Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Resi Yr 1 (H1)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 I JK LM N O PQ R S T U V
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Cart Rates - 2023
SOLID WASTE
Operational Information
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 TOTAL Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 TOTAL Disposal lbs per Container Setouts/Max Load 1,394 871 435 290 Cart 1 11.19 17.91 35.82 53.73 Total Containers(1st Container) 3,722 Cart 2 11.19 17.91 35.82 53.73 Loads if All Subs(per Week) 2.67 4.27 8.55 12.82 "FTE Route Factor" 1.00 1.33 1.82 2.32 Subscribed Gal Adjusted Loads if All Subs 2.67 5.68 15.59 29.73 Cart 1 10,980 54,848 66,560 40,224 172,612 Cart 2 ‐ 256 2,304 2,112 4,672 Cost per Load per Week (F&V) $ 3,271 Calc'd Disposal Rate/gal 2.41$ Cost all Loads 8,737$ 18,587$ 51,000$ 97,238$ Minimum $ 8,737
Cart 1 Disposal $ 26,422 $ 131,984 $ 160,167 96,793$ 415,367$ Cart 2 Disposal $ ‐ $ 616 $ 5,544 5,082$ 11,243$ Equivalent Container Factor 1.00 2.13 5.84 11.13 Containers by Size (Frequency) 549 1,722 1,076 441 Equivalent Container Units (ECU) 549 3,664 6,281 4,908 15,402 Solid Waste accounts ‐ 1st cart 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 Annual Variable Route Costs $ 665,779 Solid Waste accounts ‐ 2nd+ cart 0 8 36 22 66 ECUs 15,402 Total Carts 549 1,722 1,076 441 3,788 Annual Variable/ECU $ 43.23 Monthly Variable/ECU $ 3.60
Solid Waste Lifts ‐ 1st cart 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722
Solid Waste Lifts ‐ 2nd cart 0 8 36 22 66 1st Container Total Lifts 549 1,722 1,076 441 3,788 Variable Route Costs/Month 3.60$ 7.66$ 21.03$ 40.09$ Fixed Costs/Container/Month 4.19$ 4.19$ 4.19$ 4.19$ Avg per Route Day Refuse Txfr & Disp Cost/Month 4.01$ 6.42$ 12.83$ 19.25$ Solid Waste Lifts / Route 392 1,230 769 315 2,706 Trucks per Route 1 1 1 1 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk 11.80$ 18.27$ 38.05$ 63.53$ Solid Waste Lifts / Truck 392 1,230 769 315 2,706 2nd Container Refuse Txfr & Disp Cost/Month 4.01$ 6.42$ 12.83$ 19.25$ Estimation of Equivalent Routes Cost of Container 0.30$ 0.31$ 0.39$ 0.44$ Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 TOTAL Variable Route Costs/Month 3.60$ 7.66$ 21.03$ 40.09$ Containers (1st and 2nd) 549 1,722 1,076 441 3,788
% of All Subscribers 14% 45% 28% 12% 100% TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @1x/wk 7.92$ 14.39$ 34.26$ 59.79$ Ideal 1‐Load Route? 202 396 124 34 755
Setouts in Max Load 1,394 871 435 290 Req'd Rte Days 2.72 4.35 8.70 13.05
Calculated Loads 5.0
Lifts/Hr. 444
Route Time Cost of Container
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 Standard Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 Hours to Pack‐out 3.14 1.96 0.98 0.65 Cost of Container 36.35$ 37.57$ 47.38$ 53.32$ includes profit and ffs Avg Route Time 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 Monthly Cost over 10 years 0.30 0.31 0.39 0.44 Loads 2.00 4.00 7.00 10.00 2.00 Hours/Dump Trip 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Residential Solid Waste 20 32 64 96 Total Check Dump Time 3.00 6.00 10.50 15.00 3.00 Variable 1,978$ 13,197$ 22,626$ 17,681$ $ 665,779 $ ‐ Total Route Time 9.10 12.10 16.60 21.10 9.10 Fixed 2,301$ 7,183$ 4,359$ 1,756$ $ 187,187 $ ‐ FTE Route Factor 1.00 1.33 1.82 2.32 1.00 Disposal 1st Cart 2,202$ 10,999$ 13,347$ 8,066$ $ 415,367 $ ‐ Disposal 2nd Cart $ ‐ 51$ 462$ 424$ $ 11,243 $ ‐ Cost of Container 2nd Cart $ ‐ 3$ 14$ 10$ $ 318 $ ‐ Subtotal $ 6,480 31,433$ $ 40,808 $ 27,936 $ 1,279,893 $ ‐ Solid Waste Cart Rates by Cost of Service
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Resi Yr 1 (H1)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 W X Y Z AA AB AC AD
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Cart Rates - 2023
ORGANICS
Organics Cost of Service Information 2023
Object Description New Services Organics Profit Total
Variable
Salaries and Benefits
10.1 Salaries and Wages $ 127,279 $ 20,709 $ 147,988
10.2 Employee Benefits $ 97,634 $ 12,348 $ 109,982
Services and Supplies
20.0 Services and Supplies $ 61,068 $ 6,410 $ 67,478
20.1 Vehicle Maintenance $ 51,284 $ 5,383 $ 56,667
20.3 Fuel & Lubricants $ 38,256 $ 4,016 $ 42,272
Other Charges
SBWMA Tip Fees $ 775,025 $ 775,025
Fixed Costs
Services and Supplies
20.2 Container Maintenance $ 12,439 $ 1,306 $ 13,745
20.4 Depreciation ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 39,565 $ 4,153 $ 43,718
20.41 Depreciation ‐ Containers $ 15,008 $ 1,575 $ 16,583
20.5 General and Administrative $ 165,704 $ 7,947 $ 173,651
20.8 Interest ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 9,423 $ ‐ $ 9,423
20.8 Interest ‐ Containers $ 3,722 $ ‐ $ 3,722
Intrafund Charges
Transfer from Balancing Account $ (11,817) $ (11,817) Intrafund Reimbursements
$ ‐
Total Operational Requirements $ ‐ $ 1,384,590 $ 63,848 $ 1,448,438 Franchise Fees $ ‐ $ 138,459 $ 6,385 $ 144,844 Total Operational Requirements $ 1,593,282 1st Cart $ 631,904
2nd Cart $ 143,121
Transfer/Processing/Disposal Costs $ 775,025
Fixed Costs $ 256,347
Organics Collection Operational Costs $ 557,414
Cost of 2nd Container $ 4,495
Total Organics Operational Requirements $ 1,593,282 Fig Check s/b 0 $ ‐
Organics Tip Fees per Gallon/Month $ 0.15
Organics Lbs/Gallon 0.47
20 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 9
32 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 15
64 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 30
96 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 45
Side Loaders 1
Rear Loaders
S/L Capacity 25.91
R/L Capacity
Collection Body Organics Yards 25.91
Collection Body Organics Tons 8.42
Cost/min for additional freq. of service $ 4.68
Additional Service Frequency Time (Minutes) 3.0
Additional Service Frequency Cost $ 14.05
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Resi Yr 1 (H1)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 AE AF AG AH AI AJ A AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Cart Rates - 2023
ORGANICS
Operational Information
Container Size (Gal) 96 96 96 96 TOTAL Container Size (Gal) 96 96 96 96 TOTAL Processing lbs per Container Setouts/Max Load 374 374 374 374 Cart 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Containers(1st Container) 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,173 Cart 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Loads if All Subs(per Week) 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 "FTE Route Factor" 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82
Subscribed Gal per Wk Adjusted Loads if All Subs 15.45 15.45 15.45 15.45 Cart 1 52,704 164,544 99,840 40,224 357,312 Cart 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 80,928 80,928 Cost per Load $ 1,686 Cost all Loads $ 26,045 $ 26,045 $ 26,045 $ 26,045 Cart 1 Tons 643 2,007 1,218 491 4,358 Minimum $ 26,045 Cart 2 Tons ‐ ‐ ‐ 987 987 Calc'd Disposal Rate/ton $ 145.00 Equivalent Container Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Containers by Size (Frequency) 549 1,714 1,040 1,262
Cart 2 Disposal $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 143,121 $ 143,121 Equivalent Container Units (ECU) 549 1,714 1,040 1,262 4,565 Organics Lifts ‐ 1st Cart 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 Annual Variable Route Costs $ 557,414 Organics Lifts ‐ 2nd Cart 0 0 0 843 843 ECUs 4,565
TOTAL Organics Lifts 549 1,714 1,040 1,262 4,565 Annual Variable/ECU $ 122.11 Monthly Variable/ECU $ 10.18
Avg per Route Day
Organics Lifts / Route 392 1,224 743 901 3,261 1st Container Trucks per Route 1 1 1 1 Variable Route Costs/Month $ 10.18 $ 10.18 $ 10.18 $ 10.18 Organics Lifts / Truck 392 1,224 743 901 3,261 Fixed Costs/Container/Month $ 5.74 $ 5.74 $ 5.74 $ 5.74 Organics Txfr & Disp Cost/Month $ 14.15 $ 14.15 $ 14.15 $ 14.15 Estimation of Equivalent Routes TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk $ 30.06 $ 30.06 $ 30.06 $ 30.06 Container Size (Gal) 96 96 96 96 TOTAL
Containers 549 1,714 1,040 1,262 4,565 2+ Containers % of All Subscribers 44% 38% 23% 28% 131% Disposal $ 14.15 $ 14.15 $ 14.15 $ 14.15 Cost of Container $ 0.44 $ 0.44 $ 0.44 $ 0.44
Ideal 1‐Load Route? 162.6897454 140 85 103 492 Addl Operating Costs $ 10.18 $ 10.18 $ 10.18 $ 10.18 Setouts in Max Load 374 374 374 374 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk $ 24.77 $ 24.77 $ 24.77 $ 24.77 Req'd Rte Days 12 12 12 12
Cost of Container
Calculated Loads 9.3 Container Size (Gal) 96 96 96 96
Cost of Container $ 53.32 $ 53.32 $ 53.32 $ 53.32 Lifts/Hr. 535 Yearly Cost over 10 years 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Route Time Residential Organics 96 96 96 96 Total Check Container Size (Gal) 96 96 96 96 Standard Variable $ 5,586 $ 17,441 $ 10,583 $ 12,841 $ 557,414 $ ‐ Hours to Pack‐out 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Fixed $ 3,151 $ 9,837 $ 5,969 $ 2,405 $ 256,347 $ ‐ Avg Route Time 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 Disposal 1st Cart $ 7,767 $ 24,250 $ 14,714 $ 5,928 $ 631,904 $ ‐ Loads 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 2.00 Disposal 2nd Cart $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 11,927 $ 143,121 $ ‐ Hours/Dump Trip 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Cost of Container 2nd Cart $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 375 $ 4,495 $ ‐ Dump Time 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 3.00 Subtotal $ 16,505 $ 51,528 $ 31,265 $ 33,476 $ 1,593,282 $ ‐ Total Route Time 19.60 19.60 19.60 19.60 10.76 FTE Route Factor 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.00
Calculation based on Billed Accounts
Accounts Annual Variable Route Costs $ 557,414 96 96 96 Total Less Variable Attributed to 3+ Carts $ 102,935 1st Containers 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,173 Adjusted Variable Route Costs $ 454,479 2+ Containers ‐ ‐ ‐ 843 843 Annualized Billed Accounts 38,076 Refuse Accounts 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,173 Monthly Variable/Billed Account $ 11.94 ECU 549 1,714 1,040 1,262 4,016 Difference between 1st & Refuse (843) Annual Disposal/Processing Costs $ 775,025 Less Disposal/Processing Attributed to 3+ Carts $ 143,121 $ 631,904
Reconciliation of Billed Revenue to Costs Annualized Billed Accounts 38,076 Monthly Disposal/Billed Account $ 16.60
Refuse Accounts 3,173
Monthly Rate $ 35.26 Annual Fixed Costs $ 256,347 Annual Revenue $ 1,342,730 Annualized Billed Accounts 38,076 Monthly Fixed Costs/Billed Account $ 6.73 2+ Cart Accounts 843
Monthly Rate $ 24.77 Monthly Variable $ 11.94 Annual Revenue $ 250,551 Monthly Fixed $ 6.73
Monthly Disposal/Processing $ 16.60
Total Annual Revenue $ 1,593,282 $ 35.26 Total Organics Rev Requirement $ 1,593,282
Fig Check s/b 0 $ ‐
Organics Cart Rates by Cost of Service
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Resi Yr 1 (H1)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Cart Rates - 2023
RECYCLING
Recycling Cost of Service Information 2023
Object Description New Services Recycling Profit Total
Variable Costs
10.1 Salaries and Wages $ 201,523 $ 21,154 $ 222,677
10.2 Employee Benefits $ 122,328 $ 12,841 $ 135,169
20.0 Services and Supplies $ 56,542 $ 5,935 $ 62,477
20.1 Vehicle Maintenance $ 43,597 $ 4,576 $ 48,173
20.3 Fuel & Lubricants $ 38,162 $ 4,006 $ 42,168 Fixed Costs
20.2 Container Maintenance $ 11,022 $ 1,157 $ 12,179
20.4 Depreciation ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 33,469 $ 3,513 $ 36,982
20.41 Depreciation ‐ Containers $ 10,810 $ 1,135 $ 11,945
20.5 General and Administrative $ 75,504 $ 7,926 $ 83,430
20.8 Interest ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 7,982 $ ‐ $ 7,982
20.8 Interest ‐ Containers $ 2,682 $ ‐ $ 2,682 Intrafund Charges
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Intrafund Reimbursements
Transfer from Balancing Account $ (5,389) $ (5,389) Total Recycling Operational Requirements $ ‐ $ 598,232 $ 62,244 $ 660,477 Franchise Fees $ ‐ 59,823$ 6,224$ $ 66,048 Total Operational Requirements $ 726,524
1st Cart $ ‐
2nd Cart $ ‐
Transfer/Processing/Disposal Costs $ ‐
Fixed Costs $ 155,200
Recycling Collection Operational Costs $ 571,324 Cost of 2nd Container $ ‐
Total Recycling Operational Requirements $ 726,524 Fig Check s/b 0 $ ‐
Recycling Tip Fees per Gallon/Month $ ‐
Recycling Lbs/Gallon 0.30
20 Gal Recycling Pounds per Setout 6.08
32 Gal Recycling Pounds per Setout 9.73
64 Gal Recycling Pounds per Setout 19.47
96 Gal Recycling Pounds per Setout 29.20
Side Loaders 1
Rear Loaders
S/L Capacity 25.91
R/L Capacity
Collection Body Organics Yards 25.91
Collection Body Organics Tons 8.42
Cost/min for additional freq. of service $ 4.68
Additional Service Frequency Time (Minutes) 3.0
Additional Service Frequency Cost $ 14.05
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Resi Yr 1 (H1)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 BA BB BC BD BE BF BG BH BI BJ BK BL BM BN
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Cart Rates - 2023
RECYCLING
Operational Information
Container Size (Gal) 64 64 64 64 TOTAL Container Size (Gal) 64 64 64 64 TOTAL Processing lbs per Container Setouts/Max Load 577 577 577 577 Cart 1 9.73 19.47 29.20 Total Containers(1st Container) 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 Cart 2 9.73 19.47 29.20 Loads if All Subs(per Week) 6.45 6.45 6.45 6.45 "FTE Route Factor" 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
Subscribed Gal Adjusted Loads if All Subs 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 Cart 1 109,696 66,560 26,816 203,072 Cart 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Cost per Load $ 5,682
Cost all Loads $ 47,808 $ 47,808 $ 47,808 $ 47,808 Cart 1 Tons 17,352 10,529 4,242 32,122 Minimum $ 47,808 Cart 2 Tons ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Calc'd Rate/ton $ ‐ Equivalent Container Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Containers by Size (Frequency) 549 1,714 1,040 419
Cart 2 Disposal $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Equivalent Container Units (ECU) 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 Recycling Lifts ‐ 1st cart 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 Annual Variable Route Costs $ 571,324 Recycling Lifts ‐ 2nd cart 0 0 0 0 ‐ ECUs 3,722
TOTAL Recycling Lifts 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 Annual Variable/ECU $ 153.50 Monthly Variable/ECU $ 12.79
Avg per Route Day
Recycling Lifts / Route 392 1,224 743 299 2,659 1st Container Trucks per Route 1.4 1 1 Variable Route Costs/Month $ 12.79 $ 12.79 $ 12.79 $ 12.79 Recycling Lifts / Truck 874 743 299 1,917 Fixed Costs/Container/Month $ 3.47 $ 3.47 $ 3.47 $ 3.47 Recycling Txfr & Disp Cost/Month $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Estimation of Equivalent Routes TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk $ 16.27 $ 16.27 $ 16.27 $ 16.27 Container Size (Gal) 64 64 64 64 TOTAL
Containers 549 1,714 1,040 419 3,722 2nd Container % of All Subscribers 131% 46% 28% 11% 85% Disposal $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Cost of Container $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 $ 0.39 Ideal 1‐Load Route? 755.642977 266 161 65 1,247 Addl Operating Costs $ 12.79 $ 12.79 $ 12.79 $ 12.79 Setouts in Max Load 577 577 577 577 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/week $ 13.19 $ 13.19 $ 13.19 $ 13.19 Req'd Rte Days 6.45 6.45 6.45 6.45 Cost of Container
Calculated Loads 3.0 Container Size (Gal) 64 64 64 64
Cost of Container $ 47.38 $ 47.38 $ 47.38 $ 47.38 Lifts/Hr. 314 Yearly Cost over 10 years 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Route Time Residential Recycling 64 64 64 64 Total Check Container Size (Gal) 64 64 64 64 Standard Variable $ 7,023 $ 21,925 $ 13,303 $ 5,360 $ 571,324 $ ‐ Hours to Pack‐out 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 Fixed $ 1,908 $ 5,956 $ 3,614 $ 1,456 $ 155,200 $ ‐ Avg Route Time 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 Disposal 1st Cart $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Loads 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 Disposal 2nd Cart $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Hours/Dump Trip 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Cost of Container 2nd Cart $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Dump Time 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 Subtotal $ 27,881 $ 16,917 $ 6,816 $ 726,524 $ ‐ Total Route Time 12.10 12.10 12.10 12.10 9.28 FTE Route Factor 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.00 Calculation based on Billed Accounts
Accounts
64 64 64 Annual Variable Route Costs $ 571,324 1st Container 1,714 1,040 419 3,173 Less Variable Attributed to 2+ Carts $ ‐ 2+ Containers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Adjusted Variable Route Costs $ 571,324 Refuse Accounts 1,714 1,040 419 3,173 Annualized Billed Accounts 38,076 ECU 1,714 1,040 419 3,173 Monthly Variable/Billed Account $ 15.00 Difference between 1st & Refuse ‐
Annual Disposal/Processing Costs $ ‐
Less Disposal/Processing Attributed to 2+ Carts $ ‐
Reconciliation of Billed Revenue to Costs $ ‐
Annualized Billed Accounts 38,076
Refuse Accounts 3,173 Monthly Disposal/Billed Account $ ‐ Monthly Rate $ 19.08
Annual Revenue $ 726,524 Annual Fixed Costs $ 155,200 Annualized Billed Accounts 38,076
2+ Cart Accounts ‐ Monthly Fixed Costs/Billed Account $ 4.08 Monthly Rate $ 13.19
Annual Revenue $ ‐ Monthly Variable $ 15.00 Monthly Fixed $ 4.08
Total Annual Revenue $ 726,524 Monthly Disposal/Processing $ ‐ Total Recycling Rev Requirement $ 726,524 $ 19.08 Fig Check s/b 0 $ ‐
Recycling Cart Rates by Cost of Service
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Resi Yr 1 (H1)
1 23456789
101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536
AB C D E F G H I J K L M N OP
Town of HillsboroughCart Rate Tables
Frequency 20 32 64 96 Frequency 20 32 64 96
1 /week $51.05 $59.40 $80.36 $104.65 1 /week $11.80 $18.27 $38.05 $63.53 $7.92 $14.39 $34.26 $59.79
Frequency 96 96 96 96 Frequency 96 96 96 96
1 /week $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 /week $30.06 $30.06 $30.06 $30.06 $23.42 $23.42 $23.42 $23.42 $24.77 $24.77 $24.77 $24.77 Frequency 64 64 64 64 Frequency 64 64 64 64
1 /week $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 /week $16.27 $16.27 $16.27 $16.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Frequency 20 32 64 96 Frequency 20 32 64 96
1 /week $51.05 $59.40 $80.36 $104.65 1 /week $58.13 $64.60 $84.38 $109.86 includes $27.50/month tax roll charge $7.92 $14.39 $34.26 $59.79 includes $27.50/month tax roll charge
Frequency 20 32 64 96
$7.08 $5.20 $4.02 $5.21
14% 9% 5% 5%
Published Rates (excludes $27.50 tax roll charge)
Frequency 20 32 64 96
1 /week $30.63 $37.10 $56.88 $82.36
$7.92 $14.39 $34.26 $59.79
Total COS SW Cart Rates ‐ Residential
Extra SW Container
Total COS SW Cart Rates ‐ Residential
Total 2023 COS Rates v Current Cart Rates
1 /week
Total Approved Cart Rates
Extra SW Container
Solid Waste COS Rates ‐ 2023
Extra Container
Recycling COS Rates ‐ 2023
Extra Container
Recycling Approved Rates ‐ 2022
Extra Container
Current Rates
Organics COS Rates ‐ 2023
Extra Container
Solid Waste Approved Rates ‐ 2022
Organics Approved Rates ‐ 2022
Extra Container
HF &H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Resi Rate Tables (H3)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 A B CD E F G
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Commercial Rates - 2023
SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING
Solid Waste and Recycling Cost of Service Information ‐ 2023 Object Description New Services Solid Waste Other Profit Total Variable
10.11 Salaries and Wages 6,169 $ $ 648 $ 6,817
10.21 Employee Benefits $ 3,684 $ 387 $ 4,071
20A Services and Supplies $ 1,364 $ 143 $ 1,507
20.11 Vehicle Maintenance $ 698 $ 73 $ 771
20.31 Fuel & Lubricants $ 1,051 $ 110 $ 1,161
Fixed
20.21 Container Maintenance 253 $ $ 27 $ 280
20.42 Depreciation ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 683 $ 72 $ 755
20.43 Depreciation ‐ Containers $ 188 $ 20 $ 208
20.51 General and Administrative $ 1,382 $ 145 $ 1,527
20.81 Interest ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 324 $ ‐ $ 324
20.81 Interest ‐ Containers $ 37 $ ‐ $ 37
Other Charges
SBWMA Tip Fees $ 22,331 $ 118 $ 22,449
$ ‐
Other Services
Abandoned Waste Route $ 13,954 $ 13,954
Services to Town Facilities $ 18 $ 18
$ ‐
Intrafund Reimbursements
Transfer from Balancing Account $ (436) $ (436)
Total Solid Waste Operational Requiremen $ ‐ $ 38,164 $ 13,654 $ 1,624 $ 53,442 Franchise Fees $ ‐ $ 3,816 $ 1,365 $ 162 $ 5,344 Organics $ 27,139
Frequency Surcharge Revenue $ (3,372) $ (3,372) Total Solid Waste Operational Requirements $ 82,553
1st container $ 21,132
2nd container $ 1,316
Transfer/Processing/Disposal Costs $ 22,449
Cost of 1st container
Other Fixed Costs
Fixed Costs $ 2,930
Solid Waste Collection Operational Costs $ 56,956
Cost of 2nd Container $ 219
Total Solid Waste Operational Requirements $ 82,553
Fig Check s/b 0 $ ‐
Solid Waste Tip Fees per Gallon/Month $ 0.18
Solid Waste Lbs/Gallon ‐ Carts 0.61
Solid Waste Gallons/ Cubic Yard 202.00
20 Gal Refuse Pounds per Setout 12.13
32 Gal Refuse Pounds per Setout 19.41
64 Gal Refuse Pounds per Setout 38.83
96 Gal Refuse Pounds per Setout 58.24
1 CY Refuse Pounds per Setout 122.55
2 CY Refuse Pounds per Setout 245.09
3 CY Refuse Pounds per Setout 367.64
6 CY Refuse Pounds per Setout 735.27
Side Loaders 1.00
Rear Loaders
S/L Capacity 25
R/L Capacity
Collection Body Refuse Yards 26.00
Collection Body Refuse Tons
26 7.80
Cost/min for additional freq. of service $ 4.68
Additional Service Frequency Time (Minutes) 5.00
Additional Service Frequency Cost ‐ Bins $ 23.42
Cost/min for additional freq. of service $ 4.68
Additional Service Frequency Time (Minutes) 3.00
Additional Service Frequency Cost ‐ Carts $ 14.05
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Comm Yr 1 (H5)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 H I J K L M N O P Q RS T
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Commercial Rates - 2023
SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING
Operational Information
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 TOTAL
Subscribed Gal
Cart 1 ‐ 32 ‐ ‐ 202 2,828 3,030 3,636 9,728 Cart 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 606 ‐ ‐ ‐ 606
Cart 1 Tons ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 3 45 48 57 153
Cart 2 Tons ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10
Calc'd Disposal Rate/ton $ 137.72
Cart 2 Disposal $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,316 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,316 Solid Waste accounts ‐ 1st container 01 ‐ ‐ 2 1 1 1 6 Solid Waste accounts ‐ 2nd container 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1 1 ‐ 5
Total Accounts ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 5 2 2 1 11
Solid Waste Lifts ‐ 1st container 0 1 0 0 1 7 5 317
Solid Waste Lifts ‐ 2nd container 00 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
TOTAL Solid Waste Lifts ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 4 7 5 3 20
Estimation of Equivalent Routes
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 TOTAL
Containers (1st and 2nd) 0 1 0 0 5 2 2 1 11
% of All Subscribers 0% 9% 0% 0% 45.5% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1% 100% Ideal 1‐Load Route? ‐ 73 ‐ ‐ 57.86 11.57 7.72 1.93 152 Setouts in Max Load 1,286 804 402 267.86 127 64 42 21 Calculated Loads 0.1
Lifts/Hr. 49
Route Time
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 Standard
Hours to Pack‐out 26.33 16.46 8.23 5.49 2.61 1.30 0.87 0.43 Avg Route Time 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 8.71 Loads 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 11.00 21.00 2.00 Hours/Dump Trip 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Dump Time 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 11.00 21.00 2.00 Total Route Time 9.71 9.71 10.71 10.71 12.71 15.71 19.71 29.71 9.10 FTE Route Factor 1.07 1.07 1.18 1.18 1.40 1.73 2.17 3.26 1.00 Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 TOTAL
Setouts/Max Load 1,286 804 402 268 127 64 42 21 Total Containers (1st Container) 6
Loads if All Subs (per Week) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.28 "FTE Route Factor" 1.07 1.07 1.18 1.18 1.40 1.73 2.17 3.26 Adjusted Loads if All Subs 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.31 0.92 Cost per Load per Week (F&V) $ 15,928
Cost all Loads $ 79 $ 127 $ 280 $ 420 $ 1,048 $ 2,592 $ 4,878 $ 14,705 Minimum $ 1,048
Equivalent Container Factor 0.08 0.12 0.27 0.40 1.00 2.47 4.65 14.03 Containers by Size (Frequency) ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 4 7 5 3
Equivalent Container Units (ECU) ‐ 0.12 ‐ ‐ 4 17 23 42 87 Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 TOTAL
Annual Variable Route Costs $ 56,956
ECUs 86.76
Annual Variable/ECU $ 656.48
Monthly Variable/ECU $ 54.71
1st Container
Variable Route Costs/Month 4.14 $ $ 6.62 $ 14.61 $ 21.91 $ 54.71 $ 135.24 $ 254.51 $ 767.30 Fixed Costs/Container/Month 40.69 $ $ 40.69 $ 40.69 $ 40.69 $ 40.69 $ 40.69 $ 40.69 $ 40.69 Refuse Txfr & Disp Cost/Month 3.62 $ $ 5.79 $ 11.59 $ 17.38 $ 36.57 $ 73.14 $ 109.70 $ 219.41 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk $ 48.45 $ 53.10 $ 66.88 $ 79.97 $ 131.96 $ 249.06 $ 404.91 $ 1,027.39 2nd Container
Disposal $ 3.62 $ 5.79 $ 11.59 $ 17.38 $ 36.57 $ 73.14 $ 109.70 $ 219.41 Cost of Container $ 0.30 $ 0.31 $ 0.39 $ 0.44 $ 6.08 $ 7.09 $ 8.10 $ 12.15 Variable Route Costs/Month 4.14 $ $ 6.62 $ 14.61 $ 21.91 $ 54.71 $ 135.24 $ 254.51 $ 767.30 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @1x/wk $ 8.06 $ 12.73 $ 26.59 $ 39.73 $ 97.35 $ 215.47 $ 372.32 $ 998.86 Cost of Container
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
Cost of Container $ 36.35 $ 37.57 $ 47.38 $ 53.32 $ 729.28 $ 850.83 $ 972.38 $ 1,458.56 includes profit and ffs Yearly Cost over 10 years 0.30 0.31 0.39 0.44 6.08 7.09 8.10 12.15 Commercial Solid Waste 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 Total Check
Variable $ ‐ $ 7 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 219 $ 947 $ 1,273 $ 2,302 $ 56,959 $ (3) Fixed $ ‐ $ 41 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 81 $ 41 $ 41 $ 41 $ 2,930 $ ‐ Disposal 1st container $ ‐ $ 6 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 37 $ 512 $ 549 $ 658 $ 21,132 $ ‐ Disposal 2nd container $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 110 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,316 $ ‐ Cost of Container 2nd Cart $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 18 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 219 $ ‐ Subtotal $ ‐ $ 53 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 465 $ 1,499 $ 1,862 $ 3,001 $ 82,556 $ (3) HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Comm Yr 1 (H5)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 UV W X Y Z AA
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Commercial Rates - 2022
ORGANICS
Organics Cost of Service Information 2022
Object Description New Services Organics Profit Total
Variable
10.11 Salaries and Wages $ 5,485 $ 576 $ 6,061
10.21 Employee Benefits $ 2,464 $ 259 $ 2,723
20A Services and Supplies $ 3,180 $ 334 $ 3,514
20.11 Vehicle Maintenance $ 4,367 $ 458 $ 4,825
20.21 Container Maintenance $ 633 $ 66 $ 699
20.31 Fuel & Lubricants $ 1,102 $ 116 $ 1,218
Fixed
20.42 Depreciation ‐ Collection Vehicles 1,456 $ $ 153 $ 1,609
20.43 Depreciation ‐ Containers $ 374 $ 39 $ 413
20.51 General and Administrative $ 3,533 $ 371 $ 3,904
20.81 Interest ‐ Collection Vehicles $ 562 $ ‐ $ 562
20.81 Interest ‐ Containers $ 159 $ ‐ $ 159
Other Charges
Disposal $ 11,165 $ 11,165
Land
Interfund Charges
Interfund Reimbursements
Intrafund Charges
Transfer from Balancing Account $ (298) $ (298)
Intrafund Reimbursements
Total Operational Requirements $ ‐ $ 34,182 $ 2,372 $ 36,554 Franchise Fees $ ‐ $ 3,418 $ 237 $ 3,655 Frequency Surcharge Revenue $ (562) $ (562)
Oganics Discount $ (27,139)
Total Operational Requirements $ 12,508
1st container $ 10,219
2nd container $ 946
Transfer/Processing/Disposal Costs $ 11,165
Fixed Costs $ (6,207)
Organics Collection Operational Costs $ 7,539
Cost of 2nd Container $ 11
Total Organics Operational Requirements $ 12,508
Fig Check s/b 0 $ ‐
Organics Tip Fees per Gallon/Month $ 0.41
Organics Lbs/Gallon $ 1.31
Solid Waste Gallons/ Cubic Yard 202.00
20 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 26
32 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 42
64 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 84
96 Gal Organics Pounds per Setout 125
Side Loaders 1
Rear Loaders
S/L Capacity 25.91
R/L Capacity
Collection Body Organics Yards 25.91
Collection Body Organics Tons 8.42
Cost/min for additional freq. of service $ 4.68
Additional Service Frequency Time (Minutes) 5.0
Additional Service Frequency Cost $ 23.42
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Comm Yr 1 (H5)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Commercial Rates - 2022
ORGANICS
Operational Information
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 TOTAL
Processing lbs per Container
Cart 1 26.14 41.82 83.64 125.47 264.00 528.01 792.01 1,584.02 Cart 226.14 41.82 83.64 125.47 264.00 528.01 792.01 1,584.02 Subscribed Gal per Wk
Cart 1 ‐ ‐ 64 192 202 404 ‐ 1,212 2,074
Cart 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 192 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 192
Cart 1 Tons ‐ ‐ 2 7 7 14 ‐ 41 70
Cart 2 Tons ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7
Calc'd Disposal Rate/ton $ 145.00
Cart 2 Disposal $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 946 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 946
Organics Accounts ‐ 1st container 00121101 6
Organics Accounts ‐ 2nd container 00020000 2
TOTAL Organics Lifts ‐ ‐ 1 4 1 1 ‐ 1 8
2nd Carts ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2
Organics Lifts ‐ 1st container 00121301 8
Organics Lifts ‐ 2nd container 00020000 2
TOTAL Organics Lifts ‐ ‐ 1 4 1 3 ‐ 1 10
Estimation of Equivalent Routes
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6TOTAL
Containers 001411018
% of All Subscribers 0% 0% 13% 50% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 12.50% 100% Ideal 1‐Load Route? ‐ ‐ 25 67 8.0 4.0 ‐ 1.3 106
Setouts in Max Load 644 403 201 134.23 63.79 31.90 21.26 10.63 Req'd Rte Days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Calculated Loads 0.1
Lifts/Hr. 16
Route Time
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6Standard
Hours to Pack‐out 40.10 25.06 12.53 8.35 3.97 1.99 1.32 0.66 Avg Route Time 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 8.09 Loads 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 13.00 2.00
Hours/Dump Trip 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 Dump Time 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 3.49 5.82 8.14 15.12 1.16 Total Route Time 9.26 9.26 9.26 9.26 11.58 13.91 16.23 23.21 9.26 FTE Route Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.51 1.00 Accounts
20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6Total
1st Containers ‐ ‐ 1 2 1 1 ‐ 1 6
2+ Containers ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2
Refuse Accounts ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 2 1 1 1 6
ECU ‐ ‐ 3 19 13 30 ‐ 152 217
Difference between 1st & Refuse (211)
Reconciliation of Billed Revenue to Costs
Refuse Accounts 6
Monthly Rate $ 159.47
Annual Revenue $ 11,482
2+ Cart Accounts 2
Monthly Rate $ 53.73
Annual Revenue $ 1,290
Total Annual Revenue $ 12,771
Total Organics Rev Requirement $ 12,508
Fig Check s/b 0 $ 264
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Comm Yr 1 (H5)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 A AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV AW
Town of Hillsborough
Cost of Service Commercial Rates - 2022
ORGANICS
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 TOTAL
Setouts/Max Load 644.31 402.69 201 134 64 32 21 11 Total Containers (1st Container) ‐ ‐ 1 2 1 ‐ 1 1 6 Loads if All Subs (per Week) 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.56 "FTE Route Factor" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.51 Adjusted Loads if All Subs 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.28 0.49 1.42 Cost per Load $ 338
Cost all Loads 3 $ $ 5 $ 10 $ 15 $ 40 $ 96 $ 167 $ 478 Minimum $ 3
Equivalent Container Factor 1.00 1.60 3.20 4.80 12.64 30.35 53.15 151.98 Containers by Size (Frequency) ‐ ‐ 1 4 1 ‐ 1 1 Equivalent Container Units (ECU) ‐ ‐ 3 19 13 ‐ 30 152 217 Annual Variable Route Costs $ 7,539
ECUs 217
Annual Variable/ECU $ 34.68
Monthly Variable/ECU $ 2.89
1st Container
Variable Route Costs/Month 2.89 $ $ 4.62 $ 9.25 $ 13.87 $ 36.53 $ 87.73 $ 153.60 $ 439.25 Fixed Costs/Container/Month (86.21) $ $ (86.21) $ (86.21) $ (86.21) $ (86.21) $ (86.21) $ (86.21) $ (86.21) Organics Txfr & Disp Cost/Month 8.21 $ $ 13.14 $ 26.28 $ 39.42 $ 82.94 $ 165.88 $ 248.82 $ 497.65 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk (75.10) $ $ (68.44) $ (50.68) $ (32.91) $ 33.26 $ 167.40 $ 316.21 $ 850.69 2+ Containers
Disposal 8.21 $ $ 13.14 $ 26.28 $ 39.42 $ 82.94 $ 165.88 $ 248.82 $ 497.65 Cost of Container 0.30 $ $ 0.31 $ 0.39 $ 0.44 $ 6.08 $ 7.09 $ 8.10 $ 12.15 Addl Operating Costs 2.89 $ $ 4.62 $ 9.25 $ 13.87 $ 36.53 $ 87.73 $ 153.60 $ 439.25 TOTAL MONTHLY RATE @ 1x/wk 11.41 $ $ 18.08 $ 35.92 $ 53.73 $ 125.54 $ 260.70 $ 410.52 $ 949.05 Cost of Container
Container Size (Gal) 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
Cost of Container $ 36.35 $ 37.57 $ 47.38 $ 53.32 $ 729.28 $ 850.83 $ 972.38 $ 1,458.56 Yearly Cost over 10 years 0.30 0.31 0.39 0.44 6.08 7.09 8.10 12.15 Residential Organics 20 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 Total Check
Variable $ ‐ ‐ $ $ 9 $ 55 $ 37 $ ‐ 88 $ $ 439 $ ‐ 7,539 $ Fixed $ ‐ ‐ $ $ (86) $ (172) $ (86) $ ‐ (86) $ $ (86) $ ‐ (6,207) $ Disposal 1st container $ ‐ ‐ $ $ 26 $ 79 $ 83 $ ‐ 166 $ $ 498 $ ‐ 10,219 $ Disposal 2nd container $ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ ‐ 79 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ ‐ 946 $ Cost of Container 2nd Cart $ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ ‐ 1 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ ‐ 11 $ Subtotal $ ‐ ‐ $ $ (51) $ 42 $ 33 $ ‐ 167 $ $ 851 $ 12,508 $ ‐ Proof of all Costs included in the rates
Total Carts 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1
Rates (75.10) $ $ (68.44) $ (50.68) $ (32.91) $ 33.26 $ 167.40 $ 316.21 $ 850.69 First Cart Revenue (annual) $ ‐ ‐ $ $ (608.14) $ (789.96) $ 399.15 $ ‐ 2,008.83 $ $ 10,208.23 $ 11,218.11 Multiple Frequency Revenue
Pick‐ups >1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Variable/Disposal Only 11.10 $ $ 17.76 $ 35.53 $ 53.29 $ 119.47 $ 253.61 $ 402.42 $ 936.89 Frequency Revenue before Premium $ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ Subtotal $ ‐ ‐ $ $ (608.14) $ (789.96) $ 399.15 $ ‐ 2,008.83 $ $ 10,208.23 $ 11,218.11 Second Carts 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Rates 11.41 $ $ 18.08 $ 35.92 $ 53.73 $ 125.54 $ 260.70 $ 410.52 $ 949.05 Second Cart Revenue $ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ ‐ 1,289.63 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ 1,289.63 Total Additional Lifts 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Frequency Surcharge Subtotal 23.42 $ $ 23.42 $ 23.42 $ 23.42 $ 23.42 $ 23.42 $ 23.42 $ 23.42 $ ‐ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ ‐ 562.07 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ $ 562.07 Total Revenue 13,069.80 $
Total Costs 13,069.80 $
$ ‐
Organics Cart Rates by Cost of Service
HF &H Consultants, LLC
7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
COS Comm Yr 1 (H5)
1 23456789
10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455
B C D E F G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U
Town of Hillsborough
Solid Waste Rate StudyCommercial Rate Tables and Revenue 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $53.10 $66.88 $79.97 $131.96 $249.06 $404.91 $1,027.39 1 /week $26.55 $33.44 $39.99 $65.98 $124.53 $202.45 $513.702 /week $79.57 $107.12 $133.31 $246.66 $480.86 $792.54 $2,037.52 2 /week $39.78 $53.56 $66.66 $123.33 $240.43 $396.27 $1,018.763 /week $106.03 $147.36 $186.65 $361.35 $712.65 $1,180.18 $3,047.64 3 /week $53.02 $73.68 $93.33 $180.67 $356.33 $590.09 $1,523.824 /week $132.50 $187.61 $239.99 $476.04 $944.45 $1,567.82 $4,057.77 4 /week $66.25 $93.80 $119.99 $238.02 $472.22 $783.91 $2,028.885 /week $158.96 $227.85 $293.33 $590.74 $1,176.24 $1,955.45 $5,067.89 5 /week $79.48 $113.92 $146.66 $295.37 $588.12 $977.73 $2,533.956 /week $185.43 $268.09 $346.67 $705.43 $1,408.04 $2,343.09 $6,078.02 6 /week $92.71 $134.05 $173.33 $352.72 $704.02 $1,171.54 $3,039.01 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $12.73 $26.59 $39.73 $97.35 $215.47 $372.32 $998.86 1 /week $6.36 $13.29 $19.87 $48.68 $107.73 $186.16 $499.432 /week $39.19 $66.83 $93.07 $212.04 $447.26 $759.96 $2,008.98 2 /week $19.60 $33.41 $46.53 $106.02 $223.63 $379.98 $1,004.493 /week $65.66 $107.07 $146.41 $326.74 $679.05 $1,147.59 $3,019.11 3 /week $32.83 $53.54 $73.20 $163.37 $339.53 $573.80 $1,509.554 /week $92.12 $147.31 $199.74 $441.43 $910.85 $1,535.23 $4,029.23 4 /week $46.06 $73.66 $99.87 $220.72 $455.42 $767.61 $2,014.625 /week $118.59 $187.56 $253.08 $556.13 $1,142.64 $1,922.87 $5,039.36 5 /week $59.29 $93.78 $126.54 $278.06 $571.32 $961.43 $2,519.686 /week $145.05 $227.80 $306.42 $670.82 $1,374.44 $2,310.50 $6,049.48 6 /week $72.53 $113.90 $153.21 $335.41 $687.22 $1,155.25 $3,024.74 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $55.49 $69.89 $83.57 $137.90 $260.27 $423.13 $1,073.63 1 /week $27.75 $34.94 $41.79 $68.95 $130.14 $211.56 $536.812 /week $83.15 $111.94 $139.31 $257.76 $502.50 $828.21 $2,129.21 2 /week $41.57 $55.97 $69.66 $128.88 $251.25 $414.10 $1,064.603 /week $110.80 $154.00 $195.05 $377.61 $744.72 $1,233.29 $3,184.79 3 /week $55.40 $77.00 $97.53 $188.81 $372.36 $616.64 $1,592.394 /week $138.46 $196.05 $250.79 $497.47 $986.95 $1,638.37 $4,240.37 4 /week $69.23 $98.02 $125.39 $248.73 $493.47 $819.18 $2,120.185 /week $166.12 $238.10 $306.53 $617.32 $1,229.17 $2,043.45 $5,295.95 5 /week $83.06 $119.05 $153.26 $308.66 $614.59 $1,021.72 $2,647.976 /week $193.77 $280.16 $362.27 $737.17 $1,471.40 $2,448.53 $6,351.53 6 /week $96.89 $140.08 $181.13 $368.59 $735.70 $1,224.26 $3,175.76 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $13.30 $27.78 $41.52 $101.73 $225.16 $389.07 $1,043.81 1 /week $6.65 $13.89 $20.76 $50.87 $112.58 $194.54 $521.902 /week $40.96 $69.84 $97.26 $221.59 $467.39 $794.15 $2,099.39 2 /week $20.48 $34.92 $48.63 $110.79 $233.69 $397.08 $1,049.693 /week $68.61 $111.89 $153.00 $341.44 $709.61 $1,199.23 $3,154.97 3 /week $34.31 $55.94 $76.50 $170.72 $354.81 $599.62 $1,577.484 /week $96.27 $153.94 $208.73 $461.30 $951.84 $1,604.32 $4,210.55 4 /week $48.13 $76.97 $104.37 $230.65 $475.92 $802.16 $2,105.275 /week $123.92 $196.00 $264.47 $581.15 $1,194.06 $2,009.40 $5,266.13 5 /week $61.96 $98.00 $132.24 $290.58 $597.03 $1,004.70 $2,633.066 /week $151.58 $238.05 $320.21 $701.01 $1,436.29 $2,414.48 $6,321.71 6 /week $75.79 $119.02 $160.10 $350.50 $718.14 $1,207.24 $3,160.85 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $57.99 $73.03 $87.33 $144.11 $271.98 $442.17 $1,121.94 1 /week $28.99 $36.52 $43.67 $72.05 $135.99 $221.08 $560.972 /week $86.89 $116.98 $145.58 $269.35 $525.11 $865.48 $2,225.02 2 /week $43.44 $58.49 $72.79 $134.68 $262.55 $432.74 $1,112.513 /week $115.79 $160.93 $203.83 $394.60 $778.24 $1,288.78 $3,328.10 3 /week $57.90 $80.46 $101.91 $197.30 $389.12 $644.39 $1,664.054 /week $144.69 $204.87 $262.07 $519.85 $1,031.36 $1,712.09 $4,431.18 4 /week $72.35 $102.44 $131.04 $259.93 $515.68 $856.05 $2,215.595 /week $173.59 $248.82 $320.32 $645.10 $1,284.49 $2,135.40 $5,534.26 5 /week $86.80 $124.41 $160.16 $322.55 $642.24 $1,067.70 $2,767.136 /week $202.49 $292.76 $378.57 $770.35 $1,537.61 $2,558.71 $6,637.35 6 /week $101.25 $146.38 $189.28 $385.17 $768.81 $1,279.36 $3,318.67 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $13.90 $29.03 $43.39 $106.31 $235.29 $406.58 $1,090.78 1 /week $6.95 $14.52 $21.69 $53.16 $117.65 $203.29 $545.392 /week $42.80 $72.98 $101.63 $231.56 $488.42 $829.89 $2,193.86 2 /week $21.40 $36.49 $50.82 $115.78 $244.21 $414.95 $1,096.933 /week $71.70 $116.92 $159.88 $356.81 $741.54 $1,253.20 $3,296.94 3 /week $35.85 $58.46 $79.94 $178.40 $370.77 $626.60 $1,648.474 /week $100.60 $160.87 $218.13 $482.05 $994.67 $1,676.51 $4,400.02 4 /week $50.30 $80.44 $109.06 $241.03 $497.34 $838.25 $2,200.015 /week $129.50 $204.82 $276.37 $607.30 $1,247.80 $2,099.82 $5,503.10 5 /week $64.75 $102.41 $138.19 $303.65 $623.90 $1,049.91 $2,751.556 /week $158.40 $248.76 $334.62 $732.55 $1,500.92 $2,523.13 $6,606.19 6 /week $79.20 $124.38 $167.31 $366.28 $750.46 $1,261.56 $3,303.09 Frequency FrequencyFrequency Frequency
PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2023 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2023) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2024 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2024) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2025 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2025) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Frequency Frequency
HF&H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment B
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Commercial Rates (2023-2027)
1 23
B C D E F G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U
Town of Hillsborough
Solid Waste Rate Study
Commercial Rate Tables and Revenue
565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $60.31 $75.96 $90.83 $149.87 $282.86 $459.85 $1,166.82 1 /week $30.15 $37.98 $45.41 $74.94 $141.43 $229.93 $583.412 /week $90.37 $121.66 $151.40 $280.13 $546.11 $900.09 $2,314.02 2 /week $45.18 $60.83 $75.70 $140.06 $273.06 $450.05 $1,157.013 /week $120.42 $167.36 $211.98 $410.39 $809.36 $1,340.34 $3,461.23 3 /week $60.21 $83.68 $105.99 $205.19 $404.68 $670.17 $1,730.614 /week $150.48 $213.07 $272.56 $540.65 $1,072.62 $1,780.58 $4,608.43 4 /week $75.24 $106.53 $136.28 $270.32 $536.31 $890.29 $2,304.225 /week $180.54 $258.77 $333.13 $670.90 $1,335.87 $2,220.82 $5,755.63 5 /week $90.27 $129.39 $166.57 $335.45 $667.93 $1,110.41 $2,877.826 /week $210.59 $304.47 $393.71 $801.16 $1,599.12 $2,661.06 $6,902.84 6 /week $105.30 $152.24 $196.85 $400.58 $799.56 $1,330.53 $3,451.42 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $14.45 $30.19 $45.12 $110.56 $244.71 $422.85 $1,134.41 1 /week $7.23 $15.10 $22.56 $55.28 $122.35 $211.42 $567.212 /week $44.51 $75.90 $105.70 $240.82 $507.96 $863.09 $2,281.62 2 /week $22.26 $37.95 $52.85 $120.41 $253.98 $431.54 $1,140.813 /week $74.57 $121.60 $166.28 $371.08 $771.21 $1,303.33 $3,428.82 3 /week $37.28 $60.80 $83.14 $185.54 $385.60 $651.66 $1,714.414 /week $104.62 $167.30 $226.85 $501.34 $1,034.46 $1,743.57 $4,576.02 4 /week $52.31 $83.65 $113.43 $250.67 $517.23 $871.78 $2,288.015 /week $134.68 $213.01 $287.43 $631.60 $1,297.71 $2,183.81 $5,723.23 5 /week $67.34 $106.50 $143.71 $315.80 $648.85 $1,091.91 $2,861.616 /week $164.74 $258.71 $348.00 $761.85 $1,560.96 $2,624.05 $6,870.43 6 /week $82.37 $129.36 $174.00 $380.93 $780.48 $1,312.03 $3,435.22 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $62.72 $78.99 $94.46 $155.87 $294.18 $478.25 $1,213.49 1 /week $31.36 $39.50 $47.23 $77.93 $147.09 $239.12 $606.742 /week $93.98 $126.53 $157.46 $291.33 $567.96 $936.10 $2,406.58 2 /week $46.99 $63.26 $78.73 $145.67 $283.98 $468.05 $1,203.293 /week $125.24 $174.06 $220.46 $426.80 $841.74 $1,393.95 $3,599.67 3 /week $62.62 $87.03 $110.23 $213.40 $420.87 $696.97 $1,799.844 /week $156.50 $221.59 $283.46 $562.27 $1,115.52 $1,851.80 $4,792.77 4 /week $78.25 $110.79 $141.73 $281.14 $557.76 $925.90 $2,396.385 /week $187.76 $269.12 $346.46 $697.74 $1,389.30 $2,309.65 $5,985.86 5 /week $93.88 $134.56 $173.23 $348.87 $694.65 $1,154.83 $2,992.936 /week $219.02 $316.65 $409.46 $833.21 $1,663.08 $2,767.50 $7,178.95 6 /week $109.51 $158.33 $204.73 $416.60 $831.54 $1,383.75 $3,589.48 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $15.03 $31.40 $46.93 $114.99 $254.49 $439.76 $1,179.79 1 /week $7.52 $15.70 $23.46 $57.49 $127.25 $219.88 $589.892 /week $46.29 $78.93 $109.93 $250.45 $528.27 $897.61 $2,372.88 2 /week $23.15 $39.47 $54.96 $125.23 $264.14 $448.81 $1,186.443 /week $77.55 $126.47 $172.93 $385.92 $802.05 $1,355.46 $3,565.97 3 /week $38.77 $63.23 $86.46 $192.96 $401.03 $677.73 $1,782.994 /week $108.81 $174.00 $235.93 $521.39 $1,075.84 $1,813.31 $4,759.07 4 /week $54.40 $87.00 $117.96 $260.70 $537.92 $906.66 $2,379.535 /week $140.07 $221.53 $298.92 $656.86 $1,349.62 $2,271.16 $5,952.16 5 /week $70.03 $110.76 $149.46 $328.43 $674.81 $1,135.58 $2,976.086 /week $171.33 $269.06 $361.92 $792.33 $1,623.40 $2,729.01 $7,145.25 6 /week $85.66 $134.53 $180.96 $396.16 $811.70 $1,364.51 $3,572.63 PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2026 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2026) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Frequency FrequencyFrequency Frequency
PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2027 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2027) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) HF&H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment B
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Commercial Rates (2023-2027)
1 2346789
101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970
A B CDEFG H
Recology 2023 Compensation - SBWMA ApprovedFinal Single Family DwellingCost Category Solid Waste
Targeted
Recyclable
Materials
Organic
Materials
On-call /
Abandoned
Material
Single
Family
Dwelling
Total
Annual Cost of Operations
10.1 Direct Labor-Related Costs10.1 Wages for CBAs $229,226 $201,523 $197,279 $32,726 $660,75410.2 Benefits for CBAs $99,888 $91,647 $87,599 $16,743 $295,87710.2 Payroll Taxes $18,567 $16,323 $15,980 $2,651 $53,52110.2 Workers Compensation Insurance $16,332 $14,358 $14,055 $2,537 $47,282 Total Direct Labor Related-Costs $364,013 $323,851 $314,913 $54,657 $1,057,434
20.3 Direct Fuel Costs $36,218 $38,162 $38,256 $2,333 $114,969 20 Other Direct Costs $32,013 $33,731 $34,235 $2,379 $102,358
20.4 Depreciation - Collection Vehicles $33,255 $32,172 $38,001 $2,033 $105,461
20.41 Depreciation - Containers $10,563 $10,810 $15,008 $0 $36,381 Depreciation for Collection Equipment $43,818 $42,982 $53,009 $2,033 $141,842Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Allocated Indirect Costs excluding Depreciation and Interest (Form 9) $0
20.5 General and Administrative $73,301 $75,504 $75,704 $2,081 $226,590 20 Operations $21,288 $22,811 $26,833 $425 $71,357
20.1 Vehicle Maintenance $40,687 $43,597 $51,284 $811 $136,37920.2 Container Maintenance $10,679 $11,022 $12,439 $299 $34,439 Total Allocated Indirect Costs excluding Depreciation and Interest $145,955 $152,934 $166,260 $3,616 $468,765
20.4 Total Allocated Indirect Depreciation Costs (Form 9) $1,207 $1,297 $1,564 $24 $4,092 Annual Implementation Cost Amortization (Form A) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost of Operations $623,224 $592,957 $608,237 $65,042 $1,889,460
20.7 Profit (insert Operating Ratio below) $65,421 $62,244 $63,848 $6,828 $198,341
0.905
Total Proposed Costs before Pass-Through Cost Allocation $688,645 $655,201 $672,085 $71,870 $2,087,801Contractor Pass-Through Costs Lift Adjustments/Disincentive Pymts to Town -$3,261 -$3,261
20.8 Interest Expense $10,873 $10,664 $13,145 $479 $35,161 Total Contractor Pass-Through Costs $7,612 $10,664 $13,145 $479 $31,900TOTAL BASE CONTRACTOR'S COMPENSATION $696,257 $665,865 $685,230 $72,349 $2,119,701commercialCost Category Solid Waste
Targeted
Recyclable
Materials
Organic
Materials Drop Box
On-call /
Abandoned
Material
MFD &
Commercial
Total
Annual Cost of Operations
10.11 Direct Labor-Related Costs10.11 Wages for CBAs $5,240 $929 $5,485 $0 $5,275 $16,92910.21 Benefits for CBAs $2,354 $392 $1,629 $0 $2,468 $6,84310.21 Payroll Taxes $424 $75 $444 $0 $427 $1,37010.21 Workers Compensation Insurance $373 $66 $391 $0 $409 $1,239 Total Direct Labor Related-Costs $8,391 $1,462 $7,949 $0 $8,579 $26,381
20.31 Direct Fuel Costs $907 $144 $1,102 $0 $865 $3,018 20A Other Direct Costs $843 $156 $895 $0 $759 $2,653
20.42 Depreciation - Collection Vehicles $547 $113 $1,317 $0 $556 $2,53320.43 Depreciation - Containers $63 $125 $374 $0 $100 $662 Depreciation for Collection Equipment $610 $238 $1,691 $0 $656 $3,195Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Allocated Indirect Costs excluding Depreciation and Interest (Form 9) $0
20.51 General and Administrative $588 $794 $3,533 $0 $856 $5,771 20A Operations $269 $96 $2,285 $0 $175 $2,825
20.11 Vehicle Maintenance $514 $184 $4,367 $0 $334 $5,39920.21 Container Maintenance $76 $177 $633 $0 $123 $1,009 Total Allocated Indirect Costs excluding Depreciation and Interest $1,447 $1,251 $10,818 $0 $1,488 $15,004
20.42 Total Allocated Indirect Depreciation Costs (Form 9) $16 $7 $139 $0 $10 $172 Annual Implementation Cost Amortization (Form A) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost of Operations $12,214 $3,258 $22,594 $0 $12,357 $50,423
20.71 Profit (insert Operating Ratio below) $1,282 $342 $2,372 $0 $1,297 $5,293
0.905
Total Proposed Costs before Pass-Through Cost Allocation $13,496 $3,600 $24,966 $0 $13,654 $55,716Contractor Pass-Through Costs
20.81 Interest Expense $270 $91 $721 $0 $300 $1,382
Total Contractor Pass-Through Costs $270 $91 $721 $0 $300 $1,382TOTAL BASE CONTRACTOR'S COMPENSATION $13,766 $3,691 $25,687 $0 $13,954 $57,098 HF &H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Collection Costs 2023 (C2)
1 2
A B CDEFG H
Recology 2023 Compensation - SBWMA Approved
71727375767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899 100101102103104
agency facilitiesCost Category
Cart and Bin
Solid Waste
Cart and Bin
Organic
Materials
Cart and Bin
Recyclable
Materials
Drop Box Venues and Events Agency Facilities Total
Annual Cost of OperationsDirect Labor-Related CostsWages for CBAs $62 $222 $424 $1,437 $80 $2,225Benefits for CBAs $27 $98 $187 $634 $35 $981Payroll Taxes $5 $18 $34 $116 $6 $179Workers Compensation Insurance $4 $16 $30 $102 $6 $158Total Direct Labor Related-Costs $98 $354 $675 $2,289 $127 $3,543Direct Fuel Costs $11 $39 $75 $255 $15 $395Other Direct Costs $14 $50 $95 $323 $19 $501Depreciation - Collection Vehicles $16 $78 $169 $778 $28 $1,069Depreciation - Containers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Depreciation for Collection Equipment $16 $78 $169 $778 $28 $1,069Lease $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Allocated Indirect Costs excluding Depreciation and Interest (Form 9)General and Administrative (using $34 $142 $322 $1,414 $588 $2,500Operations $10 $41 $93 $409 $18 $571Vehicle Maintenance $19 $79 $178 $782 $34 $1,092Container Maintenance (using lifts for Agency Costs) $5 $20 $46 $203 $84 $358Total Allocated Indirect Costs excluding Depreciation and Interest $68 $282 $639 $2,808 $724 $4,521Total Allocated Indirect Depreciation Costs (Form 9) $1 $3 $6 $28 $1 $39Annual Implementation Cost Amortization (Form A) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost of Operations $208 $806 $1,659 $6,481 $914 $10,068Profit (insert Operating Ratio below) $22 $85 $174 $681 $96 $1,058
0.905
Total Operating Costs before Pass-Through Cost Allocation $230 $891 $1,833 $7,162 $1,010 $11,126Contractor Pass-Through Costs $0Interest Expense $4 $18 $39 $180 $7 $248Total Contractor Pass-Through Costs $4 $18 $39 $180 $7 $248TOTAL BASE CONTRACTOR'S COMPENSATION $234 $909 $1,872 $7,342 $1,017 $11,374 HF &H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Collection Costs 2023 (C2)
1 2
C EFGH I
Hillsborough and Processing Cost Projections
456789
101112
13141516171819202122232425262728293031323334444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667 Per‐Ton Tip Fees projected projected projected projected projected 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
5.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Material Type
Solid Waste $137 $144 $150 $156 $162
Organics $145 $152 $158 $165 $171Recycling $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Commercial Food Waste $145 $152 $158 $165 $171 Agency C&D ‐ Self‐haul $120 $126 $131 $136 $142
Tons projected projected projected projected projected
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Residential
Solid Waste 2,580 2,580 2,580 2,580 2,580
Organics 5,345 5,345 5,345 5,345 5,345Recycling 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 1,884 Total Residential 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809 9,809Commercial Solid Waste 163 163 163 163 163
Organics 77 77 77 77 77Recycling 50 50 50 50 50
Total Residential 290 290 290 290 290Agency
Solid Waste 246 246 246 246 246
Organics 157 157 157 157 157Recycling 250 250 250 250 250Agency C&D ‐ Self‐haul 140 140 140 140 140 Total Residential 793 793 793 793 793
Total Tip Fee Expenses projected projected projected projected projected 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Residential
Solid Waste $353,460 $371,133 $385,978 $401,417 $417,474 Organics $775,025 $813,776 $846,327 $880,180 $915,388Recycling $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Residential $1,128,485 $1,184,909 $1,232,306 $1,281,598 $1,332,862Commercial Solid Waste $22,331 $23,448 $24,385 $25,361 $26,375
Organics $11,165 $11,723 $12,192 $12,680 $13,187Recycling $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Residential $33,496 $35,171 $36,578 $38,041 $39,562Agency Solid Waste ‐ Coll Route $33,702 $35,387 $36,803 $38,275 $39,806Organics ‐ Coll Route $22,765 $23,903 $24,859 $25,854 $26,888Recycling $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Agency C&D ‐ Self‐haul $16,800 $17,640 $18,346 $19,079 $19,843 Total Residential $73,267 $76,930 $80,008 $83,208 $86,536GRAND TOTAL TIP FEES $1,235,248 $1,297,010 $1,348,891 $1,402,846 $1,458,960 HF &H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment A
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Disposal_Processing (C11)
1 23456789
10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455
B C D E F G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U
Town of Hillsborough
Solid Waste Rate StudyCommercial Rate Tables and Revenue 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $53.10 $66.88 $79.97 $131.96 $249.06 $404.91 $1,027.39 1 /week $26.55 $33.44 $39.99 $65.98 $124.53 $202.45 $513.702 /week $79.57 $107.12 $133.31 $246.66 $480.86 $792.54 $2,037.52 2 /week $39.78 $53.56 $66.66 $123.33 $240.43 $396.27 $1,018.763 /week $106.03 $147.36 $186.65 $361.35 $712.65 $1,180.18 $3,047.64 3 /week $53.02 $73.68 $93.33 $180.67 $356.33 $590.09 $1,523.824 /week $132.50 $187.61 $239.99 $476.04 $944.45 $1,567.82 $4,057.77 4 /week $66.25 $93.80 $119.99 $238.02 $472.22 $783.91 $2,028.885 /week $158.96 $227.85 $293.33 $590.74 $1,176.24 $1,955.45 $5,067.89 5 /week $79.48 $113.92 $146.66 $295.37 $588.12 $977.73 $2,533.956 /week $185.43 $268.09 $346.67 $705.43 $1,408.04 $2,343.09 $6,078.02 6 /week $92.71 $134.05 $173.33 $352.72 $704.02 $1,171.54 $3,039.01 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $12.73 $26.59 $39.73 $97.35 $215.47 $372.32 $998.86 1 /week $6.36 $13.29 $19.87 $48.68 $107.73 $186.16 $499.432 /week $39.19 $66.83 $93.07 $212.04 $447.26 $759.96 $2,008.98 2 /week $19.60 $33.41 $46.53 $106.02 $223.63 $379.98 $1,004.493 /week $65.66 $107.07 $146.41 $326.74 $679.05 $1,147.59 $3,019.11 3 /week $32.83 $53.54 $73.20 $163.37 $339.53 $573.80 $1,509.554 /week $92.12 $147.31 $199.74 $441.43 $910.85 $1,535.23 $4,029.23 4 /week $46.06 $73.66 $99.87 $220.72 $455.42 $767.61 $2,014.625 /week $118.59 $187.56 $253.08 $556.13 $1,142.64 $1,922.87 $5,039.36 5 /week $59.29 $93.78 $126.54 $278.06 $571.32 $961.43 $2,519.686 /week $145.05 $227.80 $306.42 $670.82 $1,374.44 $2,310.50 $6,049.48 6 /week $72.53 $113.90 $153.21 $335.41 $687.22 $1,155.25 $3,024.74 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $55.49 $69.89 $83.57 $137.90 $260.27 $423.13 $1,073.63 1 /week $27.75 $34.94 $41.79 $68.95 $130.14 $211.56 $536.812 /week $83.15 $111.94 $139.31 $257.76 $502.50 $828.21 $2,129.21 2 /week $41.57 $55.97 $69.66 $128.88 $251.25 $414.10 $1,064.603 /week $110.80 $154.00 $195.05 $377.61 $744.72 $1,233.29 $3,184.79 3 /week $55.40 $77.00 $97.53 $188.81 $372.36 $616.64 $1,592.394 /week $138.46 $196.05 $250.79 $497.47 $986.95 $1,638.37 $4,240.37 4 /week $69.23 $98.02 $125.39 $248.73 $493.47 $819.18 $2,120.185 /week $166.12 $238.10 $306.53 $617.32 $1,229.17 $2,043.45 $5,295.95 5 /week $83.06 $119.05 $153.26 $308.66 $614.59 $1,021.72 $2,647.976 /week $193.77 $280.16 $362.27 $737.17 $1,471.40 $2,448.53 $6,351.53 6 /week $96.89 $140.08 $181.13 $368.59 $735.70 $1,224.26 $3,175.76 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $13.30 $27.78 $41.52 $101.73 $225.16 $389.07 $1,043.81 1 /week $6.65 $13.89 $20.76 $50.87 $112.58 $194.54 $521.902 /week $40.96 $69.84 $97.26 $221.59 $467.39 $794.15 $2,099.39 2 /week $20.48 $34.92 $48.63 $110.79 $233.69 $397.08 $1,049.693 /week $68.61 $111.89 $153.00 $341.44 $709.61 $1,199.23 $3,154.97 3 /week $34.31 $55.94 $76.50 $170.72 $354.81 $599.62 $1,577.484 /week $96.27 $153.94 $208.73 $461.30 $951.84 $1,604.32 $4,210.55 4 /week $48.13 $76.97 $104.37 $230.65 $475.92 $802.16 $2,105.275 /week $123.92 $196.00 $264.47 $581.15 $1,194.06 $2,009.40 $5,266.13 5 /week $61.96 $98.00 $132.24 $290.58 $597.03 $1,004.70 $2,633.066 /week $151.58 $238.05 $320.21 $701.01 $1,436.29 $2,414.48 $6,321.71 6 /week $75.79 $119.02 $160.10 $350.50 $718.14 $1,207.24 $3,160.85 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $57.99 $73.03 $87.33 $144.11 $271.98 $442.17 $1,121.94 1 /week $28.99 $36.52 $43.67 $72.05 $135.99 $221.08 $560.972 /week $86.89 $116.98 $145.58 $269.35 $525.11 $865.48 $2,225.02 2 /week $43.44 $58.49 $72.79 $134.68 $262.55 $432.74 $1,112.513 /week $115.79 $160.93 $203.83 $394.60 $778.24 $1,288.78 $3,328.10 3 /week $57.90 $80.46 $101.91 $197.30 $389.12 $644.39 $1,664.054 /week $144.69 $204.87 $262.07 $519.85 $1,031.36 $1,712.09 $4,431.18 4 /week $72.35 $102.44 $131.04 $259.93 $515.68 $856.05 $2,215.595 /week $173.59 $248.82 $320.32 $645.10 $1,284.49 $2,135.40 $5,534.26 5 /week $86.80 $124.41 $160.16 $322.55 $642.24 $1,067.70 $2,767.136 /week $202.49 $292.76 $378.57 $770.35 $1,537.61 $2,558.71 $6,637.35 6 /week $101.25 $146.38 $189.28 $385.17 $768.81 $1,279.36 $3,318.67 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $13.90 $29.03 $43.39 $106.31 $235.29 $406.58 $1,090.78 1 /week $6.95 $14.52 $21.69 $53.16 $117.65 $203.29 $545.392 /week $42.80 $72.98 $101.63 $231.56 $488.42 $829.89 $2,193.86 2 /week $21.40 $36.49 $50.82 $115.78 $244.21 $414.95 $1,096.933 /week $71.70 $116.92 $159.88 $356.81 $741.54 $1,253.20 $3,296.94 3 /week $35.85 $58.46 $79.94 $178.40 $370.77 $626.60 $1,648.474 /week $100.60 $160.87 $218.13 $482.05 $994.67 $1,676.51 $4,400.02 4 /week $50.30 $80.44 $109.06 $241.03 $497.34 $838.25 $2,200.015 /week $129.50 $204.82 $276.37 $607.30 $1,247.80 $2,099.82 $5,503.10 5 /week $64.75 $102.41 $138.19 $303.65 $623.90 $1,049.91 $2,751.556 /week $158.40 $248.76 $334.62 $732.55 $1,500.92 $2,523.13 $6,606.19 6 /week $79.20 $124.38 $167.31 $366.28 $750.46 $1,261.56 $3,303.09 Frequency FrequencyFrequency Frequency
PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2023 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2023) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2024 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2024) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2025 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2025) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Frequency Frequency
HF&H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment B
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Commercial Rates (2023-2027)
1 23
B C D E F G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U
Town of HillsboroughSolid Waste Rate Study
Commercial Rate Tables and Revenue
565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $60.31 $75.96 $90.83 $149.87 $282.86 $459.85 $1,166.82 1 /week $30.15 $37.98 $45.41 $74.94 $141.43 $229.93 $583.412 /week $90.37 $121.66 $151.40 $280.13 $546.11 $900.09 $2,314.02 2 /week $45.18 $60.83 $75.70 $140.06 $273.06 $450.05 $1,157.013 /week $120.42 $167.36 $211.98 $410.39 $809.36 $1,340.34 $3,461.23 3 /week $60.21 $83.68 $105.99 $205.19 $404.68 $670.17 $1,730.614 /week $150.48 $213.07 $272.56 $540.65 $1,072.62 $1,780.58 $4,608.43 4 /week $75.24 $106.53 $136.28 $270.32 $536.31 $890.29 $2,304.225 /week $180.54 $258.77 $333.13 $670.90 $1,335.87 $2,220.82 $5,755.63 5 /week $90.27 $129.39 $166.57 $335.45 $667.93 $1,110.41 $2,877.826 /week $210.59 $304.47 $393.71 $801.16 $1,599.12 $2,661.06 $6,902.84 6 /week $105.30 $152.24 $196.85 $400.58 $799.56 $1,330.53 $3,451.42 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $14.45 $30.19 $45.12 $110.56 $244.71 $422.85 $1,134.41 1 /week $7.23 $15.10 $22.56 $55.28 $122.35 $211.42 $567.212 /week $44.51 $75.90 $105.70 $240.82 $507.96 $863.09 $2,281.62 2 /week $22.26 $37.95 $52.85 $120.41 $253.98 $431.54 $1,140.813 /week $74.57 $121.60 $166.28 $371.08 $771.21 $1,303.33 $3,428.82 3 /week $37.28 $60.80 $83.14 $185.54 $385.60 $651.66 $1,714.414 /week $104.62 $167.30 $226.85 $501.34 $1,034.46 $1,743.57 $4,576.02 4 /week $52.31 $83.65 $113.43 $250.67 $517.23 $871.78 $2,288.015 /week $134.68 $213.01 $287.43 $631.60 $1,297.71 $2,183.81 $5,723.23 5 /week $67.34 $106.50 $143.71 $315.80 $648.85 $1,091.91 $2,861.616 /week $164.74 $258.71 $348.00 $761.85 $1,560.96 $2,624.05 $6,870.43 6 /week $82.37 $129.36 $174.00 $380.93 $780.48 $1,312.03 $3,435.22 32 64 96 1 2 3 6 32 64 96 1 2 3 6
1 /week $62.72 $78.99 $94.46 $155.87 $294.18 $478.25 $1,213.49 1 /week $31.36 $39.50 $47.23 $77.93 $147.09 $239.12 $606.742 /week $93.98 $126.53 $157.46 $291.33 $567.96 $936.10 $2,406.58 2 /week $46.99 $63.26 $78.73 $145.67 $283.98 $468.05 $1,203.293 /week $125.24 $174.06 $220.46 $426.80 $841.74 $1,393.95 $3,599.67 3 /week $62.62 $87.03 $110.23 $213.40 $420.87 $696.97 $1,799.844 /week $156.50 $221.59 $283.46 $562.27 $1,115.52 $1,851.80 $4,792.77 4 /week $78.25 $110.79 $141.73 $281.14 $557.76 $925.90 $2,396.385 /week $187.76 $269.12 $346.46 $697.74 $1,389.30 $2,309.65 $5,985.86 5 /week $93.88 $134.56 $173.23 $348.87 $694.65 $1,154.83 $2,992.936 /week $219.02 $316.65 $409.46 $833.21 $1,663.08 $2,767.50 $7,178.95 6 /week $109.51 $158.33 $204.73 $416.60 $831.54 $1,383.75 $3,589.48 Additional Containers Additional Containers
1 /week $15.03 $31.40 $46.93 $114.99 $254.49 $439.76 $1,179.79 1 /week $7.52 $15.70 $23.46 $57.49 $127.25 $219.88 $589.892 /week $46.29 $78.93 $109.93 $250.45 $528.27 $897.61 $2,372.88 2 /week $23.15 $39.47 $54.96 $125.23 $264.14 $448.81 $1,186.443 /week $77.55 $126.47 $172.93 $385.92 $802.05 $1,355.46 $3,565.97 3 /week $38.77 $63.23 $86.46 $192.96 $401.03 $677.73 $1,782.994 /week $108.81 $174.00 $235.93 $521.39 $1,075.84 $1,813.31 $4,759.07 4 /week $54.40 $87.00 $117.96 $260.70 $537.92 $906.66 $2,379.535 /week $140.07 $221.53 $298.92 $656.86 $1,349.62 $2,271.16 $5,952.16 5 /week $70.03 $110.76 $149.46 $328.43 $674.81 $1,135.58 $2,976.086 /week $171.33 $269.06 $361.92 $792.33 $1,623.40 $2,729.01 $7,145.25 6 /week $85.66 $134.53 $180.96 $396.16 $811.70 $1,364.51 $3,572.63 PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2026 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2026) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Frequency FrequencyFrequency Frequency
PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2027 ) PROPOSED Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2027) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) Cart Size (Gallons) Bin Size (Cubic Yards) HF&H Consultants, LLC7/26/2022
Attachment B
Hillsborough - Base Model 16Jun2022.xlsm
Commercial Rates (2023-2027)
PROPOSITION 218 Notice
Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Adjustments to Town of Hillsborough Water & Solid Waste Rates Beginning 2023 The Town of Hillsborough invites the public to attend a public hearing to be held on Monday, November 14, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. to consider adoption of a five-year schedule of water and solid waste rates, to be effective for services provided on and after January 1, 2023. This Notice is being mailed to the Town of Hillsborough’s property owners who receive solid waste, recycling, and organics collection service, and/or water service, as well as any tenants that are directly liable for payment of these rates. This notice describes the reasons for the rate increases and adjustments and the protest procedure that is available to property owners.
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday
November 14, 2022
6:00 p.m. at Town Hall
OR via Zoom
Town Hall Council Chambers - 1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Zoom Information
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82859455523?
pwd=QUI5bkxFZW5EM3c2UnJ6UEV5dzV5dz09
Meeting ID: 828 5945 5523 Passcode: 860403
The public hearing is currently proposed to be held both in person and virtually, via Zoom. However, in the event that the Town determines to hold the meeting entirely virtually due to public health concerns or regulatory mandates, information will be posted as soon as practicable on the Town’s website.
The proposed rate adjustments are based on analyses by an independent rate consultant that demonstrated the proportional cost to the Town of providing these services to each property it serves. The proposed rates were developed with input from the Town’s Financial Advisory Committee, a group of community representatives that provides input to the Town on financial matters. The documents supporting the rate adjustments are available for review online at:
www.hillsborough.net/SolidWasteRates and www.hillsborough.net/WaterRates and are on file with the City Clerk.
Please note that there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging all water rates should the proposed adjustments be adopted.
RATE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS
Purpose of the Public Hearing: To consider all oral testimony and written protests to, and the adoption of, the proposed water rates and solid waste rates. If adopted, the new rates will go into effect for services provided on and after January 1, 2023.
PUBLIC HEARING AND PROTESTS
Any record owner of a parcel upon which the water rates and/or solid waste rates are proposed to be imposed and any tenant directly liable for the payment of water or solid waste rates (i.e., a customer of record who is not a property owner) may submit a written protest to the proposed rate
adjustments; however, only one protest for water rates and one protest for solid waste rates will be counted per
identified parcel. Written protest must: (1) state that the identified property owner or tenant is opposed to the
proposed water rate adjustments and increases or solid
waste rate adjustments and increases; (2) provide the
location of the identified parcel (by street address, assessor’s parcel number, or customer account number); and (3) include the name and signature of the property owner or tenant
submitting the protest. Written protests may be submitted to the City Clerk by mail or in person at 1600 Floribunda Avenue Hillsborough, CA 94010, or during the public hearing (date, time, and location noted above).
The City Clerk must receive written protests delivered by mail no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of the Public
Hearing. Any protest submitted via e-mail or other
electronic means will not be accepted as a valid written protest. Please indicate on the outside of any envelope mailed to the Town Attn: Rate Hearing.
The City Council will accept and consider all written
protests and will hear and consider all oral comments to the proposed rate adjustments and increases at the
public hearing. Oral comments at the public hearing will not qualify as formal protests unless accompanied by a
written protest. Upon the conclusion of the public
hearing, the City Council will consider adoption of the proposed rate increases as described in this notice. If written protests against the proposed rates are not
presented by a majority of the property owners or
tenants of the identified parcels subject to the proposed rate increases, City Council will be authorized to adopt the rate increases and adjustments.
ATTACHMENT 3
Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases
The Town operates and maintains a potable water distribution system to serve its residents and water users. It is a complex system with varying topography and 19 separate but interconnected pressure zones.
The infrastructure network includes:
The Town purchases its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The Town pumps and delivers water to approximately 4,270 customers, nearly all of whom are single-family residential customers.
The Town is committed to providing the highest quality water at the lowest possible rates for our customers. To meet this commitment, the Town engaged HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) to perform an independent cost-ofservice water rate study and evaluate the infrastructure, programs, and operations and maintenance costs of the Town’s water services and the rates necessary to recover the costs of those services for the next five years. A cost of service and rate study demonstrates what it costs the Town to provide water service and the appropriate rates to fairly and proportionately allocate the costs of providing water to our customers. The cost of providing water includes not only the water we purchase, but the infrastructure that treats and delivers the water, as well as the conservation, efficiency, and demand management programs to ensure that there is safe and reliable water to meet the demands of all of our water customers twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. recover current and long-term projected costs of operating and maintaining the water system, including significant increases in the costs of the wholesale water the Town purchases from the SFPUC; fund capital infrastructure improvements needed to repair and update the Town’s aging water system; maintain the operational and financial stability of the water utility; comply with State mandated drinking water regulatory requirements; meet and comply with annual debt service requirements; and avoid operational deficits and depletion of reserves.
Based on HF&H’s evaluation, it has been determined that rate adjustments and increases are necessary for the Town’s water service charges to enable the Town to:
ABOUT THE TOWN'S WATER SYSTEM
WATER RATES
108 miles of
water mains
18 water
tanks
14 water pump
stations
Over 7,500 various
assets (e.g., water
meters, fire hydrants,
and valves)
RATE ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED TO FUND FUTURE
OPERATING NEEDS
Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases
Residential and Non-Residential Rate Structures
The proposed rates are calculated to recover the costs of providing water services and to proportionately allocate those costs on a parcel basis among the various customer categories. The water rate structure has two customer categories—Residential and Non-Residential— and two components—a Service Charge and a Volume Charge. The proposed Service Charge is a fixed bi-monthly charge calculated to recover a portion of the Town’s fixed costs of operating and maintaining the water system and delivering water. The proposed rates for the Service Charge are established on the basis of the size of the meter (in inches) serving a property to recover the incremental costs of sizing facilities to sufficiently deliver water to properties served by larger meters. The Volume Charge is a variable charge imposed per unit of delivered water with one unit equal to one hundred cubic feet (HCF), or 748 gallons, and is calculated to recover a portion of the Town’s fixed costs and its variable costs of providing water service. The Town has determined that the proposed water rates set forth in Table 1 and Table 2 below would not exceed the estimated reasonable proportional cost of providing service to each parcel at each level of service. The below rates are proposed to take effect January 1 of each year.
PROPOSED WATER RATES
TABLE 1. Current and Proposed Service Charge Rates
TABLE 2. Current and Proposed Volume Charge Rates
SERVICE
CHARGES
100 Cubic
Feet (HCF)
748 = Gallons
Fixed monthly
rates that are
proportionally
graduated based
on the capacity of
service provided
+
TIER 1
$6.39
TIER 2
per HCF for
used in a month
0-22
$8.47
per HCF for
used in a month
23-44
$13.61
per HCF for
used in a month
45-78
$18.40
per HCF for
used in a month
79+
TIER 3 TIER 4
36%
of Water Bills
29%
of Water Bills
16%
of Water Bills
19%
of Water Bills
PROPOSED WATER RATES Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases Rate Adjustments During Water Shortages
The proposed Revenue Stabilization Factors would be applied to the Volume Charge rates and implemented during locally declared water shortages, State mandated reductions in the level of potable water usage, or other natural disaster or event that requires reductions in water usage. During times of declared water shortage and demand reduction, the Town continues to incur fixed costs even though revenue from water purchases decreases. The Revenue Stabilization Factors are designed to allow the Town to recover its fixed costs and continue providing safe and reliable water service. The City Council may implement the Revenue Stabilization Factors as necessary, depending on the level of potable water use cutbacks required, to ensure that the water utility recovers sufficient revenues to meet its expenditures and debt obligations. The rates for the Volume Charge would be multiplied by the applicable Revenue Stabilization Factor to derive the Volume Charge rates to be in effect during the water shortage for each Customer Class.
The maximum Revenue Stabilization Factors are set forth in Table 3 below. The actual Revenue Stabilization Factor to be applied at any time may be lower than the maximum Revenue Stabilization Factor set forth below, and will depend on the level of reduction in water usage necessary at such time, and will be calculated in accordance with the methodology set forth in the rate study report, provided that the actual Revenue Stabilization Factor will not exceed the maximum Revenue Stabilization Factors set forth in Table 3. Table 4 includes an example of how the Rates Stabilization Factors would impact the Volume Charge, if applied at the maximum amount to the 2023 rates.
TABLE 3. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Required Water Use Reductions by Class *Rounding may occur in the percentages shown.
TABLE 4. Revenue Stabilization Factors by Customer Class *Rounding may occur in the rates derived from the multiplication of the Revenue Stabilization Factors to the applicable 2023 rates for each incremental percentage of reduction in water usage.
PASS-THROUGH
ADJUSTMENT
HCF in FY 2025, and $5.32 per HCF in FY 2026. The Town is proposing to pass through any additional increases or decreases in the SFPUC wholesale water rates that are above or below these projected SFPUC wholesale water rates. A pass through will be implemented by increasing or decreasing the Town’s proposed Volume Charge rates by the amount of the SFPUC wholesale water rate increase or decrease in cents per HCF in excess of or below the projected SFPUC wholesale rate. For example, if the SFPUC raises it wholesale water rate to $5.38 per CCF on July 1, 2023 (instead of the projected $5.28 per HCF), the Town may increase its water usage charge by an additional $0.10 per HCF on or after July 1, 2023. Similarly, the Town is proposing to pass through any savings in the SFPUC wholesale water rates that are below the projected wholesale water rates. Prior to increasing the Volume Charge as a result of a pass through of an increase in the SFPUC wholesale water rate above what is already included in the Volume Charge, the Town will send written notification to all customers at least 30 days prior to the effective date.
TABLE 5. Sample 2023 Rates with
Revenue Stabilization Factors
The proposed rates are based on the SFPUC
projected increases in its wholesale water
rates on July 1 of each year from the current
cost of $4.75 per HCF in 2022, $5.28 per HCF
in FY 2023, $5.28 per HCF in 2024, $5.32 per
Notice of public hearing on SOL proposed rate increases ID WASTE RATES The Town is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers.
Each of the eleven SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology for residential and commercial solid waste, recycling, and organic collections. The current franchise agreement runs through December 31, 2035. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owned by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling and transfer of solid waste, recyclable, and organic materials. Each member of the SBWMA is responsible for establishing the rates in their respective jurisdictions. Within Hillsborough, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste services at the rates prescribed by City Council.
Residential customers’ services include:
ABOUT THE TOWN'S SOLID WASTE SERVICE
Collection of solid waste, recycling, and organics bins of up to six times per week by subscription.
Commercial customers’ services include:
Other services include abandoned waste/illegal dumping collection throughout the Town, when necessary, annual confidential document destruction event at Town Hall, and collection at the three annual Town events.
Weekly curbside collection of
solid waste, recycling, and
organics
Two on-call bulky item
curbside pickups per
year
Weekly curbside collection of
cell phones, batteries, used
motor oil and oil filters
Curbside holiday
tree pickup
Two free community
drop-off events
Hillsborough’s residents were very successful in adapting to the way garbage and recycling are collected, diverting much of its waste to their recycling and/or organics carts. As a result, residents have been able to reduce the size of their black solid waste carts.
Since the costs of collecting the recyclable and organic materials are rolled into the cost of the black cart, the current pricing model or rate structure no longer works and will prove unsustainable to continue paying for the collection, processing, and disposal costs at current rates. The current rates do not cover the costs of the current services.
WHY DO RATES NEED TO CHANGE?
Aligning the rates (based on size of cart)
with the projected cost-of-service
Adjustments to rates are necessary to reflect the current cost of service based on the level of service provided.
