Details of Portola Valley’s handling of wildfire risk under CEQA
Introduction
I’d like to tell you why concerned residents formed PublicSafety4PVNow and what its goals are, but to do that, I first need to let you know how Portola Valley has responded to Federal and State efforts – and mandates – to address wildfire safety.
These issues directly impact your safety and mine, but they’re complex. I encourage you to consume this material actively – follow links to the source documents, watch the accompanying videos, discuss with friends and neighbors…
And then come to your own conclusion:
Should the Town of Portola Valley candidly disclose the impact its new Housing Element will have on wildfire risk and adopt the safety mitigations that are necessary to mitigate that risk?
Or, should it persist in denying its extreme wildfire hazards and the public safety mitigations they require?
For years, the State of California has told us what we need to do:
- Designate our Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by ordinance (Gov Code 51179, 2008)
- Conduct a town-wide wildfire hazard and risk assessment (Gov Code 65302(g)(3), 2012)
- Implement Cal Fire safe development regulations (PRC 4290(a), 2021)
- Candidly assess and mitigate the impacts of new development on wildfire risk (California Environmental Quality Act)
Have any of these public safety mandates been fulfilled?
No.
For years, these mandates have been ignored despite repeated resident calls for action.
As you’ll see below, Portola Valley’s Town government has also ignored — and at times buried — important Fire District recommendations. And it has frustrated community efforts to have these issues publicly and candidly considered by the Town Council.
In May 2023, Portola Valley’s Town Council approved a new Housing Element of the General Plan. The State-mandated environmental analysis associated with General Plan revision had been approved over a month earlier by 3 of 5 Town Council members.
That analysis mysteriously ignored our wildfire hazard and failed to implement the CRITICAL fire prevention measures that the Woodside Fire Prevention District (WFPD) says are necessary. As the Fire District has said, increased development requires a candid acknowledgment of our extreme hazards and stronger safeguards than our town government currently provides.
Our shared existential threat
The Fire District has good reason for concern.
Portola Valley shares the same fire-prone ecosystem as its neighbors — Los Altos Hills, Los Trancos, Woodside, Emerald Hills, Ladera, southwestern Palo Alto and unincorporated San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
Wildland fires are HIGHLY contagious. They don’t respect property or town boundaries. And they can destroy ALL of our communities in a matter of hours.
In 1962, the Leib fire burned over 1300 acres in Portola Valley and Woodside, crossing both Portola Rd and Skyline Blvd.
Notably, the Lieb fire occurred in JANUARY, not August.
3 years ago, in 2020, the CZU fire came within 6 miles of Portola Valley and Los Trancos.
In a 24 hour period the fire expanded by 43,000 acres.
That’s an area bigger than 7 Portola Valleys, destroyed in 24 hours.
Based on the fire’s initial behavior, Cal Fire was concerned that it would burn past Skyline and into Woodside and Portola Valley.
Were it not for a change in weather, the Bay side of the Peninsula would likely have also been involved.
Last year, in 2022, the Edgewood fire provided yet another reminder.
Cal Fire highlighted the unusual conditions so early in the season: triple-digit temperature and 10% humidity.
According to Cal Fire, had the winds been more typical — 20-25 knots — we would have had a very different outcome.
Resident Engagement
The trend of worsening fire seasons is continuing.
Concerned residents recognize the extreme risk our fire hazards pose, but does our local Government?
Over a year and a half ago, 600 residents joined a petition asking the Town Council to acknowledge our fire hazards and to implement fundamental State-mandated protections that are advocated by fire safety organizations.
Did the Town Council put the petition on the agenda and consider the residents concerns?
No
For years, Portola Valley’s government has either ignored or mischaracterized our wildfire hazards, the risk they pose, and the State mandates to protect us from them.
Portola Valley’s Hazard Mitigation Plan
Here’s just one example: Asked by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to characterize its risks, Portola Valley and Woodside reported identical risk imposed by ALL our natural hazards …. except for one: wildfire.
Woodside sees wildfire as its greatest risk. By far!
In contrast, Portola Valley pretends that wildfire poses very little risk.
In fact, it claims that the risk to lives and property by wildfire is barely more significant than that of flooding and drought, barely greater than “low” risk.
How does our Town government justify this? As I’ll show below, by pretending our fire hazard doesn’t exist.
In 2008, Portola Valley hired expert fire ecologist Ray Moritz to conduct a comprehensive field investigation and document our fire hazard.
That investigation showed that 89% of town has High to Highest fire hazard severity. Moritz’s assessment was vetted and confirmed by our Fire District and adopted into our General Plan in 2010.
To this day, all fire safety authorities agree: not only is the Moritz map the most reliable assessment of our wildfire hazards, but, if anything, it actually UNDERSTATES those hazards.
Incredibly, though, when required to depict the severity of fire hazards in Portola Valley, our Town government chose to replace the General Plan’s Fire Hazard map with a Cal Fire map that the Fire District repeatedly warned was inaccurate, unsafe, and not suitable for use.
In contrast to Moritz, that discredited Cal Fire map shows NO significant fire hazard whatsoever in 94% of Portola Valley.
When the Fire District learned that Portola Valley planned to rely on the erroneous Cal Fire map, it warned the Town not to use it and urged it to correct its mischaracterization of fire hazard in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Without an accurate characterization of fire hazard, it’s impossible to assess the impact new development will have on public safety.
The addition of more fuels and human activity in and around areas of significant fire hazard can accelerate the spread of fire throughout the entire community.
It can also compromise critical evacuation routes.
That’s why honesty and candor in the assessment of our existing hazards is so critically important.
