valves, of the California Plumbing Code is hereby adopted.

SECTION 8: AMEMDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.070 [Amendments to the California Energy Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby created with the following:
(Reserved)
SECTION 9: AMEMDMENT OF CODE. Section 15.04.080 [Amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code] of Chapter 15.04 [Building Code] of Title 15 [Buildings and Construction] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby created with the following:

PPP. Section 101.12 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to added to read as follows:
101.12 Final determination of compliance.

Final determination of compliance and good faith effort to comply. Prior to the scheduling of a final building inspection for a covered project, the planning director or his/her designee shall review the documentation submitted by the applicant, and determine whether the applicant has achieved the required compliance of Subsections 4.106.4.1,

4.106.5, 4.106.5.1, 4.106.5.2, 4.305, and 5.106.13 and/or demonstrate that measures are in place to assure compliance not later than one year after approval of final building inspection. If the planning director or his/her designee determines that the applicant has met the requirements of the above referenced subsections for the project, the final building inspection may proceed, provided the covered project has received approval of 51 of 137
35 all other inspections required by the chief building official. If the planning director or his/her designee determines that the requirements of the above referenced subsections have not been achieved, the planning director or his/her designee shall find one of the following:

1. Good faith effort to comply: When an applicant submits a request in writing to the planning director or his/her designee for approval of a good faith effort to comply, the planning director or his/her designee shall determine that the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this chapter when finding that either a. The cost for providing green building documentation or assuring compliance is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project, or b. The green building materials and technologies on the green building checklist are no longer available or not yet commercially available, or c. at least eighty percent of the above referenced subsections have been achieved, and measures are in place to assure full compliance not later than one year after approval of the final building inspection.

Determination of a good faith effort to comply shall be made separately for each item on the green building project checklist. Granting of a good faith effort to comply for one item does not preclude the need for the applicant to comply with the other items on the green building checklist.

2. Non-compliant project. If the planning director or his/her designee determines that the applicant has not made a good faith effort to comply with above referenced subsections, or if the applicant fails to submit the documentation required within the required time period, then the project shall be determined to be non-compliant, and the final inspection and approval for the project shall be withheld. A final inspection shall not take place until the applicant has implemented equivalent alternate measures approved by the planning director or his/her.

3. Non-compliance. If, upon inspection, the building official or planning director determines that the covered project does not comply with the approved plans or above referenced subsections, a stop order shall be issued if the planning director or his/her designee determines that continuation of construction activities will jeopardize the project's ability to meet the required compliance threshold. The stop order shall remain in effect until project has been brought into compliance with the approved plans and/or checklist.

QQQ. Section 101.13 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to added to read as follows:
101 .13 Hardship or infeasibility exemption.

If an applicant for a covered project believes that circumstances exist that make it a hardship or infeasible to meet the requirements of Subsections 4.106.4.1, 4.106.5,

4.106.5.1, 4.106.5.2, 4.305, and 5.106.13, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the applicant to show hardship or infeasibility.
52 of 137
36 1. Application. Any request for an exemption must be included at the time of application submittal. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that he or she believes create a hardship or make it infeasible to fully comply with this chapter. Circumstances that constitute hardship or infeasibility include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. There is conflict with the compatibility of the above referenced sections with other town goals, such as those requiring historic preservation; b. There is conflict with the compatibility of the above referenced sections and the California Building Standards Code;
c. There is conflict with the compatibility of the above referenced sections and the town's zoning ordinance and/or architectural review criteria; and/or d. There is a lack of commercially available green building materials and technologies to comply with the above referenced sections.

2. Review by Architectural and Site Control Commission. For any covered project for which an exemption is requested and architectural and site control review is required, the architectural and site control commission shall provide a recommendation to the planning director or their designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted, conditionally granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project. For any project for which an exemption is requested based on the historic character of the building or site, the town historian shall provide a recommendation to the planning director or their designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted or denied and shall determine whether the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.

3. Decision by Planning Director (or their designee). The planning director or their designee shall make a determination based on the information provided. The planning director or his/her designee shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the planning director or their designee shall be provided to the applicant in writing. a. If the planning director or their designee determines that it is a hardship or is infeasible for the applicant to meet the requirements of this chapter, the request shall be granted. Notwithstanding, the applicant shall be required to comply with this chapter in all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be reasonably achievable by planning director or their designee. b. If the planning director or their designee determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this chapter, the request shall be denied. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application.
53 of 137
37 c. The planning director or their designee’s decision shall be final.

RRR. Subsection 102.3.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to read as follows:
102.3.1 Third party verification.

Third party verification of compliance for applicable building measures of this code is required and shall be provided by a Green Building Specialist as defined in chapter 2 of this code.

SSS. Section 202 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions:

ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING: An all-electric building is a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the source of energy for its space heating, water heating, cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. All Electric Buildings may include solar thermal pool heating.

APPLIED WATER TURF CALCULATOR: An applied water turf calculator is a tool that uses data and methodology from the California Department of Water Resources to estimate the irrigation water requirements for turf minus any water supplied by effective rainfall and effective ground water seepage. The calculator uses the evapotranspiration of applied water (ETaw) for cool-season and warm-season turf that was calculated based on a six-year period of climate data specific to a 4x4 km grid spacing within the town.

GOOD FAITH EFFORT: A good faith effort means a project that has not met the required compliance threshold, but for extenuating reasons or reasons beyond the control of the applicant, the planning director or his/her designee has found that the project meets the good faith effort provisions of Subsection 101.12.

GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST: A green building specialist is a person that is LEED certified for the building type, trained through Build It Green as a certified green building professional, or similar qualifications as approved by the planning director or their designee.

RAINWATER CATCHMENT SYSTEM: Rainwater catchment system means the collected precipitation from rooftops and other above-ground impervious surfaces that is stored in catchment tanks for later use.

TURF: Turf means a ground cover surface of mowed grass. All of the following qualify as turf: annual bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, Perennial ryegrass, Red fescue, and tall 54 of 137
38 fescue (cool-season grasses). Bermuda grass, Kikuyu grass, Seashore Paspalum, St.

Agustine grass, Zoysia grass, and Buffalo (warm-season grasses).

TTT. Section 202 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to incorporate the following amendment to the term below:

NEWLY CONSTRUCTED (or NEW CONSTRUCTION). A newly constructed building (or new construction) does not include additions, alterations or repairs. For the purposes of this code, additions, alterations and additions that include alterations to existing lowrise residential buildings for which building permit(s) have been issued within any 12- month period that collectively exceeds more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, 50 percent of the existing wall area or when the combination of the percentages of affected floor area and affected wall area exceeds 50 percent are treated as newly constructed (or new construction). In calculating these percentages, the following guidelines shall apply:
(1) Calculation of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA): The floor area of any addition, all rooms affected by any addition, and the floor area of all rooms affected by structural changes made in the building, such as walls, columns, beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof rafters, roof diaphragms, footings, piles or retaining walls or similar components, shall be included in computing the floor areas for applying this section. (2) Calculation of Percentage of Affected Wall Area (PWA): The calculated wall area affected shall include all interior and exterior walls where no studs are proposed to be remain or if some studs remain and/or if the surface of both sides of the studs are proposed to be removed such that one can see through the wall. (3) Calculation of Combination of Percentage of Affected Floor Area (PFA) and Wall Area (PWA): The combination of the
percentage of affected floor as described above plus the percentage of wall area as described above (PFA + PWA > 50%).

UUU. Subsection 301.1.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
301.1.1 Additions and alterations.
[HCD} the mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall be applied to additions and alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition or alteration increases the building’s conditioned area, volume or size. The requirements shall apply only to and/or within the specific area of the addition or alterations.
55 of 137
39 The mandatory provisions of Section 4.06.4.2 may apply to additions or alterations of existing parking facilities or the addition of new parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings. See Section 4.106.4.3 for application.

NOTE: Repairs including, but not limited to, resurfacing, restriping, and repairing or maintaining existing lighting fixtures are not considered alterations for the purposes of this section.

Exception:

All residential construction additions, alterations, repairs, and/or accessory dwelling unit conversions that include the installation of a new or the replacement, upgrade or relocation of an existing air conditioning condensing unit and/or the replacement/upgrade to the main electric panel shall comply with Section 4.106.5.2.

VVV. Subsection 4.106.4.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and townhomes with attached private garages.

All new one- and two family dwellings and townhomes shall have an electric vehicle (EV) ready space supplied by a minimum 40-ampere 208/240 branch circuit.

4.106.4.1.1 Identification.

The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device as “EV READY”. The raceway termination shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV READY”.

WWW. Section 4.106.5 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to read as follows:

4.106.5 Buildings Electrification.

A Newly constructed building shall comply with Section 1.406.5.1. Additions and alterations to existing buildings shall comply with Section 1.406.5.2.

XXX. Section 4.106.5.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to read as follows:

4.106.5.1 Newly Constructed Buildings.

Newly constructed buildings and gas-fired outdoor amenities (such as outdoor kitchens, 56 of 137
40 grills, pools, spas, fireplaces, firepits and outdoor heaters) shall be constructed as allelectric buildings.

YYY. Section 4.106.5.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to read as follows:

4.106.5.2 Residential additions, alterations and accessory dwelling unit conversions.

All residential construction additions, alterations, repairs, and/or accessory dwelling unit conversions that do not meet the definition of newly constructed that include the installation of a new or replacement, upgrade or relocation of an existing air conditioning condensing unit and/or the replacement/upgrade to the main electric panel shall comply with the following:

1. The installation of a new or replacement, upgrade or relocation of an existing air conditioning condensing unit shall be replaced with a reverse cycle air conditioning condensing unit (heat pump).

2. The replacement/upgrade to the main electric panel shall have:
a. The electrical capacity for and reservation of breaker space in the panel to accommodate the existing single-family
electrical load and the future electrification of:
• An electric stove and oven if the current stove and/or oven are gas:
• An electric clothes dryer if the current clothes dryer is gas;
• One level 2 electric vehicle charging equipment (EVCE); • Photovoltaic panels (PV); and
• For a 240-volt circuit capable of providing electricity to operate a HPWH of comparable size to the existing gas
fired water heater but a minimum of 30 amps per water
heater.
b. All reserved breaker spaces shall be permanently marked as “For Future EVCE, PV and HPWH use”.
c. A dedicated 240-volt branch circuit shall be installed within three (3) feet from the existing water heater location and shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare”, be
identified as 240 V ready.

Exception: Multifamily buildings as defined in section

15.10.030 where the water heaters are located in each
dwelling unit.
57 of 137
41 ZZZ. Section 4.304.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to read as follows:

4.304.2 Reduction of potable water use on turf.

For all projects with landscapes that include the use of turf, install rainwater catchment system. Irrigation needs of turf should be calculated using the Applied Water for Turf Calculator. All rainwater catchment systems must be installed in compliance with California Plumbing Code in effect at the time of Building permit application.

1. Rainwater Catchment System Size. The rainwater catchment system size shall be determined by using the Applied Water for Turf Calculator. The rainwater catchment system will need to be sized in order to satisfy 50 percent of the estimated annual water demands for the first 500 square feet of turf installed on the project. The rainwater catchment system will need to be sized in order to satisfy 100 percent of the estimated annual water demands for installed turf that is greater than 500 square feet.

2. Alternative. A fully installed graywater system connected to an irrigation system that can satisfy all of the annual water demands of turf as identified in the Applied Water for Turf Calculator can be used as an alternative to installing a rainwater catchment system.

AAAA. Section 4.305 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.305 Graywater “Ready” Infrastructure [LR].

Install graywater “ready” systems as outlined below. Additional plumbing piping is installed to permit the discharge from all clothes washers and all applicable fixtures from bathrooms located above grade to allow for future installation of a distributed irrigation system, either subsurface or treated. All graywater “ready” systems must be installed in compliance with the California Plumbing Code in effect at the time of Building permit application.

1. Identify an appropriate location for possible future installation of a graywater treatment system, including storage tanks.

2. Include either a separate multiple pipe outlet or a diverter valve and an outside “stub-out” installation on clothes washing machine hook-ups, to allow separate discharge of graywater direct for irrigation.

3. Include a building drain(s) for lavatories, showers, and bathtubs, segregated from drains for all other plumbing fixtures, connected to the black water pipe a minimum 58 of 137
42 of three (3) feet from the building foundation.

4. Provide power supply for future graywater treatment system.

5. The graywater system shall be comprised of purple piping. The diverter valve on the clothes washing machine system shall be labeled as “LAUNDRY-TOLANDSCAPE CAPABLE.” Exception:

Accessory dwelling units that include laundry connections shall only be required to include a diverter valve and an outside “stub-out” installation on the clothes washing machine hook-up, to allow separate discharge of graywater direct for irrigation. The diverter valve on the clothes washing machine system shall be labeled as “LAUNDRY-TOLANDSCAPE CAPABLE.” BBBB. Section 5.106.13 of the California Green Building Standards Code is hereby added to read as follows:

5.106.13 Building electrification.

Newly constructed buildings shall be constructed as all-electric buildings.

Exception:

The Building Official may grant an exception for cooking needs or for newly constructed public agency buildings as needed for emergency services.

SECTION 10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Pursuant to the Guideline Section 15061 ( b)( 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) this ordinance is exempt from CEQA, as it does not have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or inapplicable to any situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or the applicability of this ordinance to other situations.

SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE; POSTING. This Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2023 and shall be posted within the Town in three public places.

INTRODUCED: October 12, 2022
PASSED:

AYES:
59 of 137
43 NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

By: _______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Town Attorney
60 of 137
44 EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS
Pursuant to State Law, including but not limited to Sections 13143.5, 18941.5, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley finds that the changes or modifications to the Building Code set forth in Ordinance No. 2021-__ are reasonably
necessary due to certain local climatic, geologic and
topographic conditions as described below.

I. CLIMATIC
(a) Conditions
Precipitation ranges from 15 to 24 inches per year with an average of approximately 20 inches per year. Ninety-six percent of the precipitation falls during the months of October through April, and four percent from May through September, leaving a dry period of at least five months each year. Relative humidity remains in the middle range most of the time, ranging from 45 to 65 percent in the winter, but occasionally falling as low as 15 percent. Temperatures from June through September average above 80°F. It is not unusual to experience several continuous days with temperatures in the mid to high 90s.