RATE ADJUSTMENTS Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases
NEEDED TO FUND FUTURE OPERATING NEEDS
Rate increases and adjustments are needed primarily for the following reasons:
Covering the projected costs for
implementing Senate Bill 1383 Reducing
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in California
SB 1383 passed in 2016 as part of California’s larger strategy to combat climate change. The law was designed to reduce
global warming super pollutants like methane, which is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Landfills are one of the largest producers of methane in the state. When organic material breaks down in the landfill methane is generated.
There will be a move away from landfilling organic waste (like food, paper, and yard waste). The Town is partnering with the SBWMA, Recology, and San Mateo County to implement the
SB 1383 requirements. The cost is for compliance monitoring and reporting services for elimination of food waste in solid waste collection.
Covering the projected costs for franchise
services and pass-thru tipping fees
The Recology franchise agreement increases based on
contractually agreed upon indices. The disposal and
processing fees (tip fees) are based on contracts for these services.
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE RATES
The Town charges solid waste rates, based on the size and number of bins or carts provided to the property, and the frequency of collection. Residential service includes weekly collection of solid waste, recycling, and organics carts. A flat fee per parcel is billed annually on the property tax roll (currently $330 per year). The monthly rates are billed quarterly to each customer by Recology. Each resident receives the same size recycling and organics cart as part of their solid waste cart charge. Commercial customers are billed quarterly by Recology for weekly collection of solid waste and organics, based on the size and number of solid waste and organics bins or carts. Like residential customers, recycling collection service is included in the solid waste rate.
The Town has determined that the proposed total solid waste rates set forth in Table 6 (Residential) and Tables 7-18 (Commercial) below would not exceed the estimated reasonable proportional cost of providing service to each parcel at each level of service.
TABLE 6. Residential Current and Proposed 2023-2027 Monthly Rates 1Proposed to be billed annually on the tax roll (Current = $330/year; 2023 Proposed = $346.56/year, etc.) 2Billed quarterly by Recology based on solid waste cart size. Rates include weekly service of solid waste container, recycling container, and organics container
20-Gallon 32-Gallon
$5.70
Proposed Monthly Rate Changes (2023)
$3.82
64-Gallon
$2.64
96-Gallon
$3.83
Extra Organics
$1.35
Notice of public hearing on
proposed rate increases
1 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE RATES Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases 1Collection rates include solid waste and recycling services.
TABLE 8. Proposed Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (effective 1/1/2023) TABLE 9. Proposed Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (effective 1/1/2024) 1Collection rates include solid waste and recycling services.
TABLE 7. Current Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates
1Collection rates include solid waste and recycling services.
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE RATES
Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases
1Collection rates include solid waste and recycling services.
TABLE 10. Proposed Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (effective 1/1/2025)
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE RATES
TABLE 11. Proposed Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (effective 1/1/2026) 1Collection rates include solid waste and recycling services.
TABLE 12. Proposed Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (effective 1/1/2027) 1Collection rates include solid waste and recycling services.
PROPOSED SOLID WASTE RATES Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases TABLE 13. Current Monthly Commercial Organics Rates
TABLE 14. Proposed Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (effective 1/1/2023) TABLE 15. Proposed Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (effective 1/1/2024)
COMMERCIAL ORGANICS RATES
PROPOSED SOL Notice of public hearing on proposed rate increases ID WASTE RATES TABLE 16. Proposed Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (effective 1/1/2025) TABLE 17. Proposed Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (effective 1/1/2026) TABLE 18. Proposed Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (effective 1/1/2027)
PRSRT STD
U.S. Postage
PAID
Burlingame, CA
Permit No. 34
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
View
Supporting
Documents
The documents supporting the rate adjustments and
increases are available for review online at:
www.hillsborough.net/SolidWasteRates and
www.hillsborough.net/WaterRates OR at the City Clerk’s
office between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Thursday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Fridays.
PUBLIC HEARING
Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. at Town Hall
1600 Floribunda, Hillsborough, CA 94010
OR via Zoom
Meeting ID: 828 5945 5523
Passcode: 860403
Town of Hillsborough
Proposition 218 Noticing, Tabulation, and Protest Procedures The following procedures set forth the process for the completion, filing and tabulation of written protests for the Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Increases to Town of Hillsborough Water Service Charges. These procedures are intended to assist the Town in complying with the process requirements set forth in Proposition 218 (The 218 Process).
The City Clerk’s office (City Clerk) will be responsible for the 218 Process for the Town and may be assisted by Town staff or outside professionals. These procedures will be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
A. Completion of Written Protest
1. Which properties are subject to the 218 Process?
Properties that are within the water service area of the Town of Hillsborough are subject to the 218 Process.
These properties will be designated as the Town’s “Service Area” within these Procedures.
Protests received from properties within the Service Area will be tabulated in accordance with Proposition 218 and the procedures outlined herein.
2. Who may file Written Protest?
The owner of the assessor’s parcel subject to the rate increase may file a written protest. As used in these Procedures, the term “Owner” includes the owner’s authorized representative. If the owner of the parcel is a partnership, joint tenancy or tenancy in common, a Protest may be filed by any of the general partners, joint tenants or tenants in common.
3. Contents of the Written Protest
Only Protests submitted in accordance with the Town’s “Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Increases to Town of Hillsborough Water Service Charges” will be tabulated. In order to be tabulated, the protest must include the following information:
An identification of the property (Property street address or Assessor’s Parcel Number) The name of the property owner
Signature of the owner or authorized representative
A statement that the property owner opposes the proposed increases
4. Valid Protest?
Only written protests with all required information stated above will be tabulated. Protests by telephone, fax, or e-mail will not be accepted.
B. Return of the Protest
1. Where to file the Protest?
Protests may be mailed to the City Clerk, Town of Hillsborough, 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010.
ATTACHMENT 4
Protests may be delivered in person to the City Clerk’s Office during the Town’s business hours or at the Public Hearing of the proposed rate increase to be held at the Council Chambers, both located at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010.
2. When to return the Protest?
All protests must be received by the City Clerk by the close of the Public Hearing. The City Clerk must receive a written protest by mail no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of the Public Hearing, or if delivered in person, not later than the close of the public comment portion of the Public Hearing on the proposed rate increase.
3. Withdrawal of Protest
After filing a Protest to the Town, the person who signed the Protest may withdraw the Protest by submitting a written request in person to the City Clerk at 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010 or placed in the metal drop-box during the Public Hearing on the proposed rates increase. The City Clerk will retain all withdrawn Protests and will clearly indicate on the face of such Protests that they have been withdrawn.
C. Tabulation of Protests
1. Which Protests will be tabulated?
Only Protests from within the Service Area and filed in accordance with these procedures will be tabulated.
Protests received after the close of the Public Hearing will not be counted.
Protests that do not have all the required information will not be counted.
Protests withdrawn in accordance with these procedures will not be counted.
If more than one Protest is filed by the same owner for the same parcel, only one protest will be counted.
If more than one owner returns a Protest for the same parcel, only one protest will be counted.
2. When and where the Protests will be tabulated?
Protests will be tabulated periodically, throughout the noticing period, in the office of City Clerk, 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010.
The final tabulation of protests will be performed following the close of the Public Hearing.
The City Clerk reviews the protest(s) to confirm it includes the required information in order to be counted as a valid protest.
3. How the Protests will be tabulated?
Each assessor’s parcel is allowed a single protest.
4. Confidentiality
Protests will be kept confidential until the public hearing. After the close of the public hearing, members of the public may inspect the protests.
5. Results of the tabulation
The results of the tabulation will be announced following the completion of the tabulation and entered in the minutes of the City Council meeting.
D. Resolution of Disputes
Property Ownership
In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a Protest is the owner of the parcel to which the Protest applies, the Town will make such determination from the last equalized assessment roll and any evidence of ownership submitted to the Town prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.
E. General Information
The names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Town’s Service Area were obtained from the equalized secured property tax assessment roll and the Town’s customer database.
Notices will be mailed to all affected property owners, as they are shown on the equalized secured property tax assessment roll, at least 45 days prior to the Public Hearing. For the duration of the proceedings, the Town will retain any Notice packet that is returned to them as “undeliverable” by the U.S. Postal Service.
All Protests are public records. Actual written protests will be kept secured with the City Clerk until after the Public Hearing. After the Public Hearing, the written protests will be available for review by the public.
Proposed rates will not be adopted if written Protests representing more than 50% of affected parcels are submitted.
Town of Hillsborough
Proposition 218 Noticing, Tabulation, and Protest Procedures The following procedures set forth the process for the completion, filing and tabulation of written protests for the Notice of Public Hearing on Increases to Town of Hillsborough Solid Waste Rates. These procedures are intended to assist the Town in complying with the process requirements set forth in Proposition 218 (The 218 Process).
The City Clerk’s office (City Clerk) will be responsible for the 218 Process for the Town and may be assisted by Town staff or outside professionals. These procedures will be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
A. Completion of Written Protest
1. Which properties are subject to the 218 Process?
Properties that are within the service area of the Town of Hillsborough are subject to the 218 Process.
These properties will be designated as the Town’s “Service Area” within these Procedures.
Protests received from properties within the Service Area will be tabulated in accordance with Proposition 218 and the procedures outlined herein.
2. Who may file Written Protest?
The owner of the assessor’s parcel subject to the rate increase may file a written protest. As used in these Procedures, the term “Owner” includes the owner’s authorized representative. If the owner of the parcel is a partnership, joint tenancy, or tenancy in common, a Protest may be filed by any of the general partners, joint tenants, or tenants in common.
3. Contents of the Written Protest
Only Protests submitted in accordance with the Town’s “Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Increases to Town of Hillsborough Solid Waste Rates” will be tabulated. In order to be tabulated, the protest must include the following information:
An identification of the property (Property Street address or Assessor’s Parcel Number) The name of the property owner
Signature of the owner or authorized representative
A statement that the property owner opposes the proposed adjustments and increases
4. Valid Protest?
Only written protests with all required information stated above will be considered valid and included in the final tabulation. Protests by telephone, fax, or e-mail will not be accepted.
B. Return of the Protest
1. Where to file the Protest?
Protests may be mailed to the City Clerk, Town of Hillsborough, 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010.
ATTACHMENT 5
Protests may be delivered in person to the City Clerk’s Office during the Town’s business hours or at the Public Hearing of the proposed rate increase to be held at the Council Chambers, both located at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010.
2. When to return the Protest?
All protests must be received by the City Clerk by the close of the Public Hearing. The City Clerk must receive a written protest by mail no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of the Public Hearing, or if delivered in person, not later than the close of the public comment portion of the Public Hearing on the proposed rate increase.
3. Withdrawal of Protest
After filing a Protest to the Town, the person who signed the Protest may withdraw the Protest by submitting a written request in person to the City Clerk at 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010 or placed in the metal drop-box during the Public Hearing on the proposed rates increase. The City Clerk will retain all withdrawn Protests and will clearly indicate on the face of such Protests that they have been withdrawn.
C. Tabulation of Protests
1. Which Protests will be tabulated?
Only Protests from within the Service Area and filed in accordance with these procedures will be tabulated.
Protests received after the close of the Public Hearing will not be counted.
Protests that do not have all the required information will not be counted.
Protests withdrawn in accordance with these procedures will not be counted.
If more than one Protest is filed by the same owner for the same parcel, only one protest will be counted.
If more than one owner or tenant directly liable for payment returns a Protest for the same parcel, only one protest will be counted.
2. When and where the Protests will be tabulated?
Protests will be tabulated periodically, throughout the noticing period, in the office of City Clerk, 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010.
The final tabulation of protests will be performed following the close of the Public Hearing.
The City Clerk reviews the protest(s) to confirm all required information is included in order to be counted as a valid protest.
3. How the Protests will be tabulated?
Each assessor’s parcel is allowed a single protest.
4. Confidentiality
Protests will be kept confidential until the public hearing. After the close of the public hearing, members of the public may inspect the protests.
5. Results of the tabulation
The results of the tabulation will be announced following the completion of the tabulation and entered in the minutes of the City Council meeting.
D. Resolution of Disputes
Property Ownership
In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a Protest is the owner of the parcel to which the Protest applies, the Town will make such determination from the last equalized assessment roll and any evidence of ownership submitted to the Town prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.
E. General Information
The names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Town’s Service Area were obtained from the equalized secured property tax assessment roll and Recology customer database.
Notices will be mailed to all affected property owners, as they are shown on the equalized secured property tax assessment roll, at least 45 days prior to the Public Hearing. For the duration of the proceedings, the Town will retain any Notice packet that is returned to them as “undeliverable” by the U.S. Postal Service.
All Protests are public records. Actual written protests will be kept secured with the City Clerk until after the Public Hearing. After the Public Hearing, the written protests will be available for review by the public.
Proposed rates will not be adopted if written Protests representing more than 50% of affected parcels are submitted.
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
4 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 AND CERTIFICATE OF
ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
SUMMARY: The Town has received the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021. GFOA is the national nonprofit professional association for government finance professionals in the United States and Canada. The Town has received these awards for nineteen consecutive years.
Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Town of Hillsborough, California, for its Annual Budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as a financial plan, as an operations guide, and as a communications device. This award reflects the commitment of the Town and its staff to meet the highest principles of governmental budgeting. In addition, the Town received a special recognition on the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget for Special Performance Measures Recognition.
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Town of Hillsborough for its annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. This is the nineteenth consecutive year that the Town has achieved this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized annual comprehensive financial report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Certificate for FY 2021-2022 Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
2. GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
PREPARED BY: Jan Cooke, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Government Finance Officers Association's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2021.
Government Finance Officers Association
Certificate of
Achievement
for Excellence
in Financial
Reporting
Presented to
Town of Hillsborough
California
For its Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report
For the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2021
Executive Director/CEO
ATTACHMENT 1
PRESENTED TO
Town of Hillsborough
California
For the Fiscal Year Beginning
July 01, 2021
Executive Director
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Distinguished
Budget Presentation
Award
ATTACHMENT 2
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
5 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING TOWN POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET AND EMAIL USAGE, AND RETIRING TOWN POLICIES 210 INTERNET POLICY, 211 ELECTRONIC MAIL POLICY AND 213 ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION USAGE POLICY
SUMMARY: The Town of Hillsborough has three existing policies that individually cover electronic communications, electronic mail and internet usage. Staff has worked with the City Attorney to create one comprehensive policy to prevent inconsistencies and reduce duplicative language. The new Policy 222 (Attachment 2) combines all of the Town’s electronic communications areas and has been updated to include Teleworking conditions.
Staff is recommending that Policies 210 Internet Policy, 211 Electronic Mail Policy and 213 Electronic Communication Usage Policy be retired and Policy 222 Electronic Communication, Internet and Email Usage be adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Town Policy 222
PREPARED BY: Kristin Armbruster, Human Resources Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution adopting Town Policy 222 Electronic Communication, Internet and Email Usage, and retiring Town Policies 210 Internet Policy, 211 Electronic Mail Policy, and 213 Electronic Communication Usage.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ADOPTING TOWN POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET AND EMAIL USAGE AND RETIRING TOWN POLICIES 210 INTERNET POLICY, 211 ELECTRONIC MAIL POLICY AND 213 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION USAGE POLICY
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) has established policies that govern employee work practices and benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Town desires to update its policy language to reflect current best practice requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Town has reviewed current policies and has determined that three existing policies can be combined into one new policy for clarity and conciseness; and
WHEREAS, the Town also desires to retire three policies that will become obsolete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby adopts Town Policy 222 Electronic Communication, Internet and Email Usage, and retires Town Policies 210 Internet Policy, 211 Electronic Mail Policy and 213 Electronic Communication Usage Policy, effective September 12, 2022.
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
ATTACHMENT 1
1 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE
T OWN OF H ILLSBOROUGH
P ERSONNEL P OLICY
POLICY 222 CREATED 9/12/2022
SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE PURPOSE: To establish an Electronic Communications, Internet, and Email Usage policy to ensure the Town meets its legal obligations and to protect computer and information technology system security and Town property rights.
STATEMENT OF POLICY:
Electronic mail, internet usage, and other electronic communications are considered an integral part of the working environment, whether the work is being performed onsite or remotely pursuant to an approved telework arrangement. The following types of electronic communications and equipment are the property and/or records of the Town:
• Telephones, Town-owned cellular phones & voicemail
facilities
• Town e-mail accounts and all e-mails sent and received by them.
• Fax machines, modems, and servers
• Town-supplied computers
• Network tools such as Internet access while using Town equipment or systems
The Town reserves the right to access and disclose all messages sent over its e-mail system(s) for any purpose.
USAGE OF TOWN EQUIPMENT OR SYSTEMS; PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All messages composed, sent, or received through electronic communications systems, and all Internet connections to web sites using Town equipment or systems, are and remain the property of the Town. They are NOT the private property of any employee and should not be considered private. The Town reserves and intends to exercise the right to review, audit, intercept, access, print, read, and disclose all messages created, received, or sent through its electronic communication systems, including the e-mail network, for any purpose. Internet access and use of e-mail systems is not confidential, and employees shall therefore have no expectation of privacy in anything that is reviewed, viewed, or downloaded from the Town’s network ATTACHMENT 2
2 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE or using Town equipment/systems. Please note that even when a message is deleted, it is still possible to recreate the message, and the ultimate privacy of messages cannot be guaranteed to anyone. Employees are not to access a file or retrieve any stored communication without authorization.
Except as otherwise noted, all messages transmitted over the Town’s e-mail system will be considered Town business activities and should only contain information essential for the accomplishment of Town business, administration, or practices.
Town business should be conducted using exclusively Town email and messaging systems, and not through personal email accounts, apps, or other electronic systems.
It is a violation of this policy for any employee, including system administrators, supervisors, or programmers to use Town e-mail and computer systems for purposes of satisfying idle curiosity about the affairs of others, with no substantial business purpose for obtaining access to the files or communications of others.
In certain approved situations, employees may receive confidential work-related emails from outside parties, i.e. Police Officers receiving confidential information from the federal government. In such situations, employees must continue to maintain the confidentiality of that information and should not disclose it to or make it available to anyone who is not authorized to review or receive such information. If you have a question about this, please contact Human Resources or your supervisor.
PASSWORDS:
All users must utilize a password-protected connection for Town business, provide the appropriate designated supervisor with any such password(s) in the event the employee is absent for any reason, and notify the Administrator of any password changes when made. The reliability of passwords for maintaining confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. You must assume that any and all messages may be read by someone other than the intended or designated recipient. All connections made through the Town’s Internet connection are considered Town business activities, and the viewing, reviewing, printing, or saving of information received from the Internet should follow all Town business administration rules or practices.
Employees are prohibited from disclosing their voice or e-mail access password(s), or those of any other employee, to anyone who is not an employee of the Town.
Disclosure of passwords to other employees only should occur when required by an urgent business matter as directed by management. In such cases, passwords should be changed as soon as possible after the urgent business matter has been resolved. Passwords never should be given out over the phone, included in voice or e-mail messages posted or kept within public view.
ACCEPTABLE INTERNET AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM USAGE:
Except as otherwise specifically discussed in other Town policies, the use of the electronic communications system is reserved solely for the conduct of business at 3 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE the Town. It is NOT intended to be used for personal business, and employees have no expectation of privacy when using the Town’s electronic equipment or communications systems. Employees accessing the Internet, the Town’s Intranet, or World Wide Web represent the Town when doing so. Accordingly, all such communications should be for professional reasons related to Town business. Each employee is responsible for ensuring that he or she uses his or her Internet access privilege in an effective, responsible, ethical and lawful manner.
Examples of typical and appropriate uses of Internet service while at work include day-to-day work activities, such as researching information for a specific department or division or using an authorized website to purchase goods and services from Town vendors. Incidental and occasional personal use of the Town’s e-mail system for essential brief personal matters that cannot be handled during non-working hours is permitted. However, employees should be aware that these messages are subject to the access and disclosure rights of the Town. Employees are therefore expected to keep such personal use to a minimum.
Employees are also permitted to use the Internet during their rest breaks and meal periods, consistent with the provisions below. Non-business uses should not involve significant use of the Town’s electronic resources, such as others’ work time, computer time, or bandwidth.
Non-business use is subject to the following:
a. All non-business communications are subject to this policy in its entirety and to all other Town policies. All non-business communications may be monitored at any time in accordance with this policy. b. You should not use the Town’s Internet for communications that you wish to keep private, such as communications with a physician or your personal attorney; keep in mind that employees have no expectation of privacy in the Town’s e-mail system, whether used at the worksite or during an approved telework arrangement. If you nevertheless use the Town e-mail system to communicate with a personal attorney, or for any other communication to which an evidentiary privilege might attach, you understand that you are waiving any such privilege or confidentiality in that communication.
c. Non-business uses should only occur during rest breaks or lunch periods. Consistent with the Town’s policies regarding rest breaks and meal periods, employees should not be interrupted during such unpaid breaks. If an employee decides to use the Internet during his/her rest break and/or meal period, the employee is not to perform any work during this period, including responding to work related e-mails, telephone calls, etc.
d. Non-business uses do not preempt any business activity and must not interfere with the user's or others' productivity.
4 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE e. Employees’ access to personal e-mail accounts is subject to all of the requirements contained in this policy.
Non-exempt employees must not review or send e-mails, voicemails, or text messages, make phone calls, or engage in any other work or work-related activities outside their scheduled work time without prior authorization.
The Town reserves the right to periodically review all Internet connections made by its personnel, and inspect and search its computers, networks, and systems, to ensure compliance with this policy and all other Town policies. Such review can be conducted during or after business hours and in the presence or absence of the employee. For purposes of inspecting, investigating, or searching employees’ files or documents, the Town may override any applicable passwords, codes, or locks in accordance with the best interests of the Town, its employees, and its clients or visitors. The Town hereby notifies all employees that it has access to internet connection database systems and may exercise that access at any time, for any reason, and without employee permission or knowledge, including for the following purposes:
a. Investigation of actual or suspected impropriety or violation of Town policy.
b. Compliance with legal requirements.
c. Investigation of actual or suspected criminal activities. d. Breach of security.
e. To review any individual’s overall use of the Internet. f. Performance of routine maintenance.
g. Protection of system security or Town property rights.
PROHIBITED INTERNET AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM USAGE:
The Internet and Town electronic communication systems shall not be used to send (upload) or receive (download) copyrighted materials, trade secrets, proprietary financial information, or other confidential materials without prior authorization. The Town purchases and licenses the use of various computer software for business purposes and does not own the copyright to this software or its related documentation. Unless authorized by the software developer, the Town does not have the right to reproduce such software for use on more than one computer.
Employees may only use software on local area networks or on multiple machines according to the software license agreement. The Town prohibits the illegal duplication of software and its related documentation.
5 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE Employees may access only messages, files or programs, whether computerized or not, that they have permission to enter. Unauthorized review, duplication, dissemination, removal, damage or alteration of files, passwords, computer systems or programs, voicemail messages or other property of the Town, or improper use of information obtained by authorized means, will be grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
Employees should use common sense and manners when using the Internet and composing e-mail messages. Periodically, due to the nature of the web and its interconnection (links) to other sites, employees may inadvertently be placed in a position of violating this policy. It is your responsibility to not linger and move on to an appropriate site, as well as to promptly report unexpected “pop up” sites or other non-compliant material to your supervisor or IT.
Employees may not access websites that are offensive, subversive, immoral, and pornographic, or that are in conflict with Town policies or generally accepted standards of business decorum. A general guideline for use would be to consider whether a supervisor or department manager would approve of accessing a specific website or Internet resource. Use of insulting, offensive, disrespectful, demeaning, or sexually suggestive language will not be tolerated. Harassment in any form, obscenities, any representation of obscenities, or sexual, religious, or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated. Sending a copy of these types of offensive emails to a separate party will not be tolerated, except in the performance of official law enforcement duties. Employees may be subject to disciplinary action for violations of this policy.
The Town is prohibited from assisting employees with any private profit-making activity utilizing a website, and accordingly, no employee may post or access any non-business private, for-sale, or want ads using Town Internet or communication services.
Correspondence with, or access to, any website of a political nature is prohibited. (See the Town’s political activity policy for additional information).
Correspondence with, or access to, any website of a religious nature or that promotes or opposes any religious belief is prohibited.
USAGE GUIDELINES FOR TOWN E-MAIL SERVICE:
All employees with Town e-mail accounts are responsible for the management of their own inbox and associated folders. All e-mail users must utilize a password, in accordance with the rules for passwords set forth above.
The Town’s e-mail system uses two-factor authentication, which requires a second code to be entered upon login for security purposes. For those employees who receive a cell phone allowance, this second code will be sent to the employee’s cell phone. For those employees who do not receive a cell phone allowance, a device 6 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE (key) will be issued to each person which can be used to access the second code.
This “key” device will be provided by the Town—however, if an employee loses or damages a “key,” the employee will be charged $20 to replace it.
E-mail should not be used for network-wide or broadcast purposes, unless the user genuinely believes the message is of interest to all intended recipients.
Training on e-mail usage will be provided as an employee’s access to the Town’s network becomes available. Employees will be provided an opportunity to attend a workshop or other arrangement for training may be provided. It is the responsibility of the employee to be properly trained on the use of e-mail and Town communication systems.
The Town has access to any and all electronic mail stored on its information systems, except where law enforcement exceptions apply such as the CLETS system, NCRIC, and other protected information, and may exercise that access at any time, for any reason, including:
a. Investigation of actual or suspected impropriety or violation of Town policy.
b. Legal requirements.
c. Investigation of actual or suspected criminal activities. d. Breach of electronic mail security.
e. To locate substantive information that is not more readily available by some other means.
f. For the performance of routine maintenance.
The Town reserves the right to disclose the contents of such electronic communications within or outside the Town without employee permission or knowledge. The Town has unlimited access to such electronic communications to protect information system security and the Town’s property rights.
The fact that e-mail is available as a tool to employees does not mean it is the right tool for various forms of sensitive communications. Some information should be discussed in person or by phone/virtual meeting; some information should be transmitted through formal business correspondence. The Town expects employees to be mindful of the type of communication being sent and whether email is the best method.
E-mail and related communication records are public records under California law and may need to be disclosed in accordance with the California Public Records Act and other applicable statutes.
7 POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET, AND EMAIL USAGE COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER TOWN POLICIES AND RULES:
All electronic communications shall comply with all Town policies and rules, including but not limited to the Unlawful Discrimination / Harassment / Retaliation Policy, and the Town’s Solicitation / Distribution regulations. In no circumstances are the electronic communication systems to be used to create any offensive or disruptive messages, or any message that might constitute (or indicate the condoning or encouragement of) harassment, lewd, illicit or illegal activities. Among those which are considered offensive are any messages which contain sexual implications, racial slurs, gender specific comments or any other comment that offensively addresses someone’s age, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, national origin or disability. The electronic communication systems may not be used to solicit for commercial ventures, religious or political causes, outside organizations or other non job related solicitations. Employees learning of any misuse of the voicemail / e-mail system or violations of this policy shall notify Human Resources.
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH THIRD PARTY SERVICE
PROVIDERS:
Town business generally should be conducted using the Town’s electronic resources.
Unless pre-approved in writing by the City Manager, employees should not use personal e-mail accounts, cell phones, or personal digital assistants to conduct any Town business. The Town may need access to information stored on those devices or with the third-party service provider for the Town's legitimate business purposes.
These employees, therefore, should understand that the Town may request that the employee search their personal communication device for any such communications, or request that the employee work with the third-party service provider to disclose to the Town the content of stored communications concerning the Town’s business. An employee’s refusal to comply with the Town’s request to search for such communications may result in discipline up through and including termination.
Employees are required to cooperate with the Town in obtaining such consent as well as in the Town’s obtaining access to the stored communications.
Communications by employees through any third-party electronic communications service for which the Town is the subscriber or for which it pays the subscription directly or through reimbursement to the employee are subject to all Town policies, including this policy.
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
6 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PANEL FOR A PARTIAL TERM SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024
SUMMARY: The Town has four Council-appointed boards and committees that serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council on a volunteer basis: the Administrative Hearing Panel, Architecture & Design Review Board (ADRB), Citizens Communication Advisory Committee (CCAC) and Financial Advisory Committee (FAC). The term length is three years, with staggered terms expiring December 31 of each year. The City Council makes appointments annually to fill expiring terms and also appoint applicants to fill unexpected vacancies for partial terms as necessary throughout the year.
On May 9, 2022, Administrative Hearing Panel member Bob Walker notified the Town of his intent to resign from his seat effective June 1, 2022. The Town conducted a recruitment beginning May 18, 2022 with a deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 2022. Recruitment efforts included posting of the notice on Town bulletin boards, on the Town website, on San Mateo and Burlingame Library bulletin boards, and inclusion in weekly e-announcements. Two applications were received.
Following the application deadline, the staff liaison (Police Captain), Code Enforcement Officer, Assistant City Attorney and Administrative Hearing Panel Chair conducted applicant interviews and discussed recommendations for appointments.
The Town recommends appointment of Jerome Hong for a term September 13, 2022 through December 31, 2024.
All application materials are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Application Materials for Jerome Hong
PREPARED BY: Lisa Natusch, City Clerk
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution appointing a member to the Administrative Hearing Panel for a partial term September 13, 2022 through December 31, 2024.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PANEL FOR A PARTIAL TERM SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024 WHEREAS, one opening exists on the Administrative Hearing Panel for a term expiring December 31, 2024 due to the resignation of Bob Walker effective June 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Town publicized the openings on May 18, 2022, accepted applications until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 2022, and following the application deadline, the staff liaison (Police Captain), Code Enforcement Officer, Assistant City Attorney and Administrative Hearing Panel Chair conducted applicant interviews.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby appoints the following individual to the Administrative Hearing Panel for term September 13, 2022 through December 31, 2024:
Name Board/Committee
Jerome Hong Administrative Hearing Panel
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
ATTACHMENT 1
From: jerome hong
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: Re: committees and Board Application
Date: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:55:31 AM
Letter of interest
Dear Administrative Hearing Panel,
It has come to my attention that you are in search of a person to fill the position for a committee hearing person.
I would like the opportunity to apply for this position. I feel with my background in various types of fields such as Real Estate, and document management for the AEC (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) field that I could help make a difference.
Please feel free to reach out to me for further info.
Have a great day!
Jerome
Get Outlook for Android
ATTACHMENT 2
Jerome Hong
Hillsbourouh, Ca
Phone: Email:
Introduction
Goal-driven, tenacious sales and management professional demonstrating award-winning sales record in highly competitive industries. Strong leader and team player; excellent motivational skills to build and sustain forward growth momentum while motivating peak individual performance from members. Experienced in managing all aspects of sales development cycle, from prospecting and cold calling through detailed presentations and negotiation to closing follow-up activities.
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS:
• Over 18 years of successful B2B Sales Management and Operations experience in identifying and capturing new business while achieving revenue goals.
• Managed 15 Account Managers with over 150 accounts within the Northern California Region. • Experience with developing and implementing solution selling plans to build client proficiency and strengthen relationships with multiple companies.
• Successfully oversaw the growth of multiple reprographics stores by increasing revenue growth by 500% to $5,000,000 in annual gross sales.
• Implement new marketing plans for IT, Cloud services and SaaS, Plus oversee roll out to our regions • Always meet or exceed Sales goal and budgets on time
• Roll out of MPS (Managed Print Services) From Training to Selling a full solution based approach. • Work to develop new Business partnerships with major companies.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
ARC Document Solutions (NYSE “ARC”)
2013 -Present
Manager of Sales and Operations (MPS Division)
• Run Day to day Operations with Direct report to VP of Division • Work with low profitability accounts with Sales and Customers • Train and Support local Sales and Operations
• Create and Present Business Reviews with Customers and Sales • Run Budget for MPS Divisions
• Work with IT Managers, Billing Manager, Service Tech Manager, Supplies Manager, Sales Manager, FM Manager to insure projects stay on track and get done.
• Work Directly with C level Clients to negotiate service and pricing • Anything and everything to get the job done!
EIS (Electro Imaging Systems)
2011 -2012
Director of Managed Document Service’s
• Introduce MPS Program to sales department.
• Complete Training for sales department and sale personnel on Hardware and software. (E-Docs, Doc Mall, EDD.)
• Work with sales team on identifying new opportunity with in the client base • Work with our Major accounts to convert over to MPS Program • Work with operations on current accounts to convert over to MPS Program • Create new marketing material for our MPS Division.
ARC Document Solutions (NYSE “ARC”)
2010 - 2011
Manager of Sales and Operations (MPS Division)
• Over see day to day operations for over 133 MPS Accounts. • Over see the sales and Direct sales of our Cloud and SaaS software and equipment to meet budget • Set sales goals for sales persons on week to week basis and arrange ride along days for each sales person to close new opportunities.
• Work on marketing plan for quarterly plan with V.P. of Marketing. • Developed our company’s new direction with MPS (Managed Print Services) Program and work with our sale team to develop new process and procedures.
Profitability of Hawaii, Inc. Consulting
Position 2008 – 2009
Business Development Manager, Sales Group, San Leandro, CA • Market the Company’s software products by developing pricing and positioning points and make customer presentations to demonstrate the software’s capability. • Develop new customer base through research, customer referrals, cold calling, and qualify leads generated from customers and other sources.
• Assist in developing a new software product for the reprographic market by finding beta testers and acting as a liaison between them and the internal development team. • Analyze competitive landscape by researching market trends and meeting with customers to improve Company’s software efficiency.
• Provide customer service to clients regarding system-related issues and identify opportunities to improve utilization of the Company’s software.
Hallmark Properties, Inc.
Agent/Real Estate Investor, Sales Group, Foster City, CA 2001 – 2008
• Lead a group of private investors in investing in real estate by locating potential real estate investments. • Negotiate the purchase and sale of the real estate properties that resulted in an average return of 30-40%. • Manage the leasing and remodeling of all the real estate properties to add value.
Xerox, Inc.
Regional High Speed Digital Manager, Commercial Services Group, San Jose, CA 1999 – 2001
• Managed 15 Account Managers that provide commercial printers & facility services to over 150 accounts within the Northern California region.
• Oversaw a $15,000,000 annual budget while implementing strategies to successfully achieve revenue growth of 130% in annual profit.
• Responsible for the development, execution and communication of strategic business plans for each of the 150 assigned accounts.
• Strengthened relationships with multiple companies by finding solutions that integrated Xerox technology to help their company grow.
• Worked with Account Managers to develop and implement account plans to build client proficiency and adoption of services.
• Interact with each Account Manager to coach and review their progress in achieving revenue targets and their professional development goals.
Barton & Barton Associates, Inc.
Director of Marketing, Marketing Group, San Francisco, CA 1993 – 1999
• Responsible for the overall success and growth of 5 copy stores in Downtown San Francisco that generated over $5,000,000 in annual gross sales, an increase of 200% in revenue growth from the previous year. • Worked with store managers and sales staff to develop and execute business plans to achieve monthly income goals.
• Created and supervised sales program for 5 copy stores to train sales staff in how to effectively market the Company.
• Identify opportunities with new accounts by offering the Company’s reprographic services to reduce cost and increase process efficiency.
Managing Partner, Marketing Group, San Francisco, CA
1995 –1999
• Opened and started copy store for the Company in San Francisco, CA. • Acquired over 100 new accounts that generated $1,500,000 in annual gross sales. • Hired and trained approximately 50 employees for marketing and production. • Negotiated the purchase and financing of all store equipment.
Supervisor/Account Manager, Sales & Marketing Group, San Francisco, CA 1993 – 1995
• Supervised and trained 20 employees on how to efficiently use the reprographic machines. • Oversaw the store’s monthly profit and loss margins by meeting monthly target goals. • Developed and maintained relationships with new and existing clients by providing them excellent customer service.
EDUCATION
California State Real Estate License
1997
University of humanitarian studies, San Diego, CA
• Bachelor of Science in Humanitary Studies,
1989
ADDITIONAL
• Proficient in Salesforce, Act, Kronos, Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Xerox, Ricoh, Canon, Oce, Sharp. (Software and Hardware)
• Interest in Billiards, Cars and Golf
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
7 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
SUMMARY: On March 17, 2020, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings completely telephonically or by other electronic means.
The provisions in the Brown Act that were suspended by the Governor’s Executive Order are contained at Government Code Section 54953(b)(3) and require that when teleconferencing is used, outside of a statewide emergency, that the following occur:
• An agenda is required to be posted at all locations, including any teleconference locations • Each teleconference location must be identified on the actual agenda • Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public • A quorum of the legislative body must be in the jurisdiction With the Governor’s Executive Order, the four above requirements were suspended allowing Councilmembers to not have to post an agenda at their teleconference location, not have to identify their location on the meeting agenda, not have to ensure public accessibility at the teleconference location, and the legislative body did not need a quorum in the jurisdiction. This has allowed the City Council, Administrative Hearing Panel, Architecture and Design Review Board, Citizens Communication Advisory Committee and Financial Advisory Committee meetings to be conducted by Zoom with Councilmembers, board/committee members and staff joining from remote virtual locations.
The suspension of certain provisions of the Brown Act was further extended by the Governor on June 11, 2021 by the issuance of Executive Order N-08-21 which continued to allow for complete virtual meetings until September 30, 2021.
With the expiration of the Governor’s Executive Order along with the uncertainty that surrounded the Governor’s potential recall, the State Legislature also took the remote meeting issue into its own hands through the adoption of Assembly Bill 361, which is explained in more depth in the Analysis section below.
On October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-87, making findings that state or local officials continue to recommend social distancing measures to prevent the spread of COVID19 and including reference in particular to Cal-OSHA regulation 3205 which recommends physical -161-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
distancing in the workplace. The adoption of this resolution was consistent with enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 361.
The City Council reconfirmed the findings of Resolution No. 21-87 on November 8, 2021, November 22, 2021, December 13, 2021, January 10, 2022, February 14, 2022, March 14, 2022, April 11, 2022, May 9, 2022, June 13, 2022, July 11, 2022, August 8, 2022 and August 25, 2022 as required by AB 361.
On March 14, 2022, the City Council also provided direction to staff on a planned hybrid meeting approach beginning with the April 11, 2022 City Council meeting.
ANALYSIS
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, which allows legislative bodies to meet virtually provided there is a state of emergency declared by the Governor, and either (1) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (2) the legislative body determines by majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.
At this time, staff is recommending a reconfirmation of the findings contained in Resolution No. 21- 87 to ensure that there is no gap in the ability of the City Council, boards and committees to attend virtually as necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council’s approval of a motion to continue with virtual meetings will maintain the status quo and no financial impact is anticipated by approval of the motion. The move to hybrid meetings required additional technical equipment which has been purchased and installed.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The City Council’s reconfirmation of the findings is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b)(5) as it constitutes an organizational or administrative activity of the government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 21-87
PREPARED BY: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a motion to reconfirm the findings and determinations made in Resolution No. 21-87 pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, with acknowledgment that the California Department of Public Health has updated the definition of “close contact” in Regulation 3205 from being within six feet of another person to sharing the same indoor space with another person for 15 minutes or more, which further supports the findings. -162-
RESOLUTION NO. 21-87
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER AB 361 FOR
THE CONTINUATION OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS FOR ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code§ 54950 et seq.) generally requires local agencies meeting via teleconference, including through other virtual or electronic means, to, among other things, provide public access at each location in which members of the legislative body are teleconferencing; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature recently enacted Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361 ), which amended Government Code section 54953 to allow local agencies to meet fully virtually, without fully adhering to the rules otherwise applicable to teleconferencing, during a proclaimed state of emergency if state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency on March 4, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act, and this proclaimed state of emergency currently remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in particular, Cal-OSHA regulation 3205 recommends physical distancing in the workplace generally and regulates a "close contact" defined as being within 6 feet of another under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, in order to continue to impose social distancing while holding in-person meetings there is a high likelihood that members of the public would not all be able to be present in the meetings spaces; and
WHEREAS, the continuation of virtual meetings will allow for full participation by members of the public until social distancing recommendations are no longer necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough desires that all Town legislative bodies continue to hold virtual meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code section 54953(e).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
-163-
1. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The City Council and all other legislative bodies of the Town of Hillsborough who are required to hold open and public meetings, shall continue to meet virtually in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and without compliance with section 54953(b)(3) based upon the findings and determinations hereby made by the City Council.
3. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 11th day of October 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Councilmembers Royse, Kralik, Chuang, Cole
NOES: Councilmembers None
-------------------
ABSENT: Councilmembers Ma
-~-----------------
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None
-------------------
-164-
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
8 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AS COMPLETE THE CONTRACT WITH CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE 773 EL CERRITO AVENUE STORM DRAIN REPAIR PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,645.00
SUMMARY: This project included rehabilitation of approximately 135 linear feet of deteriorated 24” storm drain corrugated metal pipe (“CMP”) and installation of an access manhole for future maintenance. The pipe is located both within the public right-of-way and within easements on private property. The pipe conveys stormwater runoff from the City of San Mateo south of Crystal Springs Road through the property of 773 El Cerrito Avenue, ultimately discharging into San Mateo Creek. Investigatory and evaluation work for this project was completed in 2021 by Town staff, where it was determined the 24” CMP needed rehabilitation. Completion of this project was necessary to provide proper conveyance of stormwater and to protect the 773 El Cerrito Avenue property from erosion.
FISCAL IMPACT: The contract with Casey Construction, Inc. was executed on December 2, 2021, in the amount of $99,892.00 including contingency. During the construction phase of the project, staff determined slip lining the existing pipe was a more appropriate rehabilitation than the originally proposed cure-in-place lining. Casey Construction, Inc. submitted a cost proposal for the change in scope and on March 14, 2022, City Council approved an amendment in the amount of $26,000.00 with contingency for a total project budget to $125,400.00. The project was successfully completed in the amount of $119,645.00, which is below the authorized budget.
Funding was allocated from the operations budget for Stormwater Master Plan Improvement Program (CIP #814.47).
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) according to Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulations.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution accepting as complete the contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the 773 El Cerrito Avenue Storm Drain Repair Project, the final amount of which is $119,645.00, and authorizing staff to file a Notice of Completion for the Project and release withheld retention in accordance with state prompt payment laws. -165-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ACCEPTING AS COMPLETE THE CONTRACT WITH CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
FOR THE 773 EL CERRITO AVENUE STORM DRAIN REPAIR PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,645.00
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) maintains the Town’s storm drain system; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement budget identified a program to repair priority storm drain infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, plans and specifications were developed for the 773 El Cerrito Avenue Storm Drain Repair Project (“Project”) to rehabilitate approximately 135 linear feet of deteriorated 24” corrugated metal storm drain pipe by curein-place lining in the public right-of-way and within easements on the property of 773 El Cerrito Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Project was publicly bid and advertised in accordance with the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act, and the Town received seven sealed bids for the Project; and
WHEREAS, Casey Construction, Inc. (“Casey”) submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $88,400.00; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the bids and determined that Casey was the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid in the amount of $88,400.00 and established a 13% Town controlled contingency for a total Project budget amount of $99,892.00; and
WHEREAS, the contract for the Project was executed with Casey on December 2, 2021; and
WHEREAS, a Notice to Proceed was issued to Casey and the Project progressed until staff determined slip lining was a more appropriate approach to rehabilitate the pipe for an additional cost; and
WHEREAS, Casey submitted a change order in the amount of $26,000.00; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, the City Council approved the change order by Resolution No. 22-19 in the amount of $26,000.00 with contingency for a total project budget of $125,400.00; and
WHEREAS, Casey completed the project in the amount of $119,645.00 and funding was allocated from the Stormwater Master Plan Improvement Program (CIP #814.47).
