|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Residents in Woodside, Portola Valley and surrounding communities understand the need to guard against wildfires given the high-vegetation area in which they live.
But a proposed ordinance that would require property owners to create what’s known as a defensible space around a building to lessen the risk of a fire spreading has residents concerned about costs, penalties, where responsibility lies and other issues.
During a meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 27, the Woodside Fire Protection District board introduced a draft of the ordinance that would establish measures to mitigate fuel-burning hazards around a property.
At the heart of the ordinance if ultimately adopted is a requirement that property owners clear brush and other combustible vegetation or material within 100 feet of any structure — theirs or someone else’s on adjacent land.
“As a community, we greatly appreciate the big picture efforts to keep us safe and healthy,” Daniel Warren of Ladera said, addressing the board. “I believe this draft has been created and discussed with good intentions from all parties.”
However, Warren took issue with part of the ordinance stipulating that the owner of a parcel where potentially dangerous fire conditions exist within 100 feet of a structure on a neighboring property is still responsible for creating the defensible space.
He raised the question of fairness, particularly if the structure on the other property is not up to code.
“Unpermitted and noncompliance structures on a neighboring parcel shouldn’t cause us to degrade the value of our properties by removing plants when the structures should first be remediated according to established building and planning department processes,” he said. “Doubling down on that sort of inappropriate behavior is a recipe for trouble.”
He contended that the structure’s owner should pay for clearing the hazards around his or her building.
Otherwise, the district is “taking something away from one property due to the actions of their neighbors,” Warren said. That approach “will generate endless conflicts between neighbors and with the district.”
Portola Valley Council member Craig Taylor also spoke up during the public comment portion of the meeting, echoing much of what Warren expressed.
“Obviously, this ordinance represents a lot of hard work by the current fire marshal and the previous fire marshal,” Taylor said. “And it’s also clearly something that we need for our communities. We are kind of overdue, but I’d also say that equally important is that we bring the community along as willing partners.”
Like Warren, Taylor was not keen on having a property owner put in a defensible space for someone else’s building.
“The adjacent-property clause seems pretty problematic,” Taylor said. “It’s using the district’s authority to compel neighbors to take on an unknown, potentially significant cost based on conditions that are outside their control.”
The clause should be stricken from the ordinance, he said.
Furthermore, he recommended holding off enforcing the ordinance until the district could finish its first round of inspecting defensible spaces. “This will give the district time to better quantify the risks,” he said. “It’ll give the community time to better understand what’s necessary (and) the associated costs.”
Doing so, Taylor said, “we’re likely to get people to be more willing partners, and it’ll give us an opportunity to maybe understand if there are unintended consequences here and make sure as we go forward we get the right results.”
He and Warren are also worried about what they described as harsh penalties for noncompliance.
“The rules are really draconian,” Warren said. “They’re very punitive, what’s written.”
The rules are really draconian. They’re very punitive, what’s written.’
Ladera resident Daniel Warren
The ordinance would deem a violation a public nuisance and subject a noncompliant property owner to an administrative citation or legal action to compel him or her to abate the fire hazards.
In addition, under the ordinance, the offender would be guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor involving state health and safety rules.
But district board President Matt Miller sought to reassure residents that fire officials would work in partnership with them and not be out targeting possible violators at every bend.
“They’re not going be stormtroopers, descending on your property (and) tagging trees,” Miller said during the meeting. “This is a multi-year process with an individual assessment of each property by our folks with you to try to make the environment safer.”
The ordinance would have “multiple cycles of inspection,” he said. “The first time we would come, (the district would) help you see what should be done on your property.”
The objective is not to force residents “to cut down mature trees (or) butcher everything you planted,” he said. Rather, the goal is to “reduce the vegetation that could someday stop a wildfire from moving 60 miles an hour through the shrub, spreading embers a mile ahead of itself.”
Miller pointed out that the district will continue to study, and take public input on, the proposed ordinance before any board vote could occur.
“So we’re trying to take our time,” he said. “Nobody’s made a decision whether what happens next. … There’s no attempt here to jam this thing through. This is really important, and it takes some time.”