Prevailing winds in the area come from the west. However, winds are experienced from virtually every direction at one time or another. Velocities are generally in the 12-MPH range, gusting from 25 to 35 MPH.
(b) Impact
Locally experienced dry periods cause extreme dryness of untreated wood shakes and shingles on buildings and nonirrigated grass, brush, and weeds, which are often near buildings with wooden roofs. Such dryness causes these
materials to rapidly ignite and burn intensely. Because of dryness, a rapidly burning grass fire or exterior building fire will quickly transfer to other buildings with dry shake or shingle roofs by means of radiation or flying brands, sparks and embers.

Where there are large and/or numerous buildings with untreated shake or shingle exteriors, a small fire can rapidly grow to a magnitude beyond the control capabilities of the Fire
Department, resulting in an excessive fire loss to the
community.
61 of 137
45 The average rainfall is frequently surpassed by concentrated periods of heavy rainfall. This factor combined with soil types, terrain, and existing road systems, have led to landslides and flooding across both Town and private road systems. The blockage of access routes delays and/or prevents the ability of fire apparatus to respond to emergency scenes. Although the Town has identified roads traditionally susceptible to closure, clearing of these routes remains dependent upon knowledge and availability of resources. During 1997 and 1998, partial or complete road blockages were identified on Alpine Road, Wayside Road, Minoca Road, and Escobar Road.

In addition to causing fires to burn and spread rapidly, wind(s) frequently cause(s) tree limbs to break and trees to fall, which can damage electrical transmission lines. Fallen power lines not only cause power outages but, also spark fires. Local winds will continue to be a definite factor of major fire loss to buildings lacking ignition-resistant construction, fire resistive roofs and automatic sprinkler systems.

II. GEOLOGIC
(a) Conditions
The Town is located in close proximity to the San Andreas Fault and other numerous seismic faults elsewhere in the Bay
Area. Buildings and other structures can experience major seismic damage, such as in the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. The area is replete with various soils and areas with significant movement potential.
(b) Impact
A major earthquake could result in the cutting-off of response routes of fire companies by damaged and/or blocked roads.

Earthquakes of the magnitude experienced locally can cause major damage to electrical transmission facilities, break gas and water lines which, in turn, can cause power failures, start fires throughout the Town and County and impair the ability to fight them. The occurrence of multiple fires will quickly disperse existing Fire Department resources, thereby reducing and/or delaying their response to any given fire. Even minor seismic activity has an adverse impact on fire protection. Any earth movement which causes buildings to move creates cracking and warping of walls, smoke barriers, door frames, etc., thereby negating the effectiveness of building elements intended to prevent fire and smoke from spreading within the building. 62 of 137
46 Additionally, these soils are susceptible to seismic shock and moisture concentrations that may result in landslides in hilly and creek-side areas along fire department access/response routes.

Such restriction of response routes can result in major fire losses in locations where buildings are covered with untreated wood shakes or shingles, particularly where these structures have no automatic fire protection systems such as sprinklers.

III. TOPOGRAPHIC
(a) Conditions
Large areas of highly combustible dry grass, weeds, brush, and trees adjacent to structures are common throughout the Town.

Above ground electrical power transmission lines are
suspended through trees and above large areas of dry
vegetation. The hilly terrain, limited surface streets, and arrangement of man-made features around many buildings
preclude, or greatly limit, any approach to all but one side. (b) Impact
Above ground electrical transmission lines are subject to damage from overloading, winds, trees, earthquakes, and motor vehicle collisions. Fires involving large areas of dry vegetation can quickly grow to a magnitude beyond local Fire Department capabilities. The limited number of response routes and the lack of feasible alternate routes compound this problem. Additional delays must be anticipated due to attempts on the part of residents to flee or enter the fire area. Fire damage from these delays results in the need for additional suppression resources to obtain control. The combination of buildings with untreated wood shake or shingle roofs and without fire sprinkler systems and impeded access for the Fire Department can readily result in multiple building fires and major fire losses.
63 of 137
1 ______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Cara Silver, Town Attorney
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: Second Reading: Waive Further Reading and Adopt Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.04 [Definitions] and Sections 18.12.020 (R-E District – Principal Uses permitted), 18.14.020 (R-1 District – Principal Uses Permitted), and 18.16.020 (M-R District – Principal Uses Permitted) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code to Comply with State Law regarding Supportive and Transitional Housing

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council (1) find the adoption of the Ordinance to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and (2) waive further reading and adopt an Ordinance amending the Portola Valley Municipal Code related to Supportive and Transitional Housing (Attachment 1)

DISCUSSION
State law now requires all towns to treat supportive and transitional housing like other types of permitted residential uses in a zone. Since single family zones do not contain occupancy limits, it is no longer permissible to impose occupancy limits on supportive and transitional housing. To comply with State Law as well as satisfy the objective of the Town’s Current Housing Element, the Planning Commission and Town Staff recommended amendments to the Town’s Zoning Code that (1) update the definitions of supportive and transitional housing and (2) remove the “six of fewer persons” occupancy limitation on supportive and transitional housing in its residential zones. The attached ordinance updates the relevant definitions of supportive and transitional housing (PVMC sections 18.04.515 and 18.04.523) to comply with the State Law definitions and removes the “six or fewer persons” limitation for both supportive and transitional housing in its three residential zones (PVMC Sections 18.12.020,

18.14.020, and 18.16.020.)
On October 12, 2022, the Town Council introduced the attached ordinance and conducted a public hearing. No public comments were received..

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

64 of 137
2 General Plan
The Town’s current General Plan includes objectives in the Housing Element’s “Program 8:

Transitional and Supportive Housing Ordinance” to amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to fully comply with state law relative to transitional and supportive housing. The proposed amendments would fully comply with state law. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are consistent with the Town’s General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
These amendments simply implement State law requirements which already apply to the Town and therefore this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the common sense exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.

NEXT STEPS
This amendment brings the Town into conformance with the supportive housing program in the current Housing Element. Staff will be bringing forward additional amendments in connection with the upcoming Housing Element to allow: (1) supportive and assisted housing in multi-family districts as required by State law [in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation to defer these amendments until the multi-family districts were better defined] and (2) a “low barrier navigation center” in mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family housing. In terms of the “low barrier navigation center” this is a new requirement that all towns must incorporate into their zoning codes. For a variety of reasons, staff does not anticipate such a use will in fact be sited in Portola Valley, but state law requires the town to zone for it.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance
65 of 137
Supportive Housing Ordinance
Town Council Draft Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2022 – _____

ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
PORTOLA VALLEY AMENDING SECTIONS 18.04.515 [SUPPORTIVE HOUSING],

18.04.523 [TRANSITIONAL HOUSING], 18.12.020 [R-E DISTRICT – PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED], 18.14.020 [R-1 DISTRICT – PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED], AND 18.16.020 [M-R DISTRICT – PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED] OF TITLE 18 [ZONING] OF THE PORTOLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 2, which amended both California’s Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act, took effect in January 2008. The amendments require “local governments to take specific zoning actions to encourage the development of emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing.” WHEREAS, Next, SB 2’s amendments require jurisdictions to treat supportive and transitional housing like other types of permitted residential uses in a zone.

WHEREAS, Assembly Bill (AB) 2162 was adopted and went into effect in January 2019. AB 2162 amended the Housing Element Law to require towns to permit supportive housing as a permitted-by-right use in zones where multifamily and mixed-use development are permitted. This may include nonresidential zones that permit multifamily uses. To qualify for this use-by-right, the proposed supportive housing must satisfy certain requirements (such as deed restricted units and provision of on-site supportive services).

In addition, AB 2162 provided that towns could only apply objective criteria to supportive housing projects.

WHEREAS, Program 8 of the Town’s current Housing Element provides that the Town will update its zoning ordinance to implement the current state laws applying to supportive housing.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley does ORDAIN as follows:

1. AMENDMENT TO CODE. Section 18.04.515 [Supportive Housing] of Chapter

18.04 [Definitions] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Supportive housing" is housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied either by adults with low-income having one or more disabilities or by individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act (Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 4500 et seq.), and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing residents in retaining the housing, improving their health, and maximizing their abilities to live, and when 66 of 137
Supportive Housing Ordinance
Town Council Draft Page 2
possible, work in the community.shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code, as amended from time to time.

2. AMENDMENT TO CODE. Section 18.04.523 [Transitional housing] of Chapter

18.04 [Definitions] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Transitional housing” is housing that is intended to be occupied for a limited period, usually between six and twenty-four months, in order to provide stability for residents so that they can transition into permanent housing. shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code, as amended from time to time.

3. AMENDMENT TO CODE. Section 18.14.020 [Principal uses permitted] of Chapter

18.14 [R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District Regulations] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.14.020 – Principal uses permitted.

A. Uses permitted by Section 18.36.010;
B. Single-family dwellings, including residential care facilities for six or fewer persons, supportive housing for six or fewer persons, and transitional housing for six or fewer persons;
C. Temporary uses permitted by Section 18.36.020030;
D. Public school when located in conformance with the general plan.

4. AMENDMENT TO CODE. Section 18.12.020 [Principal uses permitted] of Chapter

18.12 [R-E (Residential Estate) District Regulations] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.12.020 – Principal uses permitted.

A. Uses permitted by Section 18.36.010;
B. Single-family dwellings, including residential care facilities for six or fewer persons, supportive housing for six or fewer persons, and transitional housing for six or fewer persons;
C. Temporary uses permitted by Section 18.36.030;
D. Public school or other public building when located in conformance with the general plan.
67 of 137
Supportive Housing Ordinance
Town Council Draft Page 3

5. AMENDMENT TO CODE. Section 18.16.020 [Principal uses permitted] of Chapter

18.16 [M-R (Mountainous Residential) District Regulations] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.16.020 – Principal uses permitted.

6. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. This ordinance is found to be consistent with the General Plan of Portola Valley.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. These amendments simply implement State law requirements which already apply to the Town and therefore this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the common sense exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.

8. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW. This ordinance is intended to be consistent with State law regulating emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing, and to the extent there is any inconsistency with such State law requirements, State law shall control.

9. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or inapplicable to any situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or the applicability of this ordinance to other situations.

10. EFFECTIVE DATE; POSTING. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after the date of its adoption and shall be posted within the Town in three public places.

INTRODUCED: October 12, 2022
PASSED: October 26, 2022
AYES:

NOES:
68 of 137
Supportive Housing Ordinance
Town Council Draft Page 4
ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

ATTEST:
__________________________ By: _________________________ Town Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM
__________________________
Town Attorney
69 of 137
To: Mayor Hughes and council members
From: Race & Equity Committee
Date: September 14, 2022
Re: Land acknowledgment revision and implementation
Regarding the land acknowledgment statement adopted by the Council (red page 19) on November 11, 2020 and recommended actions, the Race & Equity Committee recommends the following:

1. Approve revised land acknowledgment statement to include the Muwekma Ohlone, Ramaytush Ohlone, and Tamien Ohlone peoples and to clarify the intention.

2. Implement the use of the land acknowledgment statement:
a. Publish in the footer of the Town’s website.
b. Begin the practice of reading the land acknowledgment at the beginning of all Town public meetings (Council, Committees, and events).

In the future, the Race & Equity Committee will seek ways to put the statement into action make further recommendations to the council.

PV’s current land acknowledgment:

Occupying the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Ramaytush Ohlone peoples, Portola Valley both recognizes and acknowledges the violent colonial history of the land that it dwells upon. As a part of this history, Portola Valley recognizes that it has, and will continue to, profit from land stolen from the Indigenous Ohlone peoples, and commits to an ongoing effort to dismantle these legacies.

Recommended revised land acknowledgment:

The Town of Portola Valley acknowledges the colonial history of this land we dwell upon—the unceded territory of the Muwekma Ohlone, Ramaytush Ohlone, and Tamien Nation, who endured a human and cultural genocide that included removal from their lands and disrupted their sacred relationship to the land. Portola Valley recognizes that we profit from the commodification of land seized from indigenous peoples and now bear the social and ecological consequences. We seek to understand the impact of these legacies on all beings and to find ways to make repair. 70 of 137
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Councilmember Sarah Wernikoff
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: ADU Ambassador Program Update

RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Town Council update the ADU Ambassador Program approved by the Council at the September 14, 2022 meeting to accommodate a larger group of community members, from the approved number of up to 4, to 8 total members. All other aspects of the Program, including its goals, will remain as approved on September 14, 2022.

BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2022 the Town Council approved the ADU Ambassador Program as detailed in my Colleague’s Memo dated September 14, 2022 (attached). The goal of the Program is to assist with community education and a survey regarding ADUs and JADUs in Portola Valley.

Applications were posted on September 16, 2022, with a deadline of October 7, 2022 to apply. The Town received 9 applications and Councilmember Aalfs and I conducted 9 interviews during the week of October 10, 2022. Given the enthusiasm and caliber of the applicants, as liaisons for the ADU Ambassador Program, Councilmember Aalfs and I agreed to offer the role to all 9 applicants. Ultimately, 8 volunteers accepted the position.

Assuming this update is approved, the 8 members of the ADU Ambassador Team will include: Anne Ashmead, Karen Askey, Patty Dewes, Rebecca Flynn, Trish Heald, Alyson Ilych, Ronny Krashinsky, and Judith Murphy. We thank them for their willingness to volunteer as part of the ADU Ambassador Team.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Colleagues Memo

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
71 of 137

Page 2 ends

72 of 137
Emer
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Emergency Preparedness Committee
DATE: October 12, 2022
RE: Recommendations of EPC Re: Future Activities- PV Evacuation Study

RECOMMENDATION
Pls see below the Priority Ranking of Future/Ongoing Activities

BACKGROUND
Section 5 of the Portola Valley Wildfire Traffic Evacuation Capacity Study made 14 recommendations for "Future/Ongoing Activities". Given the mission of the EPC, and its collective experience of several hundred hours over the years to address wildfire and related emergency issues, we would like to provide the following "rankings" for the Council's consideration as it moves forward to implement the study's recommendations. We hope these recommendations will be helpful to the Town Council as it sets its immediate actions with its available resources and moves forward on these important initiatives. There is excellent information and analyses coming out in the next several months of evacuations in recent fire-stricken communities, by NIST and others, that should be considered for longer term priorities.

