Agenda — Hillsborough City Council, September 26, 2022 (part 3 of 8)

Thank you for listening to my concerns!
David
David I. Beatson
Ascent Advisors, LLC
650-558-0220 (O)
(C)
-611-
From:

To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Roxy Bernstein
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:29:27 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members, My husband has lived in Hillsborough almost his entire life and went to North and Crocker. I've lived here for about to 20 years and our kids are winding up their Hillsborough Schools education. The future of the town is very important to us.

We strongly oppose the draft Housing Element plan and we respectfully ask that the council 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. Please do not vote for or pass the current plan that was led by an outside consultant with no personal ties to this special and unique town. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.

Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.

Sheri and Allen Bernstein
-612-
From: Jordan Chavez
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:24:58 PM
Hello,
As a resident of Walnut Avenue, I oppose the development proposed at city hall. Adding a concentrated number of units in this location disproportionately impacts the area immediately surrounding it, as opposed to other plans, which spread units throughout the Town of Hillsborough.

Our street is a tightly knit community in which we feel safe letting our children walk, run, bike, and scoot up and down the block. The idea of bringing more traffic, noise, and sound pollution to this narrow street would mean the loss of this vital aspect of our neighborhood connectedness. We’ve worked hard to cultivate this, particularly through the isolation of the pandemic, and it has manifested as a vibrant component of the greater community.

Additionally, Floribunda is the only appropriate access point for most of the block and already sees fast moving traffic as it serves as the same for this area of Hillsborough.

I ask you to not unfairly place the burden of change on just one block of residents and instead share the problem solving equally throughout the geographically large area of Hillsborough.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jordan Chavez
-613-
From: Chris Chavez
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing plan comment
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:12:09 PM
Hello City Planners:

I understand you are facing serious problems with difficult solutions. I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed plan to develop city hall into multi-family housing. This plan disproportionately impacts housing close to that area, increasing congestion, noise, traffic, and safety.

Other areas of your plan, specifically the ADU and JADU plans thoughtfully spread new housing throughout the community. Those plans also put the decision making and impact into the hands of the residents and their neighbors through the proper building plan process. A heavy handed approach like developing city hall is not in line with the community’s current harmony nor is it consistent with the town’s history.

We can solve this problem with the contributions and planning of home owners throughout our town without significantly hurting those in one specific area. Please do not develop city hall.

Thank you for reading and considering these comments.
-Chris Chavez
-614-
From: Maureen Laney
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:08:19 PM
I am a 5-year resident of Hillsborough and have attended several of the Housing Element Committee online meetings and the open house on the Draft Housing Element. Some comments:

I am generally in support of the draft plan, in that I believe that Hillsborough should not resist, but actually embrace the changes needed to support housing development in California and the bay area. I believe that the proposed changes do not go far enough in creating new housing opportunities in Hillsborough.

With respect to ADUs, I think the emphasis on ADUs is disingenuous because ADUs don't actually create housing. Building an ADU may qualify per the state requirement, but I don't believe that all or most of them are actually rented out. They just provide a pool house or in-law unit to the property owner. The statistic that says that Hillsborough has exceeded its requirement for very-low income housing is laughable.

I would like to see some data on how much housing has actually been created by ADUs. I'm guessing it is minimal. I certainly oppose the town subsidizing or otherwise supporting ADUs without a guarantee that the unit will create a new housing opportunity.

With respect to the proposed zoning changes, I would urge you to further relax the current zoning regulations. Hillsborough has among the most restrictive zoning regulations in the bay area. We all know that these restrictions were originally created with the express intent to exclude anyone except rich white people from living here. They are racist and exclusionary. While we current homeowners are not responsible for creating them initially, we CAN be responsible for relaxing them so that Hillsborough can allow some smaller lots and multi-family units, and provide some housing for a more diverse population, including our teachers and other municipal employees. The fact that the proposed changes are expected to allow only 15 new housing units speaks to the fact that these zoning changes are inadequate.

Throughout the time that this draft has been developed I have had conversations with other residents and heard many comments at meetings and the open house. It alarms me that there is so much resistance to the proposed changes. The phrase "...as long as we don't change the character of our town"...is repeated over and over.

The world is changing, America is changing, California and the bay area are changing; Hillsborough should change, too to become a more inclusive and diverse town. Our schools and community will benefit. Please resist the pressure to scale back these proposed changes.

Thanks for the opportunities for learning about the draft plan and providing comments -
Maureen Laney
-615-
From: Pamela Webb
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:00:29 PM
EDUs only- no apartments in Hillsborough
Sent from my iPhone
-616-
From: Megan Fannon Dioli
To: General Plan
Subject: Disapprove of Rezoning as it is Stated
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:00:21 PM
I do not support the Town’s housing plans and rezoning measures as proposed in the Housing Element.

Megan Dioli
-617-
From: Nisha Somani
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Plan Comments
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:58:02 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Council Members and all others involved, I appreciate your leadership as we navigate the challenging issue of housing. While I fully support the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the Bay Area and particularly in Hillsborough, I would like to express my concern about the current Draft Plan and I oppose it in its current form.

I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our strengths (ADUs, JADUs) while not re-zoning under a blanket plan where the cost and impact to current residents has not been transparent. I urge the Council to look at comparable neighborhoods like Atherton and consider the plans they have put in place or find other alternatives better suited for Hillsborough.

Thank you again for your time, planning, and consideration.

Nisha Somani
-618-
From: Jason Yip
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Christine Yip
Subject: Voicing opposition to draft Housing Element plan of August 4, 2022 Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:56:29 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members,
Let me first begin by thanking you all for the last town meeting last week on September 12.

As you noticed by the large turn out, this issue is the most important issue that has come up since we have lived in Hillsborough for over 16 years. Given this, we wanted to make sure that our feedback was heard during the public comment period.

We strongly oppose the draft Housing Element plan, and even more so after the last town hall meeting. We have spoken to numerous residents who are also more strongly opposed to the draft plan following last week's town meeting.

We respectfully ask that the council 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. Please do not vote for or pass the current plan that was led by an outside consultant with no personal ties to this special and unique town. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.

Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.

Warmly,
Christine and Jason Yip
-619-
From: Jamie Greene
To: General Plan
Subject: Comment on draft housing element plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:51:38 PM
Hillsborough Councilmembers,
I appreciate your service to our great town. I first moved to Hillsborough in 1987 and I currently live at 735 Hillsborough Blvd.

I understand that the California Department of Housing and Community Development has mandated that Hillsborough increase housing by 554 new units. I am writing to let you know that I oppose to the draft Housing Element Plan. I object to any proposal for multi family housing and the newly proposed three zones of housing which is currently not allowed in Hillsborough.

Instead of this drastic rezoning, the town should continue to encourage ADU development. As you know, in the last housing cycle, Hillsborough outperformed its required allocation by 111%, mainly through ADUs. It is my understanding that the town appointed an ombudsman to encourage ADU development in 2020 and that the current run rate development is 65 ADUs per year which is up significantly from the previous three year average of 35 per year. Assuming a modest growth to just over 69 ADUs a year, Hillsborough would meet our 554 unit requirement.

Hillsborough has a track record of beating our plan and we should lean on that track record and the growth in popularity of ADUs to hit the 554 new units.

Thank you for all the time you are putting into this important manner.

Jamie Greene
-620-
From: Rajiv Gujral
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:51:19 PM
We are concerned about the plan being proposed
Surely there are alternatives which also protect the special nature of our town and incorporate some of the housing goals.

Need more discussion and a slow methodical roll out
Rajiv Gujral
NMLS #236134
DRE # 01101817
P
C
NOTICE: This e-mail ,including attachments, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited
-621-
From: harvey schmit
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:51:06 PM
Are we maintaining the unique character of Hillsborough?

1. reduction of lot sizes will make Hillsborough just another peninsula town

2. adding more dwelling units will most likely lead to on street parking inviting the criminal element into the town

3. adding ADU's at the rate assumed by the plan will lead to a breakdown of residence security (gates, cameras)
Harvey Schmit
-622-
From:

To: General Plan
Cc: "Charley Haggarty"; "Gina Haggarty"
Subject: Put the Plan on hold and look for better options Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:48:23 PM
Attachments: Claire Hillsborough Letter
There is too much at stake to not step back and give us a chance to explore better options. -623-
I am strongly OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT PLAN INCLUDING THE TOWN HALL SITE PLAN AND WOULD LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE PLAN.

Dear Council members and HEAC members,
My name is Claire Haggarty (Jr) and my Dad and I built my home at 2546 Butternut Drive over 30 years ago.

I am OPPOSED to the proposed housing element plan and implore the town to start over with a plan that includes ALL ADU/JADU housing options only.

Hillsborough has incredible schools, a tight community, and larger home lots. Due to the lack of underlying infrastructure, roads large enough to support a Bus system, and the finite water supply make the rezoning proposal unrealistic. Additionally, the larger lot sizes in Hillsborough allow for the quiet and safe neighborhood our community expects. This was as true 30 years ago as it is today.

The proposed Housing Element Plan will be detrimental not only to the esthetics of Hillsborough, but will also negatively impact real estate values. It has been estimated that this proposal may reduce real estate values by upwards of 25%. In addition, the plan does not account for the increased usage of public resources including; roads, schools, fire, police & medical response teams.

This is one of the most important decisions Hillsborough will be making and once done, it can not be reversed.

I feel the information about this proposal was distributed “too little – too late” and wonder how much of this was actually decided before being announced. This was not properly communicated.

The Housing Element postcard which was sent out from the Town of Hillsborough was very vague. It did not include any of the drastic measures the town is proposing - rezoning on all Hillsborough lots.

Instead, this news traveled through the community via word of mouth, leading to this letter. We as a community are fundamentally opposed to this proposal.

We, the Haggarty’s, and many of our Hillsborough community are opposed to this proposal. We are fundamentally against the rezoning of Hillsborough. We oppose the housing element plan, we oppose the town hall expansion and campus site plan, we oppose all zoning or rezoning of any lot and any other changes to our current “RD” zoning, and we are opposed to having a goal to discourage redevelopment of sites with existing smaller single-family homes.

OPPOSE:

1. We Oppose the Housing Element Plan - Residential District 1 (RD-1); Residential District 2 (RD-2) and Residential District 3 (RD-3).

2. We Oppose the Town Hall Expansion/Campus Site Plan - which was delivered to us this past week and is on the 9/12 agenda.

3. We Oppose any/all zoning or rezoning of any lot and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning.

4. We 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 -624-
homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation. Remove this goal and do not implement it in the future.

5. We encourage you to give STRONG consideration to pursuing a streamlined option for homeowners to add ADU units that can allow homeowners to retain control of their properties and increase available housing. This type of housing would allow the Town to retain the elements that have made living here so desirable to generations. My son is a Paramedic and there are lots of first responders, teachers, and other underpaid people who would like to live in this Town with the independence and privacy that an ADU provides – and not the “stack and pack” feel that has taken over so many parts of this county.

6. Just this week you announced “proposed” increases in water and garbage services. While this is understandable – one has to wonder how the costs associated with the proposed developments will be paid not to mention the stress on our neighborhood streets that years of such development would bring – ADU’s can be implemented quickly and with less stress on the infrastructure, etc.

7. There are better ways to increase housing without adversely affecting what has made this Town so desirable. Your proposal would undoubtedly also reduce property values yet not compensate homeowners for the loss.

Don’t rubber stamp this proposal – The Town has better options – and we should have had a chance to research, evaluate and propose them before this “deadline” Claire Haggarty (Jr)
-625-
From: Courtney Yun
To: General Plan
Subject: Public comments on the new Hillsborough housing plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:41:10 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element".

I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Kyong Yun
-626-
From: Diana Beatson
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing issue last day for comments
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:37:48 PM
To whom it may concern:

I object to the town of Hillsborough's affordable housing proposal. My concerns:

1. The police/fire station are some of the town's oldest , historical buildings. Where would they be relocated?
2, Lack of public transportation

3. Lack of adequate parking (,65 ratio when it should be 1:1

4.Impact on traffic, walking, biking

5.the proposed 5-6 stories is not in keeping with the town's quiet neighborhoods.

6.Schools will be impacted by more enrollment with up to 130 additional families. 7,There should be more concern for senior housing

8. There is currently adequate housing for low income families.

9. Controversy over miscalculating the needed ADU requirements.

Thank you for considering my issues.

Diana Beatson
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
-627-
From:

To: General Plan
Cc: "Brenda Tsiang"
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:37:24 PM
My wife are 15 year residents of Hillsborough and believe that ADU’s are the first line of answer for the state mandated housing requirements. Until all options of utilizing ADU’s are exhausted, no other options should be presented to the town. I am happy to discuss, my phone is . -628-
From: Roger Trinkner
To: General Plan
Subject: Zoning
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:19:47 PM
I vote NO on zoning change, Roger Trinkner
Sent from my iPad
-629-
I am strongly OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT PLAN INCLUDING THE TOWN HALL SITE PLAN AND WOULD LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL TO REJECT THE PLAN.

Dear Council members and HEAC members,
My name is Mrs. Joseph P. Haggarty and my husband and I built our home at 2566 Butternut Drive over 30 years ago.

I am OPPOSED to the proposed housing element plan and implore the town to start over with a plan that includes ALL ADU/JADU housing options only.

This is one of the most important decisions Hillsborough will be making and once done, it can not be reversed.

I feel the information about this proposal was distributed “too little – too late” and wonder how much of this was actually decided before being announced. This was not properly communicated.

The Housing Element postcard which was sent out from the Town of Hillsborough was very vague. It did not include any of the drastic measures the town is proposing - rezoning on all Hillsborough lots.

Instead, this news traveled through the community via word of mouth, leading to this letter. We as a community are fundamentally opposed to this proposal.

OPPOSE:

1. We Oppose the Housing Element Plan - Residential District 1 (RD-1); Residential District 2 (RD-2) and Residential District 3 (RD-3).

2. We Oppose the Town Hall Expansion/Campus Site Plan - which was delivered to us this past week and is on the 9/12 agenda.

3. We Oppose any/all zoning or rezoning of any lot and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning.

4. We 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 omeowners' -630-
property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation. Remove this goal and do not implement it in the future.

7. There are better ways to increase housing without adversely affecting what has made this Town so desirable. Your proposal would undoubtedly reduce property values.

Thank you for your time.

Mrs. Joseph P. Haggarty
-631-
From: Kimberly Berg
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposing the Town Hall Site
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:12:30 PM
Hello,
My family and I are a current resident of Hillsborough and have been for 8 years. We oppose the Town Hall Site plan for multiple reasons.

We have been speaking with other town residents that have the same opposition.

We very much would like you to reconsider your positioning and look for alternative ways to meet the necessary goal, which do not include Multi-unit Dwellings.

We know alternative ideas have been submitted to the town.

Thank you for listening,
Kim Berg
-632-
From: Mike Wilbur
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: ; Mike Wilbur; Judy Wilbur
Subject: Concerns with Hillsborough"s Draft Housing Element Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:10:50 PM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
Dear Mayor Royse and Council Members,
We live on , Hillsborough, and we oppose the Draft HE Plan.

Our concerns include changing the character of our town, decreasing the value of Hillsborough real estate, and overshooting our HE targets. We believe that better solutions will emerge only by considering a range of options.

Please see the attached objections to the draft plan along with an alternative approach - we support the position of Mr. Ullyot's letter.

In addition, we have completed the survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/467e65233a544c21893f1321c3a72c32 to express our willingness regarding an ADU/JADU.

We urge the Council to amend the Draft based on the will of our residents.

Best regards,
Michael and Patrice Wilbur
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-633-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

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, when my father moved to the Town.

Although the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has imposed on the Town a mandate of 554 additional housing units for the 2023-31 HE6 cycle, the Draft Plan is an unacceptable proposal for meeting that number. Among the most objectionable features of the Draft Plan are the introduction of a new three-zone scheme in place of Hillsborough’s current single-zone (RD) zoning framework; the introduction of multi-family housing to our Town; and the introduction of multi-story buildings to our residential community (including at our historic Town Hall, Centennial Park, and Veterans Memorial). If adopted, the Draft Plan would radically and irreparably change the character of our Town.

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-634-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -635-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

Hillsborough has an exemplary track record of meeting and even exceeding its HCDassigned HE number. In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Town’s State-mandated target was 91 and we hit 192 housing units actually created. Hillsborough was a model community in HE5 – not simply being one of only 38 jurisdictions in California to meet its HE5 target and plan, but more than doubling our target number. A “buffer” might represent an appropriate “best practice” for some jurisdictions – namely, those communities that fell short of their recent Housing Element plans. But not for Hillsborough, given our track record of not just meeting but indeed dramatically exceeding our HE targets.

Second, once the housing-unit target for HE6 is defined as 554 rather than something more than that, there are many paths to meeting that goal without imposing the sort of dramatic changes to our community that the Draft Plan proposes.

For starters, the Final Plan should make much greater use of ADUs, which have become increasingly popular in the Town. The Draft Plan provides for too few ADUs (only 280, based on a trailing 3-year average of 35 per year). We should take a more realistic, and current, estimate of 65 ADUs per year – which is the rate for 2021-22 (after Hillsborough in 2020 appointed an ombudsman to encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs). There is every reason to believe that the current 65-per-year rate would continue, if not increase, with the assistance of the ombudsman and other measures to promote ADU construction. Over eight years, a 65-per year rate would, all by itself, account for 520 of the 554 housing units.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-636-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

I am writing in regard to the Draft Housing Plan and to express my full support for what Mr. Ullyot has written in the attached document.

