After a groundswell of public support leading up to the decision, the Portola Valley Town Council voted 5-0 to approve its third draft of its state-mandated housing plan on Wednesday night, May 10. But the battle over the controversial document isn't over, as the town faces a threatened lawsuit and other accusations from town residents.

The deadline for submitting the housing element was Jan. 31, but after some newer council members expressed concerns over a site identified for housing growth, the vote was pushed back to this month.

"Forced to choose between, on the one hand, adopting a non-optimal housing element, and on the other hand, further prolonging the divisiveness we have long experienced in this process without any certainty of achieving a better and timely result in the future, I reluctantly would support the adoption of the housing element," Council member Judith Hasko said at the meeting.

Around 200 people signed a letter to the Town Council, delivered on May 10, urging members to pass the housing element. Endorsements came from former council members, high school students, town committee and school board members, local business owners and others.

"I'm relieved for all of us," said Planning Director Laura Russell. "It's been a long process."

Town staffers pointed out during the meeting that volunteers and staff spent 143 hours in 41 public meetings about the proposed 2022-31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This latest round includes an obligation to plan for 253 new units compared to just 64 last cycle. The plan adopted on Wednesday includes 291 units.

San Mateo County municipalities have struggled to submit plans to the state that meet the stricter requirements.

"Frankly, it (the housing element) landed in a very different place from where it started largely because of public input and because a committee of people decided to arrive at a compromise," said Mayor Jeff Aalfs at the meeting. "Everyone has something to be unhappy about. And that means we compromised. You know it's not perfect; it's the best we could do."

Council member Mary Hufty said before the vote that she understood the community had a lot of anxiety about a housing element not being sent to the state by the Jan. 31 deadline but urged them to not be too frantic.

"We're actually in the middle of the pack," she said.

Russell responded that the town was initially "pretty far ahead," but revisions extended the timeline.

"We started the process earlier than I think any community that I can think of, about February of 2022," Russell said. "And then we had what I termed 'the big pivot' where we went back to the council and got additional feedback, looked at a bunch more options and kind of broaden the scope of the ad hoc housing committee's work because at that time that was very important to community."

At that time, she said, Portola Valley was no longer sort of leading the pack because the town took the time to do those things. "The law says that we were supposed to have completed our housing element by Jan. 31."

The housing element that passed was mostly unchanged from the draft the council last looked at in March, with some setback changes at the Ladera Church site, authorizing the planning and building director to adjust the timelines for building to extend them and extending program implementation timelines for Dorothy Ford Park and Open Space to be extended to two years from adoption of the housing element.

Updates on threatened lawsuit

At the same meeting, the council reported out of a closed session meeting on Tuesday, May 9, about the lawsuit that's threatened against the town by the company PublicSafety4PVNow, Inc., led by residents Rusty Day, Bob Turcott and Ron Eastman, according to public documents.

The three are requesting that the Town Council rescind votes to approve environmental studies supporting the town's housing plan, arguing the review was deficient and did not adequately consider fire safety. The town, in tandem, is working to approve its updated safety element, which is part of the general plan and is intended to reduce the risk of injuries, property damage and displacement from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change and more.

Updates included the fact that Hufty is recusing herself from the discussion because of her relationship with Day — both were members of the Portola Valley Neighbors United (PVNU) board of directors. PVNU is a volunteer-led group founded by Hufty that came out against Stanford University's plan to develop land along Alpine Road known as the Wedge.

The council voted 4-0 to approve a so-called tolling agreement, which establishes a deadline for the parties to negotiate before a plaintiff will file suit to enforce legal rights. In this case, it is set for June 11.

The council also voted to appoint a subcommittee of Town Council members Hasko and Craig Taylor to negotiate a potential settlement agreement with PublicSafety4PVNow.

Turcott, Eastman and Day said in a May 10 letter to the town that they came to the conclusion that the community "needs the means to ensure enforcement of the fire safety laws and regulations that the state has adopted to protect" residents.

"Every California town that burned to the ground in a catastrophic wildfire in the last decade thought it was safe," said Turcott in a statement. "I was alarmed when I learned that Portola Valley intended to ignore its obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act, which was adopted to protect the public. I wanted these issues to be studied by the experts who know, as CEQA requires. As a member of the Housing Element Committee, I repeatedly expressed these concerns. My request for the Committee to review our CEQA analysis was denied. The Fire District has confirmed my concerns — it identified major deficiencies in Portola Valley’s CEQA analysis of wildfire safety."

Turcott posted a video to YouTube on Wednesday that explains the reason the three formed the company and how residents can pitch in, urging them to donate and join their mailing list.

"For years, our advocacy for effective prevention and fire safe development has fallen on deaf ears," Turcott said in the letter to the town. "For years, my family and yours have been denied the basic safeguards defined by State laws and regulations."

