3/13/24, 1 09 PM Manage Survey Statistics Text Report
https //www portolavalley net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?formId 67&itemID 93237&id 7186 2/4 3/13/24, 1 09 PM Manage Survey Statistics Text Report
https //www portolavalley net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?formId 67&itemID 93237&id 7186 3/4 Dear Town Council,
I would like to address the council on the topic of the Sheriff’s contract (Agenda Item 9.a) with three minor items, and also request meeting transcripts.
Alarm Permit and Response Fees
Section 1.2.1 States “Town shall remain responsible for the actual billing and collection of Alarms Permit and Response revenue. Administrative staff wi maintain and forward the necessary information to Town’s Finance Department for the billing and collection of said revenue upon request of Town.” This section appears to be a boiler plate from other areas in San Mateo County. I do not believe that we charge for either the installation of an alarm or the response to an alarm (whether a real situation or a false alarm) nor our residents required to register their alarms. Back in 2016 after a robbery in town, residents were notified to have our alarm companies call the Sheriff first before calling anyone else. As far as I understand the number of false alarms in town is not impacting our emergency response.
If the number of false alarms does in fact impact our contract, I would like the town to consider billing the residents directly. In San Francisco, the procedure is as follows:
“Every alarm site (residential and business) in San Francisco is required to have an alarm license. San Francisco Police Emergency Alarm Ordinance defines a false alarm as an alarm dispatch request to a law enforcement agency, when the responding law enforcement officer finds no evidence of a criminal offense or attempted criminal offense after having completed a timely investigation of the alarm site. If your alarm location is registered, there is no penalty for the first false alarm within the calendar year. The second false alarm penalty is $100, the third is $150, the fourth is $200, and five or more is $250 per instance. If your alarm location is unregistered, you are charged a $100 Non-licensed Alarm penalty and the $250 Non-licensed Alarm – False Alarm fee per false alarm instance.” Alarms are occasionally unnecessarily triggered. In Portola Valley when an officer does respond to a false alarm, no subsequent notification is given to the resident. A follow up phone call, text, or even a standard note somehow delivered to the address would be reassuring for the resident who is likely away from home and may be a bit nervous.
I would like to see Section 1.2.1 removed or restated to reflect the current state where we have no alarms permit and response revenue.
Crime Rate Statistics
In recent years, the communication to residents about burglaries and crime statistics has been inconsistent and sporadic.
Back in 2016 after a home invasion, I and a few other residents formed an informal Crime Safety Committee. The BPTS committee interacts with the Sheriff around bicycle and traffic issues. We currently have no town committee or group with crime prevention in their purview, and the communication on crime has not been consistent in recent years.
During the Sheriff’s Q&A, the crime rates in Portola Valley were reported over very short time frames of 3 and 5 years. I would like to see the same data reported in the future for 10 or 20 year time spans, since our crime rate is fortunately quite low. The statistics on the Town’s web site mostly refer back t 2022. https://www.portolavalley.net/departments/san-mateo-county-sheriff/portola-valley-crime-statistics
March 11, 2024
To Portola Valley Town Council Members,
I am writing to put on record my disappointment and strong opposition to your recent decision to make a major change to the PV Housing Element regarding the Opt-in program with no public or Planning Commission input. In addition, I want to emphasize that the PV Forum is not an official form of town communication and it’s very disturbing that residents like me who are subscribed to the official town communications email did not receive a call out on this change and had to become aware of it via neighbors who are on the PV Forum. Not everyone is on the Forum, it is run by a member of the community who selectively allows posts and viewpoints and bans those who have strong opinions conflicting with her own.
I also want to remind you that Sarah Wernikoff and Craig Taylor were against opt-in early on in this process and the large majority of residents were completely against this idea from the onset. I thought it had been laid to rest and was taken off guard by the fact that this new decision was made in about 90 minutes and overrides the previous decision on upzoning which was a pilot program for 3 lots only with 4 units per acre. What was potentially 12 new high density housing units has become over 800 even higher density housing units. This is a major change and should require more study sessions and communication / consideration with residents, Planning Commission, ASCC working hand-in-hand as well as a thorough review of all the "what Ifs." Why are we relying on consultants and staff who do not understand and appreciate the history and culture of Portola Valley?
I also don’t understand why these upzoned lots are deep into town where in the state of an emergency such as fire or earthquake, a large percentage of residents, including two schools are blocked in. We do not have infrastructure in this rural town to support more building so deep into our rural town. What happened to the idea of using lots further up Alpine Rd. such as Ford Field and the Stanford Wedge to meet housing quotas? I live on Echo Ln. and can’t get out onto Portola or Alpine Rd. during school pickup and drop off. Can you imagine if there is an emergency and cars are back to back lined up on these roads trying to evacuate? You are literally leaving residents with no exit if you add 130 parcels which could equate to 800 new housing units.
I strongly urge the Council to revisit this change to the PV Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Loni and Brent Austin