In making these recommendations, the EPC recognizes that the Town of Portola Valley has collaborated with the San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management (SMC DEM) to create a Working Group of interagency partners in spring 2022 to develop detailed Evacuation Plans. The working group includes representatives from SMC DEM, Woodside Fire Protection District, San Mateo County Sheriff, the Town Manager, the evacuation subcommittee of the Emergency Preparedness Committee, all schools in Portola Valley, and The Sequoias. The working group is being hosted by SMC DEM staff and is responsible for preparing a written evacuation plan that will define the authority and responsibilities for actions to be taken during an active evacuation of Portola Valley. Accordingly, it is recognized that the EPC recommendations herein will need to be further evaluated

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Committee Memo

73 of 137
and considered as each of these interested groups do further fact-finding and reports.

The EPC recommendations are based on the reports and information available to date, and most specifically the recent Wildfire Traffic Evacuation Capacity Study.

We look forward to answering any questions from the Town Council and assisting its efforts to implement the recommended initiatives as soon as possible.

FISCAL IMPACT
“No fiscal impact anticipated”
***************************************************
EPC Ranking of Potential Future/Ongoing Activities As Reported In The PV Wildfire Traffic Evaluation Capacity Study
Legend:

H= High importance and practical to accomplish
M= Medium importance and quite practical to accomplish
L= Low importance and/or impractical to implement
Rankings:

H 1. • Establish Evacuation Responsibilities
H 2 • Integrate Evacuation Plans for Schools & Sequoias M 3.• Coordinate with SamTrans on availability and travel time for buses as needed for evacuation
M 4 • Local Traffic Management Strategies including additional intersection traffic control locations as described in Section 4
74 of 137
H 5• Identification of vehicle crash emergency clearance crews M 6• Investigate potential for qualified local residents to support traffic control activities at local intersections for situations where police resources are not available H 7* Create a working group which would identify hazards along the major evacuation routes, including excessive vegetation, large trees and aging or leaning utility poles which could block these routes in a fire; and establish plans to mitigate these hazards
M 8. • Local Street Accessibility Improvements (Access to Constrained Parcel Groups per Safety Element analysis, Narrow Streets)
H+ 9 • Local Evacuation Shelters/Centers for conditions where shelter-in-place is appropriate.; including coordination with other entities providing emergency services in and around Portola Valley
H 10* Daytime Employee Evacuation (how to notify, manage evacuation of household/yard/construction workers)
H 11• Improve And Coordinate Communication Systems And The Active Command Protocols to provide key updated information during an evacuation-especially for route information for active evacuees
M 12• Supplemental Traffic Assessments
M 13• Multi-agency Evacuation Assessment and Plan with Woodside and Los Altos Hills
75 of 137
H 14.*Evacuation Education Programs
76 of 137
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager
Melvin Gaines, Assistant Town Manager
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: Sheriff’s Contract Study Session

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a study session and provide direction to staff on the upcoming Sheriff’s Contract negotiations.

BACKGROUND
Since prior to incorporation, the Town’s police services have been provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. These services are contractual. The terms of the agreements between the Town and Sheriff’s Office typically have been three to five year terms. The current contract, negotiated in 2018, expires at the end of June 2023.

Earlier this year, the Town Council appointed Vice Mayor Wernikoff and Councilmember Aalfs to serve as the negotiating subcommittee with the Sheriff’s Office. Discussions with the Sheriff’s Office are expected to begin early in 2023.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study session is for the Council to provide direction to staff and the negotiating committee on any desired modifications to the existing agreement with the Sheriff’s Office for police services. The existing contract contains two exhibits that lay out services (Exhibit A) and payments and rates (Exhibit B). The Council may desire to expand or reduce services and/or opine on the rates paid for services. Staff has been receiving public comments on Sheriff’s services since the beginning of October.

Comments received to through October 19 are included as Attachment 1.

Current Contract
The current contract provides for:

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

77 of 137

1. One deputy in Portola Valley in any 24 hour period

2. A shared deputy with Woodside in any 24 hour period

3. A variety of typical traffic and bicycle law enforcement services

4. Parking enforcement and citation services

5. Criminal investigations

6. Other duties as outlined on page 7 of the contract
There are additional services, provided as needed, detailed on page 7-8 of the contract, including emergency service provision, school resource officers, and other specialized assistance.

The cost of these services are substantial, making up nearly 20% of the total general fund expenditures in FY 2022-23. These costs have increased by 41% since the first year of the current contract. The Town anticipates costs to increase over the life of the next contract.

Considerations for Future Contract
Staff and the negotiation committee seeks direction on the next contract, with consideration given to:
• The types of services; for example, on the weekends the Town is a destination for hikers, bikers and other visitors. Should the Town consider a different type of service provision on the weekends that addresses visitor impacts? • Public/Committee input; the Town is currently soliciting comments through an online portal and at meetings of relevant committees during October-November (with potential additional opportunities early next year); comments received from the online portal are attached as received through Wednesday, October 19. The portal will reopened early next year to continue to receive public input. • Any changes to the existing service provision; is it appropriately set? Next Steps
Vice Mayor Wernikoff and Councilmember Aalfs will meet in November to discuss Council direction and plan for meetings with the Sheriff’s Office; those meetings are not expected to begin until January 2023. Should they require it, the Council subcommittee may request additional Council input. Should such input not be needed, the renegotiated contract will be presented to the Council in the spring of 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ATTACHMENT

1. Online portal comments (through October 19, 2022)
78 of 137
From: Town Center
To: Sheriffs Contract
Subject: FW: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 11:20:44 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 7:09 AM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name:

Date & Time:

Response #:

Submitter ID:

IP address:

Comment on the Sheriff Contract
10/05/2022 7:09 AM
3 Time to complete: 5 min. , 9 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. First and Last Name

2. Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)

3. Comment
We should be able to drop off unused prescription drugs at the Sheriff's substation at Town Center anytime the station is occupied by a deputy. If there is a concern about misuse by a sheriff, there can be a one-way lock box inside the station for storage until the material can be disposed of properly.

4. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Thank you,
Portola Valley, CA
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 79 of 137
From: Town Center
To: Sheriffs Contract
Subject: FW: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 11:21:02 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 8:25 PM
To: Town Center <[email protected]>
Subject: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name:

Date & Time:

Response #:

Submitter ID:

IP address:

Comment on the Sheriff Contract
10/04/2022 8:25 PM
2 Time to complete: 2 min. , 42 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. First and Last Name

2. Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)

3. Comment
More policing and ticketing bikers. They are out of control. They run the stop signs, ride so they block the road and swerve in and out of the shoulders. Car drivers can only be so careful!!! Please TICKET THEM>

4. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Thank you,
Portola Valley, CA
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 80 of 137
From: [email protected]
To: Sheriffs Contract
Subject: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey
Date: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:56:03 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name:

Date & Time:

Response #:

Submitter ID:

IP address:

Comment on the Sheriff Contract
10/17/2022 4:55 PM
6 Time to complete: 2 min. , 17 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. First and Last Name

2. Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)

3. Comment
Please increase the frequency of traffic control patrols on Alpine and Portola Roads. I often have been tailgated for traveling the speed limit and have been cut off and passed in a no pass lane.

4. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Thank you,
Portola Valley, CA
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 81 of 137
From: [email protected]
To: Sheriffs Contract
Subject: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey
Date: Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:13:35 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name:

Date & Time:

Response #:

Submitter ID:

IP address:

Comment on the Sheriff Contract
10/06/2022 10:13 AM
4 Time to complete: 10 min. , 16 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. First and Last Name

2. Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)

3. Comment
******did we cut back staff? we need to see the sherriffs around town more throughout the day especially in morning commute and evening commute shifts when out of towners come in and have no regard for nature and safety. I used to see sherriff around town when we first moved here in 2012. in last 3 years i never do unless i park at town center i may see their carby the station. 1-i called sherriff department and left message with no call back regarding suspicious fellows walking and scoping los trancos. especially disturbing after hearing about the 2 men "deer hunting" at midnight by los trancos and alpine. i dont believe that for one second. 2-people speeding on los trancos and alpine road-especially between 7:45-815 and 4 and 5:15pm when https://photos.app.goo.gl/wRaqTcFYkgN2yugr9 workers get off 3-construction folks littering out windows and leaving trash on ground where they eat lunch *****We need more enforcement on speeding around town. if a cop sat right at los trancos and alpine they would get people all day.

4. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.
82 of 137
From: [email protected]
To: Sheriffs Contract
Subject: New Entry on Sheriff Contract Comments Survey
Date: Thursday, October 13, 2022 3:53:52 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name:

Date & Time:

Response #:

Submitter ID:

IP address:

Comment on the Sheriff Contract
10/13/2022 3:53 PM
5 Time to complete: 42 min. , 47 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1 ends

1. First and Last Name

2. Email address ( will not be publicly displayed)

3. Comment
The sheriff should be recording ALL bike, pedestrian and car accidents in Portola Valley even if no injury to person or blood occurred. We will never know our "hot spots" for safety and accidents on our streets if ALL accidents (blood or not) are not recorded. Our largest contract in our budget is the sheriff, we should have the authority in our PV contract for the following requests to ensure and monitor safety in town.

Add to Sheriff contract
1) Record ALL and ANY accidents with detail in town. (blood or no blood/broken bones or not broken bones.)
2) Sheriff attend every BPTS meeting as part of the job and report all bike, pedestrian and car accident locations in town. 3) Sheriff submit an accident/incident report to the BPTS chair and attach report to the agenda of every BPTS meeting for the public to review. This would allow residents to stay informed of accidents/locations in town. It would also allow public works to improve an increased and high accident area in town.
4) The public should see these the bi-annual accident reports on an agenda of a town council meeting.

After hearing an accident from my home window, I was told by a sheriff he won't be recording the accident because a car going straight from Golden Oak drive into Alpine Swim and Tennis parking lot hit a biker coming down Alpine Rd and only broke his phone and walked away from accident. The biker probably will have neck and muscle issues in the weeks to come yet because he did not show blood/injury, "the accident will not be written up or recorded in detail," said the sheriff said. We need to write this detail into the contract.
83 of 137
We need all accidents to be written up in this town in detail to monitor safety in town in the future over time in the coming years. We need to monitor circulation patterns and accidents cumulatively over many years. Please write this into future sheriff contracts my three requests for Portola Valley sheriff contract.

We need a good accident monitoring system not a partial monitoring system of accidents to ensure resident safety. We need better communication of accidents/hot spots for PV residents. We also need sheriff to show up at EVERY BPTS meeting as part of their contract to give a thorough summary of accidents in Portola Valley. I've attended many BPTS meeting where no sheriff report and no sheriff. Reports and attendance has to be part of the job. The public hears about safety reports in the BPTS meeting and that's the only way we find out this information. The residents want to be informed as to bike, pedestrian and safety in town.

Thanks for your consideration.

4. Optional: You can upload a copy of your comments.

Thank you,
Portola Valley, CA
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 84 of 137
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Sheriffs Contract
Public Safety Contract Comments
Monday, October 10, 2022 1:49:49 PM
I would like to see more of the Sherriff's deputies presence in town. I continually witness speeding on Alpine and Portola Roads, and vehicles violating stop signs.

Rarely do I see a deputy's patrol car in Portola Valley. 85 of 137
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Public Safety Contract Comments
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 4:50:45 PM
Many deputies servicing Portola Valley are not aware/informed that ALPRs are situated at all entrances and exits to the Town. Their sense is that they are only in Sheriff’s patrol cruisers. They need to be familiarized with the permanent ALPR installs, where they are located, how they can be used and that they can be accessed in the event of any criminal activity. An important tool not being fully utilized. 86 of 137
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Race & Equity Committee
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: Approve the Sheriff Citizen Oversight Group for the Sheriff of San Mateo County
RECOMMENDATION:

The Race & Equity Committee recommends that the council endorse Fixin’ San Mateo’s citizen oversight group for the sheriff of San Mateo.

On November 1, the San Mateo County Supervisors will be studying the citizen oversight group as laid out by Fixin’ San Mateo.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this project.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Fixin’ San Mateo County Letter of Support

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Committee Memo

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
87 of 137
88 of 137
89 of 137
______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Race & Equity Committee
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: Recommended Guidelines for Housing Inclusionary Funds RECOMMENDATION:

The Race & Equity Committee has outlined guidelines for the use of Housing Inclusionary Funds.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Recommended Guidelines

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Committee Memo

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
90 of 137
How should we spend Inclusionary Housing Fund (Housing Trust Fund) resources?
In response to the Town Council’s request that the Race and Equity committee weigh in on how the Inclusionary Housing Fund (Housing Trust Fund) should be spent, here are our recommendations.

1. Should we limit the housing for Low and Very Low income housing? a. Yes.
b. Concessions, fee reduction, etc are a separate matter and should be available to all units that count toward rhna.

2. In terms of Financial Assistance – should we use up the funds as direct aid vs. maintain ongoing programs?
a. Maintaining the program is important so incentives can continue into the future. b. Loans better than direct aid; repayment will re-fund the program. i. Loans preferable to grants.
ii. Loan fees could grow the fund.

3. Should we fund a few larger versus many smaller projects? a. Suggest language: No more than 33% of the total fund will be allocated to any 1 project.

4. Should we support Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)?
a. Direct immediate support to ADU conversions and JADUs since those are the faster, lower cost projects.
i. Dedicated staff, streamlined process for all
ii. Financial assistance for selected - criteria?
iii. Prioritize JADUs and conversion of permitted accessory buildings that need only added kitchen or bath to become ADUs to count toward rhna.

5. We should consider use for Affiliated housing.
i. Sequoias, Priory and Stanford are already partners.
ii. Actively solicit additional affiliated housing partners.

6. Should we require Below Market Rate (BMR) contracts for rentals? a. Yes, for any projects receiving financial assistance. i. Not for those just getting fee waivers, expedited approvals, etc. b. Require this and must have monitoring structures in place before loans are made.
c. Monitoring –confirm amortization schedule, loan payments, actually rented? Actually rented to low income?

7. Should there be income requirements to get aid? Should we be giving these funds to wealthy residents?
a. Needs further discussion and details.

8. Should we use the fund for hiring consultants?
a. No for hiring a consultant
91 of 137
b. Yes for dedicated staffing in the Planning Dept to streamline the process; perhaps hiring a dedicated staff member for (3) years.
c. Suggest looking at additional resources such as apprenticeships/internships i. Corte Madera Apprenticeships?
ii. Woodside Priory Internships?
iii. Local college/university internships?