Without it, it is impossible to assess impact that new development will have on public safety and on the steps needed to mitigate those impacts.
Did Portola Valley’s government adopt the Fire District’s recommendations?
No, it ignored the Fire District’s warnings and then used the same sleight of hand to assess the new Housing Element’s impact on wildfire risk.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
State law required Portola Valley to, among many other things,
- Characterize existing fire hazard
- Identify impacts that changes to the General Plan will have on public safety
- Mitigate those impacts
Shunting aside the Fire District’s repeated warnings, and with no public review as an agendized item before the Housing Element Committee, the Planning Commission, or the Town Council, Town leadership ignored the General Plan’s fire hazard map — the Moritz map — and instead used the discredited Cal Fire map to characterize the extent and severity of fire hazards in town.
By replacing the General Plan’s fire hazard assessment with the erroneous Cal Fire map, the State of CA was informed that there is virtually NO wildfire hazard in town, NO significant impact of dense new development on wildfire risk, and thus NO need for mitigation.
Portola Valley’s Housing Element
As the State’s deadline for approval of the new Housing element approached, the Fire District tried YET AGAIN to warn the Town Council.
On January 4, the Fire District wrote the Town, again objecting to its use of the discredited Cal Fire map rather than the General Plan (Moritz) fire hazard map, detailing significant impacts the new Housing Element would have on wildfire risk, and outlining the precise steps IT wanted the Town to take to mitigate those impacts.
Was it necessary to ignore wildfire risk and recommended public safety measures in order to meet our housing quota?
Not at all. The life-saving measures recommended by the Fire District include provisions to accommodate high-density housing such as:
- Noncombustible fire barriers between closely spaced buildings
- Elimination of openings on closely spaced walls
- Noncombustible wall assemblies
The Fire District provided a number of such options to accommodate high-density housing.
The District asked Staff to provide its letter to each Town Council member and Planning Commissioner.
Was the Fire District’s letter forwarded to these governing bodies or the public at large?
No.
In fact, when a resident submitted a formal Public Records Act request seeking release of the letter, Staff claimed to have no knowledge of such a letter.
Based on correspondence between the Town’s attorney and the Fire District’s lawyer, we know that the District repeatedly expressed its concern that Portola Valley’s analysis of fire safety was misleading and unsafe:
“The District is very concerned about the [environmental] review, particularly its failure to adequately analyze and mitigate fire safety impacts.”
We learned that the Fire District had been communicating its concerns to the Town for months:
“In January of this year, Fire Marshal Don Bullard sent a letter to the Town’s planning department, detailing a number of problems with the then-current draft Housing Element Update, Safety Element, and [environmental analysis].”
The Fire District’s attorney called out two particular issues.
“According to the Fire Marshal, the crux of the problem is twofold: First the analysis of fire hazards is based on the Cal Fire Map instead of the Moritz Map. Second the draft Safety Element would remove some of the important fire safety measures contained in the current Safety Element.”
The Fire District’s attorney then highlighted the significance of these failings.
“These are serious problems that should be rectified before the Town Council adopts the [environmental analysis].”
Finally, the attorney’s email makes it clear that the Fire District continued to stand behind the January 4th letter 3 months after sending it, but, under pressure from Town Staff and with an unfulfilled promise that the District’s concerns would be addressed, the District ‘withdrew’ the letter.
“At Staff’s request, he withdrew the letter upon assurance that the final documents would address the [Fire District’s] concerns. Apparently, that did not happen.”
Here’s the issue:
Our Town Government has told the State, and FEMA, that the vast majority of PV’s land have NO significant fire hazard.
In truth, however, according to the Fire District, at least 89% of Portola Valley’s lands are NOT suitable for development UNLESS mitigated to reduce the risk of rapid fire expansion and spread.
In July, State housing authorities rejected Portola Valley’s new Housing Element, in part because it failed to provide a comprehensive inventory of all lands in town that are suitable and available for residential development.
Fire safety authorities, including Cal Fire and the Woodside Fire Protection District, have REPEATEDLY warned us that lands with high and highest fire hazard are NOT suitable for new residential development UNLESS appropriate fire prevention safeguards are first implemented.
They have told us what the necessary safeguards are.
Will Portola Valley fulfill its responsibility to comply with our State’s fire prevention mandates?
Or will it persist in the fiction that 94% of Portola Valley is free of significant fire hazard, whose risk to life and property is only marginally greater than flooding and drought?”
And, as a result, changes to the Housing Element represent NO significant impact on wildfire risk and requires NO mitigations.
Why PublicSafety4PVNow?
Years of appealing to the Town Council through letters, oral comments, petitions, and participation as committee members has not been effective. It’s time to insist that Portola Valley comply with State safety laws and regulations.
PublicSafety4PVNow, a 501(c)(3) public charitable corporation, was formed to promote public safety in Portola Valley by encouraging the Town Council to 1) comply with State public safety mandates, and 2) implement appropriate safety measures NOW.
PublicSafety4PVNow believes that:
- The Town of Portola Valley should comply with ALL State laws, including State public safety mandates
- Policy decisions should be based on the best available data.
- Portola Valley’s General Plan
- was carefully crafted to protect the safety and values of Portola Valley residents,
- is the reason the unique and wonderful town we live in today exists, and
- should be changed ONLY through a public and transparent process
Do you agree with these goals and principles?
If so, let us know by joining our mailing list and sending an email (ps4pvn at gmail). Let us know if you’d like to help out by hosting a meeting, helping with outreach, making a tax-deductible donation, research, or in any other way.
The solutions to these problems require the engagement of the entire community. I encourage you to invest the time and effort to develop an informed opinion. And then let your voice be heard.