|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new ordinance will require property owners in Woodside, Portola Valley and surrounding communities to carve out what’s called a defensible space around their homes to help guard against the spread of wildfires.
During its regular meeting on Tuesday night, April 30, the three-member board of the Woodside Fire Protection District unanimously passed the fuel-mitigation ordinance despite residents’ continuing concerns about costs, enforcement and other issues.
The ordinance takes effect May 30. Among its requirements, residents will need to clear fuel-burning hazards such as brush and other combustible vegetation or debris within 100 feet of a structure on their land.
“We’re doing this to keep people safe,” board President Matt Miller said during the meeting.
The district is not out to come down harshly on noncompliant residents, Miller said. Rather, it seeks to collaborate with residents on what needs to be done or improved upon on their property to reduce fire hazards.
When the district shows up to inspect a property, he said, “it’s the beginning of the conversation. … The earliest anyone could be out of compliance [is] two years from now — quite likely three years from now.”
He also assured residents that the ordinance does not jeopardize healthy trees.
“I do want to just emphasize the ordinance does not include removing trees unless they are dead or dying,” Miller said. “Nobody wants to get rid of oaks. All trees are treated the same in that if they’re too close to your roof, even under our current ordinance, that would be a problem. But there is no removal of mature, live trees here.”
The district worked on the ordinance for the past year as part of an effort to minimize the potential for a wildfire disaster in the highly wooded, vegetated area that it serves — which also encompasses Emerald Hills, Ladera, Los Trancos, Skyline and Vista Verde.
The district engaged residents on a draft of the ordinance through public workshops and other means and made modifications based on community feedback.
One key change was removing a requirement for property owners to create a defensible space even if a structure is on someone else’s adjacent parcel. Residents criticized this would-be stipulation as being unfair and possibly leading to much conflict between neighbors.
Residents who addressed the board Tuesday before its decision still expressed plenty of displeasure with the ordinance.
Former Portola Valley mayor Jon Silver even raised the prospect of taking the matter to the polls.
“I think this ordinance is way overkill,” Silver said. “I don’t know if it’s subject to referendum, but I would find out. And if it is, I promise you it will be defeated in the ballot box. I promise you. It’s not a threat. It’s a promise.”
Portola Valley resident Rebecca Flynn, who moderates the town’s PVForum, called the ordinance punitive and costly for residents.
The district is “punishing people who don’t have money,” Flynn said. “The reason why a lot of these places are not cleared out [is that] people don’t have money. They’re living on limited incomes. They don’t have the money to clear out all the tree stumps that are sitting in front of their homes. They don’t have the money to go and thin out all their trees. They don’t have the money to do all sorts of things that are required in this ordinance.”
Ladera Community Association (LCA) President Wynn White told district leaders that he and his group understand the pursuit of the ordinance.
LCA recognizes “that the ordinance is meant to significantly improve our fire-preparedness stance and ultimately our community safety,” White said.
But further community outreach and education about the ordinance are needed, he said. “There’s a lot of people who still don’t know a lot about this” despite the outreach that has already been done.
“We’ll continue to do our part,” he said. “We’ll continue to communicate through our community channels, but I think whatever you can do to help further educate and outreach to inform the homeowner what the new ordinance entails and how to comply is going to go a long way.”
The district is working on guidelines that could help do just that. The guidelines would provide residents additional clarity on what the ordinance is requiring.
They would break down “the ordinance in simpler terms with pictures and diagrams to assist illustrating examples of the requirements,” district Fire Marshal Kimberly Giuliacci said in an email to The Almanac.
The board is expected to consider approving the guidelines on May 28.
At the board meeting on Tuesday, White also wondered if funding programs could be found to help residents cover the costs of complying with the ordinance.
LCA could potentially apply for grants on behalf of the community, he said. “We’d like to have the district’s assistance to help identify some of those and, if they’re applicable, help those individuals (who) may qualify for them.”
Fellow LCA member Daniel Warren concurred.
“This mandated work will be unaffordable to many people,” Warren said. “Instead of passing the law now, line up grant money for funding … or negotiate rates with landscaping and tree companies. Find the money to help take the sting out of the cost notwithstanding the loss of enjoyment and property values that will come from this transformation.”
After the board approved the ordinance, Miller indicated that the district would still be able to make refinements.
“We will improve it as we go,” he said, “and we will be gentle.”
‘We will improve it as we go and we will be gentle.’
Woodside fire board president matt miller
“The district is not out to come down harshly on noncompliant residents.
Rather, it seeks to collaborate with residents on what needs to be done or improved upon on their property to reduce fire hazards. We will be gentle.” – Woodside Fire Protection District Board President Matt Miller
Let’s see how “collaborative” and “gentle” they’ll be when a homeowner or retiree refuses or cannot afford to change their landscaping or remove a tree on their property.
My guess is not very.
It seems like Matt Miller reassurances are not aligned with the Fire Marshall Kimberly Giuliacci. She has stated to me in writing (and I paraphrase)
“Nothing is impossible to implement. Please enlightened us on what is clearly not enforceable because once adopted it is all enforceable. “
In a recent meeting members of the Woodside Highlands Road Maintenance Committee, the fire marshall did not appear to be fully appraised of some of the important details of the ordinance, and when challenged, acknowledged that some of the ordinance does not make sense and she would need to check with the lawyers on the intent. This is all on record. As far as I am aware our concerns have not been addressed and no further changes to the ordinance have been proposed.
The fire department has been dumbing down the messaging on this ordinance to simple ‘defensible space’ around a main property, but has not detailed the fact that the ordinance extends much further to include people’s private driveways, land abutting roads, auxiliary buildings such as garden sheds, the types of plants that can be planted, and that selling a property will require a certificate of compliance as part of closing.
It is not acceptable to implement an ordinance and then ‘see how it goes’ over the next three years. This leaves open the opportunity for mis-interpretation, unfair implementation, bias and legal challenges, not to mention that in some cases the ordinance as written is neither practical or economically viable to enforce.
I do not think that this is the desired intent for an ordinance which in principle is a good step forward to reducing fire risk.