This is a thoughtful approach to solving the demands being placed upon us in a way that complies with these demands while maintaining the town’s character.

As he notes, your duty is to serve as representatives of our community, and I have not talked to one single resident who is supportive of what has been proposed! All of them feel the proposed plan is a threat to our community in multiple ways. Please heed your civic responsibilities and adhere to the will of the citizens of this town. There are better ways, like Mr. Ullyot’s suggestions, to achieve the goal.

Regards,
Joseph Toms
-639-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-640-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -641-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-642-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

Because the Town can meet its HE6 target through a combination of ADUs and partialcredit for our HE5 overage, we do not need to – and should not – change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi-family housing, nor erect a multi-story building on Town property at El Camino and Floribunda – all of which are strategies proposed in the Draft Plan. Each of those steps would bring about fundamental negative change to the beauty and character of our Town, and I join many other Hillsborough residents in objecting to those proposals. Under the above strategy I have outlined, neither new zoning, nor multi-family housing, nor a Town Hall multi-story complex, would be necessary to meet the Town’s 554 target number for HE6.3
* * * * *
The ideas and methodology I have outlined above are one reasonable, low-impact pathway for the Council to devise a Final Plan that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community, and (2) represents a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation of 554 housing units. There undoubtedly are other means of doing so – without the need for re-zoning, for multi-family housing, for multistory apartment buildings, and the like. In addition to its natural beauty, unique history, and character, our Town is blessed with a thoughtful, engaged, civic-minded citizenry, many of whom have participated actively and respectfully in this process since the unveiling of the objectionable Draft Plan six weeks ago. Collectively, the residents of Hillsborough have stated well-founded concerns and objections to the Draft Plan and proposed a range of creative alternatives. It is now up to the Council to be responsive, listen and incorporate that feedback, and produce a Final Plan that is right for Hillsborough and protects our unique Town. 3 There are likely other means of meeting our HE6 target of 554 housing units that likewise would be respectful of, and preserve, Hillsborough’s essential character. For example, I understand that there is land near I-280 that is owned by the San Francisco PUC, which the Town might be able to annex, acquire and rezone for HE6 compliance purposes. This is the kind of option that should be fully explored before adopting radical changes to our Town. -643-
5 Respectfully submitted,
Theodore W. Ullyot
-644-
From: L L Foster
To: General Plan
Subject: My Input
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03:54 PM
I strongly believe that if enough cities would join together to oppose this clearly socialistic program, some change could be realized. If that doesn’t work, communities should serious consider recalling those representatives that approved this absurd state plan. I have chosen to live in this country, state, county or town that is increasing becoming socialistic in character. I very much wish to support those that have life consequences beyond their control, but not for those that have made personal choices that have not fared well, and now wish to impose upon me their created burdens.
-645-
From: Linda Cooperman
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:02:31 PM
Hello,
We want to go on the record as opposing some of the zoning changes proposed in the Draft Housing Element for Hillsborough since we believe that they would fundamentally change the character of the town. The consulting firm retained by the Town appear to have started with a blank sheet and not taken into account the distinctive characteristics of the Town. In particular, we place high value on the trees and foliage that fill the green space in our community and don’t want to see it disrupted. Therefore, we are opposed to any reduction in the minimum lot size, street frontage or setbacks. We also oppose anything that stands in the way of a current resident with a small house remodeling it to a much larger house if regulations permit it. This is how many younger couples get their start in Hillsborough.

We are in favor of:

1. ADUs as a constructive solution. However, we wouldn't like to see more than one on any individual property unless it is a property larger than one acre.

2. Redevelopment of the Town Hall campus to include high density housing. We would also favor setting aside a portion of the residences thus created for the Town’s own Police, Fire and Town Hall employees.

3. A high density housing complex being built off of Crystal Springs Road near the intersection with Tartan Trail.

We hope the Town Council will step up, consider the opinions of our Community, and make a recommendation of its own.

Thank you.

Linda and Daniel Cooperman
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-646-
From: dan
To: General Plan
Cc:

Subject: Housing Element feed back
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:47:42 PM
I'm sure lots of people have put considerable thought in to this.

I am concerned about selling off town assets which cannot be replaced. I would hope that ADUs could better serve our community rather then high density sky rises which would be contrary to the ethos and essence of our beautiful town.

As a long term resident my joy of Hillsborough it the rural environment we have managed to retain while cites all around us have fallen in to suburban sprawl sacrificing much of their wilderness and open spaces.

Restraining growth and expansion is difficult for any town, City or government entity. I pray Hillsborough can resist the easy solutions which once open will only grow, and could suffocate the special place we have come to love and admire.

Please be cautious and deliberate about opening up to developers interests which, as one, I can state often do not align with the town or neighborhood they seek to develop. to often it is simply greed which drives development with towns and cities unwilling to fight the good fight loosing to sprawl and unforeseen consequences.

Please give grater consideration to ADUs and other lower density solutions which may restrain ambitious developers how my only seek to enrich themselves at our expense.

Sincerely
Dan Forster
Long term resident, we grew up here.
-647-
From: Orna Resnekov
To: General Plan; Orna Resnekov
Cc: Al Royse; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Ann Ritzma Subject: Comment: Housing Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:32:36 PM
Please note, this is my 2nd comment on the 2023-2031 Housing Element & Plan.

The first comment that I submitted was on September 3, 2022 & is pasted in below.

Comment 2: THOUGHTS ON THE DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING

ELEMENT & PLAN
Mayor Royse asked for suggestions, here are some of my suggestions:

The City Council must focus on statistically reliable objective data when making decisions or recommendations
The City Council should focus on a plan that relies on ADUs, not the current plan suggested by town staff
The town's current ADU survey (and the town's existing data) only deals with ADUs that might be built in the future or have been built in the past (and have been registered with the County) - the City Council (and it's residents) also need to know how many ADUs (or home-sharing arrangements) currently exist in the town but are not registered with San Mateo County. The town's survey needs to be re-done.

The town could consider offering incentives to residents (in such situations) to register their ADUs. These would appear to the State as new ADUs and would not require further building in the town The town could also ask such residents who they are currently renting to, and include that data in the submitted Housing Element & Plan The CIty Council needs to strongly suggest that staff operate with up-to-date technology now. For example:

There is a software program: canibuild.com/en-us/
We need this software (or something like it) to be available in Town Hall for all planners, contractors and residents
The program allows one to look at any property (registered or unregistered), see site designs and see if th fit & it shows topography, and it allows one to check local regulations for building for things such as setbacks, heights, etc.

This software would allow residents to quickly and cheaply check whether their imagined ADU would be feasible, and it might encourage others who were not aware of where they could put an ADU on their lot.

In considering what to do the City Council should move slowly - there is -648-
absolutely no advantage to being fully compliant at this point in time Experience shows that Hillsborough gets no credit for being overcompliant Rules may change with time
It is likely that there will be many legal challenges from other towns - there is a lot of dust that still needs to settle
The City Council should listen carefully to the voices of its residents. The City Council needs to lead in concert with the wishes of its residents.

Btw: I would still appreciate answers to the question that I posed below at the end of Comment 1.

Best,
Orna Resnekov, Trustee
Comment 1: 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
-649-
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?
-650-
Best,
Orna Resnekov, Trustee
--
ORNA
-651-
From: Michael Morganstern
To: General Plan
Subject: Thoughts on housing plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:20:08 PM
General plan,
I oppose any construction of multi unit housing in Hillsborough. Amongst my concerns are increased traffic and a reduction in privacy.

Regards,
Mike Morganstern
Sent from my iPhone
-652-
From:

To: General Plan
Subject: Slow Down!
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:19:49 PM
This Plan goes too far. Slow down and take it a few steps now and revise the plan as time, litigation and processes evolve.

I suggest that the Council consider a full court press on ADUs. ADUs don’t significantly change the character of our Town. To the extent necessary, consider housing at Town Hall (there used to be an apartment building for Town employees at the site where the Town Hall now sits). Then, if needed, establish a multi-unit Zone at the Brooke Court site. This site also should have road access road to the perimeter road surrounding the College of San Mateo. The perimeter road could have a bus stop that would provide transportation to needed grocery stores, medical offices, recreation and other facilities for the occupants of this site and residents of the Town.

Over the next several years there is likely to be litigation by various jurisdictions against the State.

This process will revise the implementation of State’s housing laws which our Town can then respond to. In the meantime, I suggest that the Town design a plan which implements the above suggestions which will not materially alter its present character.

Thank you,
D. Paul Regan
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-653-
From: Marie Pease
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:14:22 PM
I am very opposed to your general plan. It took us over 20 years to be able to afford to live in this beautiful Hillsborough community.

By adding affordable housing will only increase the lack of privacy, increased traffic/construction and in the end bring our home values down.

Marie Pease
-654-
From: Sofia Kosh
To: General Plan
Subject: Objection to new city plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:03:42 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Sofia Koshevatsky
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Sent from my iPhone
-655-
From: Ellen Christie
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to the current draft housing element Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:03:23 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Thank you.

Best,
Ellen Christie
, Hillsborough CA
-656-
From: mary ellen benninger
To: General Plan
Subject: Comments to Housing Element Zoning changes
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:02:43 PM
Thank you to all staff members and Town Council members for providing us with a Housing Element draft to generate input and thoughtful discussions from all of us who call Hillsborough home.

I have been a resident of Hillsborough for 30 years and own two contiguous properties in Hillsborough. I live in one of the properties.

I understand the complexities the new RHNA cycle has placed on our community.

I am disappointed by the fact that our elected representatives at the State level, CA Assembly Member, Kevin Mullins, and CA Senator, Josh Beckett, have not attended any of the housing element meetings and open houses to hear residents concerns with the RHNA requirements.

Below are my comments:

The 20% Buffer is too high. Pick a number vs. percentage. Hillsborough has a track record of more than covering the RHNA allocations.

Do not make modifications to the Town’s existing single zoning district RD 1. It only creates a potential for 15 net units.

Support the rezoning of Town Hall campus to RD- 3. Must have one parking space per housing unit. Whether this is Senior housing or low/moderate income housing.

Support the rezoning of 10+ acres to RD-2 for senior housing.

Increase the number of ADU’s than currently projected.

Continue to prioritize ADU development and building with ombudsman program.

Pursue contacting the Trustees of land donated to the Town to potentially change the designation of how the donated land be utilized.

Regards,
Mary Ellen Benninger
-657-
From: Cristin Chinn
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:59:36 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Thank you,
Cristin Chinn
Hillsborough homeowner
-658-
From: Tim Guleri
To: General Plan
Subject: Oppose the High Density Housing Plan currently being proposed by Hillsborough City Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:58:39 AM
Dear Mayor Royce and Council members,
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it.

I request that we halt the current thinking and rethinking our approach before we are in a zone where we cannot come back from. Current changes that are being proposed by you and your team will make Hillsborough unlivable.

I like the idea of mixed affordable housing at Town Hall location. Instead, allow for looser ADU, JADU requirements and incent home owners to convert pool houses to ADU's.

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.

Best regards
Tim Guleri
-659-
From: Carolyn Shmunis
To: General Plan
Subject: concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element" Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:54:56 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Carolyn Shmunis
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Sent from my iPhone
-660-
From: Ruth Wisnom
To: General Plan
Subject: Fwd: Objection to the Housing Element draft
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:48:35 AM
From: Ruth Wisnom
Date: September 18, 2022 at 10:49:32 AM PDT
To: Ruth J Wisnom
Subject: Fwd: Objection to the Housing Element draft
From: Ruth Wisnom
Subject: Objection to the Housing Element draft
I have read the draft in its entirety, attended by zoom the HEAC and Town Council meetings. I respect the hard work that created this document but I think if enacted it would destroy our town as we know it. Dennis Moore and Ted Ullyot have presented alternative plans which are much less invasive and I think many of their ideas could replace those in the draft. There is widespread concern among the residents of the town and they feel helpless to prevent the implementation of this plan. The Wisnom Family has lived in Hillsborough since 1935 and treasures the beauty and special character of Hillsborough.

I urge you to consider modifications that would eliminate rezoning and multiple family dwellings on lots that are now single family lots.

Other crucial issues are parking if a new Town Hall campus is constructed, water shortage, overcrowded schools, public service demands for police and fire response. Taxes will inevitably have to be raised to provide these services. I understand that we must meet the state mandate but there are other options. Please consider alternative plans so we can preserve the historic character of our rural, non-commercial, unique community.

Thank you,
Ruth Wisnom
Sent from my iPhone
-661-
From: phyllistankel
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; [email protected]; Sophie Cole; [email protected]; Larry May; Ann Ritzma; Lisa Natusch; [email protected]
Subject: Against the proposed housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:47:08 AM
To all,
I was not going to respond to the call for comments because, sadly, I no longer believe that my voice or the voice of my fellow citizens means anything when decisions are made regarding our town. However, I can no longer stay silent.

I believe the plan that has been put forth will change Hillsborough in such an egregious way that the town we know and love will simply cease to exist.

There are many issues with the proposed housing element, ones that many people will agree on including one near and dear to my heart: the changes in the Hillsborough schools. At a previous meeting, I asked about how the schools could accommodate the greater enrollment that would naturally come with a greater density in housing, the answer was a non-answer. “Looking into” an issue and coming up with a “plan” simply will not work and your proposed housing element plan is a case in point. Where are the details? Where is the due diligence? And why does this need to be decided until citizens actually know how infrastructure issues are going to be handled? That is expecting an awful lot of trust especially when this whole plan seems rushed at best and misguided at worst. You can quote me chapter and verse about the state’s mandates for affordable housing but when I read the response from other towns I wonder why Hillsborough is in such a rush to get this done. This deserves to be more than a checklist item; the future of the town is at stake. Surely other points of view need to be considered? I am also concerned that so many citizens are unaware of the town’s proposal. And it is not the citizens who are responsible for communications, it is the town’s job. So please do your job. Go door to door if you have to but the fact that people are shocked when I tell them what is being proposed tells me that the town is just fine if people are unaware. This is not the way a small town should be run. Citizen involvement is crucial. These are our homes, our town, we live here for a reason. And it is a council overreach to be satisfied with the fewest number of people knowing what is going on and just assuming other people don’t care. Doing the bare minimum may make passage easier but it does not make it right.

The fact that our property values will erode, that no one can say where the water and other resources will come from to serve more people, and other challenges is just a pile up of issues. I am literally begging you to put on the brakes, inform all residents, consider alternative plans—this is important, we should not be forced to settle for first pass thinking, second pass, even tenth pass thinking on a poorly conceived plan. .

You will no doubt hear many opinions in your call for comments. However, what I doubt you are hearing are the comments people are saying off the record because they are too polite to put them in an email or they are afraid to rock the boat. I am not so polite. You are making a huge mistake if you pass this proposed housing element and I doubt you want that mistakes and the negative impact on the town to be your legacies. Please stop, think, make better decisions.

Sincerely,
Phyllis A. Tankel
Hillsborough
-662-
From: Vijay Hingorani
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:41:57 AM
Please discard your current plan and listen to the Hillsborough citizens! Thank you,
Vijay Hingorani
Hillsborough resident
-663-
From: Ruth Glick
To: General Plan
Subject: ADU
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:38:29 AM
Has the committee tried to negotiate with the state to get the number of ADU’s down to a more reasonable level considering that the Town of Hillsborough has no commercial areas, is rather remote and forestry in areas requiring transportation, utilities, water and other new infrastructure, and does not have roads capable of carrying high traffic loads.

Best,
Ruth Glick
Ruth V Glick
Attorney at Law, Arbitrator and Mediator
[email protected]
www.ruthvglick.com
650-344-2144
FCIArb, Fellow, College of Commercial Arbitrators,
Distinguished Fellow, International Academy of Mediators -664-
From: Ray Ko
To: General Plan
Subject: opposition to current draft housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:37:27 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I have immense concern and oppose "the current draft housing element". I believe we can achieve many of the goals through ADUs, but also believe we haven’t outlined the other infrastructure requirements that come with the proposed additional housing. Specifically, the increased density in some areas will require major changes to:

1. public roads and access

2. school capacity for additional families

3. public works capacity

4. how we fund this infrastructure (bc some proposed housing is exempt from property tax)

5. other public services
We need a better solution that preserves this residential community but also think about the 2nd and 3rd order effects of any proposal that dramatically increases housing, and thus, population density. We can’t add land, but need to add people, so there will need to be a proportionate amount of investment in significant dollars and time to make sure the Town is prepared for any increase in density.

Best,
Raymond Ko
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-665-
From: Tracy Lane
To: General Plan
Cc: Doug Lane
Subject: Objections to Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:36:26 AM
Dear Counsilmembers,
I am writing to express my objections to the August 4, 2022 Draft Housing Element Plan ("Draft Plan"). As a Hillsborough Resident since 2010, I and my family deeply value the unique rural nature of Hillsborough and urge you to implement a plan that does everything possible to preserve our character and heritage.

The responsibility of crafting and approving an appropriate plan is on the Council (not Town Staff or hired outside consultants who I understand created the Draft Plan) and we urge you to consider your constituents and the overwhelming wishes of this community who have made widespread objections to the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan is overreaching in setting a goal of 665 new housing units when only 554 are mandated. The mandated 554 units could be met through ADUs, particularly if we petitioned for retro-active credit for our 101-unit overage from HES. There is also no need for re-zoning and permitting multi family housing and multi story apartment buildings. These would certainly destroy the character of Hillsborough.

Please consider the wishes of this community and decline to approve the Draft Plan.