-166-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby accept as complete the contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the 773 El Cerrito Avenue Storm Drain Repair Project, the final amount of which is $119,645.00, and authorizes staff to file a Notice of Completion for the Project and directs staff to release withheld retention in accordance with state prompt payment laws.
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-167-
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
9 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE EUCALYPTUS PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
PROGRAM FUNDING
SUMMARY: The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) recently approved funding in the amount of $200,000 for the Eucalyptus Pathway Project, and has made an additional source of funding available. TA has issued an additional Call for Projects for the Cycle 6 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 4, 2022. The TA Strategic Plan 2020-2024 created a combined Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program, in accordance with Measure A Goals, and Measure W Core Principles. The goal of this program is to improve walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, encourage more residents to participate in active transportation, and support sustainable transportation options. Staff has identified the Eucalyptus Pedestrian Pathway Project as a project that will meet the goals of this Call for Projects as well:
-Provide congestion relief
-Fill gaps and cross barriers in the pedestrian network -Improve accessibility and safety of existing facilities for pedestrians -Increase pedestrian safety and convenience
The Eucalyptus Pedestrian Pathway Project (“Project”) includes a five-foot wide accessible pedestrian path that would extend from the 500 block to the 700 block of Eucalyptus Avenue on the west side of the street, then another 400 feet to the parking strip near Floribunda Avenue to Brookvale Road on the east side of the street. The improved pedestrian pathway would enhance accessibility for pedestrians and improve the streetscape along this well-traveled corridor, which is used by kindergarten through 8th grade students and others for access to and from North Elementary School and Crocker Middle School. The project improvements would occur on land licensed to the Town and the public right-of-way. The new pedestrian path would be installed over the current unimproved roadway shoulder that can be impacted during the winter months due to stormwater runoff and mud. A three-foot wide landscaped buffer zone would be created between the pedestrian path and the edge of the pavement, providing separation for pedestrians from vehicles traveling on the adjacent roadway. The pathway material will utilize the latest recommended design standards for permeable concrete to promote stormwater infiltration. This project will provide a safe route to school for families with children in kindergarten through 8th grade attending North Hillsborough and Crocker Middle schools, and a safe walking path for other nearby residents. The proposed Project may reduce traffic congestion near the school, improve pedestrian accessibility, safety, and convenience, develop our pedestrian network and remove obstacles, and beautify the corridor.
-169-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
As part of this application, the TA requires a resolution from the City Council:
1. Supporting the Project and application for $389,000 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project
2. Committing the Town to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $38,900 needed for implementation
3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources
4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is recommended that a match in amount of $38,900, allocated from the approved FY 2021-22 Community Relations General Fund budget (100-111.00-80.747.000), be committed for this application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15301(c).
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution directing staff to submit an additional application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, now for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $389,000 for the Eucalyptus Pedestrian Pathway Project; authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds; committing to completing the Project, including contributing $38,900 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded; certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution. -170-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
SUPPORTING THE EUCALYPTUS PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY PROJECT AND
SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
PROGRAM FUNDING
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Sponsor”) has identified an opportunity to improve walking accessibility and safety near North Hillsborough and Crocker Middle school by improving an existing dirt path that is currently used by some students at and residents, but does not provide a level walking surface, is unusable during the rainy months, and doesn’t provide a defined place to walk outside of the roadway. The Sponsor applied for this grant to help fund improvements to improve this pathway and create a Safe Route to School; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor has developed the Eucalyptus Pedestrian Pathway Project (“Project”) to reduce traffic congestion near the school, improve pedestrian accessibility, safety, and convenience, develop our pedestrian network and remove obstacles, and beautify the corridor; and
WHEREAS, it will cost approximately $804,000 to implement the Project scope; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $389,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 6 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Authority (TA) requires the Sponsor’s governing board to adopt a resolution:
1. Supporting the Project and application for $389,000 in TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project, and
2. Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $38,900 needed for implementation, and
3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and
4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing board of the Town of Hillsborough hereby:
-171-
1. Directs staff to submit an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for $389,000 for the Eucalyptus Pedestrian Pathway Project;
2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a funding agreement or MOU with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds;
3. Commits to completing the Project, including contributing $38,900 of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested TA funds are awarded;
4. Certifies that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and
5. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-172-
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
10 CONSENT CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH WILSEY HAM ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & PLANNING TO INCLUDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2023- 2024 PARROTT DRIVE SEWER BASIN REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROJECT – PHASE II IN THE AMOUNT OF $512,215.00, FOR A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF $674,204.00
SUMMARY: This project includes the engineering design and necessary environmental document preparation for replacing approximately 7,200 linear feet of sewer pipeline and installation of associated infrastructure in the Parrott Drive sewer basin.
Most of the sanitary sewer pipelines in the Parrott Drive sewer basin are located within paved areas on Glenbrook Drive, Parrott Drive, and Melrose Court. The remainder of the system is located within public utility easements along one of the tributaries of San Mateo creek. Most of the pipes in these easements are located on very steep terrain and are subject to land erosion and slope failure. Due to the age of the pipes, slope failure in several locations, and accessibility issues to maintain the system, it is critical to replace the pipes and address the failing slopes.
In 2021, staff developed a plan to address all deficiencies in this basin in three phases as follows:
Phase I - Condition Assessment
Phase II - Project Design and Environmental Permits
Phase III - Construction
Phase 1, the condition assessment, was completed in early 2022 by Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying, and Planning (“Wilsey Ham”). The agreement with Wilsey Ham was executed via task order of an existing professional service agreement where Wilsey Ham proposed and was interviewed and selected by the Town to complete this assessment. The task order was authorized on November 8, 2021 in the amount of $161,989.00. The assessment resulted in a recommendation for upgrading the system and fixing the slope failures along the creek.
Phase II of the project would include the final project engineering design, comprehensive environmental review and permitting to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and geotechnical work. The expected duration of these services is 22 months.
Wilsey Ham successfully completed Phase I by providing staff a thorough assessment and analysis of the existing system. Based on the quality of this work, their familiarity of the project site, and their expertise in obtaining regulatory permits, retaining Wilsey Ham to complete Phase II of -173-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
the project would be time efficient and cost-effective. Staff recommends amending the existing contract in the amount of $512,215.00 to complete Phase II.
FISCAL IMPACT: It is recommended that funding be allocated from the approved budget for the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Program (#606.47) in the amount of $512,215.00, for a total project budget of $674,204.00. Sufficient funding remains in the budget for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15306 as data collection and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. This contract amendment will allow for information gathering leading to a comprehensive analysis under CEQA that will be considered and available to the Town prior to any formal discretionary actions taken in furtherance of the project.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing contract with Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying and Planning to include design services for the 2023-2024 Parrott Drive Sewer Basin Rehabilitation & Replacement Project in the amount of $512,215.00, for a total project budget of $674,204.00. -174-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & PLANNING TO INCLUDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2023-2024 PARROTT DRIVE SEWER BASIN REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROJECT – PHASE II IN THE AMOUNT OF $512,215.00, FOR A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF $674,204.00
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) maintains the Town’s sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement budget identified a project to evaluate and replace or rehabilitate deficient segments of pipe that were identified in the Town’s wastewater basin discharging to the City of San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the 2023-2024 Parrott Drive Sewer Basin Rehabilitation and Replacement Design Project (“Project”) consists of replacing approximately 7,200 linear feet of sanitary sewer pipelines and associated infrastructure such as manholes, lower laterals, and cleanouts; and
WHEREAS, the Town has an existing agreement with Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying, and Planning (“Wilsey Ham”) to complete the condition assessment as part of Phase I of the Project; and
WHEREAS, staff is proposing to amend the existing agreement with Wilsey Ham for Phase II of the Project which includes final engineering design, comprehensive environmental review and permitting to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and geotechnical work; and WHEREAS, funding for Phase II of the Project will be allocated from the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Program (CIP #606.47).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement on behalf of the Town with Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying, and Planning to include design services for the 2023-2024 Parrott Drive Sewer Basin Rehabilitation and Replacement Project – Phase II in the total amount of $512,215.00 allocating funds from the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Program (CIP #606.47), for a total project budget of $674,204.00.
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
-175-
2 Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of September 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-176-
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
11 STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: TOWN HALL CAMPUS PROJECT
SUMMARY: The City Council, as one of the FY 2021-22 goals, requested that the Town Hall Campus be studied to determine if there were opportunities to reimage the uses on the site and address the need to replace aging public safety facilities (specifically the police station), improve the efficiency of Town offices and Council Chamber space, expand opportunities for community meeting space and create an opportunity for new affordable housing as part of the State’s mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
At the December 13, 2021 City Council meeting, staff presented a proposal to the City Council to retain a design firm to develop a Master Plan for the Town Hall Campus that would address the opportunities for housing, a new police station, Town Hall office and community space. The City Council provided preliminary direction to staff to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to develop a Town Hall Master Plan in coordination with the Town’s Housing Element Update. The Town issued the RFP on Thursday, April 28, 2022, and on June 13, 2022, the City Council approved a contract with WRNS Studio. WRNS Studio is headquartered in San Francisco and has done similar projects in Atherton, Rancho Cordova, San Francisco, and Hawaii.
The firm has vast experience in sustainable design, master planning, civic facilities, affordable housing, and community engagement.
WRNS Studio is providing professional planning and design services to assist the Town in the development of a master plan and when a design is selected, CEQA analysis and conceptual design documents (including preliminary cost estimate/budget, scope, and schedule documents).
The firm will also provide a community outreach plan to support future redevelopment of the Campus site.
Conceptual designs for the Town Hall Campus Master Plan are the first step in the process. These designs show how the campus could incorporate the following components:
• Consolidated & Modernized Town Offices and Council Chambers • Modernized Police Station
• Meeting & Activity Space for Community Use
• New Housing
• Parking for all Uses
• Open Space Area(s)
WRNS Studio has prepared three preliminary site concepts for discussion. The alternatives were informed by site constraints (utilities, circulation, security, setbacks), the Hillsborough Police -177-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
Department Building Assessment completed in 2019, staff input, and the information from the Draft Housing Element process.
The purpose of the study session is to show three preliminary schematics of the Town Hall Campus and how the uses could be sited on the property and solicit feedback from the community and the City Council. Feedback on the preliminary schematics will guide revisions until a welldefined project or project with alternatives can be further studied and presented to the community.
The Town Hall campus is approximately 2.7 acres (including the Walnut Avenue parking lot, street and adjoining Town owned home). Developing the Town complex could meet the following needs:
1. Provide a site for a new police station; 2. Address a portion of the RHNA housing units; 3. Add community meeting spaces; and 4. Provide office and Council Chamber space for government functions.
Public Safety: In May 2017, the Town engaged INDIGO Hamond and Playle architectural firm to conduct a needs and facilities assessment for a police station. The existing police station does not meet the current needs of a modern police department and there are significant modifications that are necessary for seismic safety. The assessment determined that there were two options - renovate the existing facility and/or construct a new facility on Town owned property. The study projected the cost of a new facility at $45 M and renovations at $30 M. The study did recommend proceeding with improvements or new construction for both safety and modernization needs. The study and reports provide baseline information that could be used or updated if the Town campus were reconfigured, and a new police station was built.
Community and Government Office/Meeting Space: As part of the Police Station needs assessment, a preliminary space needs assessment was completed for government offices and community meeting spaces. Historically, there have been informal discussions about the Town site and the various needs of the government and community. Past discussions have identified other desired needs ranging from a more desirable community gathering space, expanded governmental office space, and rooms for public use and recreation. The police station needs assessment provides baseline data for community facilities that could be used or updated for a new conceptual design for the campus.
Housing: The impending need to identify opportunities for significantly more affordable housing in Hillsborough was discussed at a Community Visioning session on November 3, 2021. In that meeting, the participants suggested that the Town Hall complex might be a good location for affordable housing given the proximity to transit and the objectives of the State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) to locate new housing within a half-mile of transit.
Hillsborough will need to meet significant housing increases due to the RHNA of 554 new units (or 664 units with a buffer) in the next eight-year housing/planning cycle. This is the largest allocation increase that Hillsborough and all other jurisdictions have ever experienced. Hillsborough has initiated a comprehensive community engagement process to consider all possible avenues for meeting the requirements while maintaining the character of the community.
PRELIMINARY TOWN HALL SITE OPTIONS
-178-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
All three options presented aim to balance a feasible programmatic yield on the site along with strategies to preserve portions of the site’s planting, habitat and flow. Each option has a clear concept defined by a variety of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Town Hall and Police Department buildings are planned as two-story structures of approximately 16,000 and 12,000 square feet, while the residential component is studied in a variety of different scales ranging in portions from 3-6 stories high yielding 80-123 units. All three options propose the largest building massing at El Camino stepping down to two-story structures along Floribunda and Walnut.
Option 1 – Streetfront
This option considers a phased approach which would prioritize a new Police Department at Floribunda south of Walnut at the Town Home site followed by development of a new residential building at El Camino. The Town Hall building could be maintained in situ until a later phase to allow for flexible site development options. The buildings nearer to Floribunda are intentionally scaled for Hillsborough residential context with a height limit attuned to current zoning standards.
The residential building steps from 3 stories at Floribunda back to 5 stories at the rear of the site.
Option 2 – Town Green
In this version, the Police building, and Town Hall are combined in a single two-story structure with a shared entry point along Floribunda. Walnut is converted from roadway to driveway to encourage pedestrian use of the site which is anchored by a large shared central “Town Green” adjacent the new five-story residences at El Camino.
Option 3 – Gardens
This alternative presents the maximum footprint for the residences at El Camino. Parking is efficiently and securely tucked at the base of the structure on grade with five stories of residences above the parking level. The residential wings are set to varying heights stepping down to the Town Hall building at the south which also affords increased southern exposure and potential for a variety of scaled gardens at grade and upon rooftops. Town Hall holds the center of the site with the Police Department situated at the Town Home site south of Walnut.
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT AND TOWN HALL CAMPUS
The Draft Housing Element document, which identifies opportunities for future housing as required by the State, includes the Town Hall Campus as one of several sites in Hillsborough. The purpose of a draft document is to provide the community with information on several approaches to meeting the housing allocation and an opportunity for the public to provide feedback during a 45-day public Housing Element comment period. The feedback to the Draft Housing Element will guide the City Council in revising the draft document prior to submitting the document to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Residents can submit comments at [email protected], send a letter to Town Hall Draft Housing Element or speak at a City Council meeting. The schematic designs, which illustrate how housing and other uses might be accommodated on the site, provide additional information for individuals that may want to provide comments on the appropriateness of the Town Hall Campus as a site for meeting the State mandated housing allocation and/or the number of units or density of housing on the site.
As part of the development of the Draft Housing Element, the Town Hall Campus was identified as a potential site for housing near transit. A staff advisory committee, the Housing Element Advisory -179-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
Committee or HEAC, provided feedback on potential housing sites in the town. A summary of their feedback is below:
(1) 73% of HEAC members agree that a density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
(2) 100% of the HEAC members agree that building heights greater than 22-32 feet (2+ stories) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
(3) 50% of HEAC members would support a building height of 6+ stories. (4) 73% of HEAC members agree that the area within both a quarter mile and a half mile of El Camino Real is a key location for higher density housing.
NEXT STEPS
The preliminary schematic designs are the first step in the design phase of a Town Hall Master Plan. When revisions are made to the schematic designs, a final design or design with alternatives will be presented to the community and City Council. If the City Council decides to move forward with a final design for a Town Hall Campus Master Plan, the project will be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process that will study traffic, safety, circulation, noise, and historic/cultural/biological resources. A preliminary cost estimate/budget, scope, and schedule are part of the WRNS services.
PUBLIC INPUT
Public notification included posting this agenda in advance of the meeting. Additionally, although not legally required for a study session, meeting invitations were sent to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the project site. Additional community engagement opportunities will continue throughout the design process.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the Town with this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The study session is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15306 as it constitutes information collection which will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. As noted in CEQA Guideline 15306, the action is strictly for information gathering purposes that will lead to a study/plan that the Town has not yet approved, adopted, or funded.
Further, as part of the plan, the consultant will determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required to implement the plan and that will be considered by the Town prior to any adoption or other discretionary action regarding the plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. WRNS Presentation on Site Options
2. Public Comment
PREPARED BY: Mandy Brown, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: No action required; City Council to provide feedback to staff on the preliminary site options for the Town Hall Campus.
From: ccsongradi
To: Lisa Natusch
Cc: Carolyn Csongradi
Subject: Comments regarding preliminary re-design of Town Hall Campus Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:29:28 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-09-07 at 8.55.43 PM
ATTACHMENT 2
From: Chris Read
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: Comments and Concerns - Town Hall Campus Redesign Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:32:42 AM
Attachments: Letter to Council Member
Dear Ms. Nautsch,
Please read the attached message detailing our concerns. We have sent this message to our Burlingame representatives and have been speaking to our neighbors. Our concern focuses only on the plan to redesign the town hall campus and not other plans for development in Hillsborough.
Thank you in advance for including our concerns at the meeting on September 12th.
Chris Read
Dear Burlingame Officials and Neighbors,
My husband and I are longtime residents of Burlingame and live at .
We have become aware recently that the town of Hillsborough is drafting a plan to redesign their town hall campus. The construction will include building for the police department, city services and housing. The proposed building has been initially described as between 5-10 stories tall with 100 housing units. While we are not Hillsborough residents, such a project will dramatically impact the safety of our neighborhood as well as the quality of our lives during and after the construction.
I have attached a flyer with details of the meeting (9/12 at 6PM) as well links to greater proposal plans for the town’s development and zoning. Our concern is the development of the town campus. We are planning to attend the meeting but would very much appreciate the support and involvement of our Burlingame representatives at this meeting and through the duration of planning proposals. https://www.hillsborough.net/DocumentCenter/View/5156/Hillsborough-Housing-Element_PUBLICREVIEW-DRAFT-2?bidId= https://www.hillsborough.net/553/2023-2031-Housing-Element-Update Our concerns are as follows:
1. Walnut Ave is one of the narrowest streets (24 ft.) in Burlingame. If vehicles are parked on both sides of the streets, it is difficult for emergency vehicles as well as Recology trucks to get down the street. A delay in the arrival of emergency services is a safety and welfare concern. It is also not an unusual occurrence for parked cars to have side mirrors damaged because the street is so narrow.
2. The potential traffic from an additional 100 residential units using a street that is already narrow and populated with many young families is a serious safety liability. How can the infrastructure be altered to ensure the safety of our residents and children?
3. We have many young families on the 700 block of Walnut. The closest signal is at Floribunda and El Camino. Many of our families walk their children to McKinley School using the crosswalk at Floribunda and El Camino. On the portion of the block that is Hillsborough property, there is no sidewalk on the west side of the street to safely walk on. A long term construction project at the corner reduces the number of safe options to get the children to school.
After the project is complete, the area will be congested and still be a safety concern.
4. Accidents frequently occur at the intersection of Floribunda and El Camino.
Although steps have been taken to reduce the occurrence, what additional steps can be taken to ensure safety and access for the families of Walnut Ave as well as the additional potential 100 plus new residents, their families and workers based in the Hillsborough Town Center?
5. Whenever there is a function at the Hillsborough town hall, no parking signs are put out on Floribunda, but not on Walnut Ave. Examples are the tree lighting ceremony and the Memorial Day parade. During these events, the 700 block of Walnut is completely occupied with non-resident parked cars.
6. Where will construction workers be parking during this project? Will residents and employees of the town hall project be parking on Walnut Ave after the project is complete? Is there adequate parking planned for 100 units? Families often have two cars.
7. If there is an accident on El Camino, traffic is often routed down Walnut Ave.
Cars frequently do not obey the 25 mph speed limit. Non-residential parking will compound the dangers when navigating the street putting residents and their children at risk.
8. Walnut Ave makes a sharp bend when it reaches the Hillsborough town complex. Ingress and egress from the driveway at this location are already a safety concern. If a vehicle is driving south on Walnut and the morning sun is low, it is hazardous and often impossible to see oncoming vehicles. More traffic will increase the chances of an accident in these scenarios.
We have been trying to think of possible solutions and ways to mitigate problems that will impact Walnut Ave residents. Our neighborhood has never faced a problem like this before. We don’t know all of the possible options, the cost of various options and the legality of the various options. We are hoping the City of Burlingame can help us with solutions. We have a few suggestions, but again, we are not sure what the best solution or combination of solutions may be.
Below is the possible list we have generated to date.
1. Design a project with fewer housing units and adequate parking.
2. Create a cul de sac for the 700 block of Walnut that ends with the boundary of Burlingame.
3. Parking permits for residents only on Walnut Ave. Potentially gardeners or other resident services could have permits for limited hours of parking.
4. Install additional traffic lights at Willow and El Camino and possibly at the Forestview intersection.
5. Because of the increase in population density, create a new traffic safety plan to access Floribunda and El Camino.
6. On the portion of the block that is within Hillsborough, pave a sidewalk on the west side for safety purposes.
7. Eliminate the driveway from the town center onto Walnut Ave. If the driveway cannot be removed, straighten the bend in the street that begins where the town hall is. This will ensure greater visibility and may help prevent accidents.
Thanks in advance for reading this email and we are hoping the city of Burlingame will offer support and solutions to help us solve this dilemma. Please let us know what next steps can be taken to insure the safety of our neighborhood and how the city will help us.
Sincerely,
Chris and Michael Read
TOWN OF
HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
12 STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: RHNA 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - PROJECT
BRIEFING ON PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED TO DATE
SUMMARY: The Town's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 6 Draft Housing Element was released for public review on Thursday, August 4, 2022. The Draft was developed utilizing input received from a variety of sources, including but not limited to: feedback received from the staff-advisory Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC); feedback received from housing advocacy organizations and housing-related non-profits; information received via the Town’s participation in the 21 Elements project; feedback received from the broader Hillsborough community via venues such as the November 2021 Visioning Workshop, various online surveys and mapping activities, and public comment at numerous public meetings; information and feedback received from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and, requirements under State Housing Element Law.
The public review period for the Draft Housing Element is open for 45 days, starting Thursday, August 4, 2022 and closing on Monday, September 19, 2022. During this period the project team is in listening mode, collecting comments and feedback on the Draft Housing Element. At the close of the public review period the team will catalogue all public comments, which will be shared with the public, City Council, and ultimately, HCD. As the policy-making body of the Town, the City Council will be the final decision makers who direct staff regarding the content of the document to be submitted to HCD.
At the City Council Meeting on September 12, 2022, staff will provide an overview of the public comments received to date, as of 10am on Thursday September 8, 2022.
Following the closure of the public comment period, the City Council will hold a meeting on Monday, September 26, 2022 to discuss the Draft Housing Element Update and any modifications to be implemented before submittal of the housing element to HCD. The project team anticipates submittal to HCD during the first half of October, with the specific date dependent on direction received from the City Council at the September 26 meeting. Preliminary feedback from HCD is anticipated withing the first 45 days of the 90-day review period and will be shared with the public and the City Council upon receipt.
Public Comment Opportunities
Email - The Town has a dedicated email account for the Update effort ([email protected])
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
In Person – The Town held two public Open Houses:
1. Thursday, August 18, 2022 – 80 Attendees
2. Tuesday, September 6, 2022 – 134 Attendees
Online Survey – The Town has linked a public comment survey on our Housing Element Update Page (link provided below) to receive feedback on the draft Housing Element.
Virtually – The Town has a Virtual Open House option for those unable to attend one of the inperson events: https://www.hlplanning.com/vr/hillsborough Overview of Public Comments to date
As of publication of the City Council packet on Thursday September 8, 2022, the Town has received public comments as follows:
• Total of 14 comments received via email before August 4, 2022, prior to the release of the public review Draft Housing Element
• Total of 81 comments received via email
• Total of 44 comments received via comment cards from the in-person Open House #1 • Total of 99 comments received via comment cards from the in-person Open House #2 • Total of 15 responses to the online survey
• Total of 8 comments received through the virtual open house Ways to be involved and informed
In February 2021 the Department launched the Housing Element Update website and created a 2022 Housing Element e-subscription option on the Town’s “NotifyMe” webpage. These pages may be accessed via the links below:
• Housing Element Update Page
o https://www.hillsborough.net/553/2023-2031-Housing-Element-Update • NotifyMe e-subscription Page
o https://www.hillsborough.net/list.aspx
Updates along with all presentations, meetings recordings, and other documents related to all public housing element update meetings are available for public review on the Town’s Housing Element Update page. Notice of Town meetings will be posted on Town bulletin boards, on the online Town calendar, and sent out in the Town's e-announcements and newsletter.
The Town has a dedicated email account for the Update effort ([email protected]) and has established a dedicated section in the Town’s weekly e-Announce to keep the community apprised of upcoming meetings and events related to the Update effort.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Town is in the process of preparing the necessary environmental review for the Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update. Prior to the time that the City Council is required to adopt the Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update, CEQA review will Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022
have been completed and will be available to the City Council for consideration prior to any discretionary action of the City Council to adopt the housing element.” ATTACHMENTS:
1. Public Comment Received before August 4, 2022, prior to the release of the public review Draft Housing Element
2. Public Comment Received during the Public Comment Period PREPARED BY: Liz Ruess, Long-range Planning and Special Projects RECOMMENDATION: Receive the RHNA 6 Housing Element Update Project briefing on public comment received to date.
From: June Lee
To: General Plan
Subject: the adddition of 500 + housing units in Hillsborough Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 3:04:23 PM
To members of the HEAC committee,
I received notice today of pending action on the proposal to add multiple 500+ housing units in our community. Please come up with a plan that will not change our minimum lot size, setback or frontage requirements or allow building in high fire risk areas. Also, do not accept any plans that will require greater density in any of our existing neighborhoods whether they be along transit corridors or not. I am unabashedly in favor of keeping Hillsborough the safe, uncrowded, serene community it now is. As residents we have all worked hard to earn the right to live in this unique environment.
I understand that your task to uphold the standards of our community but also to comply with state housing requirements is not easy. However, as our representatives we hold you to the task. We have unparalleled talent here in Hillsborough who are ready and willing to help. Please seek their advice and listen to what they have to say.
Thank you for your service.
Best,
June Lee
ATTACHMENT 1
From: Frank Mak
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Ann Ritzma Subject: Hillsborough Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:33:59 PM
Hello Hillsborough Housing Planning Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to add additional housing units to Hillsborough.
I am concerned with any proposals to focus housing to only certain areas of Hillsborough. I think focusing on the upper/West Hillsborough and those who live close to El Camino would place an extreme, unfair burden on select neighborhoods of our beautiful town.
I live in the Skyfarm section of Hillsborough and I am concerned with * increased traffic,
* increased fire danger
* increased school populations especially to West School * increased stress on our town's water pressure
I am also concerned about adding higher density housing in the upper/West Hillsborough area.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my comments in this matter. --
Frank Mak
Hillsborough, CA 94010
From: Raayan Zarandian Mohtashemi
To: Sarah Fleming
Subject: Ingress to De Guigne
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:05:21 PM
Hi Sarah,
I think that re-exploring ingress to the DeGuigne via Glenbrook is a worthwhile thing to do, in addition to Oak Valley road. I know there was controversy the last time we tried to do this, but is this something you have looked at this time around? I live close by and would love to help try and organize some support to that access.
Also, on a related note - would it be possible to satisfy ingress requirements to go above maximum densities with pedestrian/bike-only ingress/egress? Thanks,
Raayan
From: Linda Yuen
To: General Plan
Subject: HEAC and general plan
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 5:55:22 PM
I feel that there should be a pause on all building in Hillsborough until the general plan as well as any other plans involving building restrictions, etc can be evaluated by the public. There should be a formal referendum rather than the piecemeal approach that is used now.
Any proposed housing for alternative living or low income housing should be solely on land owned by the Town, most of which seems to be in the Tobin Clark area. This area is next to a shopping center, schools and existing transportation as well as easy access to 101 and 280.
Town residents should not have to be obligated to reconfigure their properties.
Sent from my iPhone
Thank you,
Linda Yuen
From: Aurelio Yuen
To: Al Royse
Cc: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough High-Density Housing Plan
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 5:39:48 PM
Dear Sir:
With regards to Hillsborough High-Density Housing Plan, I propose the following:
1. Changes in zoning regulations should be limited to existing unoccupied public properties.
2. Proposed housing plan should be approved by a resident’s referendum.
3. HEAC should exclude persons with conflict of interest, including but not limited to builders, contractors, realtors, etc.
Aurelio Yuen
My iPhone
From: Andy Mowat
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Ann Ritzma; General Plan Subject: the proposal to add more units
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 2:46:32 PM
I live in hillsborough and this plan is a terrible idea Don't change lot sizes - taht is why we all bought in this community. We should NOT build more units near 280- It is heavy fire danger area already and will change the character of the community
Andy Mowat
http://www.linkedin.com/in/amowat
My inbox is protected by Gated
From: Medea Isphording Bern
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May Cc: General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Sarah Fleming
Subject: Housing plan
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:23:31 AM
Greetings, Council members and HEAC members,
Thank you all for your work on this difficult issue.
Upon reviewing the documents online and HEACs recent communication, I have a few questions. Unfortunately, I have a conflict this evening so please excuse this written communication.
1. If a town resident applies for and builds an ADU, is there a requirement that s/he offer it for rent to the general population at a particular below-market sum? If that sum is inadequate to recover the cost of building the ADU, why would anyone spend that money?
2. Many of us live in high fire danger zones. Won’t increasing building and population in these areas put more lives and properties at risk?
3. There is virtually zero mass transit available in the area near Black Mountain Road. It seems that adding high-density housing here, without addressing transit, will do nothing more than adding cars to narrow roads, increasing exhaust fumes and clogging traffic arteries.
4. I’m unclear about the South School proposition—are you considering razing South and the DO and putting apartments on these sites?
5. The obvious impacts to the quality of life in HB and the influx of students to already full schools will need to be addressed. If there is an exodus of homeowners from the town and/or a diminishment in the quality of the schools, I’m not sure how that helps anyone.
6. There is mention of ‘aging in the community’ as part of the housing plan; is there discussion around building nursing homes in HB so that homeowners can be shuffled from their houses into their ‘community’? I’m pretty sure that’s not going to fly.
7. Finally, we partner with Burlingame on so many other community matters. Is there some reason that the Council decided against such a union for this issue? Honestly, I am baffled by this mandate from the state. When so many housing units sit vacant, and when our state is both burning up and dying of thirst, it seems to me that building more is the last thing we should be contemplating.
Sincerely,
Medea Isphording Bern
We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy -- sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that. -Thomas Edison, inventor (1847-1931) From: Sean J
To: General Plan
Subject: Concerns Regarding Potential Resolution to Address Housing Units Mandate Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 9:37:46 AM
Hi, I’m a home owner in Hillsborough and I’d like to express my concerns regarding the potential resolution to address the state housing units mandate.
Concerns:
about the safety of putting higher density housing in our highest fire danger areas, including the areas around the US-280 corridor. For example, Marin County was exempted due to HIGH FIRE RISK designation, our town is 70% HIGH FIRE RISK designated especially around US-280. And so, shouldn't our town's requirement be lowered by 70% accordingly.
Hillsborough had the chance in 2020 to strike a deal with surrounding cities to share or transfer part of the eventual housing allocation but it did not. Hillsborough town seemed to have acquiesced to the aggressively high allocation that was handed down by the Association of Bay Area Governments last year, unlike 27 other cities in the Bay Area that appealed their allocation, such as Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Cities similar to Hillsborough have much lower allocations: Atherton only has 348 units, Woodside 328 units, Portola Valley 253, Belvedere 160, and Ross 111.
Shouldn’t we make an effort to protect the unique character of our community and ensure that we do our fair share of the mandate, but not more, as other cities have done? There Are Better Options to Address the Requirements:
Should we abandon regulations that make our town character unique such as setbacks and large lot sizes?
Why not create multi-story “villages” on town-owned properties (open areas, schools, city hall complex)?
Why doesn’t the town proactively manage the allocation of 665 units over 8 years? Note that by encouraging ADUs alone, we can likely address a large portion of the requirement, including low-income housing when they’re being used by domestic helpers and retired in-laws, without changing our building regulations.
More importantly:
Once the building regulations are changed, there will be no turning back Changing regulations will open an uncontrollable floodgate for the units to multiply, potentially by a much larger proportion than required, and forever change our town character
Whereas a managed allocation and build-out specifically for the purpose in the townowned land, will ensure that the density can be properly maintained as required, no more, and no less.
Otherwise, we can be sure to see developers buying up older properties for the land, perhaps next door to your home, and start building multi-unit complexes, thus increasing traffic and overwhelming our utility service providers.
We had missed the opportunity to appeal earlier as our peer cities had done.
Let’s not repeat the same mistakes and be proactive in managing our future and maintain the character of our town for generations to come.
Yours truly, Sean Jiam
From: Nancy Malaspina
To: Al Royse; Larry May; Ann Ritzma; General Plan
Subject: Fwd: RHNA obligations
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 8:48:15 PM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nancy Malaspina
Date: 1 August 2022, 7:57:37 p.m. PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RHNA obligations
Reply-To: Nancy Malaspina
Town Council Member,
I am writing to express our concerns about the Hillsborough RNHA obligations being imposed by the State of California.
My husband and I bought our home in Hillsborough in 1971. We had 3 children soon to be attending Hillsborough schools thus we decided to settle in Hillsborough because of the quality of education and small class size. We also wanted a larger lot in which our children could play, eliminating the trips to local parks. And we also wanted the quality of life provided by more privacy, having moved from a townhouse in South San Francisco). We chose to pay a much higher price for our home to assure these requirements.
Our concerns are many:
1. Quality of education will suffer because teachers will be burdened with more students and of various educated levels.
2. Schools will be over crowded because the present buildings will not accommodate more students.
3. Privacy will definitely be jeopardized should my neighbor or a new buyer decide to build 2 duplexes on an adjoining lot. We could have stayed in our townhouse.
4. High density and low income housing often bring in more crime. Is out current police force up to what would be required, both in ability and numbers required. More police require more tax dollars.
5. Would our present fire protection arrangement meet the needs of a 10%+ increase in residents and 15% increase in residences? Probably more tax dollars to provide sufficient fire/emergency protection, which would be bourn by the total residents, not just the new residents.
6. Our streets and roads were not built to accommodate more and higher traffic. This community was originally intended as a getaway from San Francisco, a more rural atmosphere, with narrower streets and ambling roads. Again more tax dollars would be required for additions/maintenance to current roadways, again which would be bourn by all the residents not just the new residents.
7. Will our current water pressure/supply suffer, again probably requiring more tax dollars to upgrade and more monthly expense.
7. I understand the town of Hillsborough owns 200+ acres of land. Why not build on that land and not impact the homes of current residents.
8. I also heard (unverified) that the town had a chance to appeal this dictate. if so I am disappointed that the people elected to watch for our needs fell down on the job. The next election will reflect that disappointment.
My last comment is a hope the members of the HEAC committee will be realistic about the current real needs for more housing, not following some dictate based on old projections.
And that they are not biased towards the whims of state officials.
We will be following the situation closing, attending meetings when our time and ability allows.
Please protect my life and home.
Sincerely, Nancy Malaspina,
From: Melissa Klaerner
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element Concerns
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:36:17 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Element Advisory Committee,
We write to express concerns regarding the proposed modifications to the Housing Element of the General Plan and to request that the Town "pause" this process to allow full consideration of the available options, the effects of various options on Town residents, and the concerns of the residents who came to Hillsborough for its current character and will be adversely affected by drastic changes thereto.
First, we ask the Town to hold a town referendum on these proposed drastic and permanent changes to ensure that the taxpaying residents who will be affected are able to be heard.
Second, we ask the Town to actively advocate for the safety of everyone in this high and very high fire risk area by pursuing reduction of the mandated number of new housing units (and strategic location thereof), or exemption from the requirement all together as was accomplished by Marin County.
Third, we ask the Town to carefully consider the viability of accommodating any required increase in housing units on town-owned properties (many of which are empty spaces) rather than by modifying the zoning regulations on existing parcels (such as lot sizes and setbacks) that make our town unique. Further, the proposed plan to concentrate these additional units on certain Hillsborough neighborhoods near transit corridors unfairly burdens those neighborhoods and thoughtlessly exacerbates existing problems (such as water pressure in upper West Hillsborough and traffic congestion at transit interchanges such as the US-280/Black Mountain Rd intersection).
Regards,
Gerrit and Melissa Klaerner
Hillsborough, CA
From: Sheila McLaughlin Burke
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May Cc: General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Sarah Fleming
Subject: Stand Up to Sacramento
Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 11:42:41 PM
Stop being Sacramento's henchmen and represent the citizens of Hillsborough. Appears there's a conflict of interest with those making these decisions because it is not representing a town that is loosing its longstanding sense of community - this is fractious and untenable.
From: City Center Inn & Suites/Varsha I. Patel
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May Cc: General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Sarah Fleming
Subject: RE: How many homes
Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:47:33 PM
To whom it may concern:
How many homes in total in Hillsborough currently?
How was 554 new home units derived? And, what size are you exactly needed per State mandate?
Who is going to pay for 554 units mandated?
How does 554 more homes meet sustainability of earth? More trash, more sewer, more water usage, more gas & electricity usage, more noise, more traffic - this sounds horrible! How will the State assure Hillsborough safety & security? How many employees that do not live in Hillsborough would want to be able to live and afford the property taxes on the new modest/small single family homes on their own lot? Townhomes, multi-family homes are not characteristic of Hillsborough homes - only if occupied by sand family works or au pair quarters should be required by homes over 6000 sq ft?
Hope to hear from you soon.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Sally Meakin
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Ann Ritzma Subject: We vehemently oppose the high density housing plan Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 5:50:16 PM
Sally & Jim Meakin
Hillsborough
From: Vinette Ramsay
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May Cc: General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Sarah Fleming
Subject: Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 3:51:17 PM
Hello,
One thought I have had to meet our adu requirements is to contact homeowners with pool houses that currently do not meet adu standards and provide incentives for the owners to upgrade to permitted adus. Many of these units may simply be lacking a cooktop and most already have bathrooms.
Best,
Nettie Ramsay
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kristin Anne Torres Mowat
To: General Plan
Subject: Concerned Hillsborough Resident
Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 9:28:46 PM
To Whom it may Concern,
I am a very concerned Hillsborough Resident learning about the current council's plan to increase the density and zoning of areas in hillsborough close to 280 and el camino.
I find it reprehensible that we are not appealing the mandate given the fire danger we have - other similarly situated cities and towns have been excused - and you must not live close to the 280 Hillsborough entry that is dense and dry and surrounded by dangerous PG&E lines and on top of a dangerous PG&E gas line. do you want Hillsborough to be the next San Bruno with fire and gas explosions?
And West school is already in terrible physical shape and overcrowded - the street and traffic for school is dangerous for children and unsustainable for our neighborhood, our classrooms are already more crowded than our other sister schools - and West school and the neighborhood surrounding it always get left as 3rd rate citizens in any consideration and improvements this town takes. i think it is akin to discrimination against this part of town as it is and you are only adding to that.
And why does the town not consider burdening or giving up its own undeveloped land and instead think of burdening our homes, our roads, and our property? We do not pay what we do to live here and to have the potential of a decent town taken out from under us. I say potential because as it is, we are not doing what we need to do to maintain and protect Hillsborough from fire danger, from crime, from speeders, from poorly maintained signage, from poorly maintained roads, from poorly maintained green areas. why are we not fixing those problems instead of adding more problems to the list? We will forever change the safety and make-up of our town and ruin it. It will be noisy, trafficked, and have a lot more crime - we already have problems in these areas that are not addressed appropriately as it is. I think members of our city council and this housing committee are not carrying out their duty to listen to citizens, to do what is in the best interest of the community.
I join with many many other concerned Hillsborough residents and demand that we be heard and that there be a pause to this absurd plan.
Kristin Torres Mowat
Hillsborough Resident
Housing Element Open House #2 Comments
Tuesday, September 6, 2022
# Name Comment
1 No rezoning of the City!
2 Nawmarie Panalfou - I opposed Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge City Council to reject it - we oppose it all 3 Monic Stuart - The current proposed plan is not going to have the desired effects. It will simply increase fire risk, safety and decrease property values. I favor using land near resources (stores/businesses/public transportation) I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
4 Dennis Moore - I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
5 Ani Vartanian Boladian - I love the idea of mixed affordable housing at Town Hall location. My strong preference is 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 in terms of affordable allocation. But no rezoning of all lots. Instead, allow for looser ADU, JADU requirements I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
6 Jamie Greene - I think all plan items except ADUs should be used to solve our problem I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
7 Tim Murphy - I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
8 David & Diana Beatson - This plan will lower the quality of our schools, and property values and actually be very difficult for the low cost occupants to live in the community
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
9 This is absolutely a terrible idea. What are alternatives?? Need to move away from compliance mindset to finding creative solution or determine how to counter the State's mandate/explain other options. This will decimate our beautiful community.
10 Marilyn Meier In order to fulfill our mandate in the next 8 years, I think that we cannot relax only on ADUs. We need to build some apartments that are at least 3 apartments that are at least 3 or more stories high. Units near ECR on 280 make the most sense to me. I agree with the proposed zoning changes.
11 We current residents. Our children are raised. We would not qualify for low income housing but we would like to downsize and still reside in Hillsborough. A duplex, 4-plex or even 8-plex would be wonderful. We love our home town! 12 Please update the plan to include the number of ADUs that have been proposed and built in the last 2 years 13 Also, think about allowing 2 ADUs per lot, to increase the count for housing 14 Jane Williams I must have been asleep when the announcement was made that I no longer live in a democracy!! This is unacceptable 15 Any affordable housing should include 80, 100, and 120% of AMI. Mixed housing works best vs. 1-class for housing, for stigma reasons
16 No rezoning. ADUs.
ATTACHMENT 2
17 I also do not believe a high density, no parking unit at Town Hall is appropriate given environemtnal, parking, utility or other reasons
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
18 This is very hard. Please be sure to weigh every public comment seriously. These are well thought out ideas. They should have been included and sought MUCH sooner.
19 Magile It 50 Brooke Court is not work. It is a very steep Hills and very small entrance. We object. It is a ridiculous plan. 20 Peilu Shu It's not ok to build townhomes at 50 Brooke Court because of fire hazard, traffic constraint, safety of the neighbors. Please stop the plan.