9. Should we put forth a Notice of Funding Availability? a. If using the Housing Trust Fund / Inclusionary Housing Fund to assist nonprofits providing housing-related services, consider using a competitive process to award these funds.
b. This is appropriate only with specific identified projects as planning begins. 92 of 137
How should we spend Inclusionary Housing Fund (Housing Trust Fund) resources?
In response to the Town Council’s request that the Race and Equity committee weigh in on how the Inclusionary Housing Fund (Housing Trust Fund) should be spent, here are our recommendations.

1. Should we limit the housing for Low and Very Low income housing? a. Yes.
b. Concessions, fee reduction, etc are a separate matter and should be available to all units that count toward rhna.

3. Should we fund a few larger versus many smaller projects? a. Suggest language: No more than 33% of the total fund will be allocated to any 1 project.

5. We should consider use for Affiliated housing.
i. Sequoias, Priory and Stanford are already partners.
ii. Actively solicit additional affiliated housing partners.

7. Should there be income requirements to get aid? Should we be giving these funds to wealthy residents?
a. Needs further discussion and details.

8. Should we use the fund for hiring consultants?
a. No for hiring a consultant
93 of 137
b. Yes for dedicated staffing in the Planning Dept to streamline the process; perhaps hiring a dedicated staff member for (3) years.
c. Suggest looking at additional resources such as apprenticeships/internships i. Corte Madera Apprenticeships?
ii. Woodside Priory Internships?
iii. Local college/university internships?

Page 1 ends

______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Melvin E. Gaines, Assistant Town Manager
DATE: October 26, 2022
RE: FY 2022-23 Town Council Priorities Quarter One Update

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council receive this update report, accept public comment, and provide input to staff on the FY 2022-23 Town Council Priorities.

BACKGROUND
Since Fiscal Year 2015-16, the Town Council has undertaken a priority-setting process that consists of the Council identifying high-level strategic priorities with specific efforts that support those priorities over the fiscal year. On March 23, 2022, the Town Council adopted the FY 2022-23 Council Priorities (Attachment 1).

The adopted priorities include five strategic priorities that each have corresponding actions or projects. The Council Priorities, as adopted March 23, 2022, included 29 projects. During the approval of the Council Priorities update process on June 13, 2022, the Town Council added five projects. As amended, the five FY 2022-23 Council Priorities include 34 Council Priority Efforts (Actions/Projects/Programs).
• Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness: 12 Actions/Projects/Programs • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: 1 Action/Project/Program • Land Use Projects and Programs: 5 Actions/Projects/Programs • Sustainability: 5 Actions/Projects/Programs
• Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements: 11 Actions/Projects/Programs

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

95 of 137

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION
A quarter one (July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022) update on the Council Priorities, including the status of implementation, significant accomplishments, and upcoming milestones is included in this report (Attachment 2.) As shown in Table 1 below, of the 34 Council Priority Projects, 1 projects has been completed, 29 are in progress, and 4 have not begun. This is a very early point in the implementation of FY 2022-23 Council Priorities, so this level of progress is expected.

Table 1: Summary of
Project Status
Count
Projects Completed 1
Projects in Progress 29
Projects Not Started 4
Total Projects 34
Significant Accomplishments & Upcoming Milestones
Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Significant Accomplishments Upcoming Milestones
• Complete and implement the State mandated Safety
Element: Public draft safety element released
October 10, 2022.
• Home Hardening/Defensible Space Code Updates:

First reading of code updates was October 12, 2022
• Evacuation study implementation: Council accepted
the Evacuation Study July 13, 2022.
• Launch Veoci virtual EOC tool and support WPVReady: tool has been launched and training is ongoing.
• Complete and implement the State mandated Safety
Element: Joint Committee (10/26) & Planning
Commission (1/2023) review of draft.
• Evacuation study implementation: EPC to make
recommendations to the Town Council on October 26,
2022.
• Adopt the updated Fire Codes: Fire code updates
expected in December 2022.

Council Priority: Land Use Projects and Programs
Significant Accomplishments Upcoming Milestones
• Update the Town’s Housing Element: Draft Housing
Element submitted to HCD
• Support Town Council public engagement
enhancement efforts: new newsletter format
• Update the Town’s Housing Element: Review of HCD
comments
Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Significant Accomplishments Upcoming Milestones
• Recruit, hire and onboard staff: Development Review
Technician hired. Active recruitments for
Maintenance Worker and Finance Technician.
• Implement technology and software improvements:

Piloting use of project management software. Veoci
virtual EOC software is in use.
• Determine the appropriate service model and
transition IT services: Led competitive bid process
• Recruit, hire and onboard staff: Hiring a Maintenance Worker and Finance technician.
• Better serve and utilize Town Committees: Council to
work with staff to scope this project.
• Implement technology and software improvements:

Completion of EnerGov transition
• Complete the Annual Financial Audit for FY 2021-22
and any outstanding years: FY 2019-20 audit to be
96 of 137

Page 3 ends

and selected STEPFORD, Inc. as IT managed
services provider.
reviewed by Council in November 2022. FY 2020-21
audit to be reviewed by Council in February 2023.

Council Priority: Sustainability
Significant Accomplishments Upcoming Milestones
• Adopt the Green Building Ordinance: First reading of
ordinance was October 12, 2022.
• Adoption of Sustainability Committee
Recommendations: Monthly Sustainability Public
Service Announcements, building electrification
ordinance recommendations, drought preparation
activities.

Next Steps
As approved by the Council on June 12, 2022, staff will provide the following future updates on the FY 2022-23 Council Priorities:
• January 2023: Quarter Two/Mid-Year Report (July 2022-December 2022) via report and presentation at a Council meeting
• April 2023: Quarter Three Report (July 2022-March 2023) via report and presentation at a Council meeting to discuss FY 2023-2024 Council Priorities. • July 2023: Quarter Four/FY 2022-23 Council Priorities Close Out Report via Council

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities for FY 2022-23

2. FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities – Q1 Update 97 of 137
Wildfire/Emergency
Preparedness
Operational
and Service
Delivery
Enhancements
Sustainability
Land Use Projects
and Programs
Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion
Town of Portola Valley
Council Priorities
FY 2022-2023
The Town of Portola Valley’s Council Priorities were created through careful deliberation of the Town Council with input from the Community, Town Committees, and staff. The five strategic priorities help establish the top projects and guide the Town based on a shared vision for the Fiscal Year 2022-23. 98 of 137
Stanford Wedge and other major projects
Housing Element Update
Design Guideline changes to support home hardening ordinance Provide support to Sustainability and Trails Committees to develop ADU checklists
Preparation work to support zoning code modernization efforts for FY 2023-24
Land Use Projects and Programs
A significant amount of the Town’s resources are utilized to support day-to-day planning, building and engineering efforts. These resources support all manner of development, from small changes to a single-family property to larger multifamily proposals.

Recognition of these efforts, including large land-use proposals, updates to the Town’s Housing Element, and other important work, though this priority demonstrates an important focus to quality and timely service delivery.

Implementation of new/expanded Wildfire Preparedness
Committee recommendations, including exploration of a
permanent funding source for wildfire adaptation/mitigation measures including public and private vegetation management Completion and implementation of the State mandated Safety Element
Implementation of expanded home hardening and defensible space code updates, in conjunction with Woodside Fire
Protection District efforts
Review Woodside Fire Protection District’s updated fire maps.

Support of the resource grant from Community Partners
Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW), including the potential for a Woodside Fire Protection District-wide Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Additional planning efforts, including detailed wildfire behavior modeling (either at the Town or Fire District level)
Implementation of and potential follow up work for the
evacuation study
Launching the Veoci virtual emergency operations center tool, and providing infrastructure support for WPV-Ready, as guided by the Emergency Preparedness Committee
Expanded vegetation management for wildfire mitigation, including targeted trees and the Town’s open space properties Adoption of Fire Code Updates
Further exploration of undergrounding Town utilities
Develop a draft wildfire mitigation matching program in response to the November 10, 2021 Colleagues Memo
Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
The Town’s location in a wildfire-prone region, and the broadening impacts of climate change result in the potential of a devastating wildfire in Portola Valley. The Town’s continued prioritization of wildfire adaptation and mitigation efforts will continue into FY 2022- 23 and beyond.

Recruiting, hiring, and onboarding staff in Planning and Building and Public Works departments
Supporting Town Council public engagement enhancement
efforts
Refine operational processes between Town committees, staff, and the Council. Review, update and revise the Commission and Committee Policy and Procedures Handbook as needed.

Adjusting service delivery and implementing COVID responsive operations as necessary
Contracting with and managing necessary consultants to assist with major projects and reduce staff administrative
responsibilities in order to focus on core service deliveries Use of virtual assistant tools (in beta test at the time of this staff report’s publication) to focus limited staff resources on core responsibilities
Examine Town project management approaches, identify and implement actions to better communicate project updates to Town council and the public
Develop an in-lieu fund policy
Explore and implement strategies to increase revenue to support increased resource needs
Annual Financial Audit
Implementing technological and software improvements to increase staff productivity and provide enhanced
communications and greater transparency. This includes:

Operational and Service Delivery
Enhancements
The Town Council has committed significant resources over the last few years to expand on the high-quality public service expected by applicants. This priority focuses on a variety of improvements across the organization to build on successful communications efforts, increased project management, and focus on appropriate staffing to support these services.

Climate action plan
Microgrid for Town Center Campus
Solar Panel upgrade for Town Center
Adoption of Green Building Ordinance
Adoption of Sustainability Committee recommendations
including preparing for drought
Sustainability
The Town is a leader in sustainability efforts. Additional efforts are under consideration to continue the Town’s leadership role to ensure that sustainability is always central to the Town’s ethos and high-level project efforts.

Following the creation of a new committee to address race and equity issues, the Town Council continues its commitment to consider diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) when developing ordinances, policies, programs and projects
Implement PV Cares
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Implementation of the new cloud-based Energov permit
tracking software.

Adoption of project management tools
Launching Veoci virtual emergency operations center tool Website review and reorganization
Determining the appropriate service model and transitioning IT services from City of Redwood City.

Facility Maintenance – Develop a comprehensive multi-year facility maintenance program.
99 of 137
FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1a:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 7/1/2022 to
6/30/2022
In Progress The Wildfire Preparedness Committee is
exploring a 10-year program to expand the
FireSafe community designation to all Portola
Valley neighborhoods. Any new
recommendations from the WPC will be reviewed
by the Town Council.

Potential funding sources for wildfire mitigation
measures include the Fire Districts engagement
of the Trust for Public Land to explore a ballot
measure for a wildfire mitigation/resiliency parcel
tax in 2023; and a pending Town/Fire District
Community Wildfire Defense Grant to support a
three-year defensible space match to residents.

To be determined.

Implement the new/expanded Wildfire Preparedness Committee recommendations, including exploration of permanent funding source for wildfire adaptation/mitigation measures including public and private vegetation management. 100 of 137

Page 1 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort: 1b
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build
9/1/2021 -
4/26/2023
In Progress Public Review Draft Safety Element was released on October 10th.

A joint Committee meeting is scheduled
for October 26th. Committees will have
the option of reviewing and commenting
on the draft through mid-January. Then
Planning Commission will receive all
Committee recommendations and
conduct their review. The Town Council
has final approval.

Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1c:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build; J.

Dennis
8/1/2022 -
10/26/2022
In Progress Staff has coordinated with Woodside Fire
Protection District and drafted Building Code
amendments that address the the regular
building code update cycle, wildfire resilience,
and green building. The proposed amendments
were presented to Council on October 12.

If approved, the amendments would go
into effect January 1, 2023. Staff will
prepare bullet points for staff to
distribute to applicants to notify them of
the changes and update handouts as
needed.

Complete and implement the State mandated Safety Element Implement the expanded home hardening and defensible space code updates in conjunction with Woodside Fire Protection District efforts (including the review and adoption of Fire Code updates at the end of the calendar year) 101 of 137

Page 2 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort: 1d
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 7/1/2022 -
6/30/2022
In Progress Current Fire District efforts, including a hazard and fuels assessment study, supports the
development of a CWPP.

The WPC will engage with WFPD to assist
with CWPP ideas.

Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1e:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 7/1/2022 -
1/2/2023
In Progress The Woodside Fire Protection District has sole sourced a contract with Flame Mapper
https://flamemapper.com/ to conduct a
fuels/hazards study for the entire district, with an
emphasis on mitigation. They are expected to
release their findings no later than the end of the
calendar year.

The final study will be incorporated into
the Town's ongoing Safety Element and
be part of the data used to update land
use codes as needed to mitigate wildfire
risk.

Support implementation of the Community Partners Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) resource grant, including the potential for a Woodside Fire Protection District-wide Community Wildfire Protection Plan Support additional planning efforts, including detailed wildfire behavior modeling (either at the Town or Fire District level) 102 of 137

Page 3 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort: 1f
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 7/13/2022 -
6/30/2022
In Progress The Evacuation Study was accepted by the Town Council on July 13. The Emergency Preparedness
Committee prioritized the study's mitigation
recommendations at its October 6 meeting, and
the Committee will make its recommendations to
the Town Council on October 26.

Once the Council reviews and adopts the
recommendations, staff will begin
implementation.

Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1g:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
M. Gaines - Admin 7/1/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress The VEOCI virtual emergency operations center tool has been launched and staff has had initial
trainings on its use.

WPV-Ready:

Staff organized a demo for WPV-Ready staff with
VEOCI to view their "CERT Solution" and met with
other jurisdiction who use this solution to better
understand how it can provide infrastructure
support (as well as integration with the Town's
Virtual EOC). In addition, Staff used WPV-Ready's
Windshield Survey to build out an online form
that can be used by CERT volunteers during an
emergency to report back.

Staff is developing a comprehensive
VEOCI training plan over the next year,
beginning with a mini-exercise as part of
the Great Shakeout earthquake
preparedness exercise. Staff is also
exploring using VEOCI for non-EOC uses
to build dexterity with the tool, including
employee onboarding/offboarding.

Implement the evacuation study and any follow up actions.