Sincerely,
Tracy Lane
-666-
From: Stanley Lo
To: Christine Krolik; General Plan
Subject: More Signatures of Residents Opposing the HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DRAFT ELEMENT Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:27:59 AM
Attachments: Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Signatures of Residents Opposing the Housing Plan.pdf
Dear Vice Mayor Krolik,
Attached are more signatures and comments of Hillsborough residents opposing the current HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DRAFT ELEMENT. Please keep for your records.

Best,
Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $285 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

From: Christine Krolik <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 12:03 AM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: WE OPPOSE THE HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DRAFT ELEMENT (Resident Responses) We welcome the feedback, Mr. all. Please note that the Housing Element is a Draft working document, not a final proposal.

Best,
Christine
Christine Krolik
Vice Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
Cell:

Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2022, at 3:26 PM, Stanley Lo <[email protected]> wrote:
-667-
Attached are just some of the responses I've received so far from Hillsborough residents opposing the Hillsborough housing draft element. Please see the attachments. These officially inform you of the strong opposition to the Hillsborough draft housing element. The responses have included their names and addresses.

Regards,
Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $285 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ** The opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the sender and are not an official position of the Town of Hillsborough, of the respective body, or of the board I serve on at the Town.
-668-
-669-
-670-
-671-
-672-
-673-
-674-
-675-
-676-
-677-
-678-
-679-
-680-
-681-
From: Celia Chang
To: General Plan
Subject: Existing proposed plan does not work
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:27:09 AM
First of all, thank you for the effort and time in putting the plan together. It's not an easy task, and there are definitely no 'correct' answers as we should welcome the diverse opinion of our community. As a 10+ years resident of Hillsborough and a parent with multiple kids that have gone through our school system, please consider changing the existing proposal.

We have been able to maintain our relatively small, and close-knit community based on our existing town infrastructure. There are other ways that we can solve and contribute to the housing issue (e.g. ADUs) rather than addition of dense housing units.

Please consider other options and even put it to a vote to maintain the uniqueness and success of our community.

Thanks,
Celia
-682-
From: Gene Wojciechowski
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:27:01 AM
Hello,
Thank you for all the hard work on the proposed housing plan. I understand there is an alternative proposal that relies more heavily on additional ADUs. I believe the alternative plan with added ADUs would be more in keeping with the look and feel of Hillsborough neighborhoods. I am not in favor of building townhomes on larger parcels.

Thanks again for the work and for listening to feedback.

Gene Wojciechowski
-683-
From: Jeff B
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Jeff Brady; Liana Brady
Subject: Comments On Housing Element Plan and September 12th 2022 Council Meeting.

Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:21:44 AM
Good afternoon Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:

I attended the in-person council meeting in Hillsborough on Monday, September 12th. I appreciate the time you spent reviewing the housing draft plan for the town. I also appreciate you giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion at the podium.

This email reaffirms mine and my wife’s position, which is that we adamantly oppose all three designs for the Townhall, police station and proposed housing element.

We were also very disappointed that there were no plans that excluded a housing element and would rather include a Recreation Center, park and/or playground. Although the city Council officials stated that these two things were separate, I agree with most attendees there that it did not seem that way since all of the proposed plans included some form of a housing element. We do not see a reason why this wonderful town does not has a new recreation and gathering place for the community similar to what Burlingame has recently built at Washington Park. They did a fantastic job in building a beautiful space fit for all the various constituents of their community.

I thought all of the housing elements and above ground parking were unattractive and did not fit with the architecture and style of our town. I was also very saddened and disappointed that it appeared that the architectural firm did not include the Veterans Memorial which is currently located there. I do agree with one of the speakers that said that it appears more attention was given to some of the trees then to some of the other parts of this plan.

In regard to the housing element suggestions from the consultant in Los Angeles, I was appalled with the number of severe changes to the zoning, look and layout of our town. I was disheartened and, honestly quite angry, that some of the personal freedoms were being taken away from residents, who currently live in smaller houses, to renovate their homes.

It was evident that nearly all the speakers both in Townhall and over zoom -684-
were in complete agreement in the rejection of the housing element. There were only two that were for it. One, of which, did not even live in our town and was calling from Los Altos. I am not sure where or how she got the information, but I do not think it’s any of her business what is being proposed in the Town of Hillsborough when she does not live here.

I cannot stress enough after seeing the wonderful history of this town through pictures and all the mayors over the last hundred plus years, it would be an utter shame to see all of their efforts and hard work in vain in preserving the beauty and uniqueness of this town. Please do the right thing and come up with a new plan with a much higher ADU number. Current 2022 data supports this much higher number.

We should not be afraid to stand up to the state and their bullying practices of pushing an ill-thought out plan for a housing problem they caused over years of time. Mass construction of cookie cutter affordable housing in every city and town across the state with a one-size fits all approach is ill-advised and, frankly, idiotic.

Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 26 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Please do the right thing here for the town, community and families that love living here.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeff and Liana Brady
Hillsborough CA 94010
-685-
From: Poriya D
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough strongly Oppose
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:19:56 AM
We oppose the Hillsborough Draft housing plan.

There are a lot of available apartments for rent in San Mateo county.

San Mateo county is not short for housing and many residents have moved out of state.

This will be environmentally a disaster! We are already dealing with rolling black outs, shortage of water, and resources, etc. Our great schools will get over crowded. Traffic will be even worse. We simply do not have the resources.

This proposal will destroy Hillsborough as we know it.

For the above reasons, we strongly OPPOSE.

Thanks
Poriya Dokhanchi
HIllsborough
-686-
From: Linda Ng
To: General Plan
Cc:

Subject: Draft housing element - public comments
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:19:16 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Marcus Kong and Linda Ng
-687-
From: Crystal Kwok
To: General Plan
Subject: Comments on zoning changes
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:16:59 AM
Hello,
To make an effective impact on addressing housing needs in the larger community with considerations on the needs of the current residents, please consider:
- promoting the construction and leasing of ADUs;
- constructing senior housing, which is an increasing need as the population ages, on cityowned land and on the DeGuigne Estate; - constructing much needed student housing on city-owned land near College of San Mateo.

Thank you for your hard work.

Best,
Crystal Kwok
-688-
From: Marsh Shambarger
To: General Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:14:12 AM
It make no sense to cram groups of low income residents into areas remote from shopping and public transportation. The plan deprives existing residents living next to the proposed areas of the low density living which ls the reason they live in Hillsborough. -689-
From: Derek Zanutto
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:14:06 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Derek Zanutto
Hillsborough homeowner
-690-
From: Vivian Weitzman
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:10:18 AM
We have already submitted our opposition in a letter.

We strongly oppose changing zoning laws and having no income or low income housing.

Sent from my iPhone
-691-
From: Lilian Cheong
To: General Plan
Subject: Zoning
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:05:44 AM
Please kindly do not change the zoning laws. I would like it to be status quo.

Thanks
Lilian Cheong
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Sent from my iPhone
-692-
From: Sandra Shmunis
To: General Plan
Subject: housing
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:01:48 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Vlad Shmunis
Hillsborough, CA
-693-
From: Anil Gupta
To: General Plan
Cc: Ena Gupta
Subject: My feedback on the housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:56:27 AM
Importance: High
I support the citizen created alternative plan (Hillsborough Smart Housing for Hillsborough) to meet the state required housing goals in Hillsborough with as minimal an impact as feasible on the residential character of and absolutely vote thumbs down on the Town’s Initial Draft Plan. Town’s initial draft plan would create a dramatic change to landscape and result in overcrowding in our schools, create additional traffic in narrow streets, making it unsafe to walk on and increase fire danger. It will destroy top reasons people want to live here.

Please let me know if you need any other information from me to support my vote. I am not going to be able to make the in-person meeting on Monday 26th, but happy to meet in person to explain my rationale.

Regards
Anil Gupta, resident of
Hillsborough, CA
-694-
From: Brian Stuart, CLU
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Housing Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:54:42 AM
While I appreciate the efforts of the Town Council, I view the proposed initial draft plan to be unsatisfactory as not in line with “the essence” of our small community.

I recognize that there are many different opinions on how to respond to the State government, but we need a plan that better fits Hillsborough as a community. I would favor the recommendations of the Hillsborough Citizens Alliance (HCA) over the Council’s current proposal.

It makes no sense to put in large growth of housing stock on the Highway 280 area as that is nowhere near transportation or businesses. Adoption of rules that allow multi-family housing (duplexes, etc) would change the character of our town. Perhaps the Council should explore its property near CSM and the site of Town Hall for such a project… Respectfully,
Brian Stuart
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Brian Stuart, CLU
Senior Vice President
Andreini & Company
220 W. Twentieth Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403‑1339
Office: (650) 573‑1111
Direct:
[email protected]
www.andreini.com
License 0208825
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain material that is legally privileged, proprietary or subject to copyright belonging to Andreini & Company and it may be subject to protection under federal or state law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this material is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the material from your system. Andreini & Company may archive e-mails, which may be accessed by authorized persons and may be produced to other parties, including public authorities, in compliance with applicable laws. Andreini & Company is committed to securing our Customers’ privacy. All information collected will only be used to facilitate insurance transactions. Please review our California Consumer Privacy Policy or our Privacy Policy for all other states. License # 0208825. -695-
From: Sana
To: General Plan
Subject: opposition to the current draft housing
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:54:03 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Sandra Shmunis
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-696-
From: Radha Narayan
To: General Plan
Subject: Fwd: Town Letter
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:49:31 AM
Good morning! We sent the following to Mayor Royse last week. Kindly include this in the feedback package to the town.

Thank you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Radha Narayan
Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 8:29 PM
Subject: Town Letter
To: Subra Narayan
Dear Mayor Royse:

We have been residents at
Avenue for the past 24 years. We are
incredibly upset and displeased by the way in
which plans to rezone Hillsborough have been
handled by the town officials. We respectfully
ask that you put this zoning discussion on hold
immediately!Rezoning will destroy the
wonderful character and community that
Hillsborough offers.Once you rezone,
Hillsborough will change forever and we will
not be able to go back in time!
We were told at the first meeting, held at North
School, that the Town Hall property was the
-697-
'only' town-owned property. We later learned
that that is actually not true, and that the town,
in fact, owns a significant parcel of the Tobin
Clark estate. We find it disappointing that
such misinformation is being propagated to the
tax-paying citizens of this town. We question
the integrity and the process of the consultants
and urge you to examine whether their
interests are aligned with that of our town.

Secondly, we we were told at the same North
School session that action had to be taken
immediately. Since then, we have learned that
is absolutely not the case. Again, the
misinformation is devastating. Is it not the
policy to first notify the neighbors of any plans
for Town Hall, similar to if we wished to tear
down our home and put a new dwelling?
I
f the plans to put up a structure were put forth
properly, we would protest the suitability to
adding a large structure at the Town Hall.

Floribunda Ave is not suitable for a massive
influx of traffic and parking. It would be
-698-
incredibly unsafe to not only residents but
pedestrians. As it is, many people drive too
fast on our street.

We ask you, Mayor Royse, to please stop this
ReZone movement. Get more information,
evaluate all options and, most importantly,
listen to the residents. Hillsborough has been a
desirable community because its residents
deeply care that the town be a safe home for
families for generations to come.
-699-
From: Miles Tomlinson
To: General Plan
Subject: Re: Feedback on Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:47:44 AM
Hi,
I'd like to add a couple of points to my original submission based on additional information that has been made available.

Firstly, I don't know why we would plan to build more units than we need to, when historically Hillsborough does not seem to have received any benefits or thanks for exceeding targets.

Secondly, it sounds like the pace of ADU construction, if maintained, pretty much delivers all the units we need to, in which case I don't know why you'd look beyond that and make all sorts of zoning changes that will have unintended and negative consequences.

In summary, I do not support the original plan. It seems like it was not designed with the objective of minimizing disruption and negative outcomes to the Hillsborough citizens. The alternative plans hardly seem like rocket science - I think it's fair to ask why these other avenues were not explored earlier in the process.

Yours sincerely,
Miles Tomlinson
From: Miles Tomlinson
Sent: 02 September 2022 03:48
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Feedback on Draft Housing Element
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 -700-
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
-701-
From: Robert Salama
To: General Plan
Subject: Against the Town Proposal
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:45:38 AM
Robert Salama
September 19, 2022
To whom it may concern:

I am against proceeding with the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 (“Draft Plan”) for the following reasons:

The Town can meet its HE6 target through a combination of ADUs and partial-credit for our HE5 overage, we do not need to - and should not - change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi family housing, nor erect a multi story building on Town property at El Camino and Floribunda - all of which are strategies proposed in the Draft Plan. Each of those steps would bring about fundamental negative change to the beauty and character of our Town of Hillsborough and I join many other Hillsborough residents in objecting to those proposals.

The Town of Hillsborough lacks the type of infrastructure the Draft Plan requires and calls for. It is very surprising we would think our Town has the rudimentary essentials needed to carry out the Draft Plan.

Having grown up in Hillsborough on St. Francis Road and currently living on Ralston Avenue, I fin it already difficult to safely back out of my driveway in the current morning traffic let alone incorporate a sleuth of new pathways, lanes, and traffic into an already congested and dangerous route. More importantly, the lack of street lights, sidewalks, public transportation lanes, and basic cellular service makes the Draft Plan appear not well thought out or well-considered. Moreover, do we have enough police, fire and public safety personnel to manage a population increase and added density? The Town has more ADUs within it than what is currently reflected. It has been brought to my attention that a considerable number of ADUs have not been accounted for in the latest count (partly because there has not been a formal inquiry or process carried out) and that the Draft Plan does not take into account that the number of ADUs over the past 3 Covid Years is not reflective of those that are to come.

It is my understanding that we will meet the required 554 additional housing units by doing a proper accounting of the current/in construction ADUs in our Town and by putting due weight on the number of future ADUs that will be constructed in the years to come.

The Draft Plan has not been properly thought out and I believe that not many in our Town have been alerted to what is currently being proposed and adopted on our behalf. Full disclosure is needed and an informed consent is required by the residents of this Town for something of this magnitude to be adopted. Even if delaying our submission would result in penalties, it is far better to be penalized for a late submission than it is to make a colossal mistake in this undertaking. I believe it is in your interest to make the entire Town privy to your proposed Draft Plan and truly listen to your constituents as to what it is they want done in this regard. You have been tasked with representing “our” voice and I do not feel “our” voice is represented in the Draft Plan.

Thank you,
Robert Salama
-702-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: Stop the high density housing in Hillsborough Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:43:23 AM
From: hsiao d lieu
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:31 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the high density housing in Hillsborough
I oppose the Hillsborough draft housing plan for the high density housing element in Hillsborough CA.

I live on , Hillsborough, CA. 94010
Best,
Hsiao D. Lieu, MD
-703-
From: Ammar Feroz
To: General Plan
Cc: Safa.ahamed
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:42:53 AM
Hi - we are Hillsborough residents and are concerned about the current 550 units plan in the draft housing plan.

What is the best way for us to be part of alternate options than this? Thanks
Ammar
Sent from my iPhone
-704-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: High Density Housing
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:40:55 AM
From: Martin Keyser
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: High Density Housing
Hello Stanley,
I received your mailer today and it says to mail this back to you no later than September 14th.

Sorry, but I received it later than the 14th so here is my response in email format.

I, Martin Keyser, resident of 1130 Bromfield Rd, Hillsborough CA 94010 do oppose the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.

Thank you,
Martin Keyser
-705-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: STOP high density housing element in Hillsboroug Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:37:39 AM
From: alice chang
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP high density housing element in Hillsboroug Hi Stanley,
Just received your letter today (9/15) & the letter stated we must submit the form no later than September 14?
I hope it's not too late to express that we strongly oppose the Hillsborough draft housing plan.

Following is our contact information:

Alice Chang & TK Chang
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Thank you,
Alice & TK
09/15/22
-706-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: We strongly oppose the Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:33:21 AM
From: Comcast
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:25 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: We strongly oppose the Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan We, Richard and Barbara Kuersteiner, long-standing residents of , Hillsborough, CA 94010 strongly oppose the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough. The enabling legislation enacted by the State of CA is clearly unconstitutional and should be opposed in court as an unlawful deprivation of the property rights of the residents of Hillsborough.

Signed:

Richard Kuersteiner and Barbara Kuersteiner on September 15, 2022 Sent from my iPad
-707-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: high density housing
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:31:41 AM
From: Richard Finn
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 3:13 AM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: high density housing
i wish to oppose the plan for high density housing . richartd finn , , hillsborough 94010-6838
-708-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: OPPOSE the Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:29:51 AM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-09-15 at 6.43.05 PM.png
From: wendy Pan
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSE the Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan
Hi Stanley,
I just got your letter in the mail regarding the high density housing. Many thanks for speaking up for us Hillsborough residents.

I, Jiequn Pan, resident of , Hillsborough, CA 94010 strongly oppose the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.

I have also attached a written version below. Please let me know if there's anything else I can provide. Thank you!
Regards,
Jiequn Pan
-709-
-710-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: Stop the high density housing element in Hillsborough Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:26:22 AM
From: Cindy Xide Lin
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>; 猪哼哼
Subject: Stop the high density housing element in Hillsborough Hi, Stanley:

This is Cindy Lin and Yingyi Liang. We live at , Hillsborough. --
Sincerely,
Cindy Xide Lin
-711-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: I Oppose The Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:23:49 AM
From: Joe Cohn
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 12:42 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: High Density Housing
I Oppose The Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan
I Joe Cohn resident of Hillsborough Ca 94010 strongly oppose the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.