21 David Can - No low income housing in Hillsborough
22 The state should not be allowed to eliminate our zoning authority and guidelines!! 23 No rezoning . No multi-family homes. ADU are acceptable IF they are consistent with setback feet from property lines 24 It's quite unfortunate that each of these plans has a major downside. Would be good to push for highest possible ADU # possible and minimize some of the other options to minimize impact. Might be good to show only 10% of each of other options to have good faith effort but also have room to negotiate 25 Les + Kim Keyak
[email protected]
My wife Kim and I are for ADUs and 1/3 acre lots with some consideration of the setbacks and lot width. We are against for rent housing and high density housing for Hillsborough. I am a housing provider with approximately 60 units of affordable housing/Section 8 and have a lot of experience in this matter. 26 No rezoning - stop. No 100 apartments with parking (they will own cars!). ADUs are the simple solution. Public safety - brownouts - grid cannot handle volume today
27 I think its very important that we are able to count ADUs that are currently on residence's properties but were built before the permits that allow them to be counted. It should count if it's eligible, regardless of paperwork. 28 it screw it
29 When was the Regional Needs Housing Allocation established? What year? Has it been adjusted for the loss in population because of the high cost of living in California Concer. There really isn't a need for more hosuing in California!! 30 We oppose!!
31 Given we share a zip code with Burlingame why can't Bayshore redevelopment be in question? What about total cost to maintain infrastructure and schools?
32 Peilu Shu This draft plan is going to change the dynamic and culture of Hillsborough we all cherish for so many years. Please stop it 33 Why doesn't the Town better communication more information about identifying ADUs - specifically what an ADU is and how to get older ADUs deeded as such?
34 Maggie It This draft plan is going to change the dynamic of Hillsborough, we decline it. 35 Hillsborough don't have the water, road, and school to support a big increase in its residents. No. No. No. 36 No on the project. We don't need more residences. People are leaving, not coming. 37 no
38 This current plan is not acceptable. We do not want any rezoning in Hillsborough. We shoul dfocus on ADUs as that will allow for the town to develop as necssary. We agree that housing is needed, but through ADUs. 39 Giovanni Ottolini
[email protected]
Good evening, my name is Giovanni Ottolini, I represent 7000 men and women in San Mateo County. These men and women are hardworking blue collar carpentders and other skilled tradespeople. All to often their voices are left out of this Housing Element discussion. I would love to see Labor Standards adopted in the Housing Element to level the playing field for responsible contractors that pay a livable wage in one of the most expensive counties in the US. I am a field rep. for Carpenters local 217 in Foster City. members of this community deserve and opportunity to work in their local community and earn a fair wage for their skilled labor. I would love an opportunity to speak more about how this important community component of the Housing Element. Thank you for reads. 40 Solution: ADUs should be emphasized!
41 I am opposed to the R2 zoning plan. I would like us to pursue ADU/JADU only solution, similar to Atherton. I have a young family here and came for the existing characteristic of the neighborhood. Please consider not including R2. 42 No rezoning! STOP
43 Please make available information about how you figured on 100 units at Town Hall 44 F. Koffle Stop Sacramento from taking over local community zoning!!! 45 What happens if we just don't do it? Where does funding come from? 46 Site 3 is not going to work! Loot at Brooke Court size. It's too narrow. 47 I oppose the current plan that plans to build many multi-family units. I would support a plan that mostly consists of ADUs and some units on site for teachers, police, etc.
48 This proposal is too aggressive, that is destroyed the landscape of the town's housing structures of many decades of history! In order to create more affordable housing, ADUs, low rise multi-units around El Camino and 208 would be more appropiate. No. No. No.
49 [email protected] Hillsborough must not wrongly give up its unique qualtiies. Changes to zoning law should not be tolerated. I support the path presented by Dennis Moore
50 Pauline & John Beare We want ADUs ony. No to consultants 51 Only ADU allowable. Do not re-zoning
52 If there is any way forward with increasing ADUs that is by far the most palatable approach to this. This disperses the need and solutions town-wide
53 The areas identified put all of the burden for change and all of the implications of change on a minority of town residents with a disproportionate impact on a minority for real estate value, police needs, traffic impacts, infrastructure impacts (water, street, construction, noise, etc.)
54 Carley Goldberg I do not support multi-family homes. I'd like to see us accomplish the housing crisis by building more ADUs. Our schools and streets cannot handle the proposed housing element. 55 Gene Chan, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
56 Susan Alcala, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
Please consider the above as well as finding ADUs which are not currently registered (because they are older), but could count
57 Nick Panagotou Can this all be achieved by ADUs? Low and moderate income housing has many negatives that this Town will regret allowing
58 As a Hillsborough owner. We oppose this low income hosuing units or any housing 59 Rupert and Maryellie Johnson Please no rezoning ADU is best approach further discussion is needed 60 Housing the site at Town Hall is a insensible idea. Where will the police station go? What about parking? This should be built where there are no homes and more empty lots so it doesn't disturb others 61 I am emphatically against rezoning Hillsborough
62 Do not rezone this is a dangerous precedent
63 Please make a list of all developers and real estate and contractors consultant public info 64 We can meet the housing demands through ADUs - many exist already and are not being counted - make an effort to identify existing ADUs. Reduce permit fees for ADUs , make it easier to get structures deeded ADUs 65 Stanley Lo owns many properties in
Hillsborough
We do not want affordable units. We oppose the housing element in this beautiful town. 66 Have you looked at the parcel off 280 between 280 and Country Club and Black Mountain? If it belongs to the SFPUC the City can condemn it for higher use: housing
67 Alex Dyner I'd like to see/hear a presentation of the plan and the logic of it compared to Atherton's plan. The Atherton plan seems more favorable to current residents but perhaps I'm missing something 68 Why are we event considering adding more housing to Hillsborough, the Bay Area, and California when there isn't enough water!!
69 Please don't build on any of the steep land which borders Crystal Springs Road (the south side). It would really destabilize the hill
70 Can we trade real estate credits with a less built up town, in the same way that carbon credits are traded 71 Susale Alcale Town Council - please consider an outreach or survey to find second units in existence prior to housing elements (therefore uncounted) to see how many we have that could count. I know of 3 off the top of my head. 72 The suggested housing units for Hillsborough is way too much for our community to have to accept 73 It is well understood that our property values will decline under these proposals, we should also receive a proportional reduction in our property taxes
74 Can Hillsborough sell property to an approved property developer, who will create units that would be ONLY for Hillsborough employees like police, fireman, teachers, gardeners, nannies, and housekeepers 75 Forcing us to change possible property sizes will change the character of Hillsborough 76 Nick Panagotou Where is the water coming from? There needs to be a water source before any development occurs 77 John Lockton, The town is much too afraid of the details of the law. The Council should be looking after the needs of residents, not focusing on religiously following the law. I know this is difficult for lawyers on the Council to accept, but there is the law and the enforced law. In the 2015 drought we put in strict rationing and penalties to abide by the law. It all turned out to be a good faith effort was enough, for towns that did not comply, would a good faith effort not be enough here? May be you should test it by adopting the alternative plan which gives more flexibility before going to the Town plan. If you do everything in the Town plan it is hard to see how it can ever be reversed 78 We bought in Hillsborough for its unique character and good schools. I am in support of the ADU and Town Hall redevelopment. I am 110% opposed to subdivision and housing opportunity sites. Instead I think we should really encourage promoting ADUs to hit the number. I think this could be easily accepted. 79 What happens if we don't do anything? What would the fees be? Are there any state funds to support the construction costs?
80 I think the town needs a committee to spread out and go door to door to determine how many ADUs are actually on properties -- not just current coded ones.
81 Where are we going to get water, electricity, schools, excess traffic on narrow roads. We do not want to rezone! 82 I respect the housing mandate however using private property (Strawberry Hill) and building multiple heights and multiple units is just not responsible. Please do not rezone that site. Mandates are just suggestions. Trees/animals are all important! Where would they go but in areas where they are not wanted! 83 The current ADU strategy is counter-productive. AnA DU now can qualify as very-low income housing if its just a small pool house. People (and the Town of Hillsborough) are encouraging this trategy, knowing full well that it won't provide much if any new housing in Hillsborough. Not fair! We need strategies that will increase housing and increase the diversity and vitality of Hillsborough.
84 Susan Comartin I don't want any kind of rezoning in any part of Hillsborough. IF we need auxilary housing, allow ADUs. We have not enough water, fire, and police and schools for 3000-4000 more people 85 Sally Farr Dear Town Council, I have major objections to the plan that has been proposed to meet the CA requirements re additional housing in Hillsborough. Specifically, I oppose rezoning for smaller lot sizes as well as the idea of a 10-story building at Town Hall (with no consideration for parking and the strain on Town services/schools that will inevitably result). I am much more inclined to favor addressing the state requirements by encouraging Hillsborough residents to build ADU and JADU buildings. I hope the Town Council will provide residents with an opportunity to voice their concersns/objections. Thanks for listening!
86 Brian Desler, We oppose the rezoning of single-family homes to 1/3 acre. Emphasize ADUs and development (at higher density) of vacant parcels that are large. Full disclosure, our family owns the 20 acres on Tartan Trail/Crystal Springs and we are willing to explore higher density than the current 8 approved home sites 87 Maria Farmas, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
I oppose housing in Hillsborough
88 Khristine Holterman, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
89 Mana Jamali, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
This town could not support 6 story tall buildings. Schools, traffic...we as a community should focus on building ADUs and JADUs
90 Libby and Bill O'Leary, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
Please do not submit the consultant's plan. It does not look like it contemplates negotiation - it looks like it was drafted to automatically comply with the RHNA. You (as our valued representatives) can create a better outcome for our Town. 91 Laith Salma, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
I oppose the current draft. We need at least 60 ADUs/year allocated, plan is critically flawed 92 Ingrid deMoor, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
SM Fire Marshall needs to make building ADUs easier. WUI and AMP (alternative means of protection) increase costs significantly making ADU building cost prohibitive
93 Katie Salma, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
This plan will significantly change our town - not for the better. Please represent the interest of the residents of Hillsborough and come up with a plan that aligns with our town's needs and character 94 Alex Dyner, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
95 M. Ambrose, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
There must be an approach taht is more balanced. You're putting way too much out there. THere are many more ideas to be floated and considered.
96 Ruth J Wisnom, I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
Tax increases, not too many ADUs, provision for public workers to have priority, water shortage, street parking, school overcrowding
97 Phyllis and Scott Bedford I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it. I support hte alternative Smarter Housing for Hillsborough plan because:
I want the town to submit a Housing Element that utilizes only ADUs and vacant properties to achieve our RHNA allocation.
it does not require the entire City of Hillsborough be rezoned it allows those with older, smaller house from expansion it includes a sufficient number of ADUs and/or JADUs
I am not in favor of the current plan. See you Monday night! We are so looking forward to an active discussion and problem solving session. I would like to consider alternatives. The current plan doesn't consider meeting the objectives with ADUs which seems like a reasonable solution. Love our receptive town, together we will prevail 98 Lorne Rosenfield, [email protected] Strongly against the plan we don't support rezoning the entire Town - if necessary, I am in favor of zoning to support more senior housing.
99 Gina Rosenfield, I vehemently oppose the town's plan. We don't need to rezone the entire town, and a majority of the high density units should be comprised of senior housing.
Housing Element Open House #1 Comments
Thursday, August 18, 2022
# Name Comment
1 Jenny I appreciate the need for more housing! If you put 100 unts/200-300 people at Town Hall (30-60 feet) for those of us on Walnut/Florbunda - you will block our light/air/less ventilation/distancing re: Covid, xxx parking stalls, increased dog waste, and extreme construction noise.
2 This does note gibe with facts. Other Bay Area Plans have only ADUs/JADUs. We must submit an all ADU/JADU Plan 3 I have just added an ADU. I took 6 (!) months to get a permit - which is a lot given these goals. A big part of this was access to a fire hydrant - and they would only county feet in one direction. Please make standard rules/guidance real in practice. 4 I comment the Council and staff for their excellent efforts to make the Town's response as transparent as possible. Well done by all!
5 The Town should help simplify the process of adding ADUs for residents and incentivize them to build them to meet and/or exceed the target number to qualify for affordable housing. Also, the Town should put yard signs on every corner to notify residnets of the proposed changes.
6 If residents build ADUs for very to us become and hom - less there is nothing to prevent them from renting there for very high rental tees thus defeating the stat's mandate. This is a real estate developers "dream" 7 Market to the community - ADU guidelines and non-conforming units that could be rented to add an ADU. Please live here for a long time and don't realize the changes and opportunities. 8 20% buffer is too much
9 Why isn't Racquet Club lot being considered?
10 Can modular structure for an ADU?
11 Does eminent domain pertain to home values significantly lowered by 100-unit buildings built with no citizen appeal process?
12 A. Kenneth Hoasler; I will and so will my family support the city's efforts to comply with the state mandate to submit a plan. I personally believe this is just a huge effort in futility. It just can't happen as there are basic economic laws that, if broken by the state mandates, will result in economic catastrophe. In 1968 I resigned my US Army Captain Commissioner at end of my 2nd Tour in Vietname. Part of my reson in addition to wanting first to come home to the "World" as I remember California. The other reason was all the "eyewash" requirements put forth from the Pentagon - I am talking about Body Coeent. My company - 7th Air Regional was required to certify a minimum of 500 dead Viet Cong or No Vietnamese soldier that are killed every week. So, we did our duty and filled in 500 enemy bodies dead every week. Know case now, if we leave local control of planning we are dead. So we do our duty to submit to this crazy plan. I am happy to help be of service. 13 Concern: to add 100 units at Town Hall, we assume it will be reasonably tall building (maybe OAH - 60 feet). These could be a considerable privacy concern for citizens of Walnut and Fairway and across Floribunda and even Pepper - looking into houses/backyard. Also block light/noise impacts - but privacy impacts will reduce property values. 14 RD-1 Subdivision - the converage is fairly distributed in the city, possibly too much in and around Santa Inez 15 Start by developing the open spaces in Town (which are fire hazards at the moment) and the Town owned acreage 16 Let's find a way without changing our minimum lot size - even if it means introducing townhouse areas to the burdens of Town. Thanks
17 The Town Hall site is very worrisome for the proposal; 100 units = 200-300 people. Today the Walnut/Floribunda power is very faulty and often is last to be repaired. No sidewalks - difficult to cross El Camino Real now. Very poor cell/WiFi service.
No Parking. Easily disrupted water/trash service. With an additional 200-300 people and existing city services, crossing over the Hillsborough/Burlingame border will be very challenging 18 Town Hall lot/project Communications - perhaps "700" notices have gone out about housing (many over 300 pp long). No details on what this will look like. No specific details to those of us who live within 250 feet? Different standards 19 RD-1 only provides 15 new units. Why bother? It creates heartburn for a lot of residents 20 Dennis Moore Opposed to re-zoning the entire Town. We should go to HCD with a plan to build on ADUs/JADUs only. If we have to. No changes to our RD Zone setbacks, street frontage, FAR, Lot sizes 21 Peggy McLaughlin If I understand that we must present a good faith plan, then I suggest our plan detail zoning of OA-H sites allow for maximum zoning for Senior Housing only, i.e., zoning which = 665 units we need. All senior "sounds like Hillsborough" and is not as crazy as Woodside's "plan." Seniors would not impact our schools would add limited traffic and could very well be "low income"
22 I see zero reason to plan for the 20% buffer. Based on my understanding of the requirements we only have to submit a plan for the 100% target, not 120%. I would propose that Hillsborough submit a plan based upon ADUs similar to Atherton. 23 Can the City please be transparent about the level of state funding that we would lose by not complying? My belief is that we receive virtually nothing from the State because we are not viewed as needing assistance. The other 'penalties' by non compliance may be real but I don't believe "state funding" is an issue 24 Can we not offer to subsidize less wealthy Towns in the state (like a 'green credit offset') so that a Town without the means to build, but the desire to do so is helped by the more affluent communities? 25 Peggy McLaughlin It's my understanding that re-zoning of the majority of Hillsborough (RD-1) would yield only 15 additional units. If that's correct, I would like to eliminate the plan for RD1 re-zoning. 26 Ask Burlingame Country Club to build some affordable staffing housing; consider teacher housing on our school properties; ask Crystal and Nueva to also build some staff housing
27 As density is increased, I hope you will make the size of the main house (for new construction) small than the megamansions currently being approved. We need room for trees that are the character defining features of Hillsborough.
Thanks for your thoughtful work on this.
28 The proposed plan of Burlingame and San Mateo as how the concentration would be next to our City the concentration and traffic.
29 This forum does not allow residents to haer others thoughts and does not provide collaboration or discussion. This was NOT a meeting.
30 Residents with homes directly touching Town Hall site received no direct notice of site or potential plans or chance to be part of HEAC
31 Not Adequate Review - we are supposed to get a 45-day public comment period for all this, but the RD-3 site has no zoning parameters and the first chance to review the plan will be September 12 (38 days in) and that will be highly preliminary 32 Concerns with Town Hall Site: Bad power corridor along Walnut. Shared Burlingame/Hillsborough inconsistent policies. No WiFi/Cell Service. Proposed site impacts one home and touches 4 others directly (what setbacks). Visual/Privacy/Light impact on up to 15 homes. At least 2 ADUs in direct area; already dense. Inconsistent water/trash. Many work from home there. No parking - many will park on Fairway/Highgate. People will try to cut through homes on Fairway/Walnut border to get across to parking. Significant noise/construction/impact on existing residents. Likely high impact on house values which are some of the highest in Hillsborough. Huge impact on several elderly/disabled residents nearby. 33 What are the consequences if 554 units are not built within the next 8 years? 34 Bad idea that will ruin our beautiful Town of Hillsborough. This is an assault on Single-Family Zoned Areas. There are 100,000 apartments in San Mateo County alone - and they are not full. Please fight this and save our Town. Thank you. No one believes that low income housing will be created in Hillsborough. 35 How can we be in 45-day public comment with no RD-3 plan for Town Hall? 36 Town-owned Free Space has been discarded - consider spreading things out rather than having HEAC vote an OK on impacting Town Hall neighbors without them present
37 With all the new housing where will the children go to school? My understanding is that North School and Crocker are at capacity
38 Why does this plan assume that owners of large parcels (i.e., Strawberry Hill) will be willing to sell their property for this housing element?
39 Steven Wierenga, Development of the De Guigne estate will generate 100s of additional daily vehicle traffic on Crystal Springs Road due to residents and service vehicles. Crystal Springs Road is already unsafe for bicyclists and cross traffic. A four-way stop will be required at Ridgeway Roady and a 3-way stop at Tartan Trail. 40 No to RD-1, RD-2, and, RD-3. Keep RD with no changes. Submit an ADU/JADU plan like Atherton 41 Steven Wierenga, Strawberry Hill site needs a second access road for resident traffic and emergency vehicles 42 Steven Wierenga, Existing Ridgeway Road access to the De Guigne estate is totally inadequate for development of upper parcel. Does not support increased traffic, emergency access, underground utilities, etc. A second access is required; consider Glenbrook Court from Parrott Drive. Would require a 4-way stop at Crystal Springs/Ridgeway 43 Why has Hillsborough not pushed back on their RHNA goal (fire safety, zoning, etc.) like other communities have? Our community - with no sidewalks/lighting/parking/etc. is very poorly set up for this. 44 Jenny Grew up in Town. Understand we need to add units. If we add, make the main home smaller so there still is size (trees, backyard) to keep the character of the Town. Also concerned about water shortage and safety.
Housing Element Online Survey Responses
(As of 9/08/22)
Survey #
Please provide your feedback on Section 1: Purpose and History below 3 Interesting history. No doubt your are sincere.
4 The purpose does not fit the small town of Hillsborough. We don’t even have side walks! The fire risk and water restrictions already pose burdens for residents.
6 The description of history does not incorporate a big reason people pay top dollar to live here: the landscaping, room for gardens, lots of trees, and architectural diversity. So there are important values that residents seek to protect.
10 this is the WORST survey form ever
12 I am strongly against adding R-2 zoning. As stated in the history, this does not make sense in Hillsborough and will completely change the character. I would like to understand why other cities with similar zoning like Atherton do not need to do this.
13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 I am providing these comments on, and objections to, the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 ("Draft Plan") -- as a Hillsborough resident since 2008. My family has been in Hillsborough since the late 1970s.
15 I am providing these comments on, and objections to, the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 ("Draft Plan") – as a Hillsborough resident since 1989. My family has been in Hillsborough since the late 1962.
Please provide your feedback on Section 2: Public Participation below 3 It appears you did some outreach-still there are scores of Hillsborough residents who are completely unaware of this and when some of the particulars presented, are furious and see this as nothing but a land grab.
4 There has not been enough to notify and inform all Hillsborough residents of the plan. A mailer should have been sent to every resident months ago
5 The town has not been aggressive enough to communicate the plan the engage public feedback 6 The HEAC meetings examined many options but I am not sure there was a lot of consensus. 10 how are supposed to dictate full sentence critiques of 150 page PDF document? 13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 While the State has imposed on the Town a mandate of 554 additional housing units for the 2023-31 cycle, the Draft Plan is an unacceptable proposal for meeting that number. The Draft Plan would radically and irreparably change the character of our Town.
15 While the State has imposed on the Town a mandate of 554 additional housing units for the 2023-31 cycle, the Draft Plan is an unacceptable proposal for meeting that number. The Draft Plan would radically and irreparably change thecharacter of our Town.
Please provide your feedback on Section 3: Review of Past Performance below 3 Huge kudos to the town for work on permitting ADUs and working with local agencies. 5 It seems that since we exceeded the last target set by the state we should get a reduction in the current one.
I understand the town has tried this without success. Are there other avenues to appeal this decision? 10 there is no way the answers to this survey can be USEFUL 13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 The Draft Plan would also harm our property values. At least three key changes need to be made to the Draft Plan.
15 The Draft Plan would also harm our property values. At least three key changes need to be made to the Draft Plan.
Please provide your feedback on Section 4: General Plan Consistency below 3 Sacramento clearly does not understand economics, nor does it pay any attention to our fire and water crises as well as endangered species protection and the pitiful quality of mass transit-which is of limited utility as long we live in a Covid reality.
4 The plan does not work for Hillsborough. Too many additional units per capita, does not make any sense.
For that reason lack of space, we should be exempt from this plan 10 you need data-driven questions, multiple-choice, YES/NO, etc. 13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Change 1 -- We should target the state-mandated 554 housing units -- which is already too high, a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough's existing housing stock, in an era when California's population is decreasing.
15 We should target the state-mandated 554 housing units -- which is already too high, a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough's existing housing stock, in an era when California's population is decreasing.
Please provide your feedback on Section 5: Housing Needs below 3 Guess what? Everyone doesn't get to live wherever they wish. If I had the choice, I'd live in Monaco or the Upper East Side. But I can't afford it.
4 Yes, there is a need for housing, but we are not a normal community that can support it. Hillsborough is very unique and the quality of life that residents buy in Hillsborough for will be lost. Schools and natural resources will be over burdened
6
but the bottom line is that the cost of land in Hillsborough is such that unless housing is subsidized the free market will determine buyers & renters
10 there is no way ANY council member or city manager can make sense of the answers to this survey that could or should affect the document
13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Change 1 (continued) -- The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a "buffer" that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for Hillsborough. There is no need for the Town to do this.
15 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a "buffer" that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for Hillsborough. There is no need for the Townto do this.
Please provide your feedback on Section 6: Housing Constraints below 3 All true. Reality is a key reason that there is not more building going on, here and everywhere else in CA. 4 We do not have the infrastructure to support we are not a normal community that can support this extreme growth in proportion to our small population. Schools and natural resources will be over burdened 6 The number of residents who favor increased density in the town is a very small minority. The views of people who live here has to account for a lot.
13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Change 1 (continued) -- Nor is there any legal requirement that we do this. A 12% increase is more than enough. Our target number should remain 554, not 665.
15 Nor is there any legal requirement that we do this. A 12% increase is more than enough. Our target number should remain 554, not 665.
Please provide your feedback on Section 7: Housing Resources below 3 This is the elephant in the plan--who is going to pay for this? The proposed Brooke Ct site will cost millions to grade and build roads for ingress and egress. Who's going to pay for that without the promise of decent ROI?
4 Hillsborough is zoned 100% single family homes because we only have 11,000 people, 500 more units in a town without any room for more schools is unrealistic
6 Can't comment because there is nothing listed
13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Change 2 -- The Draft Plan provides for too few ADUs (only 280). ADUs should be the primary means of meeting our 554-unit allocation.
15 The Draft Plan provides for too few ADUs. ADUs should be the primary means of meeting our 554-unit allocation.
Please provide your feedback on Section 8: Sites Inventory Analysis below 3 Vacancy tax. That would subsidize a lot of low-income rent vouchers. 4 Zoning for Multi family units should not be allowed. It’s not allowed for a reason, we don’t have the resources to support it, and it’s not what our town was designed for 5 Is the Burlingame Club and Golf course included in the site availability analysis? It is a large piece of relatively undeveloped land and should be included
6 The town owns a number of properties. Some may not be suitable for development, but some may be. A big weakness of the draft is that those were not listed and individually analyzed. Sites 2 and 3 would need additional road access for fire safety
8 Please further explain the need to restructure most lots in town to RD1 when it doesn't appear that a great many housing until will result. It seems that this proposed change is not worth the push back from residents.
13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Charge 2 (cont) -- We should take a more realistic and current estimate of 65 ADUs per year (which is the 2021-22 rate). Over 8 years that would produce 520 housing units. 15 We should take a more realistic, and current, estimate of 65 ADUs per year (which is the 2021-22 rate). Over 8 years that would produce 520 housing units.
Please provide your feedback on Section 9: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing below 3 Life is not fair, I'm sorry to tell you.
4 Some places just do t make sense for adding more housing due to the constraints within the town, we are that town. We are only zoned for single family homes for a reason 6 Support most of the AFFH goals to eliminate discrimination. Marketing to underrepresented communities is fine but oppose any kind of quotas or preferences based on race, color, ancestry etc 11 It seems the low income folks will be sequestered into the “projects” with all the attendant status and possibly racial stigmas, especially among school-age children. They should be scattered throughout the town.
13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Change 2 (cont) -- For the remaining 34 units, we should continue to lobby the State (see FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5.
15 For the remaining 34 units, we should continue to lobby the State (see FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5.
Please provide your feedback on Section 10: Housing Plan below 1 The current plan would result in significantly more traffic and density, as well as burden on our schools (especially disproportionate burden on West and North). This would increase noise and pollution and lower the quality of life of current residents.
2 I'm a new homeowner in HBO, so this is my first input into the plan. It would worsen traffic, put burden on our schools, and change HBO from a small town to higher density w/more noise & strain on our utilities. 3 Social engineering is never a good long-term idea. The crazy rich will always find a work-around. The merely comfortable will do whatever is in their power to maintain their property values. This is a land grab. The media will have a field day.
4 The plan is dangerous for a very small community with a high fire risk and already limited water supply, and limited school availability
5 Overall, I am opposed to reducing minimum lot size to 1/4 acre. This is a significant reduction which will change the nature of the town. Explore options to meet targets without this change 6 Oppose Action 4.3(a), impact fees to be assessed against new above moderate housing. Oppose Actions 4.5 a, b & c which would limit ability of private property owner to redevelop their property. Oppose 7.1 unless residents can participate in 21 Elements?(
7 I'm against RD-1 lowering minimum lot size.
8 Please further detail the Town's interactions with the owners of the opportunity zones and their potential for actual development.
9 I am adamantly opposed to the housing plan. It will unnecessarily deteriorate the appeal of the town and burden property owners. There are other better ways to meet the state mandate such as relying more on ADU development or developing median income lots
11 There seems to be no consideration for the abundant wildlife that populates the Strawberry Hill open space.
There are Bobcats, Foxes, Coyotes, Deer, Skunks, Opossums, Raccoons, Hawks, Owls, Rabbits…a complete ecosystem. Where will those animals go?
12 I am strongly against adding R-2 zoning. It does not make sense in Hillsborough and will completely change it. I would like to understand why other cities with similar zoning like Atherton do not need to do this. 13 Against new multi-family zoning. Atherton has similar housing profile and they dropped multi-family zoning from their housing element proposal (after feedback from residents) and made it work. Why are we not able to do the same?
14 Change 3 -- We should not change our zoning to add the proposed new HD-2 and HD-3. Under the above strategy, new zoning is not necessary to meet the 554 number. Respectfully submitted, Ted Ullyot 15 We should not change our zoning to add the proposed new HD-2 and HD-3. Under the above strategy, new zoning is not necessary to meet the 554 number. Respectfully submitted, Greg Hampton Town of Hillsborough Virtual Open House
Comments received as of 09/08/2022
1. How do you determine which income level and ADU falls into?
2. RD-1 will have a NEGATIVE impact on Hillsborough and has the potential to destroy Hillsborough's ambiance and the unique nature of the community. With these proposed changes, Hillsborough will become just another Bay Area city. Reducing minimum lot size, in particular, is a no-go in my view.
3. These changes will seriously change the characteristics of the town. I am against these proposals. I would suggest to have more ADUs built to meet thee mandate.
4. It does not make sense for the state to have some a mandate across all types of cities.
The contribution for cities like Hillsborough to affordable housing units are so minuscule but will have a huge impact to the characteristics of the city.
5. Why would HCD be so strict about how a city meets it's RHNA obligation? The board should also consider submitting a proposal with only ADUs and the city hall property changes, without changing the zoning to properties 10 acres and above.
6. I am against the new zoning proposed. The changes are so big and will really impact the characteristics of the city. Suggest to consider having ADU/JADUs plus the city hall lot to meet the state mandate.
7. I support RD-1 and RD-3 but strongly oppose O-AH/RD2.
8. Will some of the planned development be for senior housing? From: Holly Rockwood
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Mark Rockwood; Holly Rockwood
Subject: Draft Housing Element - opposition
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:57:13 AM
Dear Hillsborough City Council,
I am writing to respectfully convey my opposition to the Draft Housing Element. I attended the information session earlier this week and, while I appreciate the spirit of the plans and the considerable work all of you have invested, I believe the proposal is fundamentally flawed. The vision described in the plans would decimate our beautiful community and is a vastly different environment than the one that I, and my 10,000+ fellow neighbors, proudly call home.
The current plan blatantly disregards zoning rules which have been in place since Hillsborough was established more than 100 years ago. I am perplexed how a new state law can suddenly supersede the laws that have governed our Town for over a century, and frankly, why many move to Hillsborough in the first place - a residential community with large lot sizes, quiet streets with little traffic, ample parking, etc.
I am concerned that efforts to date reflect the Town's desire to comply with the State's request, rather than take a big step back and consider the broader implication this proposal would have on our community. I wonder how much the Town has challenged what the State has asked of us -- such as to re-negotiate the number of units proposed, or consider the terrain of which much is sloped and inhospitable to development, or understand infrastructure challenges like parking and traffic which our small town is simply not in a position to accommodate.
I support affordable housing and hope we can find an alternate way to create opportunities for more people to live in our Town, especially senior citizens, people with disabilities, and people who work in our Town including essential workers. I believe other residents have shared with you smart ideas about how to achieve this goal without compromising the spirit of our community. Allowing for more ADUs and JADUs seem like a reasonable alternative as well as utilizing vacant lots, coupled with re-negotiating with the State to lower the number of units being asked of us to be more in line with nearby peer communities.
Thank you for considering my feedback and that of others who have shared similar concerns. Please include this email in the public record and consider it at next week's Town Council meeting before you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
Holly Rockwood
, Hillsborough
**********
Holly Rockwood
From: Paul Wang
To: Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:48:58 AM
We oppose having housing units in our town having lived here since 1989.
Paul & Claire Wang
Sent from my iPad
From: Jeffrey Ford
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposition to the Housing Element Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:15:54 AM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
Thank you for your public service. I appreciate the effort you are making and am empathetic to the challenge you have ahead of you.
I am a resident of Hillsborough and wanted to voice my strong opposition to the current housing element plan. I would ask the council to reject the current plan in favor of an alternative plan that better reflects the input of the community while meeting our obligations to the state and future potential residents.
I am supportive of bringing more affordable housing to the Peninsula and specifically within our Hillsborough community and believe this is essential to the continued success of the collective community. I believe it is possible to do so in a way that is equitable while balancing the unique aesthetics of our town.
Unfortunately, the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public is not good for the town nor for future potential residents that may occupy that housing. I would ask the council to consider the following points in rejecting the current proposal:
A. The process for soliciting community input and feedback was/is deeply flawed a. Most of our residents recently became aware of the town’s draft plan nearly ½ way into the public comment period despite the town’s claim that over 700 notifications were made
b. The draft plan has been revised multiple times during the comment period (e.g. the language around the number of proposed units at town hall has been edited in different versions of the plan posted on the town’s website). Further details on what’s being proposed at the town hall site is being released 3 business days before the council meeting which is insufficient time to allow for serious consideration of the options. This lack of transparency has eroded trust in the process and the individuals leading the process.
c. Previous RHNA efforts identified multiple viable ideas and solutions that have been ignored in the current plan such as further use of ADUs to meet our commitments, fewer / no zoning changes, senior living being integrated into the plan and housing for teachers on school campuses. These ideas have broad community support.
d. Multiple HEAC members have been opposed to key aspects of the plan and their feedback has been ignored while minutes from these sessions were not collected or shared.
B. The proposed plan drastically underestimates the Number of ADUs we will build in 8 years
a. The town is on track to build 60+ ADUs this year and for many years to come b. The plan uses a flawed methodology looking at the past four years which includes the year 2019 when AB-881 And AB-68 were not in effect and 2020 when they weren’t understood meaning it was difficult for Hillsborough residents to get an ADU through the planning department. We have seen the impact of the passage of these state laws recently as the number of ADUs in 2021 was 64 and in 2022 we expect that number to be even higher. This is despite the town still making it difficult to get ADUs through (ours spent 5 months in planning with the ADU specialist even though it is a conforming structure that is supposed to be allowed to go straight to the building department)
c. The consultants and town staff have argued that we need to use a conservative number to ensure we are not out of compliance on Jan 1st 2023 which has led them to propose planning for only 280 ADUs. This is deeply flawed logic as only one ADUheavy plan I’m aware of was rejected by the state, and that is because their accounting for historical ADU unit creation was inaccurate. Atherton has submitted their plan with a similar proportion of ADU’s to what is realistic in Hillsborough and has high confidence it will be accepted. We should as well.
C. The proposed plan will change zoning which endangers all who work, visit and live here a. The denser housing will create a fire danger and other emergency situations b. The plan does not contemplate infrastructure improvements needed (e.g. schools, roads, parking, fire department, traffic, cellular and internet communications, noise and the San Mateo Emergency Vehicles guidelines allowing for 35’ wide streets with throughway or 96’ cul de sacs.
D. The proposed plan violates homeowners’ property rights:
a. Policy 4, Goal 4.5 to "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes” and its implementation will violate homeowners' property rights
b. In addition, it will penalize those homeowners with no compensation c. We should remove this goal from our plan, and not implement it in the future E. The proposed town hall site would destroy a historical building core to the identity of our community and create significant issues for the residents occupying the site and those that live around it while ignoring other viable options to build housing a. The inclusion of >100 units as outlined in the draft plan (density calculation sources for the 2.5 acre site not provided) on the “Town Hall Campus” in the housing element submission with no zoning specifications listed, before any environmental or other studies on the impact on town utilities, parking, schools and other services have been completed, and with no time provided for adequate community input. b. In my opinion this is far too many units at this site and because this is the only proposed site not owned by a private landowner it will bear the full weight of any future development with the externalities outlined above. Further it will be expected to be developed in spite of these issues because the other sites the plan has identified have shown no willingness to engage with the planners. The town hall site should be removed from the draft plan in favor of more amenable and equitable options.
c. Further in past meetings staff and consultants have communicated the site would be for “landscapers, house keepers and teachers” etc. while in the same breath saying that no underground parking would be available because there was access to public transit. I believe this represents a lack of understanding of the needs of these residents who rely on cars for their livelihood which should be further studied and understood before being included in the housing plan. d. The current plan ignores more viable options that do not involve the destruction of historical landmarks in our community.
For these reasons I oppose the current draft housing plan and would ask the town council to reject the plan as written. In its place I would ask the council to commission the development of a new plan with a new committee that is supported by a majority of the residents of our town and from our town that aligns to the unique aesthetic within our town while being equitable and inclusive of potential future residents.
The key elements of that plan in my opinion are:
1. Utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible assuming 60 – 70 per year based on the past 2 years while developing plans (e.g. elimination of fees, streamlining the submission process so ADUs don’t get “stuck” with the ADU specialist and can be submitted directly to the building department in line with state law, multiple ADUs on larger lots etc.) to accelerate the building of such structures
2. Eliminate the unnecessary “buffer” of housing stock needed above our target to something more reasonable (e.g. 5%)
3. Utilize vacant lots including town owned properties and private land from amenable owners to achieve our RHNA goals without up zoning those properties
4. Build affordable housing for our teachers on / next to our schools
4. Evaluate the creation of senior housing as suggested by both the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC for the town hall site at far lower densities than currently proposed
5. Protect owners of older and smaller homes
6. Add housing in a safer and more diffuse way across Hillsborough at viable sites (versus 100+ units on our Town Hall lot) that avoids creating hazards and undo burden for all Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank You,
Jeff Ford
Hillsborough, CA
From: Peili Shu
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing Element.
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:54:13 AM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for us all. I want to register my strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan is not good for the town, in my opinion.
Specifically:
1) This plan will completely change the town’s dynamics and culture most of our residents appreciate and cherish for so many years. It will eliminate what makes Hillsborough so special and destroy many residents and our kids’ memories of our beautiful hometown Hillsborough. 2) I see this Housing Element presented as a worst case scenario so that we residents can accept a compromised plan which is still a bad plan for the town and us residents. 3) I strongly oppose the redevelopment of our historic town hall site especially the inclusion of a high density building without careful study of impact on town’s infrastructure, schools, utilities, parking, etc.
4) I oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current “RD” zoning. This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger for fire and other emergency situations. DO NOT CHANGE OUR ZONING.
5) I oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan. Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years.
6) I oppose having a goal (Policy 4, Goal 4.5) to "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes." This goal and its implementation will violate homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future.
7) I oppose having any new housing units (other than ADU’s) that do not have 1:1 parking. 8) I oppose the lack of transparency and the timing in the process. Minutes to many HEAC and other planning committee meetings are unavailable, planning department team members provide different details at different times, and “preliminary” plans for the “Town Hall Campus” are only being provided three days before public review. Nearly every resident has been surprised by this process and the lack of details, yet the impact has been categorized as “Major” by town planning staff.
9) I support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the “ buffer”, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. I support the evaluation of senior housing as suggested by both the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC.
10) I support an approach that reduces the lengthy permit application process and gives incentives to ADUs for rental purposes so that residents can decide what they want to do.
Many of my neighbors agree on above mentioned points. Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submissionto the state.
Sincerely,
Peili Shu
Hillsborough Resident
From: Lisa Duffell
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Andrew Duffell Subject: More ADU"s or a better plan...
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:39:08 AM
First and foremost, I feel for all of you as you try to navigate through this housing element situation. While I absolutely recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and deeply appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our town, the current plan is not acceptable. The consulting firm seems to have run a playbook that was one size fits all approach to appease Sacramento without thinking critically if there is a better path forward that is more tailored to our community. I sincerely hope that everyone can partner together to come up with a better solution on this.
The focus of Hillsborough’s plan should be on ADU and vacant lot development and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. The State guidelines on the ADU calculations suggest taking the previous rolling three year average. But there is a flaw with the calculation in that we had COVID-19 where the state limited certain types of construction. As soon as the new legislation for ADU’s came out (which streamlined the process), coupled with COVID-19 pandemic ending, our ADU production increased substantially. We are currently putting in an ADU directly because of this and we know so many residents wanting to follow suit. Based on the 2021 ADU runrate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan. While I understand this may not satisfy the state completely, we need to enter into a negotiated outcome and follow the lead of other towns like Atherton and Woodside in the process.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the 100+ units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If 100+ units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming.
Floribunda is a major access/egress point for the town and I cannot possibly imagine construction taking place there. Also, without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. It doesn’t seem that a proper Environmental impact survey has been accomplished prior to putting together this part of the plan in particular.
Reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. The fact that we have zero commerce, no retail, no industrial, that the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1 and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems like an incredibly aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed and lowered. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. There are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in our fine State.
I know the town is truly trying their best and I recognize this is an impossible situation, but as Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done with the rejection of all other strategies. Atherton removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. Listen to your citizens and set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing and work to come up with a better plan while negotiating with the state.
Please consider all of this on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
We can do better! Thank you again for all you do!
Sincerely,
Lisa and Andrew Duffell
Hillsborough, CA
From: Lindsay Greene Ramsay
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Housing Element Letter
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:54:49 AM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I enjoyed the opportunity to attend the September 6th Open House to learn more about the Draft Plan. I have read the full plan and various associated documents posted on the Town website and developed an understanding of the State’s RHNA6 mandate. To all of the Councilmembers, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, both generally and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area and specifically Hillsborough but we must ensure we do so in a thoughtful, carefully considered, and longterm manner. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan does not do that.
Hillsborough possesses attributes that are important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered especially during the Covid-19 pandemic when construction was paused for such a long time.
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan. There is absolutely no reason to re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents.
I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus heavily on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. We must engage in thoughtful, long-term planning with fulsome and transparent discussion and community engagement and appropriate consideration of the cost and impact of any proposed changes.
I want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank you for your public service.
Kind regards,
Lindsay Ramsay
From: Alex Ramsay
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Housing Element Draft Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:44:56 AM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I enjoyed the opportunity to meet Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmember Cole at the September 6 Open House to learn more about the Draft Plan. I have read the full plan and various associated documents posted on the Town website and developed an understanding of the State’s RHNA6 mandate. To all of the Councilmembers, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, both generally and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area but we must ensure we do so in a thoughtful, carefully considered, and long-term manner. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan is not that.
Hillsborough possesses attributes that are important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan, which brings a one-size fits all approach to a town that is objectively, based on the data, an outlier. There is absolutely no reason to rezone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus heavily on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. We must engage in thoughtful, long-term planning with fulsome and transparent discussion and community engagement and appropriate consideration of the cost and impact of any proposed changes.
I want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank you for your public service.
Kind regards,
Alex Ramsay
From: Beim, Carter
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Housing Element Draft Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:33:00 AM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
Thank you for your continued effort to develop a long-term strategy in the face of significant challenges caused by the State’s housing requirements. I have empathy for your role in developing a workable solution given the sensitive nature of the impact to our Town. I have taken time to read the full plan and associated documents to gain a complete understanding of the State’s requirements and the current Draft Solution.
I am disappointed in the current draft as it clearly implements a one-size fits all approach to solving this issue. A complete rezoning of the Town is a lazy effort and fails to take this opportunity to think creatively while leveraging things that are already working in our Town. Additionally, the current draft does not contemplate or articulate the considerable impact to cost and safety in our community.
I have reviewed the alternative plan presented by SHFH and find their approach to be much more creative, thoughtful, and less impactful on the characteristics that make our Town so special. Our proven ability to deliver ADUs at scale and speed should be heavily leveraged in any solution. While I fully recognize this won’t satisfy all the State’s requirements it should certainly be considered foundational to our effort. We should learn from some of the neighboring communities that have taken a more measured approach. I believe with more effort and a willingness to consider alternative solutions our community can come together to solve this challenge.
Thank you for your conitued effort and for your consideration.