Launch the Veoci virtual emergency operations center tool, and provide infrastructure support for WPV-Ready, as guided by the Emergency Preparedness Committee
103 of 137

Page 4 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1h:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
H. Young - Public
Works
In Progress The Town and Fire District are currently implementing a pilot vegetation management plan while developing a long-term vegetation management program. This includes site visits, conducting analyses, establishing priorities, developing scopes of work, and identifying funding and other resources.

Mitigation work that has been completed includes Phase 1 of major evacuation routes, which consists of 23 curb miles. A progress map of this work is posted on the Town website.

Limited mitigation work has begun at 6 out of 34 Town
owned properties and open space sites. The Town is still assessing the tree removal portion of the mitigation program, however, has removed three trees.

Challenges:

1. Instable employment on work crews. Need crews of 4 to 7 employees year-round. At times, crews have too few
employees to carry out scheduled work, which affects
progress. Completion of basic work first involving evacuation routes before moving to remainder of streets, Town owned land, and targeted trees.

2. Long term permanent staffing including management,
resources, time, and funding of this pilot program. Making this a permanent program by resolving these issues and
formalizing program.

3. Material and equipment storage.

Ongoing development of program,
including site visits, verification of
ownership, scopes of work, analysis,
priorities, resources, and funding in
cooperation with Fire Prevention
Department. Finding time from basic
program to do items on preliminary
expanded scope list.

Mitigation work remains for 43 curb
miles (the remainder of the public road
network). Depending on funding
availability, this could take another 6
years.

Mitigation of the remaining 28 of 34
Town owned properties and open space
sites This work is estimated to take
another 5 years to complete.

Implement expanded vegetation management for wildfire mitigation, including targeted trees and the Town’s open space 104 of 137

Page 5 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1i:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 7/1/2022 -
12/30/2022
In Progress The Woodside Fire Protection District develops and adopts Fire Codes on a three year cycle. The
latest code update is anticipated in December.

Once adopted, the District will request
that the Town ratify the codes. The
District plans to present to the Town
Council in December.

Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1j:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 4/1/2023 -
6/30/2024
Not Started Staff discussions have not begun. Focus has been on on Priority Project 4B (Town Center
Microgrid).

Staff anticipates beginning underground
study meetings in April 2023.

Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1k:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin In Progress The Town, through the Woodside Fire Protection District, recently applied for a Community
Wildfire Defense Grant to support a 3 year
defensible space matching program for up to
$3,000 to support private property wildfire
mitigation work.

Develop a draft wildfire mitigation matching program in response to the November 10, 2021 Colleagues Memo Adopt the updated Fire Codes
Further explore undergrounding of Town utilities
105 of 137

Page 6 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Wildfire/Emergency Preparedness
Priority Effort 1l:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 12/1/2022 -
12/30/2022
Not Started The Woodside Fire Protection District has sole sourced a contract with Flame Mapper
https://flamemapper.com/ to conduct a
fuels/hazards study for the entire district, with an
emphasis on mitigation. They are expected to
release their findings no later than the end of the
calendar year.

Once produced, the Town will review the
maps.

Council Priority: Land Use Projects and Programs
Priority Effort 2a:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build
9/13/2019 - TBD In Progress Staff and consultant team are preparing the Response to Draft EIR Comments.

Release of the Final EIR and review by the
Conservation, Trails, and BPTS
Committees.

Coordinate Town processes for Stanford Wedge Project
Review Woodside Fire Protection District Updated Fire Maps 106 of 137

Page 7 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Land Use Projects and Programs
Priority Effort 2b:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build
5/1/2021 -
1/30/2023
In Progress The Draft Housing Element is being review by HCD with preliminary comments expected in
October and formal written comments expected
in November.

The Ad Hoc Housing Element Committee
will likely meet on November 1st to
discuss the preliminary comments and
may hold additional meetings as
necessary. Planning Commission began
their review of proposed zoning code
amendments to implement the Housing
Element on October 19th. The Planning
Commission will continue their review
through mid-December.

Council Priority: Land Use Projects and Programs
Priority Effort 2c:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build
4/1/2023 -
12/30/2023
In Progress/Delayed Staff had preliminary discussions with representatives from the Sustainability
Committee, Conservation Committee, as well as
the ASCC, about conducting a larger update to
the Design Guidelines that would include fire
safety, water conservation, and associated topics
that multiple committees have an interest in.

Staff will discuss this topic with the Chair
of the Wildfire Preparedness Committee
with the intent of starting a Committee
led effort in 2023.

Update the Town's Housing Element
Modify Town Design Guidelines to support the updated Home Hardening Ordinance 107 of 137

Page 8 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Land Use Projects and Programs
Priority Effort 2d:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build; H.

Young - Public
Works; B.

DeGarmeaux
9/26/2022 -
1/25/2023
In Progress Staff met with representatives of the
Conservation Committee to discuss the details of
the proposed checklist. Trails Committee
previously submitted proposed language.

Staff will work with both Committees in
the next few months to align and finalize
the checklist.

Council Priority: Land Use Projects and Programs
Priority Effort 2e:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell - Plan 9/14/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress Staff considered options for the zoning code amendments that are being developed to
implement the Housing Element and are planning
for future options to modernize the zoning code.

More intensive work will begin in
approximately May 2023.

Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3a:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
L. Russell -
Plan/Build; H.

Young - Public
Works; M. Gaines
8/1/2022 -
2/28/2023
In Progress The Planning and Building Department recruited and hired a Development Review Technician who
began employment on October 10, 2022. The
Public Works Department and Finance
Department each have ongoing recruitments.

Complete recruitment for Public Works
position. Complete recruitment for
Finance position.

Support the Sustainability Committee and Trails Committee to develop ADU checklists Conduct preliminary steps to support zoning code modernization efforts for FY 2023-24 Recruit, hire and onboard staff in Planning/Building and Public Works Departments 108 of 137

Page 9 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3b:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin;
M. Thurman -
Admin
7/1/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress This is an ongoing effort across multiple departments.

Public engagement is a multi-faceted discipline that
includes one way communications, surveys, meeting
on particular topics, and updating existing systems that have public facing interfaces.

Staff recently upgraded the Weekly Newsletter to
include photos and an easier navigation. The
newsletter is the Town's principle general news
engagement tool.

Staff regularly informs the public of e-notifications
through subscriptions.

The Town anticipates an increase in the use of surveys
on a variety of topics over the next year for
appropriate topics. Surveys are not typically as useful for more controversial topics, but are very useful to
such topics as ADUs, Town Center uses, public gifts and similar.

Through the Housing Element, the Town held three
community wide meetings (in addition to the nearly 20
ad hoc committee meetings). Such meetings are
particularly useful in bringing residents together in
small groups to engage on important topics.

Support Town Council public engagement enhancement efforts 109 of 137

Page 10 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3c:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
M. Gaines - Admin 3/17/2020 -
6/30/2023
In Progress The Town continues to evaluate service delivery options and make adjustments as more
information about COVID-19 becomes available.

Using the San Mateo County Health guidance, the
Town modifies Town operations as appropriate.

Currently, the Town is focused on hybrid work
and meeting options enabling staff, committees,
and the Town Council to perform their functions
and meet remotely, in-person, or a combination
of both.

Assess service delivery options and make
appropriate adjustments following winter
holiday season.

Adjust service delivery and implementation of COVID-19 responsive operations as necessary 110 of 137

Page 11 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3d:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin 7/1/2022 -
5/1/2023
In Progress Staff is constantly seeking ways to reduce
adminstrative impacts on the Town's small staff. Some
tasks are well suited for committees, such as the
current practice of various trail and road oversight
tasks, or the Conservation Committee's review of
landscaping plans. Other tasks require either
specialized consulting services that support state laws or mandates (Housing and Safety Element updates are
a good example), or are administrative in nature.

The Planning and Building Department and Public
Works Department have transferred some
administrative functions (such as basic engineering
support for land use projects) to our existing
consultants. Both departments have also engaged
services such as Zirtual to offload administrative
functions, with limited success.

Staff also utilizes software to assist in administrativeheavy functions. For instance, the Town will utilize a new software to track SB 1383 (organic recycling)
needs, and the upcoming Energov update will provide
new opportunities for residents to track land use
projects, which will reduce email and phone inquiries.

Continue to augment staffing as
necessary/appropriate.

Contract with and manage necessary consultants to assist with major projects and reduce staff administrative responsibilities in order to focus on core service delivery options
111 of 137

Page 12 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3e:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
M. Gaines - Admin 1/1/2023 -
6/30/2023
Not Started Staff will work with Town Council to
scope this project in January 2023
Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3f:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
M. Gaines - Admin,
B. De Garmeaux -
Admin, M.

Thurman - Admin,
K. Chinn - Admin
7/1/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress Staff is piloting the use of a project management software that enables teams to plan,
communicate, and track progress in a shared
electronic environment. Additionally, the Town
continues to transition to the cloud based
EnerGov permitting software that has additional
public facing abilities which should improve the
Town's ability to communicate permit progress to
applicants. The Veoci emergency management
software is operational.

Complete EnerGov transition. If
effective, continue to use electronic
project management tool. Identify
additional programs that could improve
Town processes and service provision.

Explore options to better serve and utilize Town committees and their operations Implement technology and software improvements to increase staff productivity and provide enhanced communications and greater transparency.
112 of 137

Page 13 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3g:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
M. Gaines - Admin Complete Complete The Town released a request for proposals and received bids from 4 vendors. STEPFORD, Inc.
was selected as the most qualified vendor.

STEPFORD began providing managed IT services
to the Town on July 1, 2022
Stepford has been onboarded. This
project is completed.

Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3h:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
H. Young - Public
Works
7/1/2022 -
2/28/2024
In Progress The Town hired a consultant to develop a facility condition assessment and maintenance plan for
buildings and limited site items. This assessment
is currently being used as a guideline for
maintenance.

Continue to assess other facilities (not
buildings) at Town Center and off site at
Ford Field, Rossotti Field, Triangle Park
for irrigation, dugouts, backstops,
benches, and all other associated items.

Budget items as needed in the Towns
Capital Improvement Budget and Plan.

Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3i:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin;
C. Rodas - Finance;
L. Russell -
Plan/Build
3/1/2023 -
5/31/2023
Not started. Work on this item is not expected to begin until March 2023 due to prioritization of other
Planning and Building work, such as the housing
element, safety element, major land use projects
and zoning code updates.

Determine the appropriate service model and transition IT services from City of Redwood City Develop a comprehensive multi-year facility maintenance program Develop an in-lieu fund policy
113 of 137

Page 14 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3j:

Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin;
C. Rodas - Finance;
M. Gaines - Admin
7/1/2022 -
5/1/2023
In Progress Town staff is exploring a variety of potential revenue sources for inclusion in the FY 2023-24
budget.
1, Technology Fee - this fee would support the
Town's suite of software and hardware. Such fees
are typically included in municipal building
permits as a flat percentage. The Town is working
with a consultant to develop this fee.

2. General Plan Maintenance Fee - this fee would
support updates to the General Plan and its
various elements. Such fees are included in
building fee inspections. The Town is working
with a consultant to develop this fee.

3. Construction Mitigation Fee - this fee would be
used to reduce the impacts of construction
projects, including supporting increased code
enforcement and localized road impacts. Work on
this fee is not expected to begin until Q3.

Other revenue sources may be recommended to
the Council as they are explored, including at the
mid-year budget update in January 2023.

Explore and implement strategies to increase revenue to support increased resource needs 114 of 137

Page 15 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Operational and Service Delivery Enhancements Priority Effort 3k
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin;
C. Rodas - Finance
9/26/2022 -
2/1/2023
In Progress The FY 19-20 Audit will be reviewed by the
Finance Committee and subsequently reviewed
by the Town Council in November 2022.

The Finance Department has begun its
work for the FY 20-21 audit. The Town's
auditors, Maze and Associates, are not
expected to be able to review fiscal
information provided by the Town until
the end of this calendar year.

Staff anticipates completing the audit for
review by the Finance Committee and
Town Council by February 1, 2023.

Council Priority: Sustainability
Priority Effort 4a
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
B. De Garmeaux -
Admin
07/1/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress Staff worked San Mateo County consultants to gather needed data to develop a 2030 Climate
Action Plan. This data included the communitywide emissions inventory and inputting it into a forecasting tool to understand emissions
scenarios.

Next steps include reviewing potential
measures to reduce emissions and
finalizing an Outreach plan, which will
include engaging a sub-committee of the
Sustainability Committee in the
development of the measures and then
broader outreach to the Council and
Community.

Complete the Annual Financial Audit for FY 2021-22 and any outstanding years Update the Climate Action Plan
115 of 137

Page 16 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Sustainability
Priority Effort 4b1
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin;
Howard - Public
Works
9/12/2022 -
5/1/2023
In Progress Staff is working with a consultant team to analyze the current conditions of Town Center in
anticipation of potential upgrades to the solar
system and the installation of a microgrid. This
work is expected to be completed by the end of
Q2, which would allow staff, working in
conjunction with Council members and the
Sustainability Committee, to develop a plan for
such system upgrades. This plan is expected to be
included in the FY 2023-24 budget for
implementation that fiscal year.

Engagement with a consultant after
project defined.

Council Priority: Sustainability
Priority Effort 4b2
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
J. Dennis - Admin;
Howard - Public
Works
9/12/2022 -
5/1/2023
In Progress See update 4b1.

Explore Town Center Microgrid
Explore Town Center Solar & Solar Panel Upgrade
116 of 137

Page 17 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Sustainability
Priority Effort 4c
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
B. De Garmeaux -
Admin
9/1/2022 -
10/26/2022
In Progress Staff held a Study Session with the Council on August 10th to discuss updates to the Green
Building Ordinance based on Council’s guidance
at their May 22nd meeting. Based on the Council
guidance, staff met with reach code experts to
understand the current CEC process and then
worked with the Town Attorney to incorporate
the updates as Building Code amendments. The
amendments were reviewed for adoption by the
Council at a Public Hearing on October 12th.

Next steps are a second reading at the
October 26th Council meeting.

Council Priority: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Priority Effort 5a
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Next Steps
M. Gaines - Admin;
C. Rodas - Finance;
7/1/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress During the FY 2022-23 Budget process, staff requested that Committees determine projects
to be funded by PV Donates. No committees
identified any projects, so no there are no PV
Donates projects to implement.

Staff will develop formal processes for
committees to propose PV Donates
projects and for the public to view
potential projects and make donations.