Joe Cohn
(cell)
-712-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: I OPPOSE HILLSBOROUGH DRAFT HOUSING PLAN - STOP The High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:21:22 AM
Attachments: STOP the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.pdf From: LZKao at ZEKA <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 6:17 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: I OPPOSE HILLSBOROUGH DRAFT HOUSING PLAN - STOP The High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough
Hi, Stanley,
In response to your STOP The High-Density Housing Element in Hillsborough! Please find attached my signed Opposition to “Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan”. Thanks for your leadership in gathering Hillsborough residences to voice out Oppositions.

Please keep us posted of the update status progress.

Best regards,
Louisa
Louisa Zee Kao
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Cell:

E: [email protected]
-713-
-714-
From: james felker
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:21:01 AM

1. It appears unlikely that Hillsborough can resist the asinine legislation from Sacramento.

2. Any low income housing units should be built on or near busy roads such as El Camino or Crystal Springs Road so as to minimize the impact on existing more residential neighborhoods.

3. How has Atherton managed to mitigate the effects of this disaster?? -715-
From: Eric Mendell
To: General Plan
Cc: Christine Krolik; Larry May
Subject: Objection to the Hillsborough High Density Housing Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:20:33 AM
Importance: High
Dear Hillsborough City Council,
No good deed goes unpunished and we are thankful for the endless hours and passion you have given to our town and its residents.

That said, I am devastated to hear that our town is considering the High-Density Housing Plan put forth by your consultants. I know that you have received many letters and emails against this plan and you don't need/want to read more, I don't need to hear myself talk either. My opinion... *We can ,and have, addressed this issue with ADU's up to this point. Allow more and relax code if needed..... they will be built.
*Large structures do not fit the model of our town.
*Property Values will go Down.
*Hillsborough will be gone as we know it.
*If we absolutely need more density, "Strawberry Hill" (or other large, discrete parcels) could become "High End" retirement communities. (Though, I don't think this will even be necessary as I am educated on how the situation can be remedied by our continued execution of ADU's) *Please protect this town that so many of us, and our families, have helped build for many, many years!!!!!!
Eric Mendell
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Eric Mendell
Kerns Fine Jewelry
214 Lorton Ave.

Burlingame, CA 94010
O 650-348-7557
-716-
C
[email protected]
#mykernsmoment
-717-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: I oppose the hillsborough draft housing plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:18:43 AM
From: zhihao CEN
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 7:36 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose the hillsborough draft housing plan
I, Zhihao Cen and Rui Zhang,
resident of , hillsborough CA, 94010
strongly oppose the high density housing element in Hillsborough Zhihao Cen
and Rui Zhang
Thanks.
-718-
From: Shailly Guleri
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:16:37 AM
The current environment of the Town of Hillsborough should be preserved. Instead of rezoning areas to put in housing units, people should be encouraged to put in ADUs.

I am willing to convert my current Pool house into an ADU and rent it out. I support an ADU-only plan for Hillsborough.

Shailly Guleri
-719-
From: Atul Bramhe
To: General Plan; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz Subject: General Draft Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:14:58 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members, Let me first begin by thanking you all for the last town meeting on September 12. As you noticed by the large turn out, this issue is the most important issue that has come up since I’ve lived in this town for over 18yrs.

We strongly oppose the draft housing plan, and even more so after the last town hall meeting. We have spoken to numerous residents, and they too are even more opposed to the draft plan after the town meeting.

Please do not vote for or pass the current plan that was led by an outside consultant with no personal ties to this special and unique town. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.

Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.

Warmly,
Atul Bramhe
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
Sent from my iPhone
-720-
From: Gerald Preiner
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:14:46 AM

WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUTR THE TOWNS PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN, AND RECOMMEND THE TOWN PROCEED SLOWLY, AND WITH INPUT FROM THE CITIZENS.

DR. AND MRS. GERALD PREINER
9/19/2022
-721-
From: LINDA ANDREWS
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:14:02 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Brian and Linda Andrews
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-722-
From: Ben Rubin
To: General Plan
Subject: Additional Housing Solutions for Hillsborough with ADU"s Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:13:23 AM
To whom it may concern:

As a Hillsborough resident, I strongly believe that by building more ADU's in Town we have the ability to add housing to our town that is in line with the states demands. Depending on the amount of ADU's and the size of ADU's with a residents lot size, I believe we can easily accomplish this. In other words, those larger lots could potentially add more than one.

In addition, if the Town offers any time of subsidizing and/or construction financing at better than market rates, this could be done in a much quicker time frame.

We encourage the town to continue to work towards adding housing through the ADU program and with additional solutions like I presented above we should easily be able to meet the state's mandate without building any other type of housing.

Very Truly Yours,
Ben Rubin
--
Ben Rubin
-723-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: Opposing the draft plan for Hillsborough Housing Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:12:07 AM
From: Jane Williams
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 10:51 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Plan
Please add my name as opposing the draft plan for Hillsborough Housing! Jane Williams
Elmwood Road
Sent from my iPad
-724-
From: Cristin Mendell
To: General Plan
Subject: Objection to draft housing plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:10:35 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to the current draft housing element. We will be heartbroken if this passes. We are in agreement with our fellow citizens that are proposing more ADU’s as a solution. We absolutely do not want new zoning or apartment buildings. We do not have the resources, our property values will go down and it will forever change and damage our community and schools.

Please save our historic town that so many of our families have helped to build.

Best regards,
Cristin Mendell
-725-
From: John Miller
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:08:39 AM
We are vehemently opposed to the High Density Housing Element in our town of Hillsborough. Noise, traffic, parking, and safety in a town with few sidewalks would endanger everyone. Public utilities are already strained due to drought and poor infrastructure of power lines. We are already experiencing repeated power outages. Money needs to be spent on undergrounding power lines to protect all of us who have lived here for decades.

We have had the awful experience of living next door to our neighbor's multi-year construction of an ADU with masses of workers and their trucks, portable potty in public view, litter and noise. Many lot sizes are far less than one-half acre. Houses like ours and our neighbors are a little more than one-third acre. We live too close together to have increased people and their incumbent disturbance of the peace.

Los Altos, Atherton and other residential communities like ours have housing unit targets one half or less than Hillsborough's target. In a warming climate, we need more greenery and open space...not less!
Why were the developer's wishes, who want to plunder our town, put ahead of those of us residents?
Stop the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough!
Respectfully,
John and Betsy Miller
-726-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: We oppose the high density housing element Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:06:39 AM
From:

Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 2:29 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: housing element
We oppose the high density housing element.

Thanks,
Eugene & Caroline Lee
, Hillsborough
-727-
From: Ian Kennish
To: General Plan
Cc: Jane Butler Kennish
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:05:47 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
We would like to express our deep concern and strong opposition to "the current draft housing element".

We would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Ian Kennish & Jane Butler
Hillsborough CA 94010
-728-
From: Kate Sheeline
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:55:46 AM
Hello,
I have read the Town's draft plan for adding the additional housing and the plans set forth by the HCA and individual Hillsborough residents. I would much prefer that we try to reach the goal of adding the 554 units of housing by building ADUs on private property. The current draft plan to build multi unit housing on town owned parcels of land feels out of character for this town. I feel like it would lead to having a separate community within the community.

Sincerely,
Kate Sheeline
Hillsborough, CA
-729-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Subject: Fw: Opposition to Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:52:41 AM
From: Felicia Ferrari
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:19 AM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan
Dear Stanley,
Thank you for spearheading the mailing to get signatures opposing the Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan.

We Strongly Opposing the Draft and any of its potential modifications ! My family has owned the home at
since the 1950s . It has always been a peaceful serene place to call home.

We stand strong in our opposition to the Housing Plan especially high density at Town hall.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any help or questions.

Sincerely,
Felicia
Felicia Ferrari, Christine Ferrari & Pauline M Bauer & family.

Sent from iPhone
-730-
From: Daniel Fells
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:49:07 AM
To whom it may concern:

It is my recommendation that the town review and adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton, including certifying existing ADUs as a means to satisfy the RHNA obligation.

Thank you
Daniel Fells
-731-
From: John Lockton
To: Al Royse; Larry May; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; [email protected]; General Plan Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:41:28 AM
Council Members,
I already supplied my views--- mixture of tallest possible, highest density, maximum coverage on Town Hall property plus the same on a Tobin Clark property to give the State some “hard” commitment with fill in by ADUs with much greater incentive to residents to construct ADUs. However, there is something else to look at . We should consider joining with other towns in California which have no industrial or business property they can rezone for residential (like Burlingame has) and sue the State claiming discrimination.

As an ex trial lawyer, maybe I am more comfortable than most about the suit alternative. However, my reading of the law, admittedly very cursory, indicates a discrimination and undue burden claim may be possible. At the very leas, a suit get’s us time to examine all alternatives and perhaps come up with more creative solutions.

Thank you.
-732-
From: Gregory Leonard
To: General Plan
Subject: Our feedback on the Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:41:22 AM
To Whom It May Concern:

We would like to voice our strong opposition to the draft Housing Element on several grounds:

1. It is the obligation of the Town government to represent and promote the interests of existing Hillsborough residents. Therefore, the sole goal of the Town government with respect to the Housing Element should be to minimize the effects on current Hillsborough residents of having to meet the regulatory burdens being imposed by the State of California.

The current draft Housing Element fails to do this. Superior alternatives to the current draft are available and the Town should pursuing those alternatives. Atherton, in particular, has a much better plan and Hillsborough should be emulating Atherton.

2. Nowhere in the draft Housing Element are the effects on current Hillsborough residents analyzed in any meaningful detail. Yet, the impacts of the proposed zoning changes and development on the nature of the Town, quality of life, traffic congestion, and schools will be profound. As just one example, how can the existing school system infrastructure support an influx of potentially hundreds of more students? Proposing a plan that cannot possibly be accommodated by existing infrastructure makes no sense. Alternative plans that would have smaller adverse effects would obviously be preferable.

3. Nowhere in the draft Housing Element are the effects on Hillsborough property values analyzed. The values of many properties are likely to decline due to the impacts discussed above. An alternative plan that would cause smaller decreases in property values than the current draft Housing Element would obviously be preferable.

4. Specific components of the draft Housing Element make no sense. For example, why is the "buffer" so large and why are ADUs not a bigger part of the plan? Again, the Town's goal should be to minimize the adverse impacts of this plan on the existing Hillsborough community; reducing the buffer and increasing the role of ADUs would reduce these impacts.

Sincerely,
Gregory K. Leonard & Fei Deng
Hillsborough, CA
-733-
From: Vishal Bhagwati
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:39:25 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members,
Let me first begin by thanking you all for the last town meeting on September 12. As you noticed by the large turn out, this issue is the most important issue that has come up since I’ve lived in Hillsborough.

As stated in my last letter, we strongly oppose the draft housing plan, and even more so after the last town hall meeting. We have spoken to numerous residents, and they too are even more opposed to the draft plan after the town meeting.

I respectfully ask that the council 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. Please do not vote for or pass the current plan that was led by an outside consultant with no personal ties to this special and unique town. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.

Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.

Warmly,
Vishal & Rina Bhagwati
Hillsborough CA 94010
-734-
From: Andy McCall
To: General Plan
Subject: Current Housing Element draft
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:33:53 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my deep concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I strongly recommend the town review and adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies, including certifying existing ADUs as a means to accommodate the RHNA obligation.

Best regards,
Andy McCall
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-735-
From: Akash Kapoor
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:16:39 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members,
Let me first begin by thanking you all for the last town meeting on September 12. As you noticed by the large turn out, this issue is the most important issue that has come up since I’ve lived in Hillsborough.

I strongly oppose the draft housing plan, and even more so after the last town hall meeting. I have spoken to numerous residents, and they too are even more opposed to the draft plan after the town meeting.

Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.

Warmly,
Akash Kapoor
-736-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: Draft Housing Element feedback
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:15:47 AM
From: Amit Zavery
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 10:51 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Draft Housing Element feedback
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members, Let me first begin by thanking you all for the last town meeting on September 12. As you noticed by the large turn out, this issue is the most important issue that has come up since I’ve lived in Hillsborough.

Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.

Warmly,
Amit Zavery
Hillsborough
-737-
From: Joelle Conn
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:11:29 AM
The planning shows little long term thought and no voting, what are you thinking?? Sent from my iPhone
-738-
From: Karthik Meesala
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:06:03 AM
Please keep the lot size minimums and only adopt the ADU only plan similar to Atherton. I am very concerned about the expansion of multi unit housing and the traffic and safety implications it may create for these small, windy Hillsborough roads.

Thanks
Karthik Meesala
-739-
From: Deepak Sarpangal
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:02:46 AM
Dear Hillsborough housing plan team:

I would like to express my disapproval with the current proposal and strongly suggest you postpone implementation to allow for further community discussion, iteration, and alternatives development.

I would be happy to arrange some times to connect over the coming days or weeks.

Thanks,
Deepak
(Hillsborough resident, former trustee of Burlingame School District) -740-
From: Patricia Scheppler
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:01:57 AM
I am aware of the State's mandate to provide more housing. I am against the current housing plan. Rezoning, changing lot sizes, going along with the mandate from the state all need to be stopped. A mandate is only a suggestion. Think long and hard about making our city look like Sacramento. We are unique and beautiful. I say we stay that way! Patricia and Ernest Scheppler
Hillsborough
-741-
From: Kirk Syme
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: RE: Draft Housing Element Objections
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:55:42 AM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
Members of Hillsborough Town Council:

Please see attached letter from Hillsborough resident Mr Theodore Ullyot. I believe he presents a very thoughtful position on the Draft Housing Element plan. I agree and I stand with Mr. Ullyot.

Kirk C Syme
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-742-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-743-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -744-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-745-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

This plan is not good for the town, in my opinion. Specifically, I oppose: * Reduction in lot sizes, and 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. * 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 home owners' property rights and penalize those home owners with no compensation. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future. * 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. Many people in our town agree on these three 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, Gopal Kandalu, , Hillsborough, CA 94010
-----------------------------------------------
Gopal Kandalu
-----------------------------------------------
-748-
From: Elliot Schaffer
To: General Plan
Subject: Please see attached letter voicing our concern.

Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:45:36 AM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
I am in full agreement with this letter and how we should address the housing concern in our great town. Please let me know if you need anything further.

Thank you
Elliot Schaffer
1590 Rollins Rd. | Burlingame, CA 94010
D: | TF: 800-886-7135
-749-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-750-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -751-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-752-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Clare and Vincent
-755-
From: Hedy Kaveh
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:38:40 AM
I have lived in Hillsborough since 1995 and chose this town for what it was. My current property tax is $7,000 / month and will go up to over $10,000 / month as soon as my ADU is finished. I believe that the current plan for adding housing is reckless and the Town should wait to learn from other municipalities while collecting the residence inputs.

Best wishes,
Hedy Kaveh
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Home Office
Mobile
-756-
From: Jen Tom
To: General Plan
Subject: housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:30:03 AM
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to express my support for the housing plan as proposed. As someone who recently purchased a home in HIllsborough and was waiting for a house in our price range to come onto the market for over two years, I would like to see more opportunities for housing in the area. In particular I support allowing a lot split down to 1/3 acre. Thank you! Jen
-757-
From:

To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:19:15 AM
I don’t approve of the new plan. It will ruin the feel of Hillsborough. It would impact our schools, theft and crime.

Christina Pietro.

Sent from my iPhone
-758-
From: Randall M Baum
To: General Plan
Subject: Objection to Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:01:02 AM
To Whom It May Concern:

I have reviewed the Plan and have read the thoughtful response to the Council from Ted Ullyot.

Like Mr. Ullyot, I agree that rezoning The Town as outlined in the Plan will negatively change the character of Hillsborough and will negatively affect the quality of life here. While his proposal may not be optimal, I would encourage the Council to consider it, as well as other options, rather than opt for high-density housing to be built in the Town.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Randall M Baum
Randall M Baum
Hillsborough, CA. 94010
-759-
From: Haueter, Eric S.

To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:56:55 AM
To whom it may concern:

We urge you NOT To adopt the towns current plan for adding additional housing units and instead pursue the alternative plans that have been presented by concerned redidents. The Town’s plan is not in the best interest of the town or its residents And presents serious fire, safety and financial concerns.

Eric and Cynthia Haueter
Hillsborough
Sent with BlackBerry Work
(www.blackberry.com)
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.

If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
**************************************************************************************************** -760-
From: Peggy Andrews
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:51:14 AM
I am opposed to the current housing plan presented by city council.

Peggy Andrews
Sent from my iPhone
-761-
From: Karen Folgner
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Al Royse
Subject: Housing draft proposal
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:35:20 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee,
Thank you to your organization for providing information to the Residents of Hillsborough on the "Housing Element Draft Proposal.'' Additionally, thank you for your continued openness to accept, and process feedback from residents on that proposal.

We would like to respectfully add our names to the list of many residents to express our firm opposition to the "Current Draft Housing Element."
In addition to the need for further due process in planning, we would like to see the Town take full account of the current, and planned Accessory Dwelling Units to meet the requests proposed by the State.

Respectfully,
Karen and Mike
Sent from my iPhone
-762-
From: David Brent
To: General Plan
Subject: David M Brent – Letter opposing the Draft Housing Element Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:28:09 AM
Attachments: 22_09_12 DBrent HE Plan Objection.docx
Please see below & Attached Letter.
+++++++
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

I am writing today to respectfully express my objection to the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 (“Draft Plan”).