Carter L. Beim
Executive Vice President
From: Jeff B
To: Al Royse; General Plan; Christopher Diaz; Lisa Natusch; Marie Chuang; Larry May; Sophie Cole; Christine Krolik Cc: Jeff Brady; Liana Brady
Subject: Comments on Housing Element Draft Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:10:24 PM
Good evening, Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik,
Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to share my family’s thoughts on the proposed housing changes here in our beautiful town. I appreciate the event on Tuesday as I found it very helpful. What I walked away with more than anything else was that all of us homeowners and the governing members of Hillsborough are all on the same team looking to achieve a solution that works for everyone, especially the homeowners who love this community. I have heard some great ideas from my fellow neighbors, and I have no doubt that we can accomplish a housing plan for the California state officials that is thoughtful, effective and is a win-win for all parties.
From the turnout of the event, I am sure you are getting a lot of feedback from the community so I will keep my thoughts and comments to really two points.
First, I feel the ADU number that was included in the initial draft proposal is too low and used estimates during the pandemic which were on the lower end.
From the data I have seen, I feel a number more in the ballpark of 55-60 per year would be accurate and fair driving the estimate for this proposal over eight years to roughly 440 to 480 ADU’s.
Second, and by far the most important, and to be honest, most shocking to me from the draft, was the proposed changes in zoning for the Town of Hillsborough. I understand that this was a draft proposal, but I could not believe that the consultant was proposing a broad stroke across the entire town and changing the zoning from single-family homes. If this was to go through, I think it would be an utter disaster in keeping with the charm of this historic community. I think it would create a feeding frenzy for developers whose goal would be to come in and build quick cheap housing and then leave or move onto the next build. It would impact the property values without a doubt and in turn drive down home prices and property taxes people pay to live here. It would increase the average number of students per class room which would make the schools less desirable than they currently are. And finally, it most likely would drive a lot of people out of this town. What made the town so special will have been lost forever. I am all for revised zoning for certain parts of the town where we need to accommodate affordable housing however, I think this needs to be in very limited and strategic parts of this town. I also feel that the distribution of any new students coming into the system should be equally distributed amongst the three elementary schools.
We live in a very special town. There is no question to that. My wife and I our 4 boys moved here in 2011 and we’re lucky and blessed to have bought a home that was built in 1931 by Angus McSweeney. The gardens were designed by both Thomas Church and John McLaren. It is a very special home that we have spent a lot of time and energy and money restoring as we feel it is our duty and obligation to keep some of this old world charm alive in an ever-changing and synthetic world. Over the pandemic, I really dove into the history of the house and more importantly the history of Hillsborough. I was able to find pictures of the town going back to 1920. I also have a copy of the book “No Sidewalks Here” detailing the rich and long history of this town. Of course, things change over time, however, the town and its community have always held the history, heritage and beauty first and foremost in the decisions which have impacted the planning of Hillsborough. it would be catastrophic, sad and depressing if the proposed elements of rezoning across the entire community went through.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and opinions on this very important matter and I am confident that we as a community will solve this in a way that we can be happy and proud of.
Jeff and Liana Brady
From: John Bruel
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: John Bruel
Subject: I strongly oppose the draft Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:06:17 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
We’d first like to say thank you for your service to our town; I have lived in Hillsborough for almost 20 years and absolutely love this community. Lindsey grew up here and attended North, Crocker and BHS.
I realize you are in a difficult position with this situation, however, that doesn’t change the fact that we’re disappointed with how this process has gone and with the proposed plan itself. We want to register our strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public, and our distress at how you communicated this extremely serious policy with residents.
Frankly, residents feel there was neither adequate nor clear communication on this issue.
We hope you are all aware of that. So whether it was your intent or not, the community as a whole now believes that the process has not been above board, and it colors our view of the council and city government.
We support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the buffer, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. Why use data from the depths of Covid to calculate future ADU construction? How is that data valid looking forward? Why use data to calculate future ADU construction from the period before the city provided incentives to do so? How is that data valid looking forward? The state selected its criteria arbitrarily; it doesn’t make that data useful. Our ADU calculations must be reconsidered.
If a development on the town hall parcel is necessary, why isn’t senior housing suggested in the plan? That change alone would address many of the residents’ concerns about parking, traffic and school impact.
I believe residents will flock to the opportunity to add ADUs if they understand both the benefits of adding them and the alternatives to not adding them. Even speaking for my family, last night at the community meeting we learned that a garage can be converted to an ADU. We have previously resisted adding an ADU to our property due to the high cost of construction. But converting a garage would make financial sense. Why weren’t simple facts such as this widely communicated to residents over the last couple years? Why jump suddenly to rezoning the entire town and adding large multifamily buildings? Why wouldn’t incremental steps be considered and encouraged first?
Again, we oppose using too high of a buffer, requiring more housing to achieve our RHNA obligations. People in our town uniformly agree on this.
Everyone understands that offering what the State asks without pushback or negotiation is the easy solution. But the residents of our town expect you to act in our best interests and – now that we’re aware of the situation – I hope you hear our unified voice: we do not want you to submit the draft plan as currently written.
Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John and Lindsey Bruel
From: Jordan Harband
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:47:46 PM
First, I strongly believe that the housing crisis needs to be solved, and that adding more, and more affordable, housing to Hillsborough is critical.
However, adding housing - including rezoning for added housing - without also *first* guaranteeing that adequate infrastructure is in place, is a disservice to the city, its existing residents, AND to the new residents that will arrive.
Hillsborough is not a safely walkable city - there are not consistent sidewalks, for one. I've lived around the corner from the Town Hall for the majority of the past 28 years (on Pepper, at Floribunda), and my 5 year old recently started at North School. Walking - or biking - from my house to North is exceedingly dangerous, especially for children, as is walking/biking/strollering around our neighborhood, specifically due to inconsistent and inadequate sidewalk coverage. The Town Hall site - the closest one to public K-8 schools - will be highly desirable for parents, and their children simply can *not* safely walk to school unless the walking routes are safe. Ensuring this should be guaranteed *before* even rezoning - not merely by optimistically hoping we can compel future developers to fix it.
Public transportation in and from Hillsborough is abysmal. The lone SamTrans bus stop near Town Hall is wildly insufficient, and the bus doesn't come nearly often enough. I spent months trying to take public transportation to CSM from my home, and even at 19, my time was far more economically spent by driving for 40 minutes total and paying for gas and parking, than it was by spending 3+ hours total on the bus.
Since public transportation and walking are not viable options, *every single new housing unit in Hillsborough* will, inarguably, require at *least* one vehicle per unit - if not one per *adult*. In order to even rezone, steps must first be taken to guarantee that nobody can even *consider* building housing without ensuring at minimum one parking space per unit, and ideally 2 or more. I'm aware that state law might *allow* us to get away with certain size units not having mandated parking, but this is the same as minimum wage - it's a *minimum*, and one that a business should be ashamed of not exceeding. Similarly, Hillsborough must have higher standards than merely meeting the minimum - we should be establishing a statewide record for how accessible and desirable our housing units are, for all intended socioeconomic demographics.
To reiterate, I will firmly and loudly advocate for increasing housing in Hillsborough - ideally far exceeding the state mandates - but only if the corresponding infrastructure (including parking and pedestrian/biking/public transportation access) is explicitly required as a condition for the rezoning.
- Jordan Harband, lifetime San Mateo County resident, and Hillsborough resident since 1994 (more accurately, either resident, or frequent parental visitor from 2002-2017) From: Rita Walia
To: General Plan; Hillsborough Mail; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Concerns about draft housing plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:22:33 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
First, thank you all for your hardwork and for all that you do for our beautiful town.
I send this email today to address the concerns my family (and my neighbors) have about the current draft plan for housing. I have lived in Hillsborough for over a decade, and I believe that this is the most important issue that will affect our town's safety, aesthetics, schools, property values, and traffic. If the current draft plan for housing is allowed, it would dramatically change this town for the worse.
Hillsborough homeowners are extremely alarmed and we respectfully ask that our town representatives please consider some of the proposed alternative plans that will allow the town to achieve the state goals without giving up so much.
One of the plans is called Smart Housing for Hillsborough and seems to have some excellent alternative ideas. Please do not vote for or pass the current plan that was drafted by an outside consultant with no personal knowledge of our town. We need to look carefully at other towns (ie Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.
Thank you for carefully considering the feedback of Hillsborough homeowners, and listening to alternative plans. I have talked to many homeowners, and none of them are in favor of the current draft housing plan. I encourage you to reach out to your residents and get their input.
Warmly,
Rita and Hardeep Walia
From: Joyce Bernas-Yung
To: General Plan
Subject: Comment on Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:04:10 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee,
I am writing to provide comment on the current Housing Element plan. I have spoken with many homeowners here in Hillsborough and am concerned about the current draft plan for housing. We moved into Hillsborough 15 years ago for its aesthetics, privacy, less traffic congestion, safety and award winning schools with small class sizes. With the proposed changes, I feel all of these things will be adversely affected.
The upzones will allow for dense development. Banning the renovations of older, smaller homes takes away property rights of homeowners. Accelerating development by the ADRB would negate the careful planning involved to maintain the town's aesthetics as well as limits comment from surrounding neighbors. The proposal to put in high density housing at the Town Hall site would very likely cause massive traffic congestion. Moreover, what about the infrastructure to support all of these changes? What are the plans to increase Police and Fire for safety? What about our already strained water use? Electricity? Sewage? Parking? Etc. And the impact of having more students coming to our schools? Will we have the capacity to maintain our small classroom sizes? Hillsborough is such a special place and as a homeowner here, I would hope that we can somehow retain the character of our town while still meeting the state mandates. Please consider some of the proposed alternative plans that can still help us achieve these state goals. Smart Housing for Hillsborough has some great alternative ideas that incorporate the features that homeowners here in Hillsborough want to retain, while still attempting to meet the state mandates. I am in support of getting more aggressive with the number of ADUs including passing ordinances now before submitting our plan. We can get more aggressive with the ADUs and JADUs by offering incentives. The hope is that we could potentially eliminate any high density housing plan. I am against "up-zoning", smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks, increased floor ration and reduced landscaping coverage. All of these things will change the natural beauty of our unique town as well as decrease our property values.
Thank you for considering my comment and for your efforts to ensure that the town of Hillsborough will not suffer from any detrimental decisions without carefully considering the feedback of its homeowners. My hope is that our town can move forward with a plan that is accepted and supported by the majority of our community.
Sincerely,
Joyce Bernas-Yung and Jeff Yung
been considering these issues.
Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
William “Bill" Wolf
Hillsborough Resident
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
From: George Wu
To: General Plan
Subject: HE plan feedback
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:02:44 PM
Hillsborough city manager, council members and planners, Thank you all for bringing a Housing Element draft plan to the residents of Hillsborough, I support the need for affordable housing, and I strongly believe that we will have a final plan that preserves the character of the town and meets the requirements of the State. Here is my feedback:
1) The primary source of Hillsborough's housing allotment should be from ADUs. Using the average of the past 3 years is not a good method, since 2019 and 2020 numbers were affected by Covid. Raising the average from 35 to 55-60 ADUs a year is feasible and sustainable. 2) I propose the city work with local private schools(Nueva, Crystal Springs) to build housing units for school faculty and staff on school land.
3) I propose the city develop suitable land for SB 9 housing units. 4) I do not support the idea of developing multi-family units on the Town Hall site. With 100+ units planned at such a busy location, and no underground parking, it would be a disaster for traffic and would cause serious safety concerns for those who like to jog and walk their dogs along Floribunda. A down-sized development for senior housing(20-30 units) is a viable option.
5) I support a tax or bond measure for a new town hall and police station.
Thank you!
George Wu
Hillsborough resident
From: William Wolf
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Neas Kiele
Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:53:06 PM
Importance: High
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for us all. I want to register my strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public.
This plan is NOT good for the town, in my opinion.
Specifically:
I support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the “ buffer”, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. I support the evaluation of senior housing as suggested by both the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC.
I oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan. Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years.
I oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning. This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger for fire and other emergency situations and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. Do not change our zoning.
I oppose the lack of transparency and the timing in the process. Minutes to many HEAC and other planning committee meetings are unavailable, planning department team members provide different details at different times, and “preliminary” plans for the “Town Hall Campus” are only being provided three days before public review.
Nearly every resident has been surprised by this process and the lack of details, yet the impact has been categorized as “Major” by town planning staff.
Most of our friends who are Hillsborough residents agree on these points - I hope you all have heard what is becoming cacophonous feedback against the proposed plan as you've 1 Lisa Natusch
From: Steven Jeffords
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:38 PM
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Al Royse
Cc: Steven Jeffords; Elizabeth Jeffords
Subject: Opposition to the proposed Hillsborough Housing Element and Town Hall Campus projects Dear Hillsborough Town Council and Team considering the 2023 Housing Element Plan,
We believe bringing more affordable housing to Hillsborough is a good idea; and, creating an equitable and balanced plan to do so will be required. But, the Town so far seems to have missed an opportunity to engage with the community and co-develop a workable plan to meet the need for housing which satisfies the environmental, safety, and day to day needs for current AND future residents. Although the Town created an HEAC committee, from what we’ve heard, their input has been largely ignored. Further, the public comment windows are incredibly short (such as a mere three business days to comment on a proposed town hall campus- five days before the end of public commentary). To wit, we are extremely worried about the town submitting a poorly conceived Housing Element which residents will have to live with for the next 8 (or 16, 24, etc) years.
Here are our major concerns with the current plan, and we ask that the Town Council directly address each during the Town Meeting on the 12th of September.
1. Please Address: It appears the current HEAC and Previous RHNA (2005, 2014) ideas & concerns were not addressed in the 2023 Housing Element draft, making it seem that the community input and past planning cycles were not honored:
a. ADU potential is under-represented significantly by using 3-year average taken during a pandemic. Despite many residents being excited to add ADUs, the current permit process for two of us on our street who just went through it took 5-6 months and required significant non-Code-based rework.
In the 2014 RHNA Housing Element, plans were put in place to incentivize the use and development of ADU’s, but these incentives are not in place. 2 b. At HEAC meeting 4 and 4.5, only 40% of the committee (and only after significant pressure from the consultant) agreed that high density housing along ECR could move to ~20 units/acre (not the 50+/acre currently included in the town hall site plan).
c. Less drastic zoning increases were supported, but not applied in the HE Plan
d. Senior and School Worker Housing were set as primary solutions, also not in plan
e. Minutes from the HEAC meetings were not collected or shared, and the next HEAC meeting is not until December, when the process will be virtually locked. Multiple HEAC members are vocally proposing alternative plans, but have so far been ignored.
2. Please Address: The process for including broader community input is deeply flawed:
a. The majority of residents had no idea what a Housing Element was, let alone it was being submitted to the state, regardless of the Town’s assertion of dozens of communications to that affect. We will be directly impacted and the first we heard of the proposal for the Town Hall Campus proposals was three weeks ago.
b. Those directly affected by a proposed site STILL have not been contacted directly, unlike standard building site inputs and despite Town Hall promises to the contrary. For example, if my neighbor wants to remodel their home, they are REQUIRED to alert all nearby neighbors IN WRITING. We have seen only generic postcards.
c. Preliminary “jelly” plans for the Town Hall Campus are only being provided 8 days before community input closes- and yet the town expects the Town Hall Campus site to hold 100-150 units of 650sf each (up to 450+ people)
3. Please Address: A lack of transparency has led to confusion and lack of trust:
a. There is zero detail to be found publicly about how the new Town Hall housing density calculation was created. At a recent Town Hall presentation, we were told it was calculated by the housing consultant and stressed that no developers had been contacted or involved in the current proposals…despite written proof to the contrary posted on the Town website (RFPs (Request For Proposals) for a “Master Planning and Conceptual Design 3 for the Re-development for Town Hall Campus” have already gone out as of April 28, 2022, according to the Town Website).
b. Different Planning staff have told us at Open Houses the Town Hall site would be: 45 feet, 60 feet, no more than 60 feet, Greater than 60 feet. It has been labeled as 100 units, >100 units, minimum of 100 units, 100-150 units.
c. An elderly neighbor anxious about the plan was cold-called by the planning department and actively misled – they were told that they should not worry because it was unlikely that anything would ever be built, and definitely not for years. Christine Krolik, vice mayor, in contrast, said that town-owned sites would have the expectation that development must occur within the 8 year period.
d. When asked if any developers have been consulted, we were told that they have not, that the housing consultant has consulted with developers, and that consultant has floated ideas of leasing the site to developers. This is a direct conflict of interest (see below)
e. Why some sites were considered and others were not is not captured anywhere to be reviewed, but was apparently subject to the consultant’s review.
f. Only 3-4 of 13 sites and 4 town-owned properties are currently addressed in the plan. 3 of the 4 are unlikely to be developed as they are privately owned and put in the Housing Element without the owner’s consent. Target sites changed from 3 to 4 during the community input timing, from draft to proposed Housing Element Plan.
g. RD-3 still does not have zoning specifications, despite a potential 100- 150 unit development being planned in this zoning. Shouldn’t the zoning specs pre-date planning and not the other way around?
h. Some owner-occupied sites were only considered for 12 units in a much bigger area than the Town Hall campus, which has been considered for up to 150 units, but there has been no rationale shared.
4. Please Address: Residents are being directly affected in difficult and unintended ways:
a. Per the current proposal, renters in Town-Owned houses would need to be evicted.
b. Owners of estate sites were not even consulted about having housing built on their property.
4 c. Per the current proposal, disabled and elderly home owners near the Town Hall Campus could find their primary egress via Walnut Avenue blocked. When asked about the current proposal for Walnut Avenue, Town Planners have been evasive about Walnut Avenue being a “pass-through” or walkway. On the proposed map, it’s even moved to a new location. d. If Walnut is blocked per the new proposal, the population of Walnut Ave would lose their access to El Camino Real via Floribunda. Blocking off Walnut Ave was rejected once before due to lack of 96’ turn-around access for Emergency Crews under San Mateo County Fire Safety Code. e. If Walnut is blocked per the new proposal, Fire Code would also require that there be no parking on that street as it is narrower than 26’, further impacting both Hillsborough and Burlingame residents who live there and shifting parking further into Hillsborough.
f. Those living on Walnut or in the Ryan Tract on the north side of Floribunda would have limited ability to access El Camino Real due to the Walnut Ave closure and significant parking and traffic issues. Also, the nearest left turn onto ECR North at a light, for bikers and pedestrians, would be blocks away.
g. At the recent North School Open House - Tim Anderson of City Planning said the newly proposed Town Hall Campus, at 45 feet tall would have a “significant impact” on homeowners in a 500-1000 ft radius in terms of light, noise, and parking and more.
5. Please address: To date, the proposed Town Hall Campus would be a) a major site for 100-150 units – and critical to the achievement of a 554+unit plan, b) the only site fully Town-owned (as such likely to require development within 8yrs), and c) the only site not dependent on private initiative. Despite this, there are no formal plans published and no studies evaluated for site worthiness (environmental, traffic, water, sewage, school impacts, etc.). To date, the common response to those who ask about these impacts is “It will be years/may not happen/don’t worry”; rather than actually addressing legitimate concerns. Studies should be undertaken before the Town Hall Campus project is added to the Housing Element and should include:
a. Historical analysis
b. Environmental- Full EIR, not just a limited CEQA, including the culvert underneath the site, migratory birds that reside in the redwoods nearby, etc c. Light and Shadow Impact Analysis
d. Utilities analysis of all the utilities in places that already struggle in this area of Hillsborough (power, water, waste)
5 e. Cost of Infrastructure repairs- our utility costs are the highest on the peninsula and growing- 5-6% increases in water and waste rates that already assume zero population growth (contrary to HE plan), including removal of water tanks and replacement of inadequate water and sewer piping across fault lines
f. This corner of Hillsborough is in the SFO Airport Influence Zone- what is the impact?
g. Cell/Data inadequacies that currently exist
h. School needs and impact for 400-500 additional residents i. Parking and Traffic impact
j. Investigation of the current vacancy rate of the housing sites already built in nearby towns.
6. Please Address: Any Housing Element that is submitted to the State should also directly outline the impact on existing Hillsborough/San Mateo requirements/laws/guidelines, such as:
a. “Complete Streets” adopted in 2015 ensuring throughput and access in exchange for Hillsborough’s ability to apply for transportation grants b. San Mateo Emergency Vehicles guidelines allowing for 35’ wide streets with throughway or 96’ cul de sacs.
c. The ongoing multi-year project for widening/repaving of El Camino Real next to City Hall – and the impact of that ongoing project on setbacks d. Construction-related parking limitations including length, curb height, markings etc during what would likely be a multi-year construction process e. Hillsborough residential parking laws, including no overnight street parking, to ensure safety as a walking and biking hub for youth to seniors f. Compliance with current Hillsborough noise limitations/ordinances for various neighborhood types
7. Please address: Perceived conflict of interest
a. The Town says they are not currently working with any developers– and yet mention their consultants have worked with developers to provide unit 6 estimates, land lease ideas, ideas for public private partnerships to pay for replacement of the police department etc
b. Developers can obtain up to $1500/month per unit from city/state grants for low-moderate income housing. This makes it a developer’s incentive to put in as many units as possible: by law, 650sf units can hold up to 3 people. With special high-density exceptions, this can be with no parkingand yet anyone living on the peninsula will require parking for access to jobs and services
c. No zoning has been set for RD-3 until after basic plans and submission to HDC is in place. This means that the zoning could be set AFTER the developers design whatever plan they would like.
d. No list of developers consulted by consultants has been made available
8. Please Address: Has the town studied the actual needs of low to moderate income families who would like to live here? The AMI for San Mateo County is ~$180,000 for a family of four. Very-low and Low income housing is a huge need, and honestly, so is helping our homeless and at-risk of homelessness population. Housing is a huge issue, but so is access to services, groceries, jobs, health support etc. Please ask those amazing citizens in our community who are experts on this topic to help support these plans.
SO- What can we do? The town cannot stick their head in the sand – increased housing is a state law, we need to do something.
Here are some ideas:
1. The easiest solution is to up the number of ADU’s in the Housing Element plan: This is happening anyways- and it helps everyone. ADU projections were woefully undercounted by using 3-yr averages during a pandemic and a time when ADU permits often ran into 5-6 month timelines. The town could vastly increase the number of ADU’s, Junior ADU’s and amnesty ADU’s. Give the incentives that have been discussed since 2014, encourage residents like the HEAC encouraged. Encourage tax breaks to rent these out rather than keep them as home offices. Perhaps even consider zoning for small live/work offices for the many work-from-home and entrepreneurs among us?
2. Since 2005, the RHNA’s have been discussing more senior housing. The silver tsunami is real. By 2050, more than 25% of the nation will be >65 yrs old. The housing 7 crisis for seniors will be intense - and their housing and care does create jobs. Opportunities to create light to mid density senior housing is a more realistic way to make low/no parking sites work, and can create revenue and jobs without creating misaligned incentives. Using town-owned open sites to do so should be possible as a site for development. We urge the town to explore these HEAC-suggested options, as was outlined in the 2014 Hillsborough RHNA. Create these sites using the HEAC constrained limits of 20 units per acre, with current height restrictions, after extensive study and community input, with extensive setback, no street closure, and no impact on elderly and disabled residents.
3. Re-approach private schools and other owners of private/business sites about putting in place long-term plans to build limited blocks of teacher housing on site every time they go through a school increase in size.
4. As a contingency, allow for small zoning changes to allow when larger sites homes become open that do not run afoul of private property rights.
Thank you for listening. We understand that you have a big task ahead of you, but we ask that you conduct it with more transparency and care for Hillsborough and its residents. We moved here BECAUSE of the lovely atmosphere and great schools and that everyone here cares deeply about the future of California, Hillsborough, and our communities (now and in the future).
We look forward to seeing you address these concerns at the Town Hall.
Elizabeth & Steve Jeffords
From: Heather Kollar
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:33:13 PM
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one! Warm regards,
Heather Kollar
Hillsborough Resident
From: Lauren Evans
To: General Plan
Subject: We do not support the draft housing element plan, please change! Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:51:33 PM
To whom it may concern,
We are writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. We wish to also voice our opposition to the plan.
We do not support it.
We believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
We prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Thank you for all that you are doing to represent our community! We realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one!
Warm regards,
Glen and Lauren Evans
Hillsborough
From: Laura Olstad Blankstein
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:11:26 PM
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one! Warm regards,
Laura Blankstein
From: Farris, Melissa
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 11:20:20 AM
Hello:
Since you are required to show added housing, I’m wondering if the best place to start would be to find out how much housing you actually need. I’m quite certain that MANY houses in hillsborough already have ADU’s that the town doesn’t know about. Not that it’s a secret but a lot of these houses are old and are frankly more than just the listed house. Our house for example has the carriage house that has two different levels/ entrances - so that’s two extra units. We also have a one bedroom apartment under the house- that’s a 3rd unit. Why are you not polling the citizens to see how many extra units we already have while doing nothing? > I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it. >
> I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
>
> I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan. >
> Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one!
>
> Warm regards,
Melissa Farris
Sent from my iPhone
From: Stephanie Cantwell
To: General Plan; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Subject: Housing Element Plan Feedback
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:56:16 AM
Hello,
We are writing this letter in support of the alternate plan proposed by the Smart Housing For Hillsborough team. The Housing Element plans submitted by the consulting firm should NOT be the only plan considered by our Town Council. I agree that affordable housing is one of the most pressing issues facing our state, and that essential workers in our town should have the option to live where they work. The clear answer to this problem in Hillsborough which lacks the infrastructure for multifamily housing is ADUSs. This solution is already in progress in our town, and can have an impact immediately. Re-zoning Hillsborough will only be an economic opportunity for developers at the expense of existing residents and potential home buyers.
Many existing guest and pool houses can to be upgraded to meet the specifications of an ADU or JDU. Affordable housing can be increased in Hillsborough much sooner than the eight year time frame by providing incentives for home owners to rent to essential works or senior citizens looking to downsize.
Fire, sewage, transportation and other infrastructure issues have been mentioned, but we must also consider the impact on the environment with reduction of green space and trees in our beautiful town
One size does not fit all in terms of solving for the housing crisis in our state. Rezoning Hillsborough and high-density housing structures are not the answer. The Hillsborough Town Council should consider alternate plans to help solve the housing problem at hand while retaining the essence of our beautiful town Sincerely,
Stephanie and Jonathan Cantwell
From: Dennis Moore
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: I oppose the draft Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:48:56 AM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz, I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for us all. I want to register my opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan is not good for the town, in my opinion. Specifically:
I support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the buffer, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals.
There are 54 privately owned, vacant lots larger than 0.5 acres in Hillsborough.
Put in place an ombudsman to work on outreach, policies for incentives, and to help shepherd their projects to completion. Several of these vacant lots are substantially larger than 0.5 acres and can be developed by their owners to significantly more than just one unit per lot. We could accommodate a total potential of well over 100 units of Above Median Income housing on these properties alone.
With good policy and an ombudsman, we could certainly get to most of our AMI allocation with this approach.
I support a substantial increase in the number of ADU's/JADU's in our Housing Element for 2023-2031. I believe the number of ADU's we can justify in our plan is at least 512 units, using 2021 permits as the basis and explaining the policies we changed that will make this our future trajectory during the RHNA 6 cycle. Yes, it may be outside the "safe harbor," but it is easily justifiable based on our results from RHNA cycle 5. Additionally, we can bolster the credibility of this approach if we pass ordinances and commit to policies friendly to an increase in ADU's ("pool house" amnesty, allowing more or larger ADU's for lot sizes > 0.7 acres, allowing one attached and one detached ADU for all lot sizes, eliminating fees, streamlining approval, and incentives to maximize ADU production for new construction and substantial remodels). Cementing these policies in ordinances before submitting our RHNA proposal to HCD will justify why our ADU numbers will remain high.
Atherton has an excellent set of ordinances and policies that we can utilize and extend.
I oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning. This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency situations, destroy property values, and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. Do not change our zoning - it isn't needed if we use the more aggressive approach to ADU's and correctly size our required buffer.
I oppose having a goal (Policy 4, Goal 4.5) to "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes." This goal and its implementation will violate homeowners' property rights and penalize those home owners with no compensation, and isn't needed. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future.
I support a much more modest buffer in our plan. We should start with a proposal of approximately 10% buffer, based on our past compliance and successful outcomes in all RHNA Cycles to date. If HCD objects, we could negotiate with them to come to the best possible number for Hillsborough.
I propose that we create a list of contingency parcels to be included in our plan if negotiations with HCD require them, or if future results require them. A Council member should reach out to the owners/trustees of all deed restricted open space parcels, and negotiate with them to remove the deed restrictions for the good of the town. We can include the Town Hall site and Tobin Clark estates in this list. And, to prepare for future RHNA cycles (or for a shortfall in the current cycle), we should identify and begin the process of annexation for properties we can use to meet our future requirements including 1551 Crystal Springs Road and some of the properties near the intersection of Skyline/Black Mountain Road and Golf Course Drive.
I'm sure you've heard feedback along these lines as you've been considering this plan.
Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
Dennis Moore
Hillsborough Resident
From: Karl Hansen
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to Draft Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:39:23 AM
Dear Hillsborough City Council,
I am writing this email to express my strong opposition to the draft housing element. This plan will ruin the character of Hillsborough and do nothing to supply additional intelligently located housing in California.
There should be no changes in zoning to allow for apartment or townhome style developments. The town should remain exclusively single-family detached homes with ADUs and JADUs used to meet the state mandated plan. Hillsborough at its core is a low-density community with open space and a small-town feel. That is one of the major reasons many residents choose to live in Hillsborough.
The draft housing element miscalculates the potential construction of new ADUs and JADUs over the next few years. Due to the Covid shutdown ADUs and JADUs constructed was stunted, but 2021 is indicative of the number of ADUs and JADUs that will be built. Using this number with an annual growth rate is more accurate. It will meet the vast majority of new state mandated housing.
There are vacant parcels in Hillsborough that will be developed over time. This will be easier by allowing flexibility in lot sizes down to 1/3 of an acre as suggested and which is a reasonable compromise. This will meet the remainder of the state mandated new housing.
Hillsborough does not have the town or transportation resources to support a major influx of dense apartment style housing. This is poor city planning that will lead to a huge increase in traffic and strain on our resources with no financial plan for how to pay for the additional costs and resources required in adding hundreds of residents to our town. There is no plan in place on how to pay for additional city staff, police, fire and school resources required for adding additional housing. The proposal will strain our already understaffed town. Dense apartment style development should be done near transit centers such as the Millbrae Bart/Caltrain station where Burlingame and Millbrae are building thousands of units. Bus transportation along El Camino is not a viable solution for most residents and any new housing in Hillsborough will lead to a proportionate increase in vehicular traffic to streets with no sidewalks endangering pedestrians and bikers many of whom are children on their way to school.
The 20% buffer is too large. Hillsborough should use the minimum units required in its plan.
Hillsborough has a good history of adding units so has credibility with the state in adding additional units.
In conclusion, I encourage you to reject the Draft Housing Element and rework it to eliminate any dense apartment or townhome style multifamily development. Maintain the character of Hillsborough our future is in your hands.
Karl Hansen
Resident , Hillsborough
From: Guy Longworth
To: General Plan
Cc: Sophie Cole; Al Royse; Marie Chuang; Christine Krolik; Larry May Subject: Draft Housing Element Plan feedback
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 5:48:44 PM
I am writing to provide my feedback on the Draft Housing Element plan.
I am providing these comments on, and objections to, the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 ("Draft Plan") – as a Hillsborough resident since 2007.
Firstly, I recognize that this is a difficult issue and I’m sure a lot of time, effort and money (I see we have hired consultants) have gone into addressing this situation. I also appreciate that no doubt a lot of people have worked hard on this for which I’m thankful. My goal is to be helpful and part of a solution, not part of the problem.
That said, the plan as it stands is totally unacceptable to me and the many people in town that I have spoken to about it.
It seems to me that little consideration has been given to the need to preserve and protect the characteristics of our unique town.
We moved to Hillsborough 15 years ago for the same reason that most people move here, for the excellent schools and the unique beauty of the town.
I believe that the town should be creative in protecting our town from this ill-thought through mandate from the California bureaucracy and not cave in and severely impact the town and its residents which the current proposal is likely to do. The current proposal does not seem to prioritize the desires of the residents.
I believe:
We should target the state-mandated 554 housing units -- which is already too high, a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough's existing housing stock, in an era when California's population is decreasing.
The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a "buffer" that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for Hillsborough. There is no need for the Town to do this. Nor is there any legal requirement that we do this. A 12% increase is more than enough. Our target number should remain 554, not 665.
The Draft Plan provides far too few ADUs. ADUs should be the primary means of meeting our 554-unit allocation.
The council should immediately pass ordinances before submitting our plan, allowing for more ADU's and more incentives for ADU's.
We should take a more realistic, and current, estimate of 65 ADUs per year (which is the 2021-22 rate). As I understand it over 8 years that would produce 520 housing units.
For the remaining 34 units, we should continue to lobby the State (see FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5.
We should not change our zoning to add the proposed new HD-2 and HD-3. Under the above strategy, new zoning is not necessary to meet the 554 number.
No to smaller minimum lot sizes, no to reduced setbacks, no to increased high allowances, no to increased FAR (floor area ratio), and no to reduced landscaping coverage.
The town should fully consider the impact of any plan on our schools and infrastructure. The current plan does not address these critical issues.
The proposed development of the Town Hall campus is very concerning. There seems to be no consideration taken for the potential impact on the surrounding community. At the first community meeting the town manager when asked about parking said that there has been no consideration taken for parking in the plan. She said these residents won’t drive “as they don’t have cars.” This is obviously not true and could have a serious impact on the surrounding neighborhood. It seems to me that this is just one illustration of how this proposal was developed without due consideration of the multiple negative impacts that this plan would have on our residents.
Alternative Proposal
I am aware that an alternative plan has been submitted by members of the advisory board that looks like it would do a far better job of maintaining the unique character of the town.
Why has the community not been shown this plan which would apparently deliver the state's requirement without changing the character of the town? Summary
I understand that the Town is trying to avoid confrontation with the state. However we must protect our town and community from this senseless mandate from Sacramento.
I am totally opposed to the current plan and believe a rethink is required.
I recommend that the alternative plan should be seriously considered and discussed and most likely should form the basis of our town’s submission.
Thanks again for all that you do for our town.
I appreciate your service.
Yours respectfully,
Guy Longworth
From: Lindsay Vaughn
To: General Plan
Subject: Affordable Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:58:29 PM
Hello,
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Thank you,
Lindsay Vaughn
From: Laith Salma
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc:
Subject: Housing Element Opposition Letter
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:58:02 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
First, we would like to thank you all for your efforts in attempting to approve of a Housing Element Draft that meets the State requirements as well as the community needs, not an easy task.
I’ve lived in Hillsborough for 44 years and we love living here and we have loved raising our family in this amazing community. Now that we understand what is at stake, we plan on building a JADU by converting a garage space in the next few years. Since a few weeks ago when we first learned of the 100-150 units that are proposed in our neighborhood, we have spoken to close to 200 people in our North School District about the Housing Element Plan. Despite the Towns attempts to inform the community, not one person we spoke with (outside of two HEAC members) understood what is happening and what the potential impacts and implications of the Housing Element will be. This is important to note because the Town outreach was critically ineffective and the town residents feel shocked, blindsided and that our interests have not been represented.
We strongly oppose the Housing Element Draft as proposed. We understand and agree that Hillsborough needs to meet the Housing Element allotment due to our current housing crisis, and we support the need for affordable housing, but this plan has been fatally flawed from the very start in a way which set the whole process off in the WRONG direction. The State guidelines on the ADU calculations suggest taking the previous rolling three-year average. This is only GUIDANCE not a REQUIREMENT. The flaw with this calculation is that we had COVID-19 in 2019 and 2020 where the State had literally ordered people not to work, to stay home, to stay separate, limited certain types of construction, to isolate, etc. In those two COVID years we still had ADU completion of 20 and 25 units. As soon as the new legislation for ADU’s came out (which streamlined the process), coupled with COVID-19 pandemic ending, our ADU production shot through the roof with 89 ADU applications, 81 entitlements given and 64 ADU permits in 2021 and 2022 is on track for potentially more ADU’s/ year. How is it rational in any way to use the artificially low ADU production years of 2019 and 2020 as factors in a calculation that massively impacts the layout of our town for the next 8 years? The State cannot impose work restrictions on communities and then use those time periods of lower output/ production (2019 & 2020) as a measure or basis for any estimates of future ADU production (unless they are predicting that we’re going into another pandemic). This argument has solid ground and needs to be pushed back on as firmly as possible by our Town. We need to have a plan that utilizes ADU’s as the primary way to solve our Housing Element allotment. We are on track to have a two year rolling average of at least 62 ADU’s/ year- which over 8 years is 496 units, vs the 250 proposed in the current draft of the Housing Element. At every school event, soccer game, baseball game, birthday party etc., the hot topic for the last two years has been ADU’s. Everyone wants one! The majority of the close to 200 people we spoke with have plans to complete ADU’s in the next few years, most were waiting for the craziness of COVID to end and get a sense of normalcy before starting a stressful project. Because of the major miscalculation by our consultants, every step after this has been going in the wrong direction and has been a mistake. Every problem the Draft worked on solving was based on that idea that we needed to solve for 400 extra units vs 100-150.
The “Buffer” guidelines that the State has suggested is between 15-30% (in case some units don’t get built). The Draft offered 20%, which is 5% more than even the minimum guidelines. Why didn’t we go with the minimum of 15%, or even better, why not go past the “guidelines and make a strong case for only a 10% buffer? The State is receptive to an increased ADU allotment or deviating from the guidelines if we can show a real plan as to how the Town will complete the increased amount of ADU units. Hillsborough can do several things to demonstrate to the State that the Town will far exceed our current sustainable number of 62/ units/ year by doing the following:
1. Implement an education outreach plan. If residents were educated to the fact that if we don’t meet our ADU allotment we will face rezoning in ways that are negatively impactful to our town (fire, traffic, schooling teacher/ child ratio and funding, utilities, density= fire danger, etc.) people would feel more invested in speeding up their ADU timelines.
2. Offer financial incentives to qualifying applicants- perhaps waiving fees for fixed income seniors or families. Perhaps waiving increased taxes and fees.
3. Pre-approve of three ADU Prefab Designs- (Per the Consultant named Robert Kain) The Town can approve a preset number of approved ADU designs made by manufactured home builders. This would allow people to know that their project design is already approved, and the costs will be almost entirely predictable and economical due to the pre-fab nature of these ADU’s. The consultant said this would go a long way with the State.
4. New Home Construction & Significant Remodels- All new homes permitted will be required to include one ADU and one J-ADU. Any building projects valued at over $1,500,000 must include an ADU or JADU
5. Conversion of Existing Real Estate- Outreach to property owners who have easily converted real estate, guest houses, pool houses, etc.
Perhaps the most unacceptable idea is regarding the Town Hall site, which includes re-zoning for a 100-150 unit building with no underground parking and in exchange the Town gets a new police station and Town Hall. While this may represent the interest of the police department and the employees of the Town, it does not represent one resident’s interest in the Ryan Tract. There is a serious, perceived conflict of interest with this site- the optics do not look good when the entire neighborhood is against this proposal, but the Town is for it and the Town has something very significant to gain. There needs to be an explanation as to why this plan is so out of touch with what our community would like to see there. There have been no serious Historical Resource Surveys on the historic structures in the Town Hall area, including the police station. Having a high rise on our charming and historically significant police station is unacceptable. These historic structures cannot be torn down. The current draft proposes to have only the Town Hall site meet 100% of the Town’s affordable Housing allotment instead of distributing that allotment equally throughout the Towns proposed sites. This is highly discriminatory and shows a total lack of equity by placing 100% of all the affordable housing component in one dense, under parked building versus integrating that housing component across all proposed sites. That economic class of residents do not deserve to be ghettoized and isolated, they deserve to be woven into our community in a thoughtful way spread over many sites and all school districts. The second issue of serious concern is the sever lack of parking. The current plan only has surface parking and has NO underground parking. Regardless of the State allowing developers to “get away” with no parking, this site needs to be zoned for 1:1 parking for any units, just like every other site proposed. The Town is here to represent the interests of its residents, not the bottom line for a developer. We live on Fairway Circle and any time there is a Council meeting or an event at Town Hall, Floribunda sidewalks are littered with cars as well as Fairway Circle. This will become much worse with a lack of underground parking. The idea that people of lower incomes do not need or do not have cars is preposterous and discriminatory. We rent apartments to many Section 8 tenants, they all have cars, some have two. Every person who works in Hillsborough (housekeepers, teachers, janitors, gardeners, maintenance technicians, service people) ALL have cars. I mention this because Towns line about who will occupy these homes has been, “it will be people who work for you all, like your gardeners and housekeepers). Cars equal mobility, mobility equals opportunity, opportunity equals economic stability. Therefore no matter what income bracket moves into one of these units they will either need or want a car if they don’t already have one. Purchasing a car will always be a top priority until there is adequate, high quality public transportation and that is not on the horizon for the next several decades.
This site cannot be zoned for more than 20-30 units, in line with the rest of El Camino Real. The property needs to have 1:1 underground parking so the community isn’t negatively affected by the increased traffic and parking needs. There still needs to be adequate parking for Town Hall events, because currently, we are in need of MORE parking even though there is no new development on site. The 20-30 units should be senior housing which fits the need of our community much more than general use housing. If the Town really needs a new Town Hall and Police Station, why not put an extra tax on the community or a bond measure? Chatter about this solution was popular and well received. Everyone I spoke with was in favor of this solution so the Town wouldn’t be compromised when thinking of the potential for this site. Lastly, when I asked the City Manager, Ann about why there was no underground parking, she told me “Because it is economically unfeasible.” My profession is commercial real estate and development. The Burlingame Post office and the two new developments on California and Burlingame Avenue each have 4-5 stories of underground parking. We know the developer of the two California lots, Dewey Land Company.
All three sites had similar, serious issues to deal with (underground services, utilities, a culver, etc.).
Each site was built, and each site “penciled” for the developers. The only reason this project would not pencil is if the Town makes the ill-advised decision to create only one site that absorbs 100% of the affordable housing component. This site makes incredible sense for senior housing. Direct route to the ER on El Camino. Right by EMT’s, Police and Fire, easy to walk places, etc. The need is greater than even regular housing. Please do not believe that having underground parking is economically unfeasible. If market rate housing and affordable housing have a more balanced ratio in this site, the project quickly becomes economically feasible.
Whatever zoning is created for this site MUST include deeded parking ratios of 1:1 as well as outlawing any cell phone towers or roof decks on the properties. This is the appropriate time to make such restrictions.
We strongly oppose the idea of converting the Town Hall parking lot and the conversion of a singlefamily residence to the new police station and Town Hall. This goes against every urban planning doctrine. Streets, like Walnut, should be used as transition streets between property types (commercial to residential). It will be a permanent scar on the neighborhood to intermingle residential housing with commercial buildings. It will also dramatically impact light, shadows, noise, traffic and privacy of the adjoining residential lots- all of whom are strongly opposed to this plan.