Adopt the Green Building Ordinance
Implement PV Donates
117 of 137

Page 18 of 19 ends

FY 2022-23 Town of Portola Valley Council Priorities - Q1 Update Council Priority: Sustainability
Priority Effort 4d
Lead Staff -
Department
Anticipated
Timeline Status Update Update Continued
B. De Garmeaux -
Admin
7/1/2022 -
6/30/2023
In Progress Staff is working with Sustainability Committee to support the committees 2022-23 Fiscal Year priorities as outlined below. --Community education: PSAs to encourage GHG and water
reduction; Ongoing - Committee has assigned each member a specific month to put out a PSA and has been doing so for two months. As a next step, the Committee will work with the Communications & Community Engagement Analyst to
develop a template for submitting the PSA to the Town's weekly newsletter (on a monthly basis).
--Smart water meter usage with Cal Water education and
outreach; Ongoing - CalWater gave a presentation to the Committee to understand the status of the project; staff and the committee are working with CalWater to address
concerns and gather information to educate the community on the program and how to make best use of the smart
water meters as they are installed.
--Climate Action Plan (an independent Council Priority
project); Ongoing - Committee developed a subcommitee to work with staff on developing the 2030 Climate Action Plan.

Staff will be working with the sub-committee in
October/November on measure development.
--Existing Building stock electrification ordinances; Ongoing - the Committee is gathering info from other jurisdictions efforts on electrification and will report back to Council on recommendations; in addition, the Committee weighed in on the update to the Green Building Ordinance that went to the Council on October 12th.

Demonstrations – Induction stove top, backup
power, smart meter gadgets; Ongoing - the
Commitee worked with staff and the Library to
develop a backup power kit (solar panel and
battery) that is now available for checkout out
from the PV Library; the Commitee has purchased
an induction stove top and complimentary
cookware that will be available for checkout from
the Library as soon as the equipment can be
entered into the Library's catalog.
--Preparing for Drought; in addition to the PSAs
and work on Smart Water Meters, the Committee
has also engaged Planning staff to explore a
potential update to the Town's Outdoor Water
Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance (aka
MWELO); the Committee will be working
independently until mid-2023 to gather
information and best practices, with a few checkins with the Planning Department, and then together they will develop a plan for an update.

Staff is also planning to enlist the Committee's help
in updating the Water Conservation section of the
Town's website.

Adopt Sustainability Committee Recommendations
118 of 137

Page 19 of 19 ends

1 _____________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Town Council
CC: Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager
Laura Russell, Planning and Building Director
FROM: Cara Silver, Town Attorney
DATE: October 18, 2022
RE: Summary of Builder’s Remedy Under the Housing Accountability Act Several council members have recently asked about the potential use in Portola Valley of a new legal theory referred to as the “builder’s remedy.” This memo (1) summarizes the components of the “builder’s remedy” under the State Housing Accountability Act (HAA)1; (2) discusses its burgeoning use in Southern California in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), Cycle 6 and (3) highlights some uncertainties in using this un-tested theory in Portola Valley and elsewhere. Given the strong community interest in housing issues, this memo is also being released to the public.

I. Builder’s Remedy
The builder’s remedy is based on a 1990 provision in the HAA2 which allows developers to bypass certain local zoning and general plan requirements as long as: (1) the project has a sufficient percentage of affordable units, as defined below; (2) the local jurisdiction does not have a certified Housing Element or identified sufficient sites on its 1 Cal. Gov’t Code § 65589.5.
2 Cal. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(d)(5) (B) provides:

If the local agency has failed to identify in the inventory of land in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for residential uses or designated in any element of the general plan for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate the local agency’s share of the regional housing need for the very low, low-, and moderate-income categories.
119 of 137
2 operative Housing Element inventory to meet its current RHNA and (3) the project is located in a residential or commercial zone that permits some type of residential use.

To satisfy the affordability requirement, the project must provide either: (1) 20% of the units affordable to lower-income households; or (2) 100% of the units affordable to moderate-income households.

The remedy acts as a potential check on local jurisdictions that fail to submit substantially compliant Housing Elements to the state. The significance of the builder’s remedy is that it is self-executing.3 The more traditional remedies contained in the Housing Element statute require a civil lawsuit to enforce or a separate enforcement action brought by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and/or the Attorney General.

The HAA contains limited grounds for denying or making “infeasible” a qualifying housing project. Specifically, local agencies may deny a 20% low-income or 100% moderate-income project only if the city proves that one of the following conditions is met:
1) The city has a “substantially compliant” housing element and has “met or exceeded” its share of regional housing need for the types of housing the project would provide.4
2) The project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” on public health or safety, “based on objective, identified written…standards…as they existed on the date the [project] application was deemed complete.”5
3) The project violates a “specific state or federal law” and there is “no feasible method” to comply without rendering the project “unaffordable to low- and moderateincome households.”6 4) The project site is zoned for agricultural or resource preservation or lacks adequate water or wastewater service.
7 5) The project is inconsistent with the city’s zoning and the land-use designation of its general plan (as of the date the application was deemed complete), and the city “has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with [statutory deadlines] that is in substantial compliance with this article.”8
3 In this respect it is similar to SB 35, a more recent amendment to Housing Element law which permits applicants to seek additional density for housing developments containing affordable housing in jurisdictions that have not permitted the required annual proportion of their RHNA allocation. On the other hand, the builder’s remedy differs from SB 35 in that it does not require the project to be consistent with underlying zoning and development standards.
4 Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(1).
5 Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(2).
6 Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(3).
7 Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(4).
8 Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(5).
120 of 137
3 To date the builder’s remedy has not been widely used. This legal theory appears to have first received traction in an academic article written by U.C. Davis School of Law Professor Christopher S. Elmendorf called A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance. (Attachment A.) According to Elmendorf, the negative implication of the fifth finding above is that if a town lacks a substantially compliant housing element, the town may not use its zoning code or general plan to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing project.

Though the article focuses on the ambiguities of the 1990 provision and concludes that “the HAA’s builder’s remedy is so poorly drafted and confusing that developers of ordinary prudence haven’t been willing to chance it”, recent factors in Southern California have shifted the landscape.9
II. Recent Use of Builder’s Remedy in Southern California Given the potential power of the builder’s remedy, it may seem surprising that developers have not taken advantage of it more often. The reasons for this are likely a confluence of factors creating a “perfect storm” for its use in Southern California. These factors include: numerous new Housing Element requirements in the RHNA Cycle 6; the quadrupling (or more) of most local agencies’ RHNA allocations; the short time frames for certifying Housing Elements; HCD’s stepped up enforcement of housing laws; shrinking local resources and COVID-19’s impacts on workforce; the State’s growing housing deficit and continuation of the housing crisis; the lack of adequately zoned sites in most cities to accommodate the increased housing demand; the failure of most Southern California cities to have a certified Housing Element, despite the legislature’s intervention to provide an unprecedented one-year extension to Southern California; HCD’s extensive comments on housing element drafts; the implementation of new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements; and HCD’s general support for legislative interpretations favoring housing production.

Below are three examples of how developers are attempting to use this remedy in Southern California. Southern California is approximately one year ahead of Northern California in the RHNA 6 cycle. To date, applicants have only filed builder’s remedy applications in Southern California cities that were late in adopting their Housing Elements. Thus, we wouldn’t expect to see these applications in Northern California until at least January 31, 2023, the date Northern California cities must adopt their Housing Elements. However, San Mateo County cities report that housing advocates are beginning to raise builder’s remedy arguments at their recent Housing Element hearings.

1. Santa Monica
In Santa Monica, the 2021 Housing Element update was delayed in part by resident opposition to increased density and a shift in City Council policy direction to encourage 9 Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 1 (Mar. 29, 2022).
121 of 137
4 non-profits to develop affordable housing projects on city-owned land, rather than rely on private housing development.10 As a result, it took three years for Santa Monica to complete its Housing Element and environmental review and the City was without a certified Housing Element for approximately one year. In the weeks leading up to the final certification of the Housing Element (which just occurred on October 12, 2022), 14 housing applications not conforming to the underlying zoning density were filed under the builder’s remedy.11 These projects would yield more than 4,000 new units, including a 15-story residential tower at 330 Nebraska Avenue containing 1,600 market rate units and 400 affordable units.12 These projects were filed, for the most part, by developers with a solid track record of building in Santa Monica.

2. Redondo Beach
Redondo Beach’s RHNA Cycle 6 allocation was 2,500 new housing units. Redondo Beach has aggressively fought state mandates by appealing their RHNA allocation to HCD and by filing lawsuits against the State challenging the RHNA process, SB 9 and SB 10. The City Council’s original Housing Element was rejected by the HCD for not realistically meeting its target. In particular, the department questioned the city’s premise that existing offices and businesses would be shortly redeveloped into housing.

The city revised and resubmitted its Housing Element, which was rejected by the HCD again in April 2022. During the period that Redondo Beach was out of compliance with Housing Element law, developer Leo Pustilnikov purchased a site containing an old power plant and filed a builder’s remedy application to build a large development “featur[ing] residential towers up to 200 feet tall, containing a total of 2,290 units. . . . complemented by roughly 800,000 square feet of office, commercial, and hotel space, and over 5,000 parking spaces.”13
When questioned why he had decided to pursue the builder’s remedy, Pustilnikov stated that he had nothing to lose given Redondo Beach’s rigid NIMBY stance and the lack of other opportunities to develop there. Therefore, while a developer would usually have concerns about staying on a friendly foot with the city officials who would be deciding the fate of the project, those concerns did not apply here.14

3. Anaheim
This month, the Attorney General and HCD also moved to intervene in a case brought by an Anaheim-based nonprofit attempting to build a homeless women’s shelter in Anaheim. The city has refused to issue a conditional use permit for the shelter, and the state is arguing that the city’s permitting requirements for transitional housing are noncompliant with state Housing Element and related mandates. Importantly for the 10 See Housing Plan Delays Led to Loss of Local Control (smdp.com) for a comprehensive history of Santa Monica’s Housing Element process.
11 The applicant also filed SB 330 pre-applications which serve to “vest” the zoning and development standards in place at the time of application.
12 Developers capitalize on Housing Element fiasco to force 3,968 undeniable units into the city's pipeline - Santa Monica Daily Press (smdp.com); Housing Plan Delays Led to Loss of Local Control (smdp.com) 13 Renegade California Developer Wants To Build Megaproject In NIMBY Stronghold (reason.com) 14 Renegade California Developer Wants To Build Megaproject In NIMBY Stronghold (reason.com) 122 of 137
5 builder’s remedy, the state is asking the court to find that Anaheim’s Housing Element is not substantially compliant with state law. If the court agrees, this could open up Anaheim to builder’s remedy claims.15 This particular application of the builder’s remedy is significant because it involves non-compliance with an already-certified element.16 III. Legal Hurdles to Applying Builder’s Remedy
In his article, Professor Elmendorf details five ambiguities and hurdles in the law that he believes may impact the effectiveness of this tool for developers. An applicant seeking to assert a builder’s remedy application in Portola Valley (or elsewhere) would have to address these issues.

1. Savings Clause for “Development Standards”
First, Elmendorf discusses the HAA’s “savings clause,” which states that “nothing shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards” related to the jurisdiction meeting its regional housing needs.17 He points out that there is no judicial or administrative guidance on how the savings clause and the builder’s remedy relate to each other and presents some hypothetical scenarios.

For example, could a city avoid the builder’s remedy “by codifying in an ordinance labeled ‘development standards’ the very same restrictions that would normally be found in a zoning ordinance or general plan?” Or, on the other hand, might a city be obligated to waive any standard that would reduce a project’s density “on the theory that the ‘density permitted on the site’ is unlimited”?
While Elmendorf argues that the notion of the savings clause negating the builder’s remedy is “off the table,” he acknowledges the uncertainty of which local development standards may apply to builder’s remedy projects.18

2. Changing the Rule Mid-Process
Next, Elmendorf poses the question of what happens when a developer submits a qualifying project application when the city’s Housing Element is non-compliant but then the city delays its decision on the project until it is compliant. Can the city find the developer to be in violation of the zoning code or general plan? He argues that the answer is unclear and that the developer would have a strong argument that retroactive denial is unlawful. However, a locality could argue that its 15 California A.G. Says Anaheim NIMBYs Can’t Block Women’s Group Home (reason.com). 16 However, the HAA does have an express remedy for non-compliance with the Housing Element law’s requirement to zone for “emergency shelters.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(d)(5) (C). Given this specific remedy it is not clear a court would also allow a builder’s remedy for other applicants seeking to “piggyback” on this single deficiency.
17 Gov’t Code 65589.5(f)(1); Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 3–4 (Mar. 29, 2022).
18 Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 4 (Mar. 29, 2022).
123 of 137
6 zoning code and general plan were only temporarily inapplicable to affordable housing projects.19

3. CEQA Delay
Elmendorf also points out that the HAA does not exempt projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and any housing-related CEQA exemptions still require compliance with local zoning rules and the general plan. The result is that builder’s remedy projects would still be subject to environmental review.

Elmendorf poses a scenario where a city, unable to block a project because of the builder’s remedy, instead uses CEQA to create endless environmental reviews of the project. He cites HCD’s recent letter to San Francisco arguing that “strategic CEQA delays designed to kill or reduce the density of a housing project may violate the HAA.” However, Elmendorf concludes that courts have yet to weigh in on this issue.20

4. Project Size Limits
Given the HAA’s lack of size or density requirements for builder’s remedy projects, Elmendorf then asks: “Does this mean that developers could build 20%-affordable apartment towers in neighborhoods of single-family homes?” This answer is also unclear, but he cites both the Least Cost Zoning Law and the No Net Loss Law, both of which offer opportunities for cities to argue that the density of builder’s remedy projects must be limited. However, he also acknowledges that this perspective could conflict with the legislature’s underlying intent to promote housing development.21

5. Housing Element’s Substantial Compliance with State Law Finally, Elmendorf finds ambiguity in how courts may interpret a city’s substantial compliance with the HAA. HCD may reject a city’s Housing Element as not substantially compliant, but courts may take a more conservative approach and defer to the city’s finding of compliance.