I became a Hillsborough resident in 2007 and was drawn to the area for reasons that are at exact odds to this draft. I specifically choose Hillsborough due to the focus on single family homes, no retail/commercial, great schools, and the quaint small-town layout in which to live and raise a family. This Draft Plan runs counter to the unique character and heritage. If adopted, the Draft Plan would fundamentally change the character of our Town for the worse and put our property values at risk
Based on support from the Town Planning Department, I constructed an ADU on my property in 2019. The unit is attractive, functional, and in keeping with the characteristics of the street and neighborhood. I believe continuing the approach of encouraging ADUs is a far superior approach to meet the HCD targets for additional housing units – instead of the multi-family housing & multi-story building.

As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, and addresses the widespread concerns and objections voiced from the community, I support the following key points for your consideration. ·Challenge this 12% increase as far too high, given recent population changes in California and San Mateo County.
·Petition for relief credit for exceeding our target in the last cycle. ·Target the HCD-mandated housing units at a number not higher than 554 given our track record of exceeding our HE targets.
·Do not – under any circumstances, change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi-family housing, nor erect multi-story buildings on Town property. Once that type of development begins, there will be no end to this continuing in the future.
·Focus on exclusive use of ADUs to achieve this number. Based upon our recent annual trend, 8 years of ADU growth would achieve almost the entire number.

Thank you for your time and efforts, and I hope you will incorporate my feedback to develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. -763-
Respectfully submitted,
David Brent
-764-
David M Brent – Letter opposing the Draft Housing Element Plan September 19, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

I am writing today to respectfully express my objection to the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 (“Draft Plan”).

As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, and addresses the widespread concerns and objections voiced from the community, I support the following key points for your consideration. • Challenge this 12% increase as far too high, given recent population changes in California and San Mateo County.
• Petition for relief credit for exceeding our target in the last cycle. • Target the HCD-mandated housing units at a number not higher than 554 given our track record of exceeding our HE targets.
• Do not – under any circumstances, change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi-family housing, nor erect multi-story buildings on Town property. Once that type of development begins, there will be no end to this continuing in the future.
• Focus on exclusive use of ADUs to achieve this number. Based upon our recent annual trend, 8 years of ADU growth would achieve almost the entire number.

Thank you for your time and efforts, and I hope you will incorporate my feedback to develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character.

Respectfully submitted,
David Brent
-765-
From: John Noell
To: General Plan
Subject: Support-Current Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:24:53 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my support of the "the current draft housing element". It looks like a common sense way to address the State of California housing requirements that the town has.

Best regards,
John Noell
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-766-
From: Mary Griffith
To: General Plan
Cc: Richard Griffith
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 6:00:51 AM
Hello Town counsel. Thank you for your work on the Housing Element plan.

My husband and I strongly oppose the plan as outlined. We do not want the zoning in Hillsborough changed in anyway. Nor do we support more density for our town. Our town doesn’t have the infrastructure to support high density housing. We support the use of ADUs as warranted by individual homeowners.

Kindly rework the plan to reflect the nature of our town.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone please excuse any typos
Mary Griffith
-767-
From: Howard Love
To: General Plan
Cc: Harriet Love; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole Subject: Objections to Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 4:14:59 AM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan (1).pdf Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May,
I am concerned about the draft Housing Element Plan and concur with Ted Ullyot's points in his memo (see attached). I don't see any reason to target a number higher than the 554 units required and it also seems that the ADU's can get us a long way towards that goal. I understand that Atherton is relying on ADU’s to reach their goal. I would not want to do anything that changes the nature and special character of our town.

Thank you for considering,
-Howard Love
, Hillsborough
--
Howard M. Love
Founder
LoveToKnow Media
-768-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-769-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -770-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-771-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

Allowing consultants who do not live here, and have no vested interest in preserving the nature of the community to dictate the future nature of the community is irresponsible and perhaps even reckless.

A common sense approach to this important housing/ zoning predicament hewn upon the town by the state, must include the impact on residents. I urge you to consider the proposal set forth by Smart Housing for Hillsborough.

It’s apparent the Town Council’s approach to date is leaning toward accepting the Houseal Lavigne proposal and trying to ‘sell’ it to residents, rather than incorporating valid and reasonable ideas and concerns of the residents.

This could be a big mistake with the many attorneys in town, we could easily see our town budget eroded. Preserve the budget, please don’t railroad residents, please take the time to incorporate the many good and reasonable ideas into a better housing plan. Do not decrease minimum lot and front sizes. Do no place a ban on smaller homeowners remodeling their homes. If the state does not require a “buffer”, do Not offer one at this point. The percentage of home to landscape is what makes Hillsborough more parklike compared to other communities. Do not take it away!
A fast approaching state deadline does not mean the town residents should have to live with poorly developed plans which exclude the interests of the citizens of this community. Please consider other consultants or the ideas from the Smart Housing for Hillsborough residents.

Sincerely,
Tedra Wrede
Lavign
-774-
From: Richard Rose
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Housing Element Update
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:21:45 AM
Hello,
I am a 10 year resident/homeowner in Hillsborough.

I have some comments/concerns about the housing element update plan. 1) I am against any restrictions on redevelopment or tear downs of existing "smaller" homes in Hillsborough. This will have a negative effect on property values. 2) I am against rezoning lots in the middle of town. This creates a hodgepodge of zoning laws and hodgepodge of housing types.
3) We should promote ADUs more. Make the process easier, have pre approved prefab ADUs.

Allow more than 1 ADU, perhaps with size restrictions. It could be 1 structure with 2 ADUs, 500 sqft max each, 1000sqft total.
4) Increase the town hall sites density to meet the unit requirements. Go higher, smaller studio units or even SROs with shared common space if allowed. Smaller units increase density of housing units while reducing the number of residents, and the corresponding impact on our utilities, schools and public services. Police station is onsite so safety should not be a concern.

Town could own this apartment structure/complex to maintain control. 5) The buffer of units seems unnecessary. Propose something less extreme to the state. Worse they can do is reject it.

Thank you for listening.

Richard Rose
-775-
From: Wally Hong
To: General Plan
Cc: Joanne Hong
Subject: My feedback on the Hillsborough 2023-2031 Housing Element Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:15:38 AM
Dear Sir/Madam:

As residents of Hillsborough, we are providing our comments below on the proposed 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element for the Town of Hillsborough.

We clearly and vehemently do not agree with the proposed draft plan as submitted by the Hillsborough staff and consultant. Whereas, we fully support the "Smart Housing for Hillsborough" plan drafted and supported by the Hillsborough Citizen's Alliance. As a licensed architect and my wife as a former urban planner, we both recognize the benefits of strategic planning policies and good design for our community. Towards that end, we moved into Hillsborough more than 35 years ago for the great schools, quality of life, and the sense of community. We believe that the "Smart Housing for Hillsborough" plan will allow this community to maintain that higher quality, while complying with the state's mandate for increased housing. Case in point, we believe that Atherton's proposal for the heavily-weighted ADU plan to meet the HCD requirements would be moving in the right direction to protect the integrity of the town.

In strong contrast, we believe that the draft plan proposed by the Hillsborough staff and consultant will endanger the overall community and diminish the quality of life for the following reasons:
- Fragmentation of the poorly planned upzoning throughout the town. - Increased density and mixed use zoning may lower the property values. - Increased zoning and population will negatively impact the quality of services, such as the schools, police, fire, etc., which are critical factors for maintaining and protecting Hillsborough's unique style of life and charm - Additional infrastructure from the upzoning and increased density will be a significant expenditure and is not addressed; who will be bearing this additional cost - the current residents?
- If passed, then the current residents will consider relocation to other communities that will have a higher quality of life.

We appreciate your consideration and trust that the Hillsborough Council and staff will make the right strategic decision for the future of this town and its residents and move forward with the "Smart Housing for Hillsborough" plan.

Wally and Joanne Hong
-776-
From: Krish Kumar
To: General Plan
Cc: Reema Kumar
Subject: Opposition to the current draft of Housing Element Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:02:23 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Krishneil and Reema Kumar
, Hillsborough, 94010
-777-
From: Alina Cherny
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:02:14 AM
Hello City Council and Town Staff,
We oppose the plan of High Density Housing in Hillsborough since it will forever alter the Town's residential experience.

The proposed development sites along Crystal Springs road will cause a severe environmental impact, since there is an existing creek running along the side of the road and the topography of the site is not suitable for the development because of the steep slope.

Thank you,
Alina Cherny
-778-
From:

To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:56:23 PM
We are categorically opposed to the plan of adding 550+ housing units to Hillsborough.

San Mateo has plenty of housing already.

We don't need this!
This will also lower our housing values.

Please stop this!!!
Igor and Alina Cherny.

Residents of Hillsborough.
-779-
From: Sylvia Chow
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: IMPORTANT re: housing element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:37:14 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, water usage, 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
submit the current plan that was designed by an
outside consultant with no personal ties to this
special place that is home to all of 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
-780-
towards helping the town to reach an alternative
plan that protects us better.

Best regards,
Sylvia Chow
Hillsborough, CA
-781-
From: Bebe Trinkner
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:15:25 PM
For the The Hillsborough Town Council, the City Manager and the Housing Element Committee.

I am against the Housing Element as written. I feel we had very poor notice for the first meeting of the Town Council I attended with my husband. Just days before that we also attended the confusing meeting at North School for reams of handouts and very little direction.

We have lived in Hillsborough for 43 years and have been active in the community. during this time including serving for 14 years on a town Committee~~The Citizens Communication Advisory Committee. I have friends on the Town Council now and in the past. I would be happy to serve on a committee to help if needed.

BeBe Trinkner , Hillsborough,
-782-
From: Tina Fong
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:15:21 PM
After reviewing the proposed housing element and attending the meeting on September 6, I have concluded that the best solution would be to strongly promote the addition of ADUs or JADUs. This would least impact the character of our town. We should explore creative ways to encourage homeowners, especially seniors, to embrace such ideas ie, further streamline the ADU process, provide financial as well as technical assistance. Rather than spending money to develop city hall, we should use that money to help homeowners build ADUs! For the record, my husband and I are opposed to developing city hall, and the I-280/Black Mountain Road corridor.

Best,
Tina and Charles
-783-
From: Alex Ramsay
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Re: Housing Element Draft Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:12:59 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:

Thank you for your public service as we collectively work through this challenging issue.

I attended the City Council meeting via zoom on Monday, September 12 and was encouraged by the participation in-person and on Zoom from many concerned residents. I would observe that the feedback was nearly unanimous in opposition to the Draft Plan released on August 4.

I submitted my email below prior to the meeting on September 12. My intent here after attending the September 12 meeting and continuing to deliberate on the matter is to reaffirm my strong opposition to the August 4 Draft Plan. I am strongly opposed to blanket rezoning. I remain highly supportive of a Housing Element Plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. Additionally, we should seek to obtain carry-over credit for the significant excess production we generated in the last RHNA5 cycle.

I look forward to the City Council meeting on Monday, Sept 26 as well as interim discussions.

Thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough.

Kind regards,
Alex Ramsay
Hillsborough Resident
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 8:44 AM Alex Ramsay wrote:

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 -784-
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.

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
-785-
From: Jon Goldberg
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:09:12 PM
Hello,
On your "Housing Element Update Frequently Asked Questions" document, question #29 seems to have been only partially answered. In speaking with other Hillsborough School District parents, we have two questions:
1) will the town or school district provide some sort of study/impact analysis prior to the finalizing of the Draft Housing Element? (i.e. student to teacher ratios, is the current school facility infrastructure adequate across the schools to accommodate the resulting increase in the town's population, etc.)
2) will the town give the community an opportunity to provide comments on the next version of the Draft Housing Element before it is finalized? Or if not, are any other towns in the Bay Area offering their residents this opportunity?
As a Hillsborough resident with several children currently enrolled in the Hillsborough School District, I think it is incumbent on the town to address these questions.

Question #29 from the FAQs document is below:

Q29) Has there been a study to determine whether there is adequate room and funding for additional school facilities?
The Hillsborough City School District(HCSD) is responsible for analyzing enrollment and projecting facility/amenity needs. School fees are set by the School District and assessed on all new development projects. A representative from the HCSD Bard participated as a member of the HEAC, and the project team interviewed representatives from both the HCSD and private schools as a part of the development of the Draft Housing Element.

Thanks,
The Goldberg Family
-786-
From: Monic Stuart
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 10:35:09 PM
To Whom It May Concern
I’m writing to state my opposition to the Town’s proposal to meet the mandate for lower income housing.

Subdivision of parcels and reduced setbacks will only serve to create denser housing but is unlikely to be affordable to those in need. Furthermore, because Hillsborough has no businesses, allowing such buildings to occur throughout Hillsborough will not serve the intended purpose. Rather any low income housing should be located within a reasonable distance to provide easy access to shopping and public transportation.

Changing the zoning within Hillsborough will likely have unintended effects. Not only will it not accomplish the purported goal, it is likely cause an exodus of citizens, potentially causing loss in revenue for the Town and the award winning schools.

Best regards,
Monic Stuart
Sent from my iPhone
-787-
HCA #24: Only hours remain - 5
things you can do to impact the future
of housing in our town.

The Town’s proposed Housing plan will impose the most reckless and unnecessary changes to our zoning laws in the past 50 years and will forever alter the Hillsborough residential experience. The impacts will be profound and far ranging, including neighborhoods, schools, roads, and more. This is not a drill and time is running out to voice your opinion.

Here are 5 action you should take now to make an impact:

From:

To: General Plan
Cc:

Subject: FW: HCA #24: Only hours remain - 5 things you can do to impact the future of housing in our town Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 10:28:24 PM
My Robert Chow and my wife’s name is Sylvia Chow. We reside in , Hillsborough, Ca. and we have been living here since 1998.

We are writing to you to let you know that we are against the proposed housing plan.

We do not support this plan.

Thank you
Robert Chow
From: Hillsborough Citizens Alliance <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:12 PM
To: robert chow
Subject: HCA #24: Only hours remain - 5 things you can do to impact the future of housing in our town
-788-
#1: Send an email by tomorrow (Monday the 19th) voicing your opinion to City Council and Town staff around their initial draft plan to add 550+ units of new housing.
#2: Review the “Smart Housing for Hillsborough” citizen created, alternative plan to meet the state required housing goals in Hillsborough with as minimal an impact as feasible on the residential character of Hillsborough.
#3: Attend the City Council meeting in which the Housing Element final draft will be discussed and finalized before being sent to the State of California. This meeting will be on Monday, September 26th @ 6PM, both in-person and on Zoom.

Click here to send an email
Click here to view the plan
Interested in attending? Click here for an email
reminder!
-789-
#4: Complete the Town-sponsored accessory dwelling unit (ADU) survey, as the town looks to gather more details from homeowners about the construction of additional ADUs.
#5: Complete the citizen driven housing survey, a survey which focuses on collecting Hillsborough resident opinions and comments on the proposed changes to the residential element of town as well as other housing related topics.

For more info on the Housing Element update, including recordings of past meetings, presentations and more, click the button below.

Click here to take the survey
Click here to take the survey
Housing Element website
-790-
About HCA
Hillsborough Citizens Alliance is a good-government organization committed to fostering accountability, accessibility, transparency, candor, and respect for due process in our local government. It is a non-partisan organization, comprised of Hillsborough residents who are devoted to holding the local government accountable to safeguard the enfranchisement of all Hillsborough citizens.

We ask our fellow citizens to consider joining us in support of better cell coverage that complies with OUR design standards and OUR values.

Let us speak in one voice, loudly and clearly so there is no doubt about our resolve.

Hillsborough Citizens Alliance is registered 501(c)4.

You are receiving this email after signing a related petition or submitting your info via our website.

Our mailing address is:

Hillsborough Citizens Alliance
870 Longview Rd
Hillsborough, CA 94010-6974
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Forwarded This Email? Click Here to Subscribe!
-791-
-792-
From: Elizabeth Jeffords
To: General Plan; Elizabeth Jeffords
Cc: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; Al Royse; Steven Jeffords Subject: Objections to the Town Hall Campus Plans as Part of the Housing Element for Hillsborough"s 2023 RHNA Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 10:25:50 PM
Dear Housing Element Committee, Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik, Town Council; We believe bringing more affordable housing to Hillsborough is a good idea; and, to do so, the town and the community need to come together to create an equitable and balanced plan. And yet I need to object strongly to all three Town Hall Campus plans presented at the Town Council Study Session on September 12th, and anything resembling them, for the Town Hall Campus.

I wrote once before to express my concerns with the Housing Element, but I find I must write again to directly express my concerns with the proposals for the Town Hall Campus (THC). The Town keeps repeating, “These are first pass proposals, don’t worry, you’ll have input to adapt them!” But as the Town Planners have both indirectly limited town participation by failing to provide full and candid information, and directly refused to answer direct questions about the proposals, I find I must object to the information I do have, even if not complete.

HERE IS WHY I OBJECT:

A.PROCESS: There are grave problems with the process under which the draft housing element was written, and specifically how the Town Hall Campus (THC) has been included:

1.Our property is directly touched by the THC plans, and yet I was not directly informed of any of them. Our story isn’t unique- no one in town knew of this.

2.Only 3 (or 4, depending on draft) of 13 sites and 4 town-owned properties are currently addressed. 3 of the 4 are unlikely to be developed as they are privately owned

3. The town has not made the following available to the town, despite frequent requests, likely because they disagree with town plans: The Overall Town Site Analysis, All HEAC minutes, WRNS’s full analysis and reports of the THC site (due September 1).