Last is the unacceptable timelines given to our community to provide thoughtful feedback. The timelines provided are totally and completely inadequate. We still have not seen the renderings of the Town Hall site and our public comment is due to expire on September 19th. I urge you to extend this deadline to allow more community members to provide you their feedback. If your goal is to hear the community, which I hope it is, you will allow more time to hear more neighbors. Members of the HEAC who oppose the current plan feel that the Town has adequately provided ample opportunity to provide thoughtful feedback and has not taken the existing feedback by and implemented it. Members of the HEAC committee have told me personally that they perceived the consultants which the Town hired had an agenda. That agenda was to put apartment buildings in Hillsborough and were relentless until they got what they wanted. They did not approach this from a perspective of solving this our allotment mostly with ADU’s, that was an error that needs to be remedied. No members of our HEAC were attorneys’, real estate professionals, or urban planners.
We essentially had a HEAC with no professionally qualified members who could offer insightful alternatives to the group. We hired an out-of-town group of consultants from Los Angeles to draft a totally unacceptable Housing Element Draft. They should have been advising, but it appears the consultants strongly steered the direction of the Housing Element in a way that is in total opposition to Town resident interests. The current draft needs to be thrown out and redrafted with ADU’s as the primary source of our housing allotment, do not move the Town Hall or Police Station and seriously consider how to get senior housing built on the Town Hall site with 1:1 parking.
Thank you,
Laith & Katie Salma
From: Ted Kevranian
To: General Plan
Cc: Ted Kevranian; Liz Ruess
Subject: Feedback from a resident--- Draft Housing Element Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:49:35 PM
Attachments: image.png
Hi
I had an opportunity to review the draft material on Housing Development on your website. I attended the 6pm Public Open House yesterday evening at North School Multipurpose Room. I briefly spoke with Ms, Liz Ruess, and I am copying her on my candid feedback regarding this unprecedented project for the Town of Hillsborough.
High level questions at the outset
Who is driving this Draft Housing Element?
Intended and unintended consequences?
How many of the 11,000 Hillsborough Residents are aware of this project, and how many have provided their feedback?
Who is driving this Draft Housing Element?
· If it is the State of California, their credibility has been on a very steep decline for over several decades. I would think the State is the least genuinely concerned body about the average worker in the State or Town of Hillsborough. · Quality of life and living costs in California with high taxes, inflation, increasing crime rates is the real issue, not low-cost housing.
· I believe California has lost residents to other states every year since 2001. · My employer, Viavi, moved its headquarters from San Jose to Chandler, Arizona. Oracle and HP moved to Texas, others will follow. o 396,000k regulations in the State of California.
§ Declining quality and slow services.
o Example: City of Chandler, AZ offered, and we used “Concierge Service”, on construction permitting & approval process. They require and we adhere to very sound water recycling, solar power use, very good environmental measures etc.
o We have to be mindful, cost of housing, reasonable mortgage rates, only one cost element vs many others, like availability-reliability of water & utilities, higher State Taxes, etc
· Hillsborough Town should not accept, at face value, a “mandate from the State” Intended and unintended consequences have been fully considered? · How many teachers, firefighters and police expressed active interest in this project?
o How many of them drive more than 30 miles each-way to work? o “A few miles driving distance to work” seems attractive, but a very unreasonable expectation and requirement.
· What is the projected sale price of proposed low-cost housing in Hillsborough? o With even lower cost housing choices within 15 miles of Hillsborough, interested firefighters, police & teachers will really buy such units in Hillsborough?
· Tinkering with the very special--charming Town of Hillsborough, heritage & uniqueness. will most certainly have unintended consequences o I believe this initiative will definitely make developers; utility companies, others richer
o Have unforeseen large infrastructure costs in water, sewer, schools, etc been quantified and considered?
o The Town could see some exodus from Hillsborough ….
My own immigrant’s story,
attraction was: equality of opportunities NOT equality of outcomes, · 50 years ago, fresh out of high school, with $200 in my pocket I came to America: stayed with an American family, dreamt of buying a house in Hillsborough attended CSM, UC Berkeley,
o 37-Years ago I married my beautiful wife from Vancouver, BC, spent 7 years in Penang running HP’s very large R&D and Manufacturing facility.
Returned in 1995 with four children and purchased a beautiful house in precious and highly esteemed Hillsborough
o We have three daughters and a son, they initially attended the KZV Armenian School in San Francisco
o Then attended West and Crocker schools----great academics, character education, sports, best music teacher, etc
o Hillsborough residents: awesome people, highly educated, successful, high parental participation in local schools
o Our children later attended: San Mateo High School, UC Davis, University of Santa Clara, USC, University of Rome and Sorbonne. They all learned to appreciate diversity, different cultures, came back, and have successful jobs in the Bay Area.
How many of the 11,000 Hillsborough Residents are aware, how many have provided their feedback on this huge project?
· Hillsborough Town set up key meetings in August and September —high vacation months. There were quite a few people last night, but I would think, they make up a tiny fraction of the residents.
o Why not send a summary email (with less than ten slides) to all residents to make them better aware
§ 11,000 residents: Should get a high percentage of them to agree before this measure is seriously considered for implementation § Even if passed, only a “baby step” should be considered in only one location in the Town to learn from this experience.
Thanks for listening. I work for a high-tech company and manage their Real Estate, EH&S, and Facilities in 60 global locations. I also manage Sourcing & Procurement.
Sincerely,
Assadour (Ted) Kevranian
Ted Kevranian,
Viavi Solutions Inc
VP, Corporate Real Estate,
Global Sourcing & Procurement,
Travel Management
3047 Orchard Parkway, Suite 10, San Jose, CA 95134
Office +1-408-404-9088, Mobile
From: Dave Kling
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Hillsborough Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:30:25 PM
Hello, my family has lived in Hillsborough for ten years and we currently reside at 8 Homs Court. I have just recently gotten up to speed on the Town's initial draft plan to provide more housing units, and I wanted to provide you with my feedback (unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Town meeting last night). In general, I'm unhappy with the initial draft plan's proposal to meet the RHNA obligations through greater housing density by "up-zoning" through smaller lot sizes, increased FAR, etc. I worry that, if implemented, this would really have a dramatic effect on the character of the Town and what makes it attractive to many of us who live here. It seems like a plan that allows the consultants to meet their numbers without taking into account the actual people who live here.
My understanding is that there is an alternate "Smart Housing for Hillsborough" plan that proposes to fulfill the Town's obligations via a more measured approach, relying more substantially on increasing the number of ADUs. We are actually in the process of completing a new ADU this year on our own property and some of the recent changes to the ADU process made it much easier to undertake our project. I have no doubt that further changes to the ADU process/incentives would continue to drive more ADUs and help offset the need for installing high density housing in the middle of existing neighborhoods.
More generally, I worry that the initial draft plan has been a rushed process that is not supported by a significant majority (or any majority) of Hillsborough residents, and I think everyone would be in favor of getting behind a plan that has much more community support.
Let's find a way to create more housing while also retaining the attributes that attracted us to Hillsborough!
Regards,
Dave Kling
Hillsborough, CA
From: Amy Wang Liou
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Michael Liou
Subject: hi - important feedback re: current draft housing plan Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:52:35 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I wanted to send an email since all of the many homeowners I've spoken to in Hillsborough along with my family are extremely concerned about the current draft plan for housing. In the 16 years that we've lived here, this is probably the most important issue that affects our town's aesthetics and natural features, safety, schools, property values, traffic - basically everything is at stake and could be affected adversely by the current plan. There is a reason our town is such a special, beautiful and safe place to live and we hope that we can best preserve what attracted us all to move here as much as possible. As such, most homeowners are alarmed and would like to respectfully ask that the hard-working people who are in charge of representing us to please consider some of the proposed alternative plans that can still help us achieve the state goals without giving up so much.
One of the plans is called Smart Housing for Hillsborough and seems to have some excellent alternative ideas. Please do not vote for or pass the current plan that was led by an outside consultant with no personal ties to this special place that is home to us. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.
Thanks for your efforts to ensure that the town of Hillsborough will not suffer from any detrimental decisions without carefully considering the feedback of its homeowners in order to move forward with a plan that most accept and support versus the current draft plan.
Please let us know if there's anything we can do towards helping the town to reach an alternative plan that protects us better.
Best regards,
Amy and Michael Liou
From: Jon McGovern
To: General Plan
Subject: NO to Housing Element Draft
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:17:16 PM
Mayor Alvin Royse and Vice Mayor Christine Krolic
Council Members Sophie Cole, Laurence May and Marie
ChuangI strongly oppose the Housing Element Draft as
proposedPlease consider increasing the number of new
ADU’s to satisfy the state
DO NOT alter the character of our town
NO to “upzones” – do not change our town’s
character
Get creative about educating residents and how you
can make ADU process more streamlined
Homeowners moved to this town for the suburban
space, beauty and excellent schools
Residents I know are angry and shocked by this
proposal
The Town Hall site is proposed to be large
multifamily structure with 100 or more units and no
parking- this is a terrible planning decision- how is
this legal? Anytime you develop a project you need
to plan for parking
Where are these proposed residents supposed to
park- along Floribunda? This is ridiculous
Rather than a hire a consultant that lives out of the
area- you all need to have a plan developed by
residents of Hillsborough- we need to be careful
and not give up our Town’s character because we
have a deadline to submit to state
DO NOT rely on a consultant- please listen to your
community
The proposal is unacceptable- please do not let this
be your legacy to our great community
Jon McGovern
Resident of Hillsborough
Photo
Jon McGovern
P 415.820.4510
F 650.475.1851
[email protected]
Bay Equity LLC
770 Tamalpais Drive, Suite 207, Corte Madera, CA 94925
800.BAY.3703 • Bay Equity LLC • NMLS ID#76988
www.bayequityhomeloans.com
This message (and any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, legally privileged and protected from disclosure. It is intended for the use of the individual (s) to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or any parts of it, please contact the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. No other person is authorized to copy, forward, disclose, distribute or retain this message in any form. Any Interest Rate Information published in this message is subject to change without notice and does not constitute a commitment to make any loan at any specific rate. Thank you.. ...
From: marc snyder
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Hillsborough Housing Plan -
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 12:24:45 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik,
Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz, First of all I would like to thank all of you for your efforts in crafting a Housing Element Draft that meets the State requirements, I know it’s not easy and you are trying to please the community and satisfy the State.
I strongly oppose the Housing Element Draft as proposed. I understand and agree that Hillsborough needs to meet the Housing Element allotment due to our current housing crisis, but this plan has been fatally flawed from the very start in a way which set the whole process off in the WRONG direction. The State guidelines on the ADU calculations suggest taking the previous rolling three year average.
This is only GUIDANCE not a REQUIREMENT!
The flaw with this calculation is that we had COVID-19 in 2019 and 2020 where the state had literally ordered people not to work, to stay home, to stay separate, limited certain types of construction, to isolate, etc.
In those two COVID years we had ADU’s completion of 26 and 28 units. As soon as the new legislation for ADU’s came out (which streamlined the process), coupled with COVID-19 pandemic ending, our ADU production shot through the roof with 65 ADUs in one year and this year we are on track for 60 ADU’s/ year. How is it rational in any way to use the artificially low ADU production years of 2019 and
2020 as factors in a calculation that massively impacts the layout of our town for the next 8 years!? This needs to be pushed back on as firmly as possible.
We need to have a plan that utilizes ADU’s as the primary way to solve our Housing Element allotment. We have a clear track record of creating at least 60 units/ year- which over 8 years is 480 units, vs the 250 proposed in the current draft of the Housing Element. At every school event, soccer game, baseball game, birthday party etc, the hot topic for the last two years has been ADU’s. The majority of the close to 200 people I spoke with have plans to complete ADU’s in the next few years, most were waiting for the craziness of COVID to end and get a sense of normalcy before starting a stressful project.
Because of the major miscalculation by our consultants, every step after this has been going in the wrong direction and has been a mistake. Every problem the Draft worked on solving was based on that idea that we needed to solve for 400 extra units vs 100-150.
The “Buffer” guidelines that the State has suggested is between 15-30% (in case some units don’t get built). The Draft offered 20%- more than even the minimum guidelines. Why didn’t we go with the minimum of 15%, or even better, why not go past the “guidelines and make a strong case for only a 10% buffer? The State is receptive to an increased ADU allotment or bending the guidelines if we can show a real plan as to how the Town will complete the increased amount of ADU units. Hillsborough can do a number of things to demonstrate to the State that we will far exceed our number of 60/ units/ year by doing the following:
1) Implement an education outreach plan
-
If residents were educated to the fact that if we don’t meet our ADU allotment we will face rezoning in ways that are
negatively impactful to our town (fire, traffic, schooling teacher/ child ratio and funding, utilities, density= fire danger, etc.) people would feel more invested in speeding up their ADU timelines. 2) Offer financial incentives to qualifying applicants- perhaps waiving fees for fixed income seniors or families. Perhaps waiving increased taxes and fees. 3) Per the Consultant
(Robert)- The Town can “pre-approve” of three ADU pre-fab designs made by manufactured home builders. This would allow people to know that their project is already approved and the costs will be almost entirely predictable and economical due to the pre-fab nature of these ADU’s. The consultant said this would go a long way with the State.
Perhaps
the most egregious idea is the Town Hall site, which includes re-zoning for a 100-150 unit building with no underground parking in exchange the Town gets a new police station and Town Hall.
While this may represent the interest of the police department and the employees of the Town, it does not represent one residents interest in the Ryan Tract.
There is a serious, perceived conflict of interest with this site- the optics do not looks good when the entire neighborhood is against this proposal, but the Town is for it and the Town has something significant to gain. Having a high rise on our charming and historically significant police station is unacceptable.
These historic structures cannot be town down. The current draft proposes to have only the Town Hall site meet 100% of the Town’s affordable Housing allotment instead of distributing that allotment equally throughout the Towns proposed sites. This is highly discriminatory and shows a total lack of equity. The second issue of serious concern to me and everyone I spoke with is the sever lack of parking. The current plan only has surface parking and has NO underground parking. Regardless of the State allowing developers to “get away” with no parking, this site needs to be zoned for 1:1 parking for any units, just like every other site proposed.
The Town is here to represent the interests of its residents, not the bottom line for a developer.
The idea that people of lower
incomes do not need or do not have cars is preposterous and discriminatory.
Every person who works in Hillsborough (housekeepers, teachers, janitors, gardeners, maintenance technicians, service people) ALL have cars. I mention this because Towns line about who will occupy these homes has been, “it will be people who work for you all, like your gardeners and housekeepers). This site cannot be zoned for more housing than what the parking can accommodate, with no more than 20-30 units, preferably senior housing which fits the need of our community much more than general use housing.
If the Town really needs a new Town Hall and Police Station, why not put an extra tax on the community or a bond measure? Everyone I spoke with was in favor of this solution versus the City selling it’s residents out to get a new Town Hall and Police Department.
Whatever zoning is created for this site MUST include deeded parking ratios of 1:1 as well as outlawing any cell phone towers or roof decks on the properties. This is the appropriate time to make such restrictions.
I strongly oppose the idea of converting the Town Hall parking lot and the conversion of a single family residence to
the new police station and Town Hall. This goes against every urban planning doctrine.
Streets, like Walnut, should be used as transition streets between property types (commercial to residential). It will be a permanent scar on the neighborhood to intermingle residential housing with commercial buildings. It will also dramatically impact light, shadows, noise and privacy of the adjoining residential lots- all of who are strongly opposed to this plan.
Lastly, is the unacceptable timelines given to our community to provide thoughtful feedback.
The timelines provided are totally and completely inadequate. We still have not seen the renderings of the Town Hall site and our public comment is due to expire on September 19th.
I urge you to extend this deadline to allow more community members to provide you their feedback. IF your goal is to hear the community, which I hope it is, you will allow more time to hear more neighbors. The citizens do not feel that the Town has adequately provided ample opportunity to provide thoughtful feedback and has not taken the existing feedback by citizens and by members of the HEAC who oppose the current plan.
Members of the HEAC committee have told me personally that the consultants hired had an agenda to put apartment buildings in
Hillsborough and were relentless in the meetings with our HEAC until they got what they wanted.
They did not approach this from a perspective of solving this our allotment mostly with ADU’s, that was an error that needed to be remedied. No members of our HEAC were attorneys real estate professional, or urban planners. We essentially had a HEAC with no professionally qualified members who could offer insightful alternatives to the group. We allowed an out of town group of consultants from Los Angelas to draft a totally unacceptable Housing Element Draft. It needs to be thrown out and redrafted with ADU’s as the primary source of our housing allotment.
Thank You,
Marc Snyder
From: Brad Vaughn
To: General Plan
Subject: Affordable Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 12:04:44 PM
I am writing following last nights meeting on the Housing Element plans to meet the states affordability plans. Currently to date we have yet to see an impact report on proposed multifamily, lot splits etc. We are tracking to the states goals through the ADU process and with city encouragement we could easily exceed. I recently built an ADU and while the process is easier than a standard permit the fees associated and the difficulty with the nuances is still an obstacle (4-6 month approval). ADUs are a great approach as the resident then bears the cost of operating, owning and maintaining versus leaving that up to a developer- putting more pressure on city resources (Parking, fire, schools, police etc). IF the council would ease the burden we could easily meet the goals as the 2021 run rate would hit the targets. That would eliminate the need for "up-zoning" - no smaller minimum lot sizes, no reduced setbacks, no increased high allowances, no increased FAR (floor area ration), and no reduced landscaping coverage.
Thank you for your time,
Brad
From: Kelli Denning Walker
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:46:46 AM
Good morning!
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one! Warm regards,
Kelli Walker
From: Luke Wilson
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Plan
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:30:33 AM
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do NOT support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Some of the locations being discussed to add housing also make no sense when you are going to build on a schools land which would take away capacity at a school and also add lots of additional people/students, so thats a huge net loss.
Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one! Warm regards,
Luke Wilson
From: Rula Tamer
To: General Plan; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Cc: Ford Tamer; Hillsborough Mail
Subject: Housing/Zoning Policy Comments
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:29:44 PM
To whom it may concern:
This is to let you know that we are out of the country and unable to attend the September 6 meeting. We are therefore submitting this letter to voice our concern.
We understand the need for more affordable housing units in CA however the current proposed plan from the consultants is unacceptable. The consulting firm presented a one size fits all plan to appease Sacramento without thinking critically if there is a better path available for Hillsborough. The consultant has offered a blanket plan (e.g. rezoning) that is not tailored to our community and minimizes what is actually working and has exceeded historical expectations (ADUs). The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must be on ADU’s and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. Based on the 2021 ADU run-rate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town council is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the apartment units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If numerous apartment units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming. Without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special.
The fact that we have zero commerce and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems like a very aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed.
Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done and rejection of all other strategies. Atherton successfully removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal.
You now have an opportunity to listen to your citizens, set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation, and make the right decision before it's too late. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing.
Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank You
Rula and Ford Tamer
Hillsborough, CA 94010
From: Danielle Simon
To: General Plan
Cc: Hillsborough Mail; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz
Subject: Housing Plan Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:20:55 PM
To whom it may concern:
I am learning more about the draft housing plan, and while I absolutely recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and deeply appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our town, the current plan is far too complex. The consulting firm seems to have run a playbook that was one size fits all approach to appease Sacramento without thinking critically if there is a better path forward. The consultant has offered a blanket plan (ie: re-zoning) that is not tailored to our community and minimizes what is actually working and has exceeded historical expectations (ie ADUs).
The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must be on ADU and vacant lot development and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. Based on the 2021 ADU run-rate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan.
While I understand this may not satisfy the state, we need to enter into a negotiated outcome and follow the lead of other towns.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the 100+ units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If 100+ units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming. Without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. It doesn’t seem that a proper Environmental impact survey has been accomplished prior to putting together this plan. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special.
The fact that we have zero commerce and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems like a very aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed.
I know the town is trying their best, but as Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done with the rejection of all other strategies. Atherton successfully removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. If not, you will have a mass exodus from our community and our schools and town will suffer greatly. You now have an opportunity to listen to your citizens, set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing and work to come up with a better plan while negotiating with the state.
Please feel free to include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
Gil and Danielle Simon, Hillsborough residents
From: Alex Dyner
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough housing plan
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:13:49 PM
Hello,
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough. And to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one! Thank you thank you thank you! Warm regards,
Alex Dyner
Sent from my iPhone
From: Vinette Ramsay
To: General Plan; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Cc: Hillsborough Mail
Subject: Town Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:07:13 PM
Hello,
We are writing this letter in support of the alternate plan proposed by the Smart Housing For Hillsborough
team. The previous plans submitted by the outside planning group should NOT be the only plan considered by our Town Council. Even though the state is "only requesting a plan" at this time, there will be severe impacts on many neighborhoods once developers jump in and take advantage of zoning changes proposed that are presented to the Town members as "just a plan."
The Town should have surveyed the number of pool houses and guest houses that already exist ~ many of which can to be upgraded to meet the specifications of an ADU or JDU, and these structures should have entered into the equations for estimating projections for ADU/JDUs. It seems the most acceptable scenario for expanding housing is to encourage more of these structures that can house younger people trying to make a living in the area as well as older people in need of housing and family care. Teachers, police and others would greatly benefit from housing such as this as well.
Fire, sewage, transportation and other infrastructure issues have been mentioned, but the impact on the environment and destruction of green space and trees is another important issue to be considered in these drastic zoning alterations.
We are requesting that our Town Council consider alternate plans and study what our neighboring towns have accomplished in their plans.
Sincerely,
Nettie and Chip Ramsay
From: Phil Chen
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Subject: I oppose the draft Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:33:53 PM
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz, I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for us all. I want to register my opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan is not good for the town, in my opinion. Specifically: * I support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the buffer, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. * I oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning.
This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency situations, destroy property values, and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. Do not change our zoning. * I oppose having a goal (Policy 4, Goal 4.5) to "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes." This goal and its implementation will violate homeowners' property rights and penalize those home owners with no compensation. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future. * I oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan. Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. Add more ADU/JADU's to our plan. * I oppose using too high of a buffer, requiring more housing to achieve our RHNA obligations. Many people in our town agree on these four points - I'm sure you've heard the feedback as you've been considering this plan. Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Sincerely, Phil Chen (Hillsborough Resident)
Sybarite Luxury Realty | Compass
DRE#: 01715177
m:
[email protected]
NEW YORK | BROOKLYN | EAST HAMPTON | BRIDGEHAMPTON | SOUTHAMPTON | SAG HARBOR | WASHINGTON DC | CHEVY CHASE | ARLINGTON | MCLEAN | BOSTON | CAMBRIDGE | MIAMI | COCONUT GROVE | BEVERLY HILLS | MALIBU | PASADENA | MONTECITO | SANTA BARBARA | BASALT | ASPEN | SAN FRANCISCO | CHESTNUT HILL | NEWPORT BEACH | NAPLES | CHICAGO | DALLAS | HINGHAM | SAN DIEGO | WESTCHESTER | WELLESLEY | SEATTLE From: RUSSELL BECKWITH
To: General Plan
Cc: Mary Beckwith
Subject: General Plan Housing Element modifications regarding Strawberry Hill Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 5:36:04 PM
I recognize the need for this planning and plan. I am not a NIMBY hater of any development. Additional housing units in our town and our state are desperately needed.
However, there is one very fatal flaw concerning access for development of the Strawberry Hill property. The sole access point for most of the proposed new units is currently shown as Redington Road. The road currently provides access as a narrow, dead end right of way that serves only Strawberry Hill and 4 additional homes. This road would be totally inadequate to serve the traffic from more than a hundred additional residences. My own home at the entrance to the dead end was not counted as it is at the T intersection of Redington and Skyfarm. It would however also be significantly, adversely affected by the massive increase in traffic volume.
Condemnation by eminent domain of the 4, and demolition of 3 of the 4 existing Redington Road residences would most likely be necessary in order to build a road of adequate capacity for the traffic generated by so many housing units. Further, being a dead end road and in the Urban Wildfire Zone creates an additional, serious safety hazard for emergency egress of so many new residents. … and cellular phone service is spotty at best in this area, adding to the safety concern.
For public safety a second access point would be essential for the large number of affordable housing units being suggested. Macadamia might be openable for access onto the current, upper Strawberry Hill driveway, but the site topography may or may not allow such access. If a reasonable capacity through roadway can not be provided, the number of units proposed for Strawberry Hill should be greatly reduced.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
My background is as a retired civil/sanitary/environmental engineer (MS-CE Stanford), and other stuff.
Sent from my iPad
From: Ketki
To: Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz; Hillsborough Mail; General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element Plans.
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 4:53:02 PM
To whom it may concern:
I am learning more about the draft housing plan, and while I absolutely recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and deeply appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our town, the current plan is far too complex. The consulting firm ran a playbook that was one size fits all to appease Sacramento without thinking critically if there is a better path. The consultant has offered a blanket plan (ie re-zoning) that is not tailored to our community and minimizes what is actually working and has exceeded historical expectations (ie ADUs). The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must be on ADU and vacant lot development and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. Based on the 2021 ADU run-rate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the 100+ units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If 100+ units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming. Without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. The fact that we have zero commerce and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems like a very aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed.
I know the town is trying their best, but as Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done and rejection of all other strategies. Using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units in the current plan shows that the consultant has not done enough by way of informing, communicating and partnering with homeowners on how to go about building more ADU/JADU's. Atherton successfully removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman.
Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. You now have an opportunity to listen to your citizens, set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation, and make the right decision before it's too late. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing.
Please feel free to include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
Ketki Dharni
From: Sher Amos-Grosser
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:57:20 PM
I have family in town, and we have dinner plans tonight, so I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting.
Let me start by saying that I absolutely agree that we need to address the housing need. There has to be a better plan than what is currently proposed. After reviewing the general plan that has been made public to the Town, I have to say that there are some points that I still question.
How did we get allotted 500+ units for a subset of 94010 (why couldn't Burlingame and Hillsborough be combined in this ridiculously large number for a population forecast?). There have been conversations that the large number was appealed to, so what happened with that conversation? And if it was appealed, then others understood that planning for 500+ is challenging.
Can we incentivize current homeowners with construction of ADUs and JADUs or multiple on-site ADUs and JADUs?
Can we include in the plan the additional land that the Town currently owns and begin with potential construction at those lots? I never understood why DeGuigne and Brooke Court were in the plan when I wasn't sure if the families were notified and if they were going to support high density housing or additional housing on their lots.
How do we think about infrastructure and schooling for 500-800 potential new students (if we have families that have 1-2 school-age children)? There are many others more eloquent than me and who have done greater research than I have, but I have learned so much being on this committee. Having the opportunity to listen to other HEAC members who come from various socioeconomic backgrounds, I have altered how I view/think about this housing issue from 'yes, let's build everywhere' to 'wait a minute, we need to be more thoughtful'.
Can we create a more thoughtful plan that listens to and includes the voices of our townspeople?
With great regard to you and this process,
Sher
Sher Amos-Grosser
From: Ted Dobos
To: General Plan
Subject: More ADU"s or simply a better plan-- not 1/3 acre lots and reduced setbacks Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:45:34 PM
Build housing where there is transportation as you propose at Town Hall or perhaps maybe along skyline/280. To rezone to 1/3 acre throughout Hillsborough and to reduce setbacks and increase FAR throughout all of Hillsborough is obviously not ideal--- we can do better! I have read the alternative plan which is clearly superior than what is currently being considered. Hillsborough was not created with the transportation, roads or enough schools to go to high density. I realize things are changing and perhaps need to change-- but rezoning all of Hillsborough without a plan for the schools and transportation is not acceptable. Keeping our zoning intact and then plans like expanded ADU's would be much more attractive than the unnecessary bold/extreme step of changing lot sizes to 1/3 acre and increased FAR. I am not in favor of the current-- we can do better. -Ted Dobos
Hillsborough, CA
From: Dana Gross
To: General Plan; Liz Ruess
Subject: Concerns with existing affordable housing plan Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:29:23 PM
Hello,
As a Hillsborough resident I have many concerns with the proposed plan because it will completely change the feeling of our unique town and the reason we all pay a premium to live here.
First of all, there is not enough being done to fight to keep our town from drastically changing with the proposed zoning and rule changes. The city council, housing committee, Mayor and other elected officials need to do more! They have to get more aggressive with the number of ADU's, including passing ordinances now before submitting our plan, allowing for more ADU's and more incentives for ADU's. If the Council passes such ordinances, it can justify a much higher number of ADU's, which would potentially eliminate (or at least drastically slash) any high density housing in their plan. Other towns similar to ours have done this and we need to fight for that as well!
You must also demand that there be no "up-zoning", as this imposes a very unfair restriction on anyone who currently owns a smaller home, and no to smaller minimum lot sizes, no to reduced setbacks, no to increased high allowances, no to increased FAR (floor area ration), and no to reduced landscaping coverage.
If any of the proposed zoning changes are approved, they must be limited to a one time exception and not the norm, as that would ensure our town doesn’t get taken over by developers, but rather stays a town of predominantly single family homes, as it was intended to be, and why it’s so highly coveted.
If affordable housing absolutely has to be added, then the developers must be required to stick to strict architectural guidelines that are regulated and enforced by the town.
These guidelines must be put in place so the new buildings blend in with the beautiful architecture that is all around Hillsborough.
Dennis Moore has proposed a new plan that is much improved over the original and I support aspects of that plan, although I still think there is more work to be done to preserve our small town and ensure we’ve exhausted all options first, and laid out very specific changes/guidelines in zoning and architecture that will only apply to the new developments going in related to this mandate.
Thank you,
Dana Gross
Sent from my iPhone
From: Christopher Kruse
To: General Plan
Cc: Stephanie Conner Kruse
Subject: Feedback on HEAC plan
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:37:28 PM
My name is Chris Kruse and I live with my wife, Stephanie, and my family in Hillsborough. We moved to Hillsborough in 1996 and have lived in 2 homes since then. We currently reside at 120 Redwood Drive.
I’ve read the Housing Element Public Review Draft document provided on the Hillsborough website. Based on this review, the following is my feedback on the process so far and the plan.
1. Notwithstanding the fact I have lived in Hillsborough for over 25 years, I was not aware of the State requirement to provide 554 new housing units to low and medium-income citizens. Whatever outreach was done, and it appeared to be extensive, did not reach me. Shockingly, my water bill gets to me every month.
2. The Element draft does not appropriately capture the importance of ADU and JADU dwellings on our property.
Given the number of permits issued to date, we can significantly decrease the need to build large-scale multi-unit housing if we made the ADU process easier and less confusing. The plan should include 50% of our objective to be handled by more ADU units over the next 8 years.
3. The concept of “up zoning” is ludicrous. We purchased homes here for a reason, and to carve up land and build many smaller homes is in direct conflict with the foundation of our Community.
4. The concept of “reducing setbacks” is also a major problem. Our homes and the privacy and security we enjoy is directly related to the distance (40’) between dwellings. If we wanted to live closer to our neighbors, we would have not chosen Hillsborough. This idea represents a material breach of our civic contract with the Town of Hillsborough and would lead to lengthy, expensive litigation. I guarantee it.
5. The concept of “taller buildings” is also a major problem. Again, the impact on home values if multi-story apartment buildings emerged would be devastating.
6. The ideas around reduced landscape coverage is also a problem. We live here and take pride in our property. To “de-beautify” it with less lanscaping and more cement is contrary to the spirt of Hillsborough.
I am certain there is more work to be done on a plan that makes better sense. I will NOT support the existing plan and believe our process needs more time and input from the community. There are alternatives available that the existing HEAC has not considered and I demand we take the take time for a more thoughtful and larger communitybased approach to solving these problems. We certainly have the time to do so - this plan is pre-mature.
Sincerely,
Chris Kruse
Gordy Holterman
Hillsborough CA 94010
September 6, 2022
Re: Housing/zoning policy discussion
to: [email protected]
CC to: [email protected]
Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>
Mayor Al Royse <[email protected]>
Vice Mayor Christine Krolik <[email protected]>
Councilmember Sophie Cole <[email protected]>
Councilmember Laurence May<[email protected]>
Councilmember Marie Chuang <[email protected]>
Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>
To whom it may concern:
In reviewing the draft housing plan, and while I recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and deeply appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our town, the current proposed plan from the consultants is unacceptable and a superior alternative has emerged. The consulting firm ran a playbook that was one size fits all to appease Sacramento without thinking critically if there is a better path available for Hillsborough. The consultant has offered a blanket plan (e.g. rezoning) that is not tailored to our community and minimizes what is actually working and has exceeded historical expectations (ADUs). The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must be on ADU’s and vacant lot development and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. Based on the 2021 ADU run-rate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town council is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the apartment units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If apartment units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming. Without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. The fact that we have zero commerce and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems overly aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed, especially as the town should get credit for having done more than what was required over the past decade in adding housing..
I know the town is trying their best, but as Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done and rejection of all other strategies. Using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units in the current plan shows that the consultant has not done enough by way of informing, communicating and partnering with homeowners on how to go about building more ADU/JADU's. Atherton successfully removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. You now have an opportunity to listen to your citizens, set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation, and make the right decision before it's too late. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing.
Please feel free to include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
Gordy Holterman
From: Max Shevyakov
To: General Plan
Cc: Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Subject: Housing Element Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:03:01 AM
To whom it may concern:
I am learning more about the draft housing plan, and while I absolutely recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and deeply appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our town, the current plan is far too complex. It is not in line with the city council’s purpose to "Oppose legislation that seeks to undermine the ability for Council to enact its long-term mission and vision for the Town of Hillsborough."
I know the town is trying their best, but as Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. There is no reason to change Hillsborough’s zoning laws. The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must be on ADU and vacant lot development and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage.
Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. Based on the 2021 ADU run-rate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the 100+ units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If 100+ units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming. Without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. The fact that we have zero commerce and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems like a very aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed.
The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done and rejection of all other strategies. Using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units in the current plan shows that the town has not done enough by way of informing, communicating and partnering with homeowners on how to go about building more ADU/JADU's. Atherton successfully removed multifamily townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. You are our elected officials, so please represent us and do the same! Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing.
Please feel free to include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sincerely,
Max & Alexis
From: Ben Coughlin
To: General Plan
Subject: Alternative RHNA plan
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:41:29 AM
Hello, Hillsborough Town council:
We are home owners at 910 West Santa Inez in Hillsborough and supportive of the alternative plan to meet the California RHNA requirement as outlined in the “A Better Plan- Smart Housing for Hillsborough” Specifically:
Optimize the number of ADUs
Maximize development of existing vacant lots.
Avoid up-zoning to the degree possible
Thank you,
Ben Coughlin
Ben Coughlin
cell
From: Medea Isphording Bern
To: General Plan
Subject: Proposed Rezoning of the Town of Hillsborough
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:31:50 AM
To all involved in this process,
Let me state up front: I am adamantly opposed to your proposed rezoning/housing plan.
I also respectfully request that this email and my comments be entered into the Public Record.
Thank you.
It appears that there are many points of contention in your proposed plan to change the nature of our town. Any (misguided)
edict from Sacramento aside, there are serious matters that remain ignored in this plan and that will negatively impact current residents,
children, wildlife, safety, property values, long-standing land ownership definitions and so on.
First of all, I see no mention of concurrent, or better, pre-need upgrades to infrastructure. Up here on Tournament, it can take ten minutes
for an officer to arrive on the scene after a burglar alarm deploys. Add 18 units off Brooke Court (which is in the middle of a high fire danger zone, by the way) and the attendant traffic that goes along with another 18-36 cars, and that could put those in my neighborhood at serious risk from
n’er do wells.
Second, without sufficient street accommodation, how will the fire trucks and EMT units access this area in an emergency? Are you planning to
assess developers the appropriate amounts to add water, sewer, road widening (which, of course, no one here is interested in at all)? Will those affected receive a reduction in our property and service taxes for the inconvenience? Third, with an additional 550+ units and, say, an average of two children per unit, where do you propose adding 1000 kids to our school? Existing
campuses operate at capacity as it is. Then, you will need teachers, who have to drive to the schools, and to live someplace. Was this discussed?
Fourth, why did you choose the consultant you hired, one with no experience advising exclusively single-family home charter towns like ours? Fifth, why propose reengineering the lot layouts and landscaping parameters, which make Hillsborough a place where people are happy to pay a premium to live? It will turn Hillsborough into just another cramped suburb. We have open space. We have a few monstrous parcels which some landowners
may be willing to subdivide given the right incentives. We have BCC, which benefits only a handful of people and uses scarce water
resources to keep its greens green. Was any thought given to this low-hanging fruit before trying to empower developers (many of whom will
be non-resident) to swoop in, buy a house, tear it down, and build four four-plex units, perhaps across the street from your home?
I’m really disappointed in the limited vision of this plan. It appears that there is a lack of communication between the Town and the initial 17-member committee based upon my conversations with many people, as well as or in the alternative a lack of disclosure and transparency between the consultant and the HEAC committee.
If, as Mayor Royse extolls, this is THE most critical issue facing our town in the past fifty years, why is it that most of us are only learning about it now, with only a few weeks to oppose it before it heads to Sacramento for approval or disapproval? It seems to me that your communications should have been titled
“HOUSING ELEMENT PLAN ENVISIONS HUGE, HIGH-DENSITY REZONING OF THE
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH THAT WILL IRREVERSIBLY ALTER THE COMMUNITY FABRIC.
WEIGH IN WITH YOUR COMMENTS NOW.” That is a message that would have resonated with all of us in time to effect reasonable, workable alternatives.
Do you really believe that Sac will seize control of Town Hall if you don’t submit a plan that entirely transforms
our town into a densely populated suburb? I’m sorry to say this, but they can’t even control EDD or DMV. What possible incentive would they have to
start taking over town governments? You are smart people and conscientious neighbors. The reason most of us moved here is to take advantage of the space and the schools. Remove both incentives, and you’re left with just another dysfunctional California town bent on socially reengineering existing residents into a mass exodus, while developers laugh all the way to the bank.
Or is that the goal?
Sincerely,
Medea Bern
Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use. -Emily Post, author and columnist (1872- 1960)
From: Barbara Soong
To: General Plan
Subject: Comments on ledraft RHNA housing element
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:17:36 PM
I oppose the 8/4/22 draft of the RHNA housing element. Due to other committments I can not attend the 2 public meetings, but want to comment on problems I have with the draft.
I oppose changing the zoning from 1/2 to 1/3 acre and changes in frontage and landscape area.
This is a drastic first step toward changng the look and feel of the town. I purchased a home her in large part due to the peaceful atmosphere, trees, gardens etc. The interests of the residents who live here should come first rather than the interests of those who might want to live here.
I believe that changing the zoning will result in town property being less valuable.
I do a lot of walking and there are mostly no sidewalks. If there is increased density walking may be more risky. Would developers of properties be required to put in sidewalks? I don't feel that there has been adequate consideration of vacant lots owned by the city and private individuals. The consultants could have made a presentation with alternate scenarios, but did not do so.
While redeveloping the town hall site may be a way to meet the RHNA requirements, the town council and staff appeared to have gotten a slow start on getting an analysis done of the site and its potential, possible impacts on traffic flow, etc. But we are asked to approve something that has not been studied. If an analysis was available it could be objectively analyzed, But of course it is not.
I also strongly oppose Goal 4.5 which is stated to be "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing smaller family homes". This would limit the owner of private property to take out an older house which is not in good shape or which has other various problems or where the owner or new buyer wants something different. This does not seem like a goal that is required to meet RHNA. Over time this would degrade the look and feel of the town and create run down homes, lessening property values. It is hard to put into words how strongly I oppose this. Any local politician that favors this will have to do some explaining.
I also oppose 4.3 which would assess an affordable housing fee against new above moderate income development. This is essentially taxing above moderate income developers and owners to fund "affordable housing". If affordable housing can't be built with federal, state or county funding or funding from foundations or charitable organizations, why should a subset of Hillsborough residents be required to fund this. How much would such impact fees be? This proposal calls for a study but the way that the goal is phrased, it is pretty clear that the goal of the study is to support such a fee, so the study does not start by being neutral. There is nothing in the draft that gives the background on such impact fees.
Strongly oppose.
As far as all the fair housing charts showing different racial groups etc I don't understand what is being proposed and why all these charts are included. I am of Asian ethnicity and aware that Hillsborough is very popular with Asian business owners, entrepreneurs and Asian investors. Would be opposed to any kind of quotas or set asides that are based on race or ethnicity that might disadvantage Asians versus some other race on someone's theory that other races are somehow entitled to more representation here.
This whole draft needs a major overhaul.
From: Robert DeLue
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Plan Concerns
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:30:53 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
My wife and I have lived in the city of Hillsborough since 1985. We take great pride in living in this fine city. One of the reasons my wife and I continue to stay here is that we find this city to be among the safest in the Bay Area. As we reach the twilight of our lives, we have to be concerned with our own safety. I am in my nineties and my wife in her eighties, our kids have long since moved away and we are alone together. We have created a life for ourselves that centers around our well being. We love walking the streets of Hillsborough each day and have become acquainted with a few of our wonderful neighbors. As you know, Hillsborough has a well deserved reputation as an upscale city, home to some very dynamic individuals. The ability to attract this caliber of people is directly related to the way of life possible in Hillsborough.
We are aware of the proposed State Mandate which requires Hillsborough to create additional housing within the City limits. We strongly believe this could greatly inhibit the exact lifestyle that makes Hillsborough so attractive. It appears a viable solution could be for the City to allow In-Law units on the premises of existing homes, and we trust this would satisfy the need for new housing while allowing Hillsborough to maintain its charm and sophistication.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to reach out to us should you desire additional commentary on this important matter.
Respectfully,
Robert S. and Rita DeLue
From: Luetkemeyer, Annie
To: General Plan
Cc:
Subject: meeting RHNA requirements in Hillsborough
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:00:55 AM
HB Town council
I am a home owner at in Hillsborough. I am supportive of the alternative plan to meet the California RHNA requirement as outlined in the “A Better Plan- Smart Housing for Hillsborough”
Specifically:
Optimize the number of ADUs
Maximize development of existing vacant lots.
Avoid up-zoning to the degree possible
We will look forward to hearing more about how HB will meet with RHNA requirements while preserving what we all value in our community.
Annie Luetkemeyer
From: Joseph Toms
To: General Plan
Subject: New Housing Plan
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 7:21:18 AM
To Council Members:
Unfortunately, we will be back East and unable to make the Tuesday meeting. Regardless, we want to express our strong opposition to the extensive zoning changes that are being proposed in the current plan.
It is vital that the town focuses on its citizens and their desires, not what is dictated from Sacramento. As often has proven to be the case, legal challenges have been successful such that the citizens of a town's legal rights are upheld.
As importantly, this plan likely will lower property values which in turn will lower overall economic revenue to the city, county, and state. Exactly the wrong outcome at a time the City needs extensive repair to its aging infrastructure.
We urge you to recognize your duty is to the citizens of Hillsborough and not the State. It's clear that Hillsborough's citizens, when educated about the proposal, feel the plan is not consistent with their desires. We ask that you defend these wishes as compared to blindly following the State's requests. Doing such will only lead to years in the courts and ultimately defeat of what is not legally enforceable. Avoid going down a path that wastes money, time, and effort of all the above constituents.