He cites Fonseca v. City of Gilroy22 for the proposition that a city’s bar for substantial compliance is relatively low. In particular, as long as a city’s Housing Element “checks all the statutory boxes,” then substantial compliance is met, even if the program fails to 19 Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 4–5 (Mar. 29, 2022).
20 Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 5 (Mar. 29, 2022).
21 Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 5–6 (Mar. 29, 2022).
22 Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, 148 Cal.App.4th 1174 (2007). 124 of 137
7 achieve its ends. On the other hand, he cites other legal scholars who have found that recent legislative reforms have abrogated this precedent.23

6. Other Open Issues
In addition to the above issues, application of this builder’s remedy raises many other questions, including:
• Is the use capped by the number of 6
th cycle RHNA, unfulfilled RHNA or the
annual pro-rated unit application?
• Is the remedy available if the legislature extends the time for filing the Housing Element or if the application is filed during the “grace period”?24 • How is a pending builder’s remedy application affected by a subsequent Housing Element certification? Does SB 330 sufficiently “vest” the application? • Will wildfire risk and evacuation capacity satisfy the health and safety denial finding?
• How are CEQA issues, such as shade and shadow, land use, public services and wildfire, addressed?
• If CEQA finds a significant and unavoidable impact, is the local agency required to override?
• Who is the approving body?
IV. Conclusion
In one respect, use of the builder’s remedy falls in line with the traditional remedies for housing element non-compliance: applicants clearly have the legal right to file a housing element compliance action and the courts have authority to appoint receivers to take over local land use authority, including the issuance of building permits for housing projects. On the other hand, a self-executing analogue of this remedy, without a civil lawsuit as a pre-requisite, is certainly a more powerful tool. Regardless of how the remedy is exercised, the recent applications filed in Southern California show that the potential loss of local control is not an idle threat. Failing to timely submit a Housing Element to HCD could expose Portola Valley to unwanted density in locations that are not zoned or planned for such density.
23 Christopher S. Elmendorf, A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance 6–7 (Mar. 29, 2022).
24 Technically, Northern California cities must submit their Housing Element to HCD for final certification by January 31, 2023. Thereafter, HCD has 120 days to review and certify the element. In past cycles, HCD permitted cities to file their Housing Element during this 120-day review period without penalty.

Thus, this 120-day period was commonly referred to as the “grace period.” However, based on recent discussions staff has had with HCD, HCD no longer views this 120-day period as a “grace period” and will consider the element late if filed during this period. It appears that other larger Northern California cities may have been viewing this “grace period” in the old manner. See S.F. got the state's housing deadline wrong — so did Berkeley, Oakland and San Jose (San Francisco Business Times.) 125 of 137
1 A Primer on California’s “Builder’s Remedy” for Housing-Element Noncompliance March 29, 2022
Christopher S. Elmendorf
Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law
UC Davis School of Law
Since 1990, California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) has provided a so-called builder’s remedy that allows developers of affordable housing projects to bypass the zoning code and general plan of cities that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(d).) To qualify, twenty percent of the units in the project must be affordable to lowerincome households, or 100% affordable to moderate-income households.

Commentators originally expected this remedy to be very powerful and today it absolutely should be. The Legislature in recent years has greatly strengthened the Housing Element Law.

Many high-price cities submitted woefully inadequate housing plans for the current planning period. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found most of these plans to be noncompliant. Yet developers aren’t submitting builder’s remedy projects, even in places where a 20% low-income project would “pencil.” Why not? The most probable answer is that the HAA builder’s remedy is so poorly drafted and confusing that developers of ordinary prudence haven’t been willing to chance it.

This primer briefly summarizes the principal sources of confusion and then describes two possible resolutions. Ideally, the Legislature would replace the existing builder’s remedy with a substantively similar but more transparent remedy that draws on established bodies of law, specifically the Density Bonus Law and SB 35. Short of that, the Attorney General and HCD should issue a joint guidance memo propounding an official interpretation of the remedy—an interpretation the AG would defend in court if necessary.

ATTACHMENT A
126 of 137
2 Table of Contents
I. Legal Ambiguities Weaken the Force of the HAA Builder’s Remedy............................. 3 A. What is saved by the savings clause for “development standards”? .................................. 3 B. Changing the rules midstream?........................................................................................... 4 C. CEQA delay…forever?....................................................................................................... 5 D. Is there any limit on the size of a builder’s remedy project? .............................................. 5 E. What is required for a housing element to “substantially comply” with state law? ........... 6 II. Suggestions for the Legislature, HCD, the Attorney General, and Developers.............. 7 A. Suggestions for the Legislature........................................................................................... 7

1. Replace the HAA builder’s remedy with a “noncompliant city density bonus” of 100% and an automatic height bonus................................................................................................ 7

2. Clarify that the normal vesting rules of the Housing Crisis Act apply to noncompliantcity density bonus projects...................................................................................................... 8

3. Make HCD determinations of noncompliance the trigger for the noncompliant-city density bonus .......................................................................................................................... 8

4. Update SB 35 so that cities that fail to adopt an HCD-approved housing element on time are subject to the same streamlining as cities that fail to submit their annual progress reports on time ........................................................................................................................ 9

5. Consider requiring noncompliant cities to provide a modest density bonus in singlefamily districts, and a more substantial bonus in commercial districts. ................................. 9 B. Suggestions for the Attorney General and HCD............................................................... 10 C. Suggestions for developers ............................................................................................... 11 127 of 137
3 I. Legal Ambiguities Weaken the Force of the HAA Builder’s Remedy Subdivision (d) of the HAA protects affordable housing projects by enumerating what appear to be the exclusive grounds on which a city may deny such a project or render it “infeasible.” Specifically, cities may block a 20% low-income or 100% moderate-income project only if the city proves that one of the following conditions is met:
1) The city has a “substantially compliant” housing element and has “met or exceeded” its share of regional housing need for the types of housing the project would provide. (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(1).)
2) The project would have “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” on public health or safety, “based on objective, identified written…standards…as they existed on the date the [project] application was deemed complete.” (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(2).)
3) The project violates a “specific state or federal law” and there is “no feasible method” to comply without rendering the project “unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.” (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(3).)
4) The project site is zoned for agricultural or resource preservation or lacks adequate water or wastewater service. (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(4).) 5) The project is inconsistent with the city’s zoning and the land-use designation of its general plan (as of the date the application was deemed complete), and the city “has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with [statutory deadlines] that is in substantial compliance with this article.” (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)(5).) The negative implication of paragraph (5) is that if a city lacks a substantially compliant housing element, the city may not use its zoning code or general plan to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing project. Unless the project is on resource lands, the grounds for denial are very narrow: health/safety, inadequate water or sewer, or violation of a “specific” state or federal law. The Legislature has also declared that health/safety violations within the meaning of the HAA “arise infrequently.” (Gov’t Code 65589.5(a)(3).)
But as we’ll see momentarily, other provisions of the HAA muddy the picture, raising the prospect that there may be other grounds on which a city may render affordable projects infeasible.

A. What is saved by the savings clause for “development standards”? While subd. (d) of the HAA prevents noncompliant cities from using their zoning code or general plan to deny an affordable housing project, paragraph (1) of subd. (f) states that “nothing” in the HAA “shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards … 128 of 137
4 appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need.” Such standards “shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development.” (Gov’t Code 65589.5(f)(1).) To date, there has been no judicial or administrative guidance about how (d)(5) and (f)(1) fit together. May a city evade the limitations of (d)(5) by codifying in an ordinance labeled “development standards” the very same restrictions that would normally be found in a zoning ordinance or general plan? Or does the proviso in (f)(1) about “facilitating and accommodating … the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development” mean that the city must waive any standard that would reduce the density of a builder’s remedy project, on the theory that the “density permitted on the site” is unlimited (given that a noncompliant city is barred from using its zoning code or general plan to downsize an affordable project)? And how is a superior court judge—with no expertise in economics, project finance, or city planning—supposed to determine whether a contested development standard is “appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need”? Must developers who seek to entitle a builder’s remedy project hire expert witnesses to analyze every burdensome development standard and opine on whether it is “appropriate”? May a city defend its application of an onerous standard on the ground that the city could, in theory, achieve its housing target (while retaining the standard in question) by liberalizing other rules that apply to other sites?
Hoping to find a hidden key that unlocks these mysteries, I and one of my students took a deep dive into the legislative history of (d)(5) and (f)(1). We came up with very little, though it can be said that both proponents and opponents of the bill that created these provisions thought it would vitiate zoning in cities without housing elements. A construction of (f)(1) that entirely negates (d)(5) is off the table. But the all-important question of which local development standards may be applied to builder’s remedy projects (and how this is to be determined) remains unanswered.

B. Changing the rules midstream?
If a developer submits a builder’s remedy project while a city is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law, and the city delays its decision on the project until it achieves compliance, may the city then deny the project for violating the city’s zoning code or general plan? The answer is unclear.

The developer would have a strong argument that this kind of retroactive denial is unlawful.

Under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, a “housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect” at the time the developer submitted a “preliminary application” for the project. (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(o) [emphasis added].)1 A 1 Similarly, subd. (d) of the HAA stipulates that affordable projects may not be denied on the basis of “a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete.” (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(d)(5).) The adoption of a compliant housing element by a jurisdiction that had been out of compliance has the effect of rendering its zoning ordinance and general plan suddenly re-applicable, which is tantamount to a change in the zoning vis-à-vis any pending builder’s remedy projects. 129 of 137
5 zoning or general plan provision that a city may not apply to a project because of the city’s noncompliance with the housing element law is not “in effect” for purposes of that project.

A core purpose of the HAA is to provide “reasonable certainty to all stakeholders.” (CaRLA v.

City of San Mateo, 68 Cal. App. 5th 820, 842 (2021) [quoting Assem., 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1515, as amended May 1, 2017, p. 2].) Just as the Court of Appeal held that San Mateo could not satisfy the HAA’s objectivity requirement by “adding an after-the-fact interpretive gloss” to a design standard that was mushy at the time the project application was deemed complete (id. at 844), so too should courts reject a city’s claim that different rules apply to an already-submitted project the moment the city achieves compliance with the Housing Element Law.

This argument, while strong, is not a certain winner. A city might respond that its zoning code and general plan was “in effect” at the time of the developer’s preliminary application (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(o)), just temporarily inapplicable to affordable housing projects. The city would concede that this gloss on subd. (o) creates uncertainty for developers, but insist that it’s not the same type of uncertainty that so concerned the court in CaRLA v. City of San Mateo: the uncertainty of a fuzzy standard that could mean just about anything in application.

C. CEQA delay…forever?
The HAA does not exempt projects from CEQA, and though CEQA has some exemptions for housing projects, they require compliance with the city’s general plan and zoning. Accordingly, any builder’s remedy project would almost certainly have to run the gauntlet of an EIR.

A city that wants to defeat a builder’s remedy project might well insist on round after round of ever more elaborate environmental studies, even after a legally sufficient draft EIR has been assembled and circulated for public comment. By deciding that each new study is deficient in some way, the city could delay the project indefinitely.

In a recent letter to San Francisco, HCD indicated that strategic CEQA delays designed to kill or reduce the density of a housing project may violate the HAA. But the department did not limn the line between permissible and unlawful CEQA delay. I have argued that the HAA, or CEQA, or background principles of administrative law may provide a remedy for a city’s bad-faith refusal to approve a legally sufficient EIR for an HAA-protected project, but it remains to be seen whether the courts will agree.

D. Is there any limit on the size of a builder’s remedy project? Nothing in the HAA expressly limits the size or density of a builder’s remedy project. Does this mean that developers could build 20%-affordable apartment towers in neighborhoods of singlefamily homes? Once again, the answer is unclear. The HAA is codified as part of the Housing Element Article of the Government Code. The Least Cost Zoning Law, which was enacted as a companion to the Housing Element Law, provides that a city shall not be required to zone any parcel in an 130 of 137
6 urbanized, residential area for “densities that exceed those on adjoining residential parcels by more than 100%.” (Gov’t Code § 65913.1(b).) A court might construe this as an implied limitation on the density of a builder’s remedy project.

It's also possible that a court would discover an implied limitation in the so-called “default” or “Mullin” densities for lower-income housing (30 dwelling units/acre in urban areas). The Housing Element Law deems zoning that allows this density suitable for lower-income housing. (Gov’t Code § 65883.2(c)(3).)
A city arguing that state law tacitly limits the maximum density of a builder’s remedy project could also invoke a strange provision of the No Net Loss Law, added by SB 166 in 2017. This provision states that if a city that hasn’t achieved housing-element compliance within six months of the statutory deadline, it may not approve a project whose density is less than 80% of (1) “the maximum allowable residential density for that parcel” or (2) the Mullin density, whichever is greater. (Gov’t Code § 65863 (b) & (g).) This arguably implies that there is some “maximum allowable residential density” on parcels in noncompliant cities, even though the city’s general plan and zoning are inapplicable to affordable projects.2 The proposition that there is some implied limitation on the density of builder’s remedy projects is certainly in tension with the HAA’s codified statement of Legislative intent, to wit: “It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov’t Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) But a court could parry this instruction by expressing doubt about whether a too-drastic builder’s remedy would violate the home-rule prerogatives of charter cities.

This constitutional objection runs against the grain of precedents like CaRLA v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 849 (holding that courts may not second guess whether legislative responses to the housing crisis are “advisable or effective,” only whether they are “reasonably related” to the problem), but it wouldn’t be the first time a narrow construction of a statute had been justified on the basis of a hand-wavy constitutional avoidance argument.

E. What is required for a housing element to “substantially comply” with state law? A final and very serious complication for would-be developers of builder’s remedy projects is that a court may well disagree with HCD’s finding that the city’s housing element does not substantially comply with state law.

Several old cases hold that if a housing element checks all the statutory boxes, it is substantially compliant as a matter of law, even if it’s a recipe for failure. The “merits” of a housing element, such as whether “the programs adopted are adequate to meet their objectives,” were declared irrelevant to compliance. (Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, 148 Cal.App.4th 1174 (2007).) Legal scholars have argued that recent legislative reforms impliedly abrogate the old precedents, but this question is very much open. A city facing a builder’s remedy project might well deny it, 2 Alternatively, one could read “maximum allowable residential density for that parcel” as a reference to the density that would be allowed under the city’s general plan and zoning if the city had a compliant housing element. 131 of 137
7 dare the developer to sue, and then argue in court that the city’s housing element was substantially compliant all along notwithstanding HCD’s finding to the contrary. The developer would have to persuade a court to overturn or distinguish precedents like Fonseca.