4. Preliminary “jelly” plans for the Town Hall Campus were provided only 8 days before community input closes- and NO ZONING YET WRITTEN

5.Nearby residents have been given so many contradicting answers over the last few weeks that it feels like misinformation. The planner swore the site would be <100 units, another told me it would never be >45 feet. Yet the plans are 85-130 units, 6+ floors.

6. The Town Manager, Town Planner and Consultant don’t answer questions clearly or correctly at Open Houses or Town Councils (for example WRNS answer saying there was no deficit in the number of parking spots, that the buildings across the street were equally tall (despite being three stories shorter), or Town Hall Manager being evasive about whether town sites had to be developed.

7.The consultant report provided in the minutes packet states blatantly false facts:
a.They state the 2019 report lists $30M to fix the site, $45M to move - it was actually the reverse: moving to a new site would be cheaper and faster at $25M) b.THC is a link to multiple buses- Hillsborough has only one- the ECR c.

Proposal only includes heights of buildings over 55’ (some incorrectly), not including shorter buildings (and misrepresenting many on the graphical element) d.

The proposal mentions the San Mateo County’s "priority development area" but doesn't note that Hillsborough is not included

8. WRNS Studio was supposed to be finished with their full analysis (plans, costs, analysis of circumvention of environment, traffic, noise, and other impact analyses) by Sept

1. Where is that information?

9.Inappropriate behavior: One of my elderly neighbors with a disabled family member will need to exit her driveway through the site. She received a call from a town hall planner saying, “Don’t worry, nothing will happen here- it’s just a plan we have to submit. It won’t -793-
happen, and if it does – it will be years and years.”
This is wildly inappropriate.

10. The Town Planner summarized community concerns with the Housing Element in one page (!), and didn’t put it out for town review in advance. Her summary should not meet the test of review of town input. Even the summary put out by the HCA undercounted objections to the THC because these plans were kept until the very end of the process.

TAKEAWAY: This process does not feel like the community has had a chance to give input, and the town has not served as it should in representing us in our stead.

B.SITE: There are extreme issues with the 2.5-acre Town Hall Site- it is not suitable

1.In 2019 a site report was completed evaluating the Police Station for repairs -pointing out significant deficiencies including shallow groundwater, inadequate sewer/water pipes, flooding, an inadequate creek and culvert system. It also pointed out inadequate electricity, a major seismic zone, asbestos, lead, and possible ground contamination.

2.The town likely saw high-density housing under the new state laws as a way to pay for needed repairs and engaged a consultant to create plans and “deal” with the public.

3.This RFP and Project to build high-density housing plans at the THC asked for an evaluation of ways to bypass environmental impact studies. The HEAC was asked whether they supported > 20units per acre – coincidentally, a CEQA bypassing criteria

4. Any school analysis would need to be run separately by HCSD, with no plan in place

5.In the words of a city employee the THC “would heavily impact residents in a 500-1000 ft diameter of the project in terms of noise, traffic, light and more.” TAKEAWAY: This site isn’t suitable for any housing, let alone 390 people stuffed into <50% of a 2.5-acre site.The town paying a consultant to build plans before engaging the HEAC is inappropriate. Attempting to avoid CEQA on a fragile site is irresponsible.

C.IMPACT OF THE SITE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Separate from the site and its inappropriate inclusion in the Housing Element, the current plans for development of a highdensity housing site is flawed for the following impacts on the neighborhood and town:

1.In all plans, the POLICE STATION is moved to sit within a residential block, directly nestled within multiple private residences. This causes several direct hazards, safety issues, and nuisance problems, in a block that is only zoned for single-family housing. The town’s ownership of that non-vacant home does not change these issues:
a.Noise- every time an officer gets in car, a siren goes off (starting from 6am) b.Pollution- police cars are kept running at all times, generating exhaust into the backyards of a block full of residents
c.

Danger- The evidence and armory room is on site- guns, ammo, drugs, and other evidence are on site- and will be less than 150 feet from children d.

Town safety- The Police station keeps keys and access info to many of town’s homes on site
e.Police Business- Officers can bring criminals to residential block 24/7. Nearby Neighbors (elderly, children, disabled) shielded only by the regulation 5ft fence. f.Environmental Toxins- The current Police Station has a refueling station on site that may be releasing toxic chemicals into groundwater- assume it will be moved

2.3-4 yr construction project will create unbelievable noise/pollution/danger/distraction from early in the morning throughout the day for many who work at home, elderly, etc

3. The Impact on traffic will be immense
a.

Floribunda: Construction traffic on floribunda, and then ~400 residents b.Fairway/Highgate/Pepper/Others: Extreme congestion on parking/circling c.

El Camino: Increased congestion on unsafe 1-sided crosswalk El Camino x Florib
d.

Walnut: Parking Impact. If Walnut is closed off- The population of Walnut Ave -794-
would lose access to El Camino Real, and the nearest left turn on ECR at a light would be three blocks north, or a 5-minute detour to the south. Fire Code would also require that there be no parking on that street, which is <26’ wide e.All Streets: This area is a Biking, Walking, Jogging hub- will be incredibly dangerous for all, especially children. And especially if parking rules are changed

4.Demolishes Hillsborough’s two most Historic Buildings (built in 1912)

5.Demolishes Centennial Garden, Veterans Memorial to Fallen Soldiers, Time Capsule

6.Impact on schools: North & Crocker are already overcrowded w/ trailers for classes, impact on teacher retirements during the pandemic will be exacerbated

7.Light, Shadow & Privacy- at 5-6 stories plus roof gardens w/ towers, plus future growth for town hall, there would be a large impact on nearby residents. Residents on roof garden could peer down into the backyards of nearby residents. One plan favored as “provides the best light and view for new residents,” without mention of old residents

8.Security: one plan mentions security for new residents in the parking- but did not mention why this was an issue?

9.Zoning setbacks: In one plan, town hall is added on to police station, with zoning setbacks so far reduced that the Town Hall is nearly touching an elderly resident’s house

10. This area is in the SFO Airport Influence Area? Has this been studied?

11. Parking Impact: the consultant said there would be zero off-street parking, and no civic spaces would be reduced, but this simply isn’t true- please see a simple analysis below:

Real Parking Analysis: Understanding Average Daily Overflow onto Nearby Streets/Parking Traffic
Residents
(Range)
**
Civic
Parking
Resident
Parking
Total
Parking
Needed Parking^ Street
Overflow
Today 0 pp ~56*
(82 incl
lot)
0 sp 56 sp 56 sp 0 cars
(or lot)

1. Streetfront 84-252pp 34 sp 51 sp 85 sp 182 sp 97 cars

2. Town
Garden
88-264pp 40 sp 80 sp 120 sp 188 sp 68 cars

3.Gardens 123-
369pp
50sp 80 sp 130 sp 240110 cars
*Today includes ~50 Civic spaces (sp) +an average of 6 municipal lot spaces (sp) used on a standard day
** 650sf unit allow up to 3 people,
^ assume 1.5space/unit, not including guests/deliveries TAKEAWAY: The Town Hall Campus would have a profound negative impact not just on the Town Hall Site, but the neighborhood around it. Any analysis of the site needs to understand its Impact.

D.WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW: In order to be comfortable building any housing at Town Hall, the following would be required, unlikely to be completed prior to the due date:
a.Town Planner & Manager must provide full, direct, honest answers to questions b.Historical impact analysis
c.

Environmental- Full EIR, (not just CEQA), including the culvert below, migratory birds that reside in the redwoods nearby, etc
-795-
d.

Light and Shadow Impact Analysis with Privacy Impact
e.Utilities analysis: this area of Hillsborough already struggles: power, water, waste
f.Cost of Infrastructure repairs- our utility plans assume zero population growth including removal of water tanks and replacement of water/sewer pipes @ faults g.Cell/Data inadequacies
h.School needs and impact for 400-500 additional residents i.

Parking and Traffic impact
j.Impact on “Complete Streets” adopted in 2015
k.San Mateo Emergency Vehicles guidelines for Walnut if blocked (96’ cul de sac) l.The multi-year project for widening/repaving of El Camino Real next to City Hall m.Construction-related parking limitations
n.Hillsborough residential parking laws, including no overnight street parking o.Compliance with current Hillsborough noise limitations/ordinances TAKEAWAY: Before this site can be considered, so much more needs to be known E.IDEOLOGIC CONCERNS: Spot Zoning and Improper Distribution of Impact affect THC

1.SPOT-ZONING: Town Planner Liz mentioned that re-zoning only a few 10-acre properties would be considered discriminatory spot-zoning- yet that is effectively what this RD-3 THC zoning is. The town has “spot-zoned” the few blocks around town hall to take the brunt of the impact of parking, noise, shadow, light, environmental, and toxin impact. And the town hasn’t even set zoning limitation for RD-3, so we’re not done yet.

2.CONFLICT OF INTEREST: If the consultant who made the THC plans gets the bid to run the construction project, they would profit on a larger plan. As such they are incented to push for a larger solution. One of their core responsibilities was to “effectively engage the town and seek input”- did they deliberately fail here to avoid feedback?

3.WHO BENEFITS: The developer of the THC stands to benefit the most from creating a maximum number of 9ft tall, 650sf studio residences for up to 3 residents, receiving up to $1500 per unit in subsidies? They are incented to maximize units, while minimizing resident input and environmental review. Who is this plan designed to help?

4. LITIGATION: The town mentioned they are worried about private litigation and state enforcement. The town should think about the risk they are creating for the town and its taxpayers if they place an aggressive/unachievable plan in the housing element which cannot be realized. Will the town be able to pull back from a proposal once submitted? The Town Hall Attorney should be consulted to understand the ramifications.

5.EVICT TO HOUSE?: The current plan calls to evict residents to build a police station? This doesn’t make sense when our goal is to build housing.

TAKEAWAY: There are many ideologic, legal, and ethical issues with this plan to be considered.

F.ALTERNATIVES: So what is the town to do? There must be a housing element.

1. There is a clear option to increase the number of ADU’s in the plan by not counting pandemic years and adjusting for the ability to make the ADU process easier.

2.Hillsborough is not a town where housing is removed. Remove/reduce the buffer.

3.No single-family housing needs to be rezoned. Rezoning under SB-9- is possible.

4. Present #1-3 above as a first pass plan to the state- those should meet our needs.

5.IF the HDC rejects the first draft, and alternatives are needed: consider low-density targets for ALL alternative sites considered, avoiding spot-zoning. Evaluate Tobin Clark, Private School Sites, Town Hall, and all other potential sites ONLY after real evaluations of site suitability (environmental, traffic, noise/privacy, school impacts) and user needs studies (seniors, students, teachers, etc) are complete. If/when they pass the tests, evaluate them -796-
for <20 units/acre at current height/setback/other zoning limitations to ensure a balanced plan by gathering REAL community feedback by impartial parties.

Thank you for listening. We understand that you have a big task ahead of you, but we ask that you conduct it with transparency and care for Hillsborough and its residents. We look forward to seeing you vote on a more reasonable, honest, transparent, and economically-conscious plan at the September 26th townhall meeting – one that represents the town’s duties to its residents, both current and future.

Elizabeth Jeffords
Fairway Circle
-797-
From: Brad Cook
To: General Plan
Cc: Linda Cook
Subject: Housing element input from the Cook"s
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 10:01:44 PM
Hi
Thank you for providing the opportunity for Hillsborough ("HB") residents to respond to the proposed Housing Element.Linda and I have read through the documents and listened to the Aug 2, 2022, HEAC #5 meeting. We know the council has spent many hours on this, and we are thankful for these efforts. Meeting state requirements is not going to be easy, and every resident knows that. At its root, we need to find ways to support the needs of people with lower income.

However, the proposal in its current form is IMMENSELY detrimental to our community.

Building multi-unit residential complexes and subdividing large estates completely changes the ethos of our community. Further, adding the proposed 665 units of lower income housing in a town like ours with minimal infrastructure and support for the increased population density seems unfeasible. For example, we have no commercial businesses to offer jobs, no public transport, narrow roads, no sidewalks, minimal cellular coverage, and limited school capacity. The plan seems to treat HB as a standalone self-sufficient community which it is not. We rely on towns nearby for our needs.

Aside from the requisite spending needed to build this infrastructure, which is unfunded at this time, this plan will undoubtedly lower home values in our area. Even accounting for the increase in housing units, the tax base of our community in totality assuredly will decline. This tax revenue funds our exceptional schools which in turn underpin the value of our homes.

Quality of education will be strained making HB less desirable for new families. The knock-on effects are obvious.

Some of the elements of the plan make sense. For instance, we need to build ADU's and the town's efforts to streamline that process has been terrific. These are valid low-income units that will be rented or, in our case if we can build an ADU, used by elderly parents with low income. But in the report, the projection of future ADU's and stratifying them across income levels seems arbitrary. There could and most certainly will be an increase in ADU's to meet these housing unit needs. We think the potential for ADU's is underestimated. While ADU's cannot make up the entire plan, they certainly could make up a higher portion than that reflected in the report. Also, has the town done a full census of the number of existing ADU's in Hillsborough? We may find we have more than we think including units that need minor modifications to be useable.

Other elements of the plan appear to be untenable. Building a 100-unit complex on city hall land will be extremely complex, strain our infrastructure and drive down house values in that area.

How has this been factored in the analysis? And how can a complex like this be successfully developed knowing there is a significant volume of rental units in surrounding areas with high vacancy rates? Additionally, the effort of rezoning lots down to 1/3 of an acre to allow for more subdivision only seems to result in an additional 15 units if we read correctly. That is not impactful enough. The plan to rezone large estates to have low-income units would again impact surrounding home values, but this also seems impractical unless commitment from the existing owners was obtained already. I would hope these property owners were consulted prior to seeing -798-
plans for their lots included. What was their response? In conclusion, we strongly object to the current plan. From listening to the Aug 2nd meeting, our take-away is that the town was involved in the number of units allocated but were reluctant to appeal or negotiate because the state seemed firm and would only accept appeals base on limited circumstances. The safe harbor language for example seems to provide a lot of flexibility. I would hope the council anticipates doing everything in its power including legal challenges if necessary to arrive at more creative, equitable and realistic solutions that would satisfy housing authorities, provide for low-income earners and allow Hillsborough to retain that which makes it a special place to live.

Kind regards,
Bradford and Linda Cook
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-799-
From: Mina Bozinovic
To: General Plan
Subject: Proposed housing element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:59:47 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element." I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Mina Bozinovic
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-800-
From:

To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:59:36 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element".

I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Thank you,
Eugene Lee
Hillsborough resident
-801-
From: Sumati Patel-Pareek
To: General Plan
Cc: Sumati Patel-Pareek
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:59:17 PM
Hello
I am a long time resident of Hillsboough (1976, moved here as a teenager)and I feel having dense housing in this area will take away what Hillsborough is meant to be and appreciated for. Aside from all the congestion it will create, we will need more services, better roads m, more police people,bigger schools etc.

We live in this town for what it is, quiet and calm.

I just read the letter Mr. Ullyot’s wrote to the Mayor/ Council members and I agree with all that he has so eloquently conveyed to they and city. Your office should read it if you have not. It states everything I agree with and want to convey to you.

Keep Our amazing community less dense please. ADU’s is the best option, help home owners so it’s cost effective to build them
The beauty of our city is its open spaces and nature and why it is so attractive for people to move here with their families.

Please please no apartments and duplex’s!!
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sumati Patel-Pareek
Sent from my iPhone
-802-
From: Michael MacAvoy
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Housing remedy
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:52:40 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Michael C MacAvoy MD
Hillsborough CA 94010
-803-
From: Aimee Harris
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing concern
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:51:24 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies. We already have an ADU on our property, and we think that would be the best plan for our community.

Best regards
Aimee Harris
Sent from my iPhone....excuse the typos
-804-
From: Sumy Augenstein
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:49:53 PM
We are really opposed to the new housing plan proposed by the town of Hillsborough. All the other similar areas are counting on ADUs, and maybe a few multi units on town owned land. Why does Hillsborough have to do something so drastic that:
- will overload our existing infrastructure (streets, schools, police, parking areas, power and water, emergency exits etc)
- will increase fire risk
- will dramatically reduce property values, thereby decreasing town revenues - increase crime
Please come up with something a lot less drastic.

Thanks,
Greg and Sumy Augenstein
-805-
From: Sam Ou
To: General Plan
Cc: Lingli Ma
Subject: Concerns on "the current draft housing element" Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:48:48 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members:

We are writing with great concern on "the current draft housing element" for our town of Hillsborough. We want to thank you first for your hard work trying to create a plan to meet the state requirements on affordable housing. However, as currently proposed, we strongly oppose the draft and would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.
- The plan, as is, is a dangerous starting point of a slippery slope and will be detrimental to the community of Hillsborough, pressuring our public infrastructure, school resources, traffic, and risk changing forever the unique characteristic of what makes the unique community. - There is a better and more acceptable alternative strategy - we should and can follow the lead of similar towns like Atherton to focus heavily on ADUs to satisfy state requirements.

Atherton removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. We ask that you adopt plans similar to what Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal - Increase communication and community awareness of such a dramatic change to the town.

We find that many of our neighbours have just become aware of this project recently, and may not have fully appreciated the consequence of proposed changes. We ask that more thorough discussions be held, and solutions put forward by the community and be considered by the council.

We appreciate your consideration, and thank you again for your dedication to our town and residents.

Best,
Sam Ou
-806-
1 Lisa Natusch
From: Steven Jeffords
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:46 PM
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Al Royse
Cc: Elizabeth Jeffords; Steven Jeffords
Subject: Opposition to current Hillsborough Town Hall Campus proposal....