Respectfully,
Joseph Toms
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Anne Longworth
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to proposed zoning changes
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 10:39:29 AM
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed housing plan being considered by the council.
My husband and I moved to Hillsborough 16 years ago for the same reason that most people move here - for the excellent schools and the unique beauty of the community. The proposal to change the zoning laws in town to allow more dense housing would destroy the community that we know and love. I believe that the town should attempt to meet our low income housing obligation through incentives to create more ADU's, which would allow us to create low income housing without changing the character of our beautiful town. The council shouldpass ordinances now before submitting our plan, allowing for more ADU's and more incentives for ADU's. If the Council passes such ordinances, it can justify a much higher number of ADU's, which would potentially eliminate (or at least drastically slash) any high density housing in their plan. The proposal for "up zoning" is unacceptable. No to smaller minimum lot sizes, no to reduced setbacks, no to increased high allowances, no to increased FAR (floor area ratio), and no to reduced landscaping coverage.
The proposed changes the council is considering would be a deadly blow to our beloved town. There has been zero consideration taken for the impact on our schools, and our infrastructure. The citizens of Hillsborough chose this place for its semi rural beauty and its award winning schools - both of which are at grave risk from the town's current proposal. I urge you to reconsider before it is too late.
Thank you.
Anne Longworth
From: Nicole Ancelovici-Lenihan
To: General Plan
Subject: alternative housing plan support
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 10:37:40 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
Please strongly consider the alternative housing plan which asks that the number of ADUs be more aggressively pushed so as to create more ADUs and eliminate the need for high density housing in our unique town.
And please NO UP-ZONING. This will kill the look and feel of our town and cause many to leave the area for towns that have taken care of their legacies (such as Atherton and Woodside).
Thank you for your consideration,
Nicole Lenihan
From: Orna Resnekov
To: General Plan
Cc: Orna Resnekov
Subject: Comments: Draft housing element and plan
Date: Saturday, September 3, 2022 2:52:23 PM
To whom it may concern, I request that all comments submitted to the town of Hillsborough on the DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT & PLAN be made publicly available to all town residents.
THOUGHTS ON THE DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT & PLAN
Good things that have happened:
1. Town residents and the HCA are getting involved in the discussion
2. Town staff have made limited efforts to involve town residents Significant Problems:
1. I do not see any appreciable buy-in from either 1) Town staff or 2) Town residents for the overall goals of the "Housing Element" For example: the City Manager told me "this is just a plan"
2. I do not know who planned the process that led to the DRAFT 2023-2031 plan, but whoever did, and instructed staff, consultants and volunteer residents to come up with one draft plan set this process off in the wrong direction from the outset. There are many ways to accommodate the overall goals of the "Housing Element". It would have been much better to come up with 2-3 plans and then have residents debate and discuss which plan(s) best suit the town of Hillsborough.
3. The town has many intelligent & capable residents who are willing to help.
The town is not using the resources that it has at it's disposal optimally.
4. It is not reasonable to put forth such a plan and not examine how the town might deal with the impacts on the "the infrastructure" in Hillsborough - one is talking about adding about 600 housing units to the town (this is a significant percentage of the town's housing units):
Schools
The water system
The police
The firemen
Town staff (who clearly are already over capacity and currently are not able to properly monitor building projects in the town) Evacuation routes in the event of an emergency situation The power grid (which is already not maintained properly) Communications
Fire safety - adding about 600 units will lead to higher density housing in many areas of the town that are already considered to be a high fire risk areas
Roads
Property values
5. Land is expensive in Hillsborough and there is a lot of money to be made building additional and/or different housing units in Hillsborough.
While some feel this is just a plan - market forces are going to push rapid development of areas that are either sub-divided and/or re-zoned to smaller lot sizes
Suggestions:
1. Listen carefully to the wishes of the residents, they are the ones that need to live with implementation of any Housing Element Plan that the town submits
2. Make use of the many intelligent & capable residents who are willing to help think through the issues and suggest alternative plans
3. Facilitate submission of independently generated alternative plans and promote them at town halls
4. Give alternative plans equal and objective attention - plans suggesting meeting the RHNA by incenting the use of ADU's in Hillsborough are a good way to get around many of the failings of the plan that is currently available and circulated by town staff (DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT & PLAN)
5. Do not give in to deadlines and time pressure - those of us who have written grants know that the best product emerges close to deadlines Question:
1. There may be elderly residents, retirees (or others) and tenants in Hillsborough who are already within the 4 AMI categories (120%, 81- 120%, 51-80%, 0-50%). Have town staff made themselves aware of how many such parties are already within Hillsborough? Should they (and the homes/ADU's/Jr ADU's/rooms that they occupy) be counted for the purposes of meeting the Housing Element?
Best,
Orna Resnekov, Trustee
--
ORNA
(cell)
1 To: Sarah A. Fleming, Director Department of Planning & Building Re: Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: September 2, 2022
As a longtime Hillsborough resident I write to provide comments on the Draft Housing Element Plan.
The comments address certain issues related to the Plan and to its implementation, but also to issues related to community disclosure. Adoption of the plan is a political decision for the Town Council and if it seeks community buy-in the disclosure needs to be full and complete
1. Disclosure to the Community Requires Disclosure of the Future Impact. The Advisory Committee process and the Open Houses seem to have been a thought-through way to communicate some Housing Element Plan issues to the town. Full disclosure, however, requires information regarding future impacts on the community if the Plan is implemented and the required 554 units built. No major project can be completed today without some type of environmental impact assessment. I suggest preparation of something more comprehensive in addition to customary environmental issues. The staff report does not deal with issues beyond the Plan itself and this does not provide satisfactory disclosure to the council or to the community. I understand the town cannot guess what developers may propose, but there are issues that can be determined or estimated based on expert advice. Some issues to consider and quantify include:
a. How much will implementation of the Plan cost. The consultant and legal fees will be substantial to prepare the Plan and to amend the town’s zoning. b. What additional planning and building staff will be hired to meet the required timely processing of applications?
c. What capital improvements will have to be paid for by the town? Will all the costs to develop the 10+ acre parcels be paid for by the developers? What about the town hall complex?
d. What fire, traffic and environmental issues will result from Plan implementation? e. How will the development impact the town’s sewer issues? f. What additional fire and police resources will be required? An additional fire station? g. How will the schools be impacted?
h. Will any additional taxes be required to implement the above?
2. The town does not have to accede to every bureaucratic interpretation of the law. I detected an approach by the council and by the staff to make broad concessions to get the Plan approved on the best possible terms and see what happens going forward. I believe this strategy does not serve the community well. Similarly situated communities, such as Atherton, are taking more aggressive postures with respect to compliance. The interests of the community may be best served by an adversary process with the state over the Plan. There are issues where drawing a line in the sand is appropriate. In doing so, of course, the town needs to recognize that Hillsborough could be a target and that some care needs to be taken to create confrontations only where something can be gained. We should not be embarrassed to affirm the single-family character of the town and to point out how the well-resourced developer and subsidized housing advocates urge policies contrary to the character of our town. These interests are not our friends.
3. Planning for the future. A necessary aspect of the town’s planning needs to be a thorough understanding of how developers and others will seek to take advantage of the relaxed zoning.
There are significant downsides to the proposed zoning, particularly from the overlays. It is in the nature of the process that developers and others will seek variances and other exceptions to 2 maximize their financial advantage. When new and different zoning laws are implemented, anticipating how developers will try to take “full advantage” is important to understand. While difficult to quantify, there should be some disclosure that the town anticipates future legal expenses, which may be substantial, in connection with implementation. The town should retain a first-rate legal team experienced in litigation and free of conflicts. The developers and subsidized housing groups are already lawyered up.
4. Non-Resident Intervenors. There should be publicly available disclosure of the names and addresses of all persons not residents of the town who communicate with the staff or otherwise comment on the plan. I think the community should be aware that the town may be making payments to intervenors’ lawyers.
5. Consultant Conflicts. The plan and the related process do not seem to adequately appreciate the conflicts of the town’s consultants. The general nature of the process is that the consultants normally deal with regulators on behalf of multiple clients and the town’s positions can be adversely affected by an unwillingness by the consultants to take inconsistent positions. From my limited involvement in the process, it seems that the town is entirely too willing to accept bureaucratic interpretations of the relevant statutes and rules on the word of its consultants.
6. Private Schools. The two private schools should be a greater part of the solution. Both institutions are commercial enterprises that have students from other communities. They have received substantial concessions from the town in the past and may seek such concessions in the future.
7. Political Endorsements. I believe our political leaders should carefully consider future endorsements of local politicians who have track records supporting the legislation or policies creating the issues we are trying to address.
Please let me know is you have any questions. I may provide further comments as the process develops.
September 3, 2022
Roger Mertz
[email protected]
From: Jeffrey Pfeffer
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Plan
Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 11:07:40 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
A quick perusal of news sources suggests what I believe to be true: unlike Atherton or Woodside--or I suspect other similarly situated cities throughout California--the city government of Hillsborough has basically caved in to what is possibly a legallychallengeable law from the state, with no evidence of much attempt to preserve the character--and the property values--of the town.
There is a long legal tradition that shows that rezoning that limits people's economic use can be considered a taking. There is absolutely no doubt that the proposed changes will decrease the desirability--and therefore the value--of Hillsborough real estate by increasing density significantly and also resulting in the destruction of trees and open space. Although zoning changes that destroy value have not been litigated yet, at least successfully, I strongly urge Hillsborough to join with similarly situated cities and pursue precisely this course of action.
Moreover, the denial of appeals of the proposed number of additional units by ABAG or similar bodies does NOT mean that there is no other avenue for redress.
I am shocked and disappointed that Hillsborough's government has taken what I (and others) perceive to be such a limited, circumscribed, and passive approach to preserving the unique aspects and values of the town.
We can, and should, do more to preserve what has made Hillsborough such a desirable, and valuable, place to live.
Jeffrey Pfeffer
Hillsborough
--
Jeffrey Pfeffer
Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University
655 Knight Way
Stanford, CA 94305-7298
(650) 723-2915
www.jeffreypfeffer.com
Twitter: @jeffreypfeffer
From: Miles Tomlinson
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Draft Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:48:26 PM
Hi,
I read through all 150 pages of the draft document and I'm struggling to grasp the so-what of all of this. I'm not sure if that is deliberate? Could someone summarize how this will affect your average Hillsborough (current) resident, summarized in less than one page? What will be the effect on Hillsborough schools? Taxes? The appearance of the areas near El Camino? Traffic?
For all the proposals that are being made, can we draw examples from other areas that have made similar changes and what outcomes that produced? That would be helpful.
Although means and ends are both important, I think most people ultimately want to know what it means for them in plain language rather than the minutiae of what obscure property act is being followed or not.
From what I understand about the proposal, a focus on ADUs, some plot subdivision and redevelopment of the town hall area all sound fairly sensible, but I'm not sure whether all the second-order effects have been thought through. For example: you can't park on the streets in Hillsborough. So where do all the extra cars go?
Yours sincerely,
Miles
From: Glenn Gilliam
To: General Plan
Cc: Teresa Gilliam
Subject: ADU"s
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 1:35:31 PM
Dear Hillsborough staff,
I live at and have so since 2002. I built a new home there with a detached 800 Sq’ cottage. I also happen to have been in the manufactured housing business for the last 40 years. I have small ADU’s on display here in Sunnyvale which is quite nice. I have more models at my display center in San Jose as well. These homes come in all sizes and can be built in six weeks time. They are very affordable and would fit your ADU bill requirement program to a tee. These homes are built to the federal HUD code standards for certification purposes only. Because I am here locally, we have them enchanced and built to a much higher level which even Hillsborough would appreciate. They come standard with steel gurderd floors for superior rigididy. I would be happy to offer my services if and when it would be convenient. I am very familiar with the ADRB process in our town because my wife and myself went through the process when we built our home. Farro Essalat, now retired was our architect.
If I can be of service to assist in any way ADU, please by all means let me know.
Most sincerely,
Glenn Gilliam
From: Laurie Spencer
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:29:19 AM
Dear Members
I’d like to suggest an additional element (or two)
To encourage ADUs, don’t charge property taxes on these units.
Subsidize their construction. Twenty percent of the subsidy could be given for each year, up to 5, that the unit is rented to essential service workers: police, fire, teachers or similar in our community.
I was told that Daly City built a multifamily building and subsidizes half the rent, available to essential service workers. Something like this could be worked out for the units at our Town Hall.
Thank you for your work and for your consideration of these ideas.
Best wishes,
Laurie Spencer
From: Laurie Spencer
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:29:19 AM
Dear Members
I’d like to suggest an additional element (or two)
To encourage ADUs, don’t charge property taxes on these units.
Subsidize their construction. Twenty percent of the subsidy could be given for each year, up to 5, that the unit is rented to essential service workers: police, fire, teachers or similar in our community.
I was told that Daly City built a multifamily building and subsidizes half the rent, available to essential service workers. Something like this could be worked out for the units at our Town Hall.
Thank you for your work and for your consideration of these ideas.
Best wishes,
Laurie Spencer
From: James Sorensen
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 4:18 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Vikki Grundmann <[email protected]>; Paul Willis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element and Development of the Town Center Site Town of Hillsborough
City of Burlingame
August 30, 2022
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a 40 year resident of Burlingame adjacent to Hillsborough. I see the Town of Hillsborough is studying a new housing element of the general plan. As a former Planning Director and Community Development Director, I can appreciate the efforts and difficulties of local agencies trying to adopt workable housing elements and increase housing supply. I applaud your efforts.
I note that one of the sites under consideration is the Town Center site. Professionally, I think it’s a very good site to consider for housing as well as other community functions. That said, it is currently bisected by Walnut Avenue, which is a vital link in the traffic system in this area.
Development of the Town Center site should include a thorough analysis of traffic, traffic patterns and traffic impacts. If closing Walnut Ave is under consideration, impacts, mitigation measures, findings and alternatives to that must be considered as well. One of the alternatives for study should be developing the site without closing Walnut.
In 2006, the Town of Hillsborough formally considered closing Walnut Ave to allow it to consolidate its Town Center site into one contiguous unit. At that time, I submitted a letter to Hillsborough and Burlingame outlining some issues that I felt should be addressed. My comments are a relevant starting point for discussion today. A copy is attached below.
Please include this email and attached letter as part of the record on the Hillsborough Housing Element and any closure of Walnut Ave.
Sincerely,
James Sorensen
JAMES E. SORENSEN
November 5, 2006
Ms. Martha DeBry
Public Works Director
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Closure of Walnut Avenue
Dear Ms. DeBry:
SUMMARY
1) Walnut Avenue should not be closed to through traffic, because it is still needed for vehicular traffic and traffic safety. Closing Walnut to through traffic will adversely change traffic patterns and inconvenience a large number of people.
I don’t have an opinion whether providing year round overflow parking and a plaza/park are important projects for the Town of Hillsborough to undertake. If the Town deems them important, it’s my opinion they should be done with the least impact on the community-at-large. If least impact on the community-at-large means the project(s) will cost more, the Town must weigh whether the projects are worth that cost.
The Town can achieve its objective of providing year round overflow parking for the Town Hall by paving and professionally landscaping the overflow lot at the northwest corner of Walnut and Floribunda Avenues. This can be done relatively inexpensively and not detract from the appearance of this gateway to Hillsborough. A small plaza/park could be incorporated into this site by giving up a bit of the area devoted to parking. Also, some sort of design could be developed that allows park use when overflow parking needs are low and parking use when overflow parking needs are great.
The Town could achieve its alternative objective of providing year round overflow parking and a plaza/park located on one consolidated Town Hall site by relocating Walnut Avenue. This would achieve its objectives without causing traffic, traffic safety, and emergency service impacts to the greater Hillsborough-Burlingame community. In terms of financial cost, relocating Walnut may have a high price but if the desire to consolidate office, parking, and plaza/park is great enough, the Town should be willing to pay it as opposed to causing impacts and inconveniencing the greater community-at-large.
2 The Town of Hillsborough should achieve its objectives while keeping Walnut open. 2) Should the Town decide to pursue closing Walnut, a professional traffic study and environmental impact report (EIR) analyzing and documenting the impacts of the project will have to be prepared and findings justifying such an action will have to be made, prior to a decision to close the street to through traffic.
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the potential closure of Walnut near Floribunda. The information I have on the proposal is what I've read at the Town of Hillsborough website. In particular, the pdf file entitled "Proposed Walnut Avenue Closure Information" provided the most comprehensive information on the purpose, options under consideration, impacts, and design elements of the proposed closure. If there is additional information available, perhaps you could direct me to it.
The stated primary goal of the Town is to provide additional improved parking spaces to accommodate employees and overflow parking needs at the Town Hall. At the same time, the Town wishes to preserve and enhance the appearance of the Floribunda entrance to the Town and perhaps provide some additional plaza/park space, if extra land were available.
The Town has sent out over 600 notices to private parties and public agencies trying to elicit as much input as possible over the proposal. The extensive public notification indicates a desire of the Town of Hillsborough to thoroughly understand the implications of this proposed project and consider the views and concerns of its residents and those of its good neighbor, Burlingame.
Overflow parking for the Town Hall is currently provided on an unimproved lot at the northwest corner of Walnut and Floribunda. Because the lot becomes muddy during the rainy season, the Town cannot count on its availability for overflow parking throughout the year. The basic options the Town is considering for adding year round parking include: 1) paving, draining, and landscaping the presently unimproved overflow parking lot while leaving the current alignment and function of Walnut Avenue unchanged; 2) relocating Walnut Avenue to the westerly edge of the current overflow lot and then paving, draining, and landscaping the remaining portion of the lot and consolidating it with the abandoned portion of Walnut and the existing Town Hall site; and 3) closing Walnut Street to through traffic by terminating it in a cul-de-sac, with the remaining area of the overflow lot, the abandoned portion of Walnut, and the Town Hall site consolidated into one facility.
OPTIONS
Option 1 – Paving, draining, and landscaping the presently unimproved overflow parking lot while leaving the current alignment and function of Walnut Avenue unchanged.
PROS:
• Town's stated need for year round overflow parking is accommodated 3 • Town's desire to not detract from the appearance of the Floribunda entrance to the Town is achieved, assuming the improved lot is professionally and sensitively landscaped
• Traffic patterns and congestion in Hillsborough and Burlingame will not change and impacts on traffic safety and emergency response will remain as they currently are • This option creates the least inconvenience for most residents in the area • This option is either the least expensive or one of the least expensive • Project could possibly be categorically exempt from CEQA or at most subject to a negative declaration
CONS:
• Overflow lot and Town Hall site will not be consolidated into one site • Neighboring property to the west of the overflow parking area may have active parking adjacent to it for more days out of the year
• There may be issues with the existing use of the overflow lot and these may need to be addressed (lights, noise, etc.)
CONCLUSION:
This option has little to argue against it. It satisfies the basic objectives of the project and needs of the Town with the least impact on the community-at-large. With the possible exception of the neighbor(s) immediately to the west of the overflow lot, no mitigations would be necessary. A small plaza/park could be incorporated into this site by giving up a bit of the area devoted to parking. Alternatively, some sort of design could be developed that allows park use when overflow parking needs are low and parking use when overflow parking needs are great. It preserves the existing street system which allows traffic to disperse throughout the neighborhood without artificially concentrating traffic 1) where it otherwise would not be concentrated and 2) where excess traffic carrying capacity is unavailable. Existing traffic patterns would remain unchanged. Existing provision of emergency services would remain unchanged.
Option 2 – Relocating Walnut Avenue to the westerly edge of the current overflow lot and then paving, draining, and landscaping the remaining portion of the lot and consolidating it with the abandoned portion of Walnut and the existing Town Hall site PROS:
• Town's stated need for year round overflow parking is accommodated • Overflow lot, space for a small plaza/park, and Town Hall site will be consolidated into one site
• Town's desire to not detract from the appearance of the Floribunda entrance to the Town is achieved, assuming the improved lot is professionally and sensitively landscaped
• Traffic patterns and congestion in Hillsborough and Burlingame will not change and impacts on traffic safety and emergency response will remain as they currently are
• Inconvenience for most residents in the area is minimized because traffic patterns remain the same
4 • In order that Walnut Avenue intersect Floribunda at right angles, there may be some excess space adjacent to the property to the west that the Town might landscape as a buffer
• Project would be subject to CEQA, but because traffic patterns don't change and traffic doesn’t become concentrated in inappropriate locations, a negative declaration would appear appropriate
CONS:
• Neighboring property owners to the west of the new alignment of Walnut Avenue may believe the new road will have impacts on their properties. Additional study (noise, light, etc.) with possible mitigation would likely be necessary to resolve any issues.
• Town believes this to be the most expensive option
CONCLUSION:
Option 2’s impacts on the community-at-large are basically the same as Option1 – de minimis. In terms of financial cost, relocating Walnut may have a high price, but if the desire to consolidate office, parking, and plaza/park is great enough, the Town should be willing to pay it as opposed to causing impacts and inconveniencing the greater community-at-large. Option 2 preserves the existing street system which allows traffic to disperse throughout the neighborhood without artificially concentrating traffic 1) where it otherwise would not be concentrated and 2) where excess traffic carrying capacity is unavailable.
Option 3 - Closing Walnut Street to through traffic by terminating it in a cul-de-sac, with the remaining area of the overflow lot, the abandoned portion of Walnut, and the Town Hall site consolidated into one facility
PROS:
• Town's stated need for year round overflow parking is accommodated • Overflow lot, possible plaza/park, and Town Hall site will be consolidated into one site
• Town's desire to not detract from the appearance of the Floribunda entrance to the Town is achieved, assuming the improved lot is professionally and sensitively landscaped
• Neighboring property owners to the west of the overflow lot may believe this to have the least impact on them
• Town believes this option will cost somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2 CONS:
• Traffic patterns and congestion in Hillsborough and Burlingame will change and impacts on traffic safety and emergency response will certainly change.
Residents who previously utilized the safer, signal-controlled intersection at Floribunda and El Camino will be forced to use the less safe Willow - El Camino intersection or go searching for other intersections, such as Arc - El Camino, Forestview El Camino and Sanchez-El Camino. Willow, Arc and Forestview are all narrow streets. With on-street parking on both sides, the vehicular travel way 5 effectively gets squeezed down to a single lane. Redirecting traffic to these streets will congest them even more. At Hillsborough’s request, Burlingame could extend red-curbed no parking zones farther from the intersections with El Camino, but this is only a partial mitigation, restricts already limited on-street parking, and inconveniences residents on these streets. Sight distance is seriously impaired at the Willow-El Camino and Forestview-El Camino intersections. In addition, these and other intersections along El Camino north of Floribunda flood during heavy rains compromising their effectiveness to safely move vehicles through. Left-turn movements from El Camino to Willow, Arc and Forestview will be made more difficult as there will be greater congestion at these intersections. This will expose vehicles on El Camino for longer periods of time to the risk of rear-end collisions or create more opportunities for other types of collisions as vehicles rapidly change lanes to avoid vehicles waiting to turn left. (I haven’t seen what Caltrans’ position is on this concept.) Currently, the Floribunda-Walnut link serves as an important relief valve for El Camino. • The sub-option of installing a "not a through street” sign on Walnut but still having the road open via driveway(s) may have a couple of effects. First, if the sign is successful in redirecting traffic, then changes in traffic patterns and traffic impacts would result as noted above. If cars still use Walnut as a through route to the Floribunda traffic signal but instead have to traverse a driveway and parking lot, this would mix through traffic with parking lot traffic to the detriment of both.
• Inconvenience for most residents in the area will significantly increase • Project would be subject to CEQA and a fair argument can be made that significant adverse and probably unavoidable impacts will result from this particular road closure. Professional traffic studies would have to be done to appropriately analyze traffic flow and safety impacts resulting from this action. A focused EIR analyzing traffic impacts, traffic safety impacts, and impacts to emergency response would be the result.
CONCLUSION:
Option 3's impacts on the community-at-large are certain to be significant and would have to be studied to understand their full extent. Cost of this option may approach or surpass Option 2, if environmental review and mitigations are factored in. This option trades a) critical modifications in traffic patterns, concentrations of traffic on narrow streets, decreases in traffic safety, and inconvenience for a large number of people for b) an overflow parking lot and possible plaza/park consolidated with the Town Hall site. If the desire of the Town is to have offices, parking, and plaza/park consolidated on one Town Hall site, Option 2 (relocating Walnut) accomplishes this without adverse effects on the BurlingameHillsborough-Caltrans traffic system. Option 2 may be fairly costly, but if it is really important to the Town to have a consolidated Town Hall site, then it should be worth the cost to move Walnut.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
The state legislature has determined that closing roads and vacating rights of way are serious actions and may only be taken by a local legislative body with authority for streets and highways in its jurisdiction. Both the California Vehicle Code and Streets and Highways Code provide a procedure which must be followed and findings that must be made before a road can be closed, particularly where that road serves more than one 6 jurisdiction. Among the various findings that must be made are: 1) that the street is no longer needed for vehicular traffic, and 2) that the closure is in the interests of public safety and meets various additional requirements.
A fair argument can be made that this road connection is still needed (some would say vital) and closure would not be in the interests of public safety. Since findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and given what we know right now, it's difficult to see how these findings could be made and be so supported. If the Town decides to pursue closure of the street to satisfy its need for more overflow parking, traffic studies and an EIR will have to be prepared to fully analyze and document the impacts of the project.
I won'
t be able to attend the meeting November 15th. Please share these thoughts with the City Council and other appropriate town officials. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or 0 or .
Sincerely,
James E. Sorensen
, Burlingame
Director, Community Development Agency
County of Alameda
cc: Hillsborough City Council
Burlingame City Council
Burlingame City Manager
Burlingame City Attorney
Burlingame Planning Director
Burlingame Director of Public Works
From: Vesna Swartz
To: General Plan
Cc: Paul Swartz; Lawrence Friedberg
Subject: Comments on Draft Housing Element Plan for Hillsborough Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 1:28:19 PM
I have reviewed the presentation of the plan, and have also looked at plans developed by Atherton and Woodside, which are comparable towns. Comments below:
I do not support a long term plan that gradually reduces minimum lot size to 1/4 acre.
This fundamentally changes the nature of the town which derives its attractiveness from open spaces, many trees and a green environment
I believe the option of significantly increasing the number of ADUs has not been sufficiently investigated. This could be accomplished by a combination of incentives, rapid approval process and encouraging rental of these units. It would also keep the essential charm and nature of Hillsborough largely intact Large undeveloped spaces (such as Strawberry Hill) need to be protected, with offsets coming from other solutions such as higher density housing near El Camino and on town owned land
The draft housing proposal, which has a very large impact on Hillsborough has not been sufficiently communicated to citizens who live here. There should be a bigger effort to reach out to our community. The draft proposal and accompanying presentation are dense and not easy to follow. Condense it to a shorter presentation with the most important changes highlighted, publicize it through various online platforms and an email campaign inviting citizens to read the summary plan and comment on it.
Vesna Swartz
Hillsborough
From: Dan Clarke
To: General Plan
Subject: Comment on 20220804 HEAC
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 6:44:17 PM
The proposed changes to create RD1 are ill advised. The current half acre singlefamily zoning is exclusionary and racist. The proposal to reduce it to one-third acre does nothing to alter that fact (15 of 554 required units is negligible). Make the change more meaningful, say one- or two-tenths acre, or save it for a future demand.
I vote for the former.
Respectfully,
Dan Clarke
August 24, 2022
Dear Council Members,
At this time, I feel compelled to speak up. Having grown up in Hillsborough, I consider myself a long time resident. In all the years, through many controversies and rough decisions the town and school district have had to make, I have never seen a process managed as poorly as this one for the housing element. Committees have always functioned as true committees working together sharing concerns, ideas, and considering possible solutions. I don’t see this happening now.
First, residents were informed that if they were already serving on a town committee, they could not be a member of the committee for the housing element. What better qualified people would you want on this committee? These are the residents who are truly dedicated and involved in the town and volunteer their time. They desired to assist and be part of the process moving forward.
I watched two of the Town HEAC meetings and was thoroughly disappointed and upset.
After watching the meetings, I couldn’t bring myself to watch the rest. All I saw was a long presentation by town staff and a hired consultant. Then each committee member in turn was asked if he or she had a comment. There was no back and forth discussion and sharing of ideas between committee members. To me, this is not truly a working committee. Additionally, there were no representatives from the police department, fire department, public works, etc. All of these departments will be greatly impacted by these proposed changes.
Historically, communications and transparency have been of foremost importance in Hillsborough -- both with the school district and with the town. An effort has always been made to reach out to residents and to make it as easy as possible to understand the “issue” at hand. For instance, when there was a bond issue pending, coffees, neighborhood gatherings, and public meetings were held. Residents could be informed about the proposal, ask questions, and give input before the final decision was made.
As a member of the Citizens Communication Advisory
Committee (CCAC) for many years, I can’t stress enough how important communication is between the town and its residents. Holding only two town hall meetings is not sufficient. Believe it or not, for many residents, the August 18th meeting was the first time they were aware of the housing element and what it involved. If the Town Council wants the residents to be more receptive, it needs to communicate better and be available to answer questions. There needs to be more postcards, notices, flyers, open forums, signs or any way to publicize what the town is facing.
The community event last Thursday night , August 18th, was a disappointment and more of the same. Yes, each “station” had something to present, but why couldn’t all of the residents participating that evening hear the questions and answers at the same time.
For example, if you were at Station 3 you couldn’t share and hear the questions and answers at Station 5. All residents should be hearing the same information at the same time. This prevents confusion, misunderstanding, and provides clarity and transparency.
Writing comments on index cards might be helpful. But if these comments could have been shared with those in attendance, this would have been more informative and could have opened discussion. That is what a true town meeting should be---communicating.
Some residents had never been to North School -- there was no signage from the bottom of the driveway to tell attendees where the meeting was being held. This is a small step toward communicating in a positive manner where residents feel welcome.
The town staff and this committee have been working hard for 8 or so months, so why are there only plot plans drawn for the private properties—Strawberry Hill, the DeGuigne Estate and 50 Brooke Court and not for the Town Hall Campus.? Have or will these private property owners agreed to have their property sub-divided as drawn? There is slight mention of the Town Hall property being developed, but no visual plan.
Why? This will definitely affect the entire community especially those residents living nearby who are most likely facing a large decline in their property value along with a change in their environment. It appears that they haven’t been advised as to the potential plan for the town property. The town staff should be part of the design and planning process to provide input for each department’s needs. Additionally, what are the plans for providing facilities for town departments during this building process? Has the committee taken into account the affect these changes will make on the general infrastructure of the town? There will be a significant increase on the fire danger in the steep areas (WUI ) , the fire department, the police department, the roads, the traffic, and the water and sewer. Most likely there would also be an increase in the student population.
These are my thoughts and concerns. Hopefully more consideration will be given to residents’ true concerns when preparing for the future and not just filling in the boxes.
Thank you to those who have spent many hours volunteering. They deserve to be recognized and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Diana Witzel
From: Amy Reisenberg
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing units
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 2:35:21 PM
Dear Committee Members,
Thank you for the time you’ve spent thinking through our community’s housing issues. The proposal to build a 100-unit apartment complex with 650 sft units is one way to go about tackling the problem. A concern I have is that the size of these units is too small to accommodate families who are the heartbeat of our community. I have volunteered with the Hillsborough Schools Foundation for several years now and see the amount of work that goes into getting buy-in from our new families to invest in all of the kids of Hillsborough. But once they do, they feel very invested and help volunteer at the schools, run AYSO, little league, etc. My concern is that small units won’t be able to truly accommodate families, and perhaps some will use the rental address as a way to participate in the school system without contributing in a meaningful way.
The quality of the schools are the center of what makes our town special. Have we thought through the repercussions of adding this many residential units that are not going to be family friendly? If the quality of our schools and the community bonds are diminished, then doesn’t that decrease everyone’s quality of life and property values?
Thanks for reading my comment,
Amy Reisenberg
From: JULIUS YOUNG
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Element Goal 4.5
Date: Monday, August 22, 2022 6:03:55 PM
I have major concerns about Goal 4.5 (a), (b) and (c) as written.
To start, as a HEAC committee member, this was never a proposal or policy we discussed. This may be something that one of the consultants chose to insert in the draft. Even considering limiting homeowners ability to redevelop their property is a step too far for me to support.
Why was this inserted in the draft? At whose suggestion? At a minimum, it is insulting to the HEAC volunteers that this 4.5 is inserted in the plan without any discussion. So in my mind as a HEAC member I have a problem with the substance but also the process on this issue.
I don’t believe that the politics in the Town would support using Town budget to fund a study that would potentially limit homeowners ability to redevelop an older property they may own or significantly upgrade or development an investment propriety they own. I think this is politically radioactive.
The Town has a number of ranch style houses that are not very architecturally distinguished and many of them will probably not age well. It will be a major problem over the years if those properties must age in place as they are in the hope that it will achieve some goal.
The private market is making choices about housing values in the town, what houses are in need of redevelopment, etc and I don’t favor any study that might impose a system that would dictate losers and winners or impact a private property owner’s ability to do what they choose with the lot as long as it meets the architectural standards and zoning standards.
Can’t support the draft housing element with this feature.
Thank you.
From: JULIUS YOUNG
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element re Strawberry Hill
Date: Sunday, August 21, 2022 9:15:16 PM
I will send some other comments soon, but this particular comment relates to the conceptual use plan for Strawberry Hill as illustrated on p.101 of the draft Housing Element.
As currently conceived it does not appear that you are intending to envision access to the proposed 170 units (purple affordable housing area) from Macadamia. It appears that currently access would only be from the area at the low end of the site near Eucalyptus and Skyfarm.
This would be unacceptable for multiple reasons:
1. Big danger of people getting trapped if there is a fire that moves uphill towards the affordable housing area in what is a very wooded area. As currently shown on the diagrams, the only exit would be downhill
2. This design would create excessive amounts of traffic on lower Skyline and along Eucalyptus. No public transit serves that area, and residents would need to have a car or use Uber, Lyft etc. We are talking hundred of car trips each day and only one access road.
If and when this draft is finalized it must be amended to show a proposed access road or driveway off of Macadamia into the purple affordable housing area. Such an access point would provide a safety valve and traffic moving toward 280 would not need to be routed onto lower Skyline/Eucalyptus.
Thank you.
From: Suzann Pershing
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; General Plan <[email protected]> Subject: Followup re: Alternative ADU Proposal and Supporting Documentation
Dear Mr. Mayor,
It was a pleasure meeting and speaking with you yesterday at the open house, along with other members of the community, staff, and Council. Attached are files from our conversation, lightly edited for clarity. (Please refer to and circulate these versions instead of the hard copy from last night, if you still have it).
The alternative proposal would emphasize ADUs, as discussed, in a way that will meet state requirements without detrimental impact to our community. Maximizing ADUs is the only feasible and realistic way to meet state mandates in a way that will be broadly acceptable given the constraints of Hillsborough's topography and infrastructure (roads, etc.) Also, a question was brought up regarding Santa Monica's ADU plan having been rejected by the state. I looked up HCD's rejection letters on Santa Monica's proposal (attached). Bottom line-- there were numerous other issues as well, but the problem with their ADU projection was that they misrepresented ADU numbers (highlighted sections attached). We will not have that problem if our calculations are conservatively based on the permitted number of ADUs in 2021. Santa Monica also has many other fundamental differences compared to Hillsborough (commercial centers, apartment/condo complexes, different topography, etc.)
Please do not hesitate to reach out directly or to put staff or other community members in touch with me if other questions or concerns arise. I would appreciate being able to research and respond. I'm also happy to present a short synopsis to the Council and community at an upcoming Council meeting or at the September 6th open house, if you like. This could be with a couple of powerpoint slides or just outlining the proposal orally.
Additionally, we would be glad to work on collecting signatures from residents committing to develop an ADU on their property. Submitting our proposal to the state with over 550 signatures (each tied to a residence) would be very compelling. Does the town have a way to compile this electronically (e.g., an online collection/website we can direct people to, in lieu of physical signatures)? Thank you so much; please let us know any other ways we can contribute. It is a privilege to be part of this wonderful community!
-Suzann Pershing
Summary
Hillsborough is required to come up with a plan for development of 554 new residences over the next 8 years, through zoning changes and looser permitting restrictions. All cities and towns in California are affected by this state law, and must submit housing plans to the state. The town’s consultants have prepared a draft proposal for public comment until September 19. The final decision on what to submit to the state is made by Hillsborough City Council.
The full draft plan is attached, intended to provide for 665 new units (554 + a 20% additional buffer).
High-level summary of the proposal:
- Increase Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on existing properties (Note: this has been happening for years and has not affected the character of Hillsborough) - Rezone the entire town: reduce minimum lot size to 1/3 acre (from ½ acre) and minimum house size to 800 sqft
- Study the Town Hall land for future redevelopment
- Rezone Strawberry Hill (Regan Estate) to add 187 units, including 172 affordable high-density units (52 very low income)
- Rezone the De Guigne Estate (San Mateo border) to add 24 new standard residences + 48 new affordable housing units
- Rezone 50 Brooke Court (across from College of San Mateo) to add 12 townhouses The draft proposal prepared by Hillsborough’s consultants is flawed and warrants complete revision.
The 20% extra planned units are unnecessary. The proposal relies on a massive high-density affordable housing complex in the middle of town (Strawberry Hill). ADU calculations underestimate the number of ADUs that Hillsborough could achieve. ADUs alone can provide for most or all of Hillsborough’s required new housing, compliant with state regulations.
Alternative Proposal
1. Remove the 20% additional buffer, which is not required
2. Use 2021 numbers for ADU estimates, which is permitted by the state.
3. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton did) - With or without the study of the Town Hall campus
- With or without 50 Brooke Court townhouses across from College of San Mateo Details - Flaws in the Draft Proposal - Overall
1. The town does not need to plan more housing than the state mandate The town's consultants claim a 20% additional no-net loss buffer is strongly recommended by the state housing department (HCD)—which would increase Hillsborough’s housing allocation from 554 mandated units to 665 units. This claim is incorrect. Per the attached document from the state agency, it is "best practice" but not required to apply a 15-30% additional buffer.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are underestimated*** The chosen approach to estimate future ADUs disadvantages Hillsborough and is not appropriate. The Town very conservatively projects future ADUs based on the past 3.5 years of data. However, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) methodology specifically prescribes using shorter periods of time when warranted (see attached file). Jurisdictions can use one year of higher ADU numbers if there is a logical explanation for the increase (e.g., loosened regulations), and can even project higher future ADU numbers if a plan to increase ADU production has been put in place.
Hillsborough has met and exceeded both conditions. Per the draft housing element, there was a sharp uptick in ADU permits in 2021 compared to prior years, with more than 2.5 times as many new building permits issued in 2021 vs. 2020 (64 vs. 25) and 4 times as many as in 2018 (64 vs. 16) (page 89). The number of new applications was even greater (89 in 2021, page 18). This has a logical explanation. The town established a process to guide people through ADU review and approval beginning in 2020.
Since the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) calculation is based on an annual estimate x 8 years, if the town approves all applications per CA law intent, 89 x 8 = 712, which by itself would be sufficient to account for all the required housing units—without imposing involuntary rezoning, etc.
Even using a safer approach based on actual number of permits issued (64 x 8 = 512) would provide for the vast majority of Hillsborough's allocation. The remaining balance could be accommodated with 12 townhouses on the San Mateo side of 50 Brooke Court and 30 units across Town Hall campus.
3. Proposed high-density development is not feasible due to terrain and infrastructure The housing element comments on the rural nature of the town, its hilly terrain, high fire risk, no businesses/commercial centers, no stop lights, streetlights, or sidewalks. It is considered a “mountain route” by the United States Postal Service due to steep slopes and often narrow, one-lane curvilinear streets. However, these considerations appear to have been disregarded in the new proposal. In contrast, other neighboring towns have proposed new housing near transit corridors, strategically located for access to transportation, shopping, etc. and to minimize disruption to the community (including road traffic) and minimize negative impact on property values.
4. Hillsborough’s approach is not consistent with comparable towns We consulted with a real estate attorney, who has ten years of prior service as a planning commissioner, eight years as a city councilman, and two terms as the Mayor of Atherton, California. He indicated that most other Bay Area municipalities have taken a much more measured approach to plan the minimum number of units in a way that makes sense for their communities.
5. Proposed zoning changes are too broad, and their potential impact is underestimated The proposed rezoning of the entire town to reduce lot sizes to encourage subdivisions and new construction is stated to yield up to 232 additional potential dwellings but is only projected to contribute 15 new dwellings. The town should either limit rezoning or claim more credit for the potential new residences from comprehensive rezoning.
Details - Flaws in the Draft Proposal – Specific Sites
1. Specific to Strawberry Hill (Regan Estate):
Strawberry Hill would be zoned for a large high-density multistory affordable housing complex in the middle of Hillsborough. It was inappropriately relisted from the last housing element, called by a different name, and does not have two existing access roads used to justify the high number of new units
A. Does not meet relisting requirements
The state has imposed new limits on reuse of sites identified in prior housing elements. Per the source California bill (2017 SB 1317 Section 3 65583.2.c), relisted sites must (a) be rezoned to include lowincome units and (b) must have realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the next 8 years. We do not believe that Strawberry Hill should qualify per the latter criteria. The trustee for the property joined the City Council meeting on Monday 8/8. He had not been consulted in the plan and opposed high-density affordable housing as described.
B. Misleading rebranding (called Regan Estate in 2014, Strawberry Hill now) Strawberry Hill was included in the last Housing Element submitted to the state in 2014. In 2014 it was called the Regan Estate, now it is called Strawberry Hill. This rebranding is disingenuous.
C. More units than in 2014 without justification (from 10 to 187 units) In the 2014 Housing Element, Strawberry Hill was stated to have "topographical and access challenges" which would constrain development to approximately 10 residences consistent with the character of Hillsborough. These topographical and access factors are unchanged, despite being disregarded in the draft proposal to place 187 residences in structure(s) up to 4-6 stories, immediately adjacent to the historic residence at Strawberry Hill.
D. Access roads are misrepresented and used to justify the proposal Strawberry Hill is claimed to have two current points of access, used as a justification for ability to have a high number of units while remaining compliant with California rules. However, there is no existing road extending directly from Macadamia Drive to the proposed affordable housing zone at Strawberry Hill.
2. Specific to De Guigne Estate:
A. More units than in 2014 without justification (from 10 to 72 units) Similar to Strawberry Hill, in the 2014 Housing Element, the De Guigne Estate was stated to have "topographical and access challenges" which would constrain development to approximately 10 residences consistent with the character of Hillsborough. These topographical and access factors are also unchanged, but disregarded in the draft proposal to place 72 residences including 48 units across eight six-unit buildings.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
February 8, 2022
David White, City Manager
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear David White:
RE: City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Monica’s (City) housing element adopted on October 12, 2021 and received for review on November 10, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Kenneth Kutcher, Abundant Housing LA, Santa Monica Housing Council, Jason Mastbaum, Tieira Ryder, YIMBY Law, Matthew Millen and the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The adopted element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s August 30, 2021 review; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households and commenters on this review, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the David White, City Manager