II. Suggestions for the Legislature, HCD, the Attorney General, and Developers
Here I offer some preliminary thoughts on how to make the best of the HAA builder’s remedy, in light of the ambiguities described above.

A. Suggestions for the Legislature
The best way to resolve the builder’s remedy conundrums would be for the Legislature to clean them up, borrowing from established frameworks such as the Density Bonus Law and SB 35. A builder’s remedy that draws on established law would be easier for cities and developers to understand than something cut from whole cloth.

Specifically, I recommend that the Legislature (1) replace the HAA builder’s remedy with a new “noncompliant-city density bonus” under the Density Bonus Law; (2) specify that projects become eligible for the bonus upon HCD’s reasonable determination that the city is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law; (3) clarify that the normal vesting rules of the Housing Crisis Act apply to noncompliant-city density bonus projects; and (4) subject noncompliant cities to SB 35 streamlining on the same terms as cities that fail to submit their annual progress report.

Together, these reforms would provide “reasonable certainty to all stakeholders” (CaRLA v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 842), while also alleviating municipal concerns about the potentially unlimited scale of HAA builder’s remedy projects.

1. Replace the HAA builder’s remedy with a “noncompliant city density bonus” of 100% and an automatic height bonus.

In cities without a substantially compliant housing element, I propose that developers of affordable projects within the meaning of the HAA receive a density bonus of 100% and a height bonus of three stories or 50% (whichever is greater), plus any incentives and concessions otherwise available under the Density Bonus Law. This reform would reasonably limit the size of builder’s remedy projects, in keeping with the Least Cost Zoning Law’s norm that cities not be forced to zone parcels in already-developed residential areas for more than twice the density of adjoining parcels. This reform would also resolve the conflict between the builder’s remedy and the HAA’s savings clause for “development standards,” as the Density Bonus Law has a well-established framework governing which standards may be applied to a density-bonus project. Specifically, cities must waive any development standard that “physically precludes” the density of the project (unless it’s necessary for health/safety) and the developer may claim other incentives and concessions depending on the share of affordable units in the project. (Gov’t Code § 65915(d) & (e).)
132 of 137
8 Although the proposed noncompliant-city density bonus would limit the scale of builder’s remedy projects, it would offer a substantially larger bump than is currently available to developers whose projects meet the HAA definition of an “affordable housing project” (20% low income or 100% moderate income). A 20% low-income project now qualifies for a bonus of 35%, and a 100% moderate income project qualifies for a bonus of 50%. (Gov’t Code § 65915(f)(1) & (4).) The very largest bonus—an 80% increase in density and a three-story bump in height—is presently available only to 100% affordable projects (at least 80% low income) that are located within ½ mile of fixed transit. (Gov’t Code § 65915(b)(1)(G) & (d)(2)(C).) It’s important that the noncompliant-city density bonus be substantially larger than the regular density bonuses available in cities whose housing plans comply with state law. The lawmakers who created the HAA builder’s remedy back in 1990 envisioned it as a powerful inducement for cities to achieve housing-element compliance. It will only have this effect if local officials fear being forced to approve projects they want to deny.

2. Clarify that the normal vesting rules of the Housing Crisis Act apply to noncompliant-city density bonus projects
If a developer files a project application while a city is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law, the city should be required to grant the noncompliant-city density bonus and associated concessions whether or not the city achieves compliance before acting to approve or deny the application. The HAA should proscribe retroactive denials of builder’s remedy projects in the same way it proscribes retroactive denials of other kinds of housing projects.

This clarification is absolutely essential for the builder’s remedy to work. Otherwise cities will string along builder’s remedy projects for years with makework requests for “further information” and other types of foot-dragging until the city finally achieves compliance, at which point the project will be summarily denied.

3. Make HCD determinations of noncompliance the trigger for the noncompliant-city density bonus
Cities should be required to grant the new density bonus to any qualifying project whose preliminary application was submitted between (1) the date of HCD’s determination of noncompliance and (2) the date on which HCD or a court determines that the city has achieved compliance. This would be similar to the accelerated rezoning requirement of AB 1398 (2021), the trigger for which is HCD’s determination of noncompliance rather than noncompliance as defined or adjudicated by courts. (Gov’t Code §§ 65583(c)(1)(A), 65582.2(c).) By making HCD’s determination the trigger for the new density bonus, the Legislature would provide developers with some assurance that if they invest in a density-bonus project following HCD’s finding of noncompliance, they won’t have the rug pulled out from under them by a court’s later disagreement with HCD.
133 of 137
9 Of course, a city should not face the builder’s remedy if HCD’s finding of noncompliance was wholly arbitrary. But just as the HAA protects developers’ reliance on reasonable interpretations of the city’s general plan and zoning standards, so too should it protect developers’ reliance on reasonable findings of housing-element noncompliance by HCD. See Gov’t Code § 65589.5(f)(4) (“For purposes of this section, a housing development project…shall be deemed consistent…with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance…or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project…is consistent….”) (emphasis added).

4. Update SB 35 so that cities that fail to adopt an HCD-approved housing element on time are subject to the same streamlining as cities that fail to submit their annual progress reports on time
A city’s failure to adopt an adequate housing element is a more serious form of noncompliance than its failure to submit an annual progress report to HCD. Thus, the SB 35 remedy for reporting failures, which requires cities to review certain development proposals ministerially, should also apply to cities without HCD-certified housing elements. This would prevent cities from using CEQA to thwart noncompliant-city density bonus projects, provided that the project is on a good-for-development site as defined by SB 35, and provided that the project satisfies SB 35’s affordability and labor requirements. (Gov’t Code § 65913.4.)

5. Consider requiring noncompliant cities to provide a modest density bonus in singlefamily districts, and a more substantial bonus in commercial districts.

The Density Bonus Law only applies to projects with five or more units (Gov’t Code § 65915(i)), yet the vast majority of urban land is zoned for single-family homes only.

Accordingly, there’s a good case for requiring noncompliant cities to accommodate modestly denser development in their single-family zones, especially in high-opportunity neighborhoods and near transit.

It would be normatively backwards for the builder’s remedy to operate as a harsher sanction on cities that have already zoned a lot of their land for multifamily housing than on the exclusionary suburbs where single-family zoning is ubiquitous. Then again, any remedy that applies in singlefamily zones should be carefully calibrated to minimize the risk of political backlash.

A reasonable, proportionate solution would be to require noncompliant jurisdictions to allow up to four units per parcel in single-family zones and to waive general plan, zoning, and development standards that “physically preclude” achieving this density. Four units per parcel is twice the density allowed under SB 9 (2021), the lot-split and duplex bill that rezoned singlefamily districts statewide. As such, the proposed “fourplex bonus” would be consistent with the Least Cost Zoning Law principle of not requiring cities to zone for more than twice the otherwise-allowed density in an already-developed residential district.

It may also be advisable to prescribe a standard height increase (perhaps one story) for which the “fourplex bonus” projects would automatically qualify.
134 of 137
10 “Fourplex bonus” projects should not be required to satisfy an affordability standard. The economics of small-scale densification in existing residential neighborhoods are tenuous, even in high-demand cities like San Francisco. If fourplex-bonus projects had to include deed-restricted, below-market-rate units, the suburbs would have little to fear from the new builder’s remedy.

The noncompliant-city density bonus should also open up commercial and office districts for housing. Again, it would be backwards for the noncompliant-city density bonus to penalize more harshly the cities whose commercial districts also allow multifamily housing than the cities whose commercial districts exclude residential use. One reasonable solution would be to stipulate that while a city is subject to the noncompliant-city density bonus, it must allow residential use in its commercial and office districts and waive local development standards that physically preclude development of affordable housing projects (20% low-income or 100% moderate income) at twice the Mullin density in these districts.3 Alternatively, the Legislature could provide that in commercial and office districts, noncompliant cities must allow residential use at any density and grant a form-based bonus that permits a residential or mixed-use project to be (say) 50% taller and occupy 50% more of the lot than would otherwise be allowed under the district’s zoning.

B. Suggestions for the Attorney General and HCD
As of this writing, we are several months into 2022 legislative session and no lawmaker has introduced a builder’s remedy fix. It seems very unlikely that the Legislature will tackle the problem before 2023 at the earliest. In the meantime, the best hope for clarifying the scope of the remedy is a joint opinion letter or technical advice memo from Attorney General Rob Bonta and HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez.

Positions advanced in such a memo wouldn’t bind the courts, but under background principles of California statutory interpretation, courts must give some “weight” to agency views. (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal. 4th 1, 11-14 (1998).) A thoughtful guidance memo signed by the Attorney General and the HCD Director would be entitled to considerable weight, as it would embody “careful consideration [of the issues] by senior agency officials” (id. at 13), including the chief law enforcement officer of state.

By contrast, if HCD and the AG were to hold their fire until a live dispute over a builder’s remedy project materializes, their views would count for less. A city could characterize their intervention on behalf of the project as a “litigating position in [a] particular matter,” which per Yamaha is owed much less weight than an agency “ruling of general application.” (Id. at 5.) HCD is already warning cities that if they’re out of compliance with the Housing Element Law, they may not rely on their zoning or general plan to deny an affordable project. This message has been conveyed through housing element webinars and the department’s technical advisory on the HAA.
3 SB 6 (2021) would have allowed Mullin-density projects in commercial districts statewide. 135 of 137
11 But to date, neither HCD nor the Attorney General has said anything about the ambiguities described in this primer. If they were to jointly publish a guidance document explaining the positions they’re prepared defend in court, this would embolden developers who are on the fence about whether to propose a builder’s remedy project. The department and the AG wouldn’t have to tackle all the hard questions. It’d be enough for them to draw a line of defense around the core propositions they regard as essential and that they’re ready to defend.

C. Suggestions for developers
The first order of business for any developer considering a builder’s remedy project is to hire a crack land-use attorney. An experienced attorney would flag any health/safety issues, or “specific state or federal laws,” that could doom the project. The attorney might also be able to negotiate a quick settlement in which the developer agrees to waive certain arguments (e.g., that the builder’s remedy allows projects of unlimited density) and to immunize the city against certain HAA liabilities (e.g., potential fines), in return for the city committing to process the developer’s application pursuant to certain agreed-upon rules (e.g., waiving development standards that physically preclude the density of the project).

The next consideration in which cities to target. Economics are part of the equation (where would a 20% low-income project pencil?), but so too is potentially large risk that a court will accept the city’s argument that its housing element is in fact “substantially compliant” notwithstanding HCD’s finding to the contrary (see Part I.E, above). This risk can’t be avoided entirely, but it can be limited by targeting for the first builder’s remedy projects the subset of cities that fail to adopt an HCD-approved housing element within one year of the statutory deadline.

According to a new provision of the Housing Element Law, a city that “adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline … shall not be found in substantial compliance … until it has completed [the required] rezoning.” (Gov’t Code § 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii).) Statutory context and legislative history suggest that “adopt a housing element” for purposes of this provision is likely to be interpreted to mean “adopt a housing element that HCD finds to be adequate.”4In other words, if more than a year passes between the date on which the city’s housing element was due and the date on which the city adopts a housing element that HCD 4 Subparagraph (iii) of Gov’t Code § 65588(e)(4)(C) elaborates on subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and subparagraphs (i) and (ii) are expressly addressed to cities that did not adopt, within 120 days of the statutory deadline, a housing element certified as substantially compliant by HCD. These cities have to adopt a new, better housing element, which is where subparagraph (iii) comes in. It would be weird—indeed, absurd—for a court to hold that a city’s readoption of any trivially revised housing element, no matter how horrid, before the 1-year deadline, is enough to avoid the penalty for missing the 1-year deadline. The legislative history of AB 1398 (2021), which added these new provisions, also makes clear that the bill sponsors wanted the new consequences to be triggered by a jurisdiction’s failure to adopt an HCD-approved housing element on time, not just any old housing element. See, e.g., Assem., concurrence in Senate amendments analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1398, as amended Sept. 3, 2021, p. 2 (“This bill also adds that, to avoid the expedited timeline, the housing element must be determined by HCD to be substantially compliant with housing element law. This change removes the circumstances where jurisdictions adopt noncompliant housing elements to avoid penalties.”) (emphasis added). 136 of 137
12 determines to be sufficient, the city will not actually be in “substantial compliance” with the Housing Element Law until it completes its rezoning.

This is important because it establishes a defined temporal window in which the city is very unlikely to be regarded as substantially compliant by a court. By contrast, and as noted in Part I.E above, there is a real risk in other cases that courts will disagree with HCD’s finding of noncompliance.

The first “one year late” deadline for 6th cycle housing elements in a major metropolitan region is April 15, 2022. This deadline applies to cities in San Diego County. As of this writing, ten of the region’s nineteen jurisdictions are listed on HCD’s compliance dashboard as noncompliant and not currently under review. I’d wager that most or all of these cities will fail to adopt by April 15 a housing plan that HCD considers adequate. (A month later, the one-year-tardy deadline will pass for the Sacramento region, bringing cities like Davis into the set of ripe targets.) Looking beyond the “one year late” cities, developers considering a builder’s remedy project might also try their luck in cities that have a long track record as bad actors and whose housing element appears to be egregiously noncompliant. As to these cities, courts may well agree with HCD’s determination that the housing element in question is noncompliant, notwithstanding city-favoring precedents like Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (148 Cal. App. 4th 1174 (2007)).

I would caution against proposing builder’s remedy projects in established residential neighborhoods if the project is more than twice as dense as the adjoining sites. While the legal argument for an implied limitation on the density of builder’s remedy projects is a bit of a stretch (see Part I.D, above), the prudent developer can save themself some grief and legal expense if they conform their project to potential implied limitations. Also, I suspect that judges will be more likely to treat builder’s remedy projects as protected by the HAA’s anti-retroactivity norm if the judge thinks the physical scale of these projects is limited in some reasonable way.

Accepting an implied limitation on the scale of builder’s remedy projects may also help housing advocates persuade the courts to inter or distinguish the bad old precedents on housing element “substantial compliance.” The same goes for CEQA. That is, courts will probably do more to protect builder’s remedy projects against CEQA abuses if they see the remedy as reasonable and proportionate, not outlandish.

None of this should be taken legal advice. It’s just what I would do if I wore the developer’s shoes.
137 of 137

Portola Valley City CouncilOctober 26, 2022

Portola Valley City Council
October 26, 2022