Dear Hillsborough Town Council and Team considering the Town Hall Campus proposal,
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. Further, we believe that the Town Hall Campus is and should continue to be the crown jewel of Hillsborough town life. It’s a place to gather to celebrate veterans and holidays. We love the annual parades, food drives, earthquake preparedness days, paper shred and garden mulch events, and of course the tree lighting ceremonies. How about, instead of mowing down our historic buildings, we double-down…and build a new rec center for youth, a center for senior support, a park with barbeques and picnic tables where we can gather for birthday parties, a small amphitheater for speaker series, a pergola for summer music concerts…there is no dirth of ideas on how to make the Town Hall Campus even better for more residents of Hillsborough. Burying it under a huge apartment building isn’t one of them.

In short, we believe the current Town Hall Campus proposal is terminally flawed and the 2023-2031 Housing Element requirements can be met by:

1. Revamping the ADU calculation to better match non-pandemic-constrained organic construction, and (if necessary)

2. Considering building student/teacher housing next to the College of San Mateo

3. And as a last resort, if housing must be included in the Town Hall Campus, consider assisted living and/or senior housing, perhaps with onsite staff units. (No matter what the Town Manager says, HCD states that SROs such as senior housing DO count toward RHNA requirements)
That leaves room to expand and beautify the Town Hall Campus for ALL Hillsborough residents, both current and future. The current Town Hall Campus proposal seems to have sprung from the minds of a few nonHillsborough-residents with little regard for what the community actually values and desires. The calculations used to corral the Town Council into -807-
2 choosing one of three limited options is hazy, at best…and downright Machiavellian, at worst. There are more-fitting and better options that remain unexplored, for reasons that are still unclear.

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 a 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).

Some questions that arose while discussing the current Town Hall Campus proposal with my wife:
- Is it appropriate to evict a renter to build housing? - Is a 0.65 parking ratio acceptable when all other zoning requires at least 1:1? - Is it appropriate to destroy our town's most historical buildings? - Should the town place a police station into a residential block? Is that safe? - What will the impact be on traffic/walking/bicycling? - What will happen to Walnut- it looks like it is being widened? What is the impact of blocking off Walnut? Egress for elderly and disable citizens nearby? If it is blocked, that will become an emergency access dead end which may mean no parking at all. - Why are there no options presented for residential buildings with fewer than 5-6 stories or 84-130 units?
- Why does RD-3 still have no zoning specifications despite community input closing? - Why are there no plans or reports for CEQA or other analyses of environmental, contamination, traffic, noise, light and shadow, privacy, impact on schools etc? - Will the Town be trying to get an exception on CEQA?
- There is a lot of focus on redwood/tree preservation- are there endangered species? Is this a riparian area because of the culvert below?
- Has the groundwater been tested around the above-ground tank? Is it safe for local residents today?
-808-
3 - Are the pipes and sewers under town hall and nearby Lower North adequate for water and sewage? Will what happened in Jackson, Mississippi happen here?

Here are our major concerns with the current Town Hall Campus proposal:

1. 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.
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. How is this being addressed? h. At the September 12th Town Council meeting, the Town Hall Campus consultant said that none of the three proposals would add ANY cars to street parking. This is patently untrue and documented in their own proposals, which show between 60-100 additional cars will be forced onto the streets overnight…in a town where it is currently illegal to park on the street overnight (I know, I’ve gotten a warning ticket to that effect -809-
4 already!) Here is a table of additional required parking for the current proposals USING THEIR OWN NUMBERS:

Parking Analysis: Understanding Average Daily Overflow onto Nearby Streets/Parking Traffic
Civic Parking Resident
Parking
Total
Pkg
Residents
(Range) **
Needed
Spaces^
Parking
Overflow

0. Today ~56*
( 82 w/ lot)
0 56 0 56 0

1. Streetfront 34 51 85 84‐252pp 182 97

2. Town
Garden
40 80 120 88‐264pp 188 68

3. Gardens 50 80 130 123‐369pp 240 110
*Includes 50 Civic spots +avg 6 lot spaces
** 650sf unit can allow up to 3 people
^ assume 1.5space/unit (two adult occupants will need separate cars in some instances)

2. 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 commences:
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
-810-
5 d. Utilities analysis of all the utilities in places that already struggle in this area of Hillsborough (power, water, waste)
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

3. Any Town Hall Campus proposal 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

4. It appears the current HEAC and Previous RHNA (2005, 2014) ideas & concerns were not addressed in the current Town Hall Campus proposal 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 -811-
6 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 currently in place.
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 Campus proposal).
c. Senior and School Worker Housing were set as primary solutions, also not in plan
d. 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.
e. 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.
f. 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.

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? -812-
7 2. The 11(!) acre parcel located at 50 Brook Court (aka part of the former Tobin Clark estate) abutts the College of San Mateo. Small apartments with limited parking available for low rent rates makes perfect sense for housing located DIRECTLY NEXT TO A COLLEGE. Students are generally low-income, could walk to class, and seek out smaller units (because they generally don’t have large families (yet)). So, why wasn’t this location given more consideration towards achieving the Town’s RHNA needs?

3. 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 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.

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).

Thank you for this opportunity to comment,
Steve Jeffords
-813-
8 Additional Comments on Streetfront Not Listed in Proposal:
-814-
9 1. Demolishes Hillsborough’s Most Historic Buildings, Centennial Garden and Memorial

2. Puts A Police Station, Evidence (could include guns, ammo, drugs, etc) and refueling stations?) in a residential block

3. Impact to Walnut Unclear

4. Mentions phased future growth of town hall – this could keep growing in size/height?

5. Parking limitations- would still spill to surrounds

6. Huge impact on traffic- ECR throughput- biking/walking/jogging/schools etc

7. Mentions resident security is an issue- why? No further explanation

8. Large impact on Burlingame Walnut Residents- have they had a chance to comment?

-815-
10 Additional Comments on Town Green:
-816-
11 1. Is a resident evicted to create the Police Station?

2. Demolishes Hillsborough’s Most Historic Buildings (for a parking lot), Centennial Garden and Memorial

3. Town Hall is nearly touching an elderly resident’s property and very close to anotherset backs are destroyed

4. Mentions best light and view for new residents, but without mention of light/view/safety for existing residents

5. Puts A Police Station, Evidence (could include guns, ammo, drugs, etc) and refueling stations?) in a residential block

6. Blocks Walnut on pictures- large impact on emergency access to all of Walnut

7. Parking limitations- would still spill to surrounds

8. Huge impact on traffic- ECR throughput- biking/walking/jogging/schools etc -817-
12 Additional Comments on Gardens:

1. Demolishes Hillsborough’s Most Historic Buildings, Centennial Garden and Memorial

2. Is a resident evicted to create the Police Station?
-818-
13 3. Puts A Police Station, Evidence (could include guns, ammo, drugs, etc) and refueling stations?) in a residential block

4. Impacts Walnut- emergency access, widens the street, may limit parking

5. Potential 2nd Phase as Town Hall is still likely inadequate

6. Tallest- 6 story building + even Taller with Roof Gardens (and cell phone towers???) This would have large impact on all those around ( light, shadow, privacy)

7. Impact on SFO Airport Influence Area?

8. Mentions possible future growth of town hall as well – but with no limitations

9. Parking impact would still spill to surrounds

10. VERY INTENSE impact on traffic- ECR throughput- biking/walking/jogging/schools etc

11. Up to 369 residents (123x 650sf units- up to 3 residents each- no schools analysis yet?)

12. Large impact on Burlingame Walnut Residents- have they had a chance to comment?

-819-
From: Kristen Brent
To: General Plan
Subject: Oppose Housing Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:44:46 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members:

I would like to express my concern and opposition to the current draft housing element. I would like the town to adopt plans similar to Atherton as remedies. There is too much at stake to getting this wrong. Please heed those you are elected to represent.
—The Brents
-820-
From: Amy Jasmer
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Al Royse
Cc: Robert Jasmer
Subject: Feedback and opposition to current "Housing Element Draft Proposal" Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:40:53 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, Council Members and Town Manager Ritzma,
We would like to thank you for your recent hard work to provide clearer information to the Residents of Hillsborough on the "Housing Element Draft Proposal.'' We also thank you for your continued openness to accept, and process feedback from residents on that proposal.

Respectfully yours,
Dr. Robert Jasmer and Mrs. Amy Jasmer
-821-
From: Tina Dong
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft housing plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:40:17 PM
Dear city planners,
I grew up in Hillsborough, attended North School and Crocker School. I moved back to Hillsborough to raise my family and send my kids to the superb schools in this town.

I strongly oppose the high density housing plans as it will change the character of the town and strain the resources of our wonderful schools. The schools are the biggest drawn for homebuyers in Hillsborough and the high density housing plans would certainly take that away.

Tina Hwang
-822-
From: Amy Y. Reisenberg
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing element commentary
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:40:03 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this letter opposing the draft housing element that has this been put forth to the citizens of this town. It would be short sighted to implement a plan that adds residences but does not address the infrastructure needed to support additional residents. Furthermore, as an active parent volunteer for not just North school but the school district as a whole through HSF, I am concerned about the impact to the quality of education our schools will be able to offer this many new residents. The entire character of the town centers around commitment to a high quality public education for our children. I’m not sure we’ve considered the extent this draft housing element would change the community dynamics and strong parent involvement which makes our schools so successful. Once school quality erodes, property values will quickly follow with a downward trajectory.

Below, I have included language from a letter submitted by Chip and Netty Ramsay, which articulate further concerns.

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,
Amy Reisenberg
-823-
From: Bob Yee
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:39:15 PM
Hello,
I am against the current Housing Element plan, which I believe will negatively impact the quality of life many of us have worked so hard for.

Regards,
Yee Family
-824-
From: Ken
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:34:14 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and strongly oppose the current draft housing element. I think the proposals for rezoning and lot splitting will negatively impact the town residents. I think we are under-utilizing ADUs to meet our targets and would look at proposals by other towns similar to ours.

I appreciate all the work the committee has done but this plan is not in the best interest of our community.

Best regards
Ken Lee
Hillsborough, CA
-825-
From: Eric Hu
To: General Plan
Subject: Concerns on current Hillsborough draft housing element Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:32:58 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Eric Hu
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
-826-
From: Matteo Monteverdi
To: General Plan
Cc: Erika Vial Monteverdi
Subject: Hillsborough housing plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:32:06 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Matteo and Erika Monteverdi
- Hillsborough - 94010
-827-
From: Ramsey Daya
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element- Concerned Resident Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:19:44 PM
Dear Hillsborough Council Members,
I am writing this letter to communicate our TREMENDOUS objection to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Hillsborough. Multifamily development is prohibited in the Hillsborough General Plan and any changes in zoning and land-use rules should be considered ONLY after a community driven and thoughtful General Plan amendment process, that includes community outreach, participation and comment.

Please IMMEDIATELY remove all multi-family overlay zoning projects from the current Draft Housing Element.

They will MATERIALLY decrease our home values, quality of life of us and our neighbors and will most certainly increase noise pollution and traffic. And most importantly, our schools are currently already impaired, 1 of 3 elementary schools in town are impacted, our facilities at South School are old and in disrepair with our children already missing 2 days of school due to heat concerns as we don’t have A/C at school; adding multi-family housing will burden an already overwhelmed system and further strain our resources. Allowing for the current housing element will open the town to potentially immense litigation resulting from a degradation of home values and school quality.

There are far superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Our housing plan should focus on ADUs, which are consistent with the community and culture of Hillsborough. Please consider this email as you evaluate and finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Regard,
Ramsey Daya
Hillsborough Resident
-828-
From: Christian Sepulveda
To: General Plan
Subject: Re: comments on Housing plans
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:18:29 PM
I recently reviewed a plan that some citizens have compiled. It is from a group "Smart Housing for Hillsborough"
and found at https://app.box.com/s/caegj8llugehg61u73amgp6pgdavyqcg It is very compelling and I urge the town to review and incorporate these ideas, as it seems to have a smaller set of changes than the current town draft.

Thank you.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 5:46 PM Christian Sepulveda wrote:

I'd like to share my thoughts on the town's proposal regarding the Draft Housing Element.

I understand that the town strives to devise a plan that satisfies state requirements, but also preserves the needs and interests of Hillsborough. It is a challenging process and I appreciate the effort.

In reviewing the plan, my primary concern is that it is hard to anticipate the consequences of changes, especially at this scale. So I advocate to enact the minimal changes.

With this in mind, I would prefer that the town focus on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

There are many ADUs already in Hillsborough and I think increasing the number of ADUs would have the smallest impact on the town.

I urge the council to NOT
-change setback nor lot sizes
-create zones for apartment buildings, townhouses or similar housing types I am glad to read about the ADU successes in the RHNA Cycle 5. I would expand on the town's support of ADUs. Besides the outreach and expediting processes being done, I would consider things like
-financial incentives and support for ADU development
-partnering with developers/contractors to enable less expensive and easier ADU construction
-explore other zone, policy, etc. changes to ease ADU applications -first-come, first serve (with quotas) incentives to accelerate ADU applications and construction
As a practical matter, also like many residents, my home is my largest asset. I wish to preserve property values and avoid anything that could undermine them. But I also want to preserve the character of our town. Hillsborough is a unique community that my family loves.

Thank you.

Christian Sepulveda
-829-
From: Jane Williams
To: General Plan
Subject: Objections to Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:13:13 PM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
We have been residents of Hillsborough for 60 years & are more than a little dismayed by the demands of the state to make drastic changes to our Town. I agree with the comments and objections in the letter (attached) that Ted Ullyot so well articulates.

Jane Williams
-830-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-831-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -832-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-833-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

Best regards,
Roman Margolin
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
-836-
From: Ivan Selin
To: General Plan
Cc: Anne De Geest
Subject: opposition to "the current draft housing element" Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:57:45 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards, Ivan and Anne Selin
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
-837-
From: Mili Dutt Reddy
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposed to the current Housing Draft Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:52:26 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
Thank you very much for the time and effort you have put into the current housing plan draft. I realize any undertaking of this nature is not easy nor straightforward.

I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans that current much more ADU conversations and designations, as well as certification of current ADU units.

Thank you
Mili Reddy
-838-
From: kyle farh
To: General Plan
Subject: Current draft housing element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:51:51 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Kai-How Farh
-839-
From: Eric Leland
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Ann Ritzma Subject: Burlingame Country Club Draft Housing Element Plan Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:49:02 PM
Attachments: Burlingame Country Club Draft Housing Elemment .pdf Good evening,
I am writing in regards to the current Draft Housing Element. Please see the attached letter.

I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Council and the Town.

Sincerely,
Eric D. Leland
Eric D. Leland | General Manager/COO | Burlingame Country Club Direct: 650 393-8039| Main: 650 696-8100
80 New Place Road | Hillsborough, CA 94010
Members may login at www.BurlingameCC.org
-840-
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

I am the General Manager and Chief Operating Officer of Burlingame Country Club (“the Club”) and am writing to provide the Club’s comments on the Town of Hillsborough’s draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 (“Staff Draft Plan” or “SDP”). We respectfully submit that the Club should not be moved to a new zone RD-2 (which is proposed in the SDP1), because that change is not necessary to advance the goals of the RHNA/HE6 process, and would introduce unnecessary complexity to the RHNA/HE6 process and to the Hillsborough Municipal Code (“HMC”).

To begin, it is important to recall some background points:

1. The Club was founded in 1893 and has been an integral, and proud, part of the Hillsborough community for almost 130 years. The Town’s current General Plan notes that the Club “adds to the character of the community by preserving large areas in a more open setting.” See Town of Hillsborough General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, at OSC-5.

2. The current HMC has an express zoning provision that comprehensively addresses the Club. This is HMC Section 17.16.010(A)(2) (“Section A2”), which provides that among the “Permitted Uses” within the Town is: “Country club (which includes all social and commercial activities normally conducted within a country club). Multifamily rental housing on the country club site for use and occupancy by employees of the country club is permitted.”

3. Under Section A2, therefore, the Club is already zoned – and indeed has been zoned, since 2003 – to allow multifamily rental housing, for employees of the Club.

Accordingly, there is no need to place the Club into a new zone in order to enable multifamily employee housing, to help the Town meet its RHNA/HE6 target. The HMC already provides for such housing and has done so for almost twenty years. And the Club regularly evaluates the possibility of on-premises employee housing, as a potential solution that could benefit employees and the Club.
1 See, e.g., SDP pages 93, 143 (Goal 3.3), and 144 (Goal 4.1); see also Hillsborough Housing Element Update Public Review Draft HE Overview (slide deck) pages 22, 27-33. The SDP proposes that there be an “O-AH” overlay onto HD-2, and references in this letter to HD-2 include and incorporate the proposed O-AH overlay. -841-
2 4. Representatives of the Club met with representatives of the Town in May of this year, as part of the Town’s RHNA/HE6 planning process. At that meeting, no mention was made of potentially changing the zoning of the Club and the private schools. Rather, the meeting centered upon the possibilities for developing employee housing, under the existing HMC zoning regulations. This was consistent with past HE cycles. See, e.g., Town of Hillsborough Housing Element Plan for 2014-22 (Final), p. 37 (Program 1-A3) (“Work with local institutions under Chapter 17.16 of the Zoning Ordinance to consider developing employee housing on existing institutional lands in Hillsborough. … Town staff will discuss with the three local institutions the possibilities for developing employee housing.”)2

5. The SDP speaks of working “in partnership with” the Club and the private schools on any potential changes to the applicable provisions of the HMC, see SDP p. 143 (Goal

3.3), but the first time we learned of a potential zoning change was only last month (August 2022), upon publication of the SDP. In addition to providing these written comments at this time, we would appreciate – and hereby request – an opportunity to meet with the City Council in person and discuss any proposed re-zoning, to further explain our view that it is neither necessary nor prudent.