Dispute over fire marshal's letter

On a privately-run social media forum, PVForum, and in letters to the Town Council, some residents accused the town of withholding a letter signed by Woodside Fire Protection District Fire Marshal Don Bullard dated Jan. 4 that was retracted 45 minutes after it was submitted to the town, according to Town Attorney Cara Silver. The town alleged in a draft that the letter was not written by its Bullard, but has the appearance of being "cut and pasted," based on the language and style, from writing by members of the public who oppose the housing element. The final version took this allegation out of the exhibit.

In the letter, Bullard said that to his knowledge, the town has not asked the district to assess the impact that the town's proposed zoning code amendments (like increasing zoning density) would have on public safety, fire operations, fire prevention, wildfire hazards and risk, or its evacuation capacity and capability.

"We withdrew the letter because we agreed that getting the housing element in place is critical," said Fire Chief Rob Linder in a Thursday, May 11, email. "Doing so is very challenging based on new state laws. What we wanted is assurance that the town would address our concerns for the need for fire mitigations related to development in high and very high fire severity zones. The Portola Valley council has assured us those concerns will be addressed in the safety element. We have accepted those commitments."

The Almanac has also contacted fire district board President Matt Miller for comment.

"His (Bullard's) letter was not made public," said Turcott in a May 9 letter to the town. "To our knowledge, it was not distributed to the Town Council or the Planning Commission. If true, that means that the Planning Commission and the Town Council considered (the) proposed housing element and other general plan revisions while being blinded to the fire district's concerns. ... When a PRA (Public Records Act) request for the fire marshal's letter was served on the town, the town denied the letter's existence. It is only because the fire district produced the letter that the public has become aware of it."

The Town Council, which passed an exhibit to be attached as an addendum to the housing element, voted 3-0, with Hufty and Hasko abstaining from voting, explaining why the letter is not being included in the housing element.

"Mr. Bullard subsequently withdrew the draft letter and requested that it not be considered part of the record. He and other representatives of the district have since repeatedly reaffirmed since then to town staff both orally and in writing that the draft letter does not accurately reflect the views of either Mr. Bullard or the district."

Going into the May 10 meeting, Bullard and Linder wrote to the town that "while there have been many difficult discussions between the fire district and the town of Portola Valley on its plan documents, the district is confident that the town will abide by its promise to adopt the 2008 Moritz Map to evaluate new projects (until a newer updated map becomes available), implement and codify the district's recommended mitigation measures, and ensure the new safety element will be at least as stringent as the current 2010 version.

In 2009, the Town Council opted not to formally adopt a wildfire hazard map prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which showed no "very high" risk areas.

This was in sharp contrast was the map prepared by the Woodside Fire Protection District, which labeled parts of several neighborhoods as at severe risk, including Woodside Highlands, Westridge, Alpine Hills and Portola Valley Ranch.

Cal Fire considered both views and agreed with the district on the danger in the Highlands neighborhood, but not the other areas.

The map was prepared by Ray Moritz, a consultant in mapping fire-prone vegetation, who found that that threats rated "very high" exist in some Portola Valley neighborhoods, and threats deemed "high" exist in many others, based on the proximity and topography of fire-prone forested areas. Moritz's map largely agrees with the fire district's map.

"Some individuals have suggested that the district is or has been opposed to the town's housing plan," the two wrote. "But the district's only goal is to work with the town to ensure both the highest standard for fire prevention, public safety, and a rational and practical plan to provide much needed housing. We continue to work with the Portola Valley team, and will make special efforts to stay in synch and maintain open lines of communication."

Cease and desist order

During public comment on Wednesday, PVNU President Rita Comes requested the Town Council cease and desist using the PVForum, claiming that it's violating the Brown Act, California's open meeting law.

"A quorum of Town Council members has access to the communications on this forum," said Comes. "And can see the comments of their fellow council members. While many of the town citizens do not have access and are unable to see and participate in this debate."

All residents of Portola Valley and the Portola Valley School District boundary, as well as local workers and businesses, are invited to be members of the PVForum, according to forum administrators. You can apply for membership to the forum to post in it.

"I don't agree with Rita's legal premise that a single council member's exchange with a member of the public violates the Brown Act," said Town Attorney Silver. "It's also not clear why she is singling out the two posts attached to her letter. The cited posts simply provided publicly available information to residents unable to attend council meetings. This is the sort of outreach most residents rely on and appreciate. That said, given the possibilities of unintentional serial Brown Act violations, many city attorneys advise their clients not to post on any social media. This advice is hard to reconcile in today's world where social media is the most prevalent form of communication and real time exchanges are now common place. As a member of Cal Cities' Brown Act committee, we have debated these issues extensively. I personally believe the Brown Act should be amended to provide better clarification."

The town settled a lawsuit over alleged Brown Act violations last summer. At the time, council members denounce legal action, saying it amounted to bullying at taxpayers' expense.