The city of Portola held a regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday, Aug. 28, with councilmembers receiving a presentation from the California Department of Transportation. At issue were possible lane reductions through the city.
Plumas County Transportation Commission Executive Director Jim Graham and Caltrans District 2 Project Manager Maz Rahmani presented the proposal for lanes on State Route 70 traversing the city of Portola, part of the Caltrans Cromberg Project. They showed several slides from other communities that had undertaken such a project, including Chester and Truckee. The presentation included various design options available as choices if the project goes ahead.
Much of the public comment centered around the potential traffic-calming aspects of such a project and whether it would be effective. Questions arose regarding whether such a project would hinder snow removal in the city.
The city council agreed that there should be a public presentation given by Caltrans at a future date. Councilmembers recommended plenty of advance notice to the public so that everyone could gather the information and give full input on the proposal. That future meeting date will be announced as soon as it becomes available.
City housing element required for grants
A discussion about the seventh cycle draft housing element was presented by City Planner Karen Downs, of Manhard Consulting. Downs noted that the review and subsequent updates were being completed as required by state law, and that the housing element is required to be updated every five years. The city must adopt a current housing element to be able to apply for state-funded grants.
“There is a new state-required process,” Downs said. The process started a year ago, with the determination of the county and city’s needs for regional housing allocations. The seventh cycle established the city’s regional housing needs at 37 units, she said. In comparison, the sixth cycle set it at four units.
The recent process calculated the total housing lost in the county due to the Dixie Fire. It also split the housing numbers between the county and the city. This cycle also requires an assessment of fair housing, which is an analysis of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
“The state provided technical assistance for this AFFH. There were no other changes relating to programs or policies,” Downs explained.
The new state-required process applies to the public participation portion of the cycle. There will now be a 30-day public review period required before the housing element goes to the state for review. This period begins with the meeting held Aug. 28. The public review draft will be released for the public review period, with the draft available on the city website and in hard copy at City Hall.
After that period, any valid and relevant comments or changes can then be provided to the city council. If there are no substantive comments that would require changes, staff would then be directed to submit the draft to Housing and Community Development for review. HCD then has 90 days to review the draft before giving it back to council for any additional comments and review.
“We recommend making written comments so that they can be tracked for this public review period,” Downs said. This can happen via email or mail to the city. After some comments and discussion regarding who would be building the housing, councilmembers moved to approve the recommendation to commence opening the public participation period.
Councilmember, staff reports
Councilmember Bill Powers stated that a resident had asked him if the public comment session could be placed at the end of each city hall meeting rather than at the beginning of the agenda. That would allow questions the public might have to be answered over the course of the agenda.
Councilmember Mikki Brown reported on the importance of getting the city reinstated as a Firewise community and current efforts to do so. Mayor Pro Tem Jim Murphy commented on recent vandalism to the public restrooms in the city park, encouraging city staff to file civil actions for the costs of the repairs.
Brown also gave a report on the behalf of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District on the current status of targeted airshed grant funding amounts. There is approximately $1.428 million left from the 2018 grant and $2.460 million in the 2020 grant, she said. This makes a total of $3.888 million remaining in both targeted airshed grants for the greater Portola area.
Interim City Manager Susan Scarlett reported that there would be an opportunity for savings coming for money spent to train new city Public Engagement Officer Brian Attama. The currently contracted PEO Irma Gowan is preparing to strike out on her own from CSG, her current company. She would like to fulfill the remaining time on her contract independently and for a much better price, Scarlett said. She recommended moving forward with the change and giving CSG the required 10-day notice.
“The contract with Irma will be about half the price of the contract with CSG,” Scarlett said. “It won’t extend the time of the contract, with the contract remaining one day a week through December.” The item will be placed on a future agenda for a formal decision from the council.
Scarlett also noted that the team working on a wastewater grant for the last 12 years had met. A wastewater grant study will be available to the public in the near future. This item will also be on a future agenda for further discussion.
Scarlett reported that she is making headway on the Portola bridge, with more information to be reported as it becomes available. “The project starts with a lot of environmental issues, which can’t be rushed,” she said.
During public comment, there was some contention regarding city ordinances and whether the city was allowed to have an ordinance that restricts the participation of disruptive individuals. There were many points highlighted from the Brown Act. On the topic of public records requests brought up at a previous meeting, Portola resident Ashlee Sims also noted that she was “the anonymous requester, as well as the requester known as Scrinch.” Sims also called into question the behavior of some councilmembers.