6. We understand that many members of the Hillsborough community have already expressed opposition to changing the zoning of the Town. That is, many have proposed that Hillsborough can meet its RHNA/HE6 targets while maintaining its single-zone character, see HMC 17.12.010 (“There is one zone within the town, namely, the residence district ("RD"), which consists of all of the land within the boundaries of the town.”), without the need to create new districts HD-2 and/or HD-3 (as the SDP proposes).

In consideration of the foregoing background, and mindful of the Town’s commitment to meeting its RHNA/HE6 targets, we respectfully provide the following recommendation and alternative.
2 The full text of Program 1-A3 of the 2014-22 Plan states as follows: “The Burlingame Country Club (located in Hillsborough) and the town’s two private schools provide a total of three housing units for employees. The zoning ordinance was amended in 2003 to permit ‘multifamily rental housing on the school site for use and occupancy by faculty and other employees of the school’ (§17.16.030(E)) and ‘on the country club site for use and occupancy by employees of the country club’ (See §17.16.010(A)(2)). Accordingly, such institutions can now build multifamily units which are not subject to the half-acre minimum lot size. The Town hopes thus to create new opportunities for employees of these institutions to live onsite, in Hillsborough. This program has the potential to provide affordable housing where none existed and to reduce commute traffic in a modest way. Town staff will discuss with the three local institutions the possibilities for developing employee housing.” -842-
3 Recommendation: We submit the simplest approach is to leave Hillsborough zoning as is, with a single district (RD). Once again, as pertains to the Club, the HMC already envisions, and permits, multifamily rental housing for employees, and thus (at least with respect to the Club and the private schools) already addresses the housing-capacity goals of the RHNA/HE6 process.

Alternative: If the Council is going to create a new zoning scheme with RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3, the Club should remain in RD-1 (the current RD), with the exact current language that addresses specifically and comprehensively the unique operations of the Club (including providing for employee housing). See HMC 17.16.010(A)(2).3 We appreciate this opportunity to provide our feedback on the SDP and look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Council should you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted,
Eric D. Leland
General Manager and Chief Operating Officer
Burlingame Country Club
3 We understand that some have raised a concern about avoiding “spot zoning.” To the extent this is a consideration, our Recommendation (leaving Hillsborough zoning as-is), or our Alternative (keeping the Club in (new) RD-1 where the Club, including housing, is already addressed by Section A2) are the better ways of addressing this issue. In any scenario, it is necessary to have in the HMC the exact current language and provisions that address the unique operations and status of the Club (HMC (7.16.010(A)(2)) and of the private schools (HMC

17.16.010(B)(2) and 17.16.030), including the permitting of employee housing at all three institutions. Rather than importing those specific provisions into a new zone, far better from a “spot zoning” perspective to leave the three institutions, and their specific zoning provisions, “grandfathered” in their current status under the HMC. In that sense, it is the Draft Plan that creates a “spot zoning” concern – and our Recommendation (and Alternative) alleviate that concern.
-843-
From: RON LYNCH
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:47:46 PM
Dear Council members,
I write this email with the suggestion a more thorough redo of the current plan. It doesn't make sense. Hillsborough will lose its very unique charm and character that we all love. Who will pay for all of this newly required infostructure, Sacramento? Doubtful. Let's look at this alternative plan that focuses on ADU's and not re-zoning.

There shouldn't be multi-family units in town. This quiet community can't handle commercialization. We have done an excellent job in the past answering to Sacramento. Why are we all of a sudden caving in, because a consultant from LA (that knows nothing about Hillsborough) suggests we do? This current plan makes no sense.

Sincerely,
Ron Lynch
Ron Lynch
Cell:
-844-
From: Amanda Trimble
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:43:12 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element." I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Amanda Trimble
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-845-
From: Kayoko Wong
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole Subject: Housing Element Plan Objection
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:40:41 PM
Dear Hillsborough Council members:

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 2013. My family has been in Hillsborough since the early 1990s, when my family moved to the Town.

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 Council members, 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 want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative -846-
plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the public record and consider it as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Thank you for your public service.

Kind regards,
Dennis and Kayoko Wong
-847-
From: Jessica Meng
To: General Plan
Subject: Request for more thoughtful approach to expanding affordable housing Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:38:36 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element".

Currently, areas around Ralston and Forest View, which are close to our public elementary and middle schools, are already seeing traffic congestion and a lot of construction that often interferes with our children trying to walk and bike to school on roads that have no continuous sidewalks. If we add many additional units in this area, we must concurrently add basic safety infrastructure such as sidewalks, stop signs and traffic lights and not allow construction viehcles to block roads right as our children and children of future residents are trying to walke/bike to school.

We would also like the town to considsr plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

We can also loosen stringent ADU and JADU rules like 20Ft offsits, neighbor permissions, land/building ratios, not allowing garages to face the street, etc…, that have historically prevented reasonable additional affordable units to be built by our own residents. Instead of letting outside developers who don’t care about our community or our children maximize their economic interest first, please let our residents be part of the solution too! Best regards
Jessica Meng & Justin Knowles
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Cheers,
Jessica
-848-
From: Hannah Chang
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough draft housing element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:37:58 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Hannah Chang
--
-849-
From: Louisa Shields
To: General Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:29:28 PM
Hello,
We have been reading about the Housing Element. While we support Hillsborough meeting the goals set out by the state, it does not seem that the initial plan created by the outside consulting firm presents a plan that aligns with Hillsborough.

We support ADUs, and believe that there are many more potential ADUs that would be built in Hillsborough if the process was explained. It also sounds like new ordinances to support more ADUs in Hillsborough are needed, and we strongly encourage Hillsborough Town Council to pass those ordinances.

We also do not support 'up-zoning' in Hillsborough or changing other provisions to guidelines at this time. It seems that the 554 units +buffer can be met through other means than jumping in with changes that can have wider impacts than intended. We strongly support passing ordinances, educating Hillsborough owners on the process and including incentives for ADUs (including multiple on larger lots).

Please consider other options than the plan suggested by the third party consultants.

Thank you,
Louisa and Tom Shields
-850-
From: Elizabeth Jardina
To: General Plan
Cc: Brian Stoler
Subject: In support of housing density in Hillsborugh
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:24:25 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing in support of dense housing in Hillsborough.

We have lived here since 2013, and within a 2-mile radius of our Hillsborough house for 20 years. We are fully in support of as much dense housing as can be built in Hillsborough. We would like to see apartment and condo buildings for all income levels; we would approve of splitting lots; we would love even mixed-use development in Hillsborough.

We live very near South School, and our experience of Hillsborough as a place where we often see our neighbors, where school traffic happens outside our house, has been nothing but friendly and neighborly. We believe the insistence on keeping large lots, building huge houses, and reserving Hillsborough for only the wealthiest people in the United States is outdated and counterproductive.

Especially near El Camino Real and San Mateo and Burlingame downtowns, we believe there is real potential to provide more needed housing. Other exclusive California communities are not zoned for single-family only; even Beverly Hills has more multifamily households than single-family.

The Peninsula desperately needs more housing. We applaud Town Council's efforts to comply with the law and allow Hillsborough to help the housing shortage.

Elizabeth Jardina and Brian Stoler
-851-
From: Cinthia Simon
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; Ann Ritzma
Subject: Opposition to Draft Housing Element Plan Dated August 4, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:22:51 PM
CINTHIA J. SIMON
September 18, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

I am against proceeding with the draft Housing Element Plan dated August 4, 2022 (“Draft Plan”) for the following reasons:

1. The Town can meet its HE6 target through a combination of ADUs and partial-credit for our HE5 overage, we do not need to - and should not - change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi family housing, nor erect a multi story building on Town property at El Camino and Floribunda - all of which are strategies proposed in the Draft Plan. Each of those steps would bring about fundamental negative change to the beauty and character of our Town of Hillsborough and I join many other Hillsborough residents in objecting to those proposals.

2. The Town of Hillsborough lacks the type of infrastructure the Draft Plan requires and calls for. It is very surprising we would think our Town has the rudimentary essentials needed to carry out the Draft Plan. I live on Skyfarm and as it is I find it nearly impossible to safely back out of my driveway in the current morning traffic let alone incorporate a sleuth of new pathways, lanes, and traffic into an already congested and dangerous route. The lack of lights, sidewalks, public transportation lanes, and lack of basic cellular service makes the Draft Plan appear not well thought out or wellconsidered.

3. The Town has more ADUs within it than what is currently reflected in the Town’s records that should be added to the current and future count. It has been brought to my attention that a considerable number of ADUs have not been accounted for in the latest count (partly because there has not been a formal inquiry or process carried out) and that the Draft Plan does not take into account that the number of ADUs over the past 3 Covid Years is not reflective of those that are to come. It is my understanding that we will meet the required 554 additional housing units by doing a proper accounting of the current/in construction ADUs in our Town and by putting due weight on the number of future ADUs that will be constructed in the years to come.

4. -852-
The Draft Plan has not been properly thought out and I believe that not many in our Town have been alerted to what is currently being proposed and adopted on our behalf. Full disclosure is needed and an informed consent is required by the residents of this Town for something of this magnitude to be adopted. Even if delaying our submission would result in penalties, it is far better to be penalized for a late submission than it is to make a colossal mistake in this undertaking. I believe it is in your interest to make the entire Town privy to your proposed Draft Plan and truly listen to your constituents as to what it is they want done in this regard. You have been tasked with representing “our” voice and I do not feel “our” voice is represented in the Draft Plan.

Respectfully submitted, Cinthia J. Simon.
-853-
From: Kimberly Dalal
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Kimberly Dalal
Subject: Housing in Hillsborough
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:21:14 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
As Hillsborough residents for 12 years and homeowners for 7 years, we are very concerned about the current draft plan for increased housing.

This is the most important issue that affects our town's safety, schools, property values, traffic, and natural features.

Hillsborough has been a destination for new families searching for a safe place to raise children and for their children to be educated in the first-class public schools in Hillsborough. The Hillsborough Schools Foundation has greatly benefited from the generosity of parents because of the value placed on the quality of our public elementary and middle schools.

For older families and couples, Hillsborough offers a serenity and beauty that is unparalleled. This is why many people decide to reside here and make sacrifices to do so. And this is why we have chosen to live here and to remain here; in fact, we are remodeling our home presently.

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 relinquishing what we value.

One of the plans is called Smart Housing for Hillsborough and seems to offer 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. Perhaps we can look carefully at other towns (e.g., Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they have done.

Thank you for your efforts to ensure that the Town of Hillsborough will carefully and thoughtfully consider 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 to help the town to reach an alternative plan that protects our education and safety.

With gratitude,
-854-
Kimberly and Anupam Dalal
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Cell:
-855-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Cc: Ann Ritzma
Subject: Fwd: Release of Site Suitability Factor Scores; Public Safety Issues Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:19:54 PM
From: Daniel Capon
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022, 8:00 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]> Cc: Staci Adams
Subject: Release of Site Suitability Factor Scores; Public Safety Issues Honorable Mayor Royse, Vice-Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz
We chose to live in Hillsborough 30 years ago because our values were in harmony with the values of the community: a love of its countryside and its remaining wilderness, its remoteness, quiet and privacy, and its safe setting free of the dangers, distractions, density and congestion of the urban environment.

We have questions on two major points on the proposed re-zoning that now threatens those values:

1. The lack of transparency depriving Hillsborough citizens of the information allegedly used to select the de Guigne estate for RD-2 re-zoning and high-density urban housing development, and

2. The prescription for a public safety disaster represented by the selection of the de Guigne estate by blocking a major escape route in event of earthquake, fire, flood, or liquefaction danger.

1. Lack of transparency
At the Aug 8, 2022 City Council meeting, one of us addressed the lack of transparency resulting from the Town’s failure to disclose the Site Suitability Factor Scores for the thirteen candidate parcels of greater than 10 acres under consideration for RD-2 re-zoning. In fact, the written documentation provided by the Town makes no mention of the existence of thirteen candidate parcels, instead presenting the selection of the de Guigne estate, Strawberry Hill, and 50 Brooke Court for re-zoning under RD-2 as a fait accompli (Aug 4, 2022 Housing Element Draft for Public Review; Aug 8, 2022 City Council Agenda Staff Report entitled “Draft Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update”).

Our request was repeated at the Aug 18, 2022 Housing Element Open House to the appropriate focus group. No information has yet been forthcoming. Does the Town understand that without these scores, and a full description of the methods used to determine the scores and their statistical significance, that there is no objective basis for the selection of any parcel for RD-2 re-zoning and development?
In addition, the Site Suitability Factor Scoring as presented on p.98 of Aug 4, 2022 Housing Element Draft appears to be deeply flawed. We provide some specific examples and questions here:
·
How can a parcel with a “Year Built” of 1899 have an extremely low score of 2 while a parcel with a “Year Built” of 1900, just one year later, can have an extremely high score of 7? ·What weighting factors were used? Is the score for “Year Built” or “Proximity to Amenities” weighted the same as public safety dangers such as “Fire Hazard” or -856-
“Landslide/Liquefaction”?
·How can parcels be scored for RD-2 re-zoning when 4 of 11 categories, “Residual Lot Coverage”, “Proposed” Zoning”, “Existing Land Use” and “Lot Acreage” lie outside of the definition of RD-2?
·
Does the Town realize how easily these and other such flaws in the scoring are exploited to manipulate the outcome of any particular parcel for re-zoning and development? ·Does the Town realize that the optics of not providing the scores we requested are not good? How can the Town close the commenting period a mere 6 weeks (Aug 8, 2022 - Sept 19, 2022) after it has not provided information absolutely essential to legitimizing the process?
·Does the Town understand that the touchy-feely Housing Element public relations campaign over the last year does not mitigate the damage of not providing the scores the Town claims to be using to enact this historical change in the way it treats the propertyholdings of its citizens? ·
Does the Town comprehend the enormous public safety ramifications of the proposed re-zoning without conducting specific hearings on safety considerations including those not in the scoring?

2. Public safety ramifications of re-zoning the de Guigne estate as RD-2 At the Aug 8, 2022 City Council meeting and Aug 18, 2022 Housing Element Open House, we also addressed specific public safety dangers presented by the proposed re-zoning and high-density urban housing development of de Guigne. We calculate two hundred eleven (211) new residents (based on 2.93 persons per Hillsborough household according to bayareacensus.ca.gov). We ask:
·Is the Town aware that 211 residents at the proposed density of twenty-five (25) units per acre increases the population density to 46,880/square mile? This is 25 times greater than Hillsborough (1,847/square mile), 2.5 times greater than San Francisco (18,635/square mile) and 1.6 times greater than New York City (29,302/square mile). ·
Does the Town understand that this proposed high-density at de Guigne lies at one of the most heavily travelled sections of road in Hillsborough both in terms of vehicles and bicyclists?
·
Is the Town aware that this section of road and its extremely narrow bridge is a choke point that already threatens the safe evacuation of hundreds of residents in the event of a public disaster?
·
Is the Town cognizant that this very type of choke point was a major factor in the deaths of many of the 85 people fleeing the Camp Fire in Paradise, CA? ·Has the Town taken into account the instability of Crystal Springs Rd revealed by the Loma Prieta earthquake, and the heightened danger thus posed by further increasing the traffic density?
·
Is the Town aware the proposed de Guigne housing lies directly in the inundation zone in the event of a breach of the Crystal Springs Dam and the residents will be underwater? ·Has the Town conducted the land surveys necessary to establish that the steep slope of de Guigne would in fact support development of the 24 of 72 units impacted by the steep slope?
·
How will the Town address the sewage problem on Crystal Springs Rd in the vicinity of de Guigne, evidenced by the ongoing sewage stench, as well as address the incremental traffic, financial, and environmental impact of adding enough sewage capacity for an additional 211 residents?
·
Why would the Town not conduct hearings to factor in such consideration of public safety before proceeding with the proposed re-zoning? What will the State of California think of this deficiency?
Until these questions can be answered it does not seem reasonable to press forward so urgently unless the Town is hiding something.

3. Proposed items for immediate follow-up
-857-
·
Most critical is the immediate release of the Site Suitability Factor Scores and full description of methods used to determine the scores and their statistical significance as requested Aug 8, 2022.
·In light of the delay in releasing the Site Suitability Factor Scores and their critical importance to transparency and objectivity in the proposed RD-2 re-zoning, we recommend in the strongest possible terms extending the public review and comment period allowing for their consideration.
·
Notwithstanding the housing mandate under Article 10.6 of the California Government Code, we are at a loss to understand the legal basis for addressing the mandate while ignoring the other legal requirements for holding hearings on the re-zoning of specific parcels, particularly with respect to the public safety matters we raise. We recommend in the strongest possible terms that such hearings are scheduled immediately for the de Guigne estate.
·
We would appreciate prompt written response to the other questions we raise in this letter.

Sincerely,
Dan Capon and Staci Adams
-858-
From: J Cheston
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Cc: Mo Cheston
Subject: Opposition to Housing Element Draft Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:16:39 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:

Thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough generally, and specifically as we navigate Hillsborough’s Housing Element process.

While we are supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area, we feel strongly that Hillsborough must do so in a thoughtful manner that considers the unique characteristics and limitations of our town:

Our lack of retail, industry and commerce.

Hillsborough’s fire risk; 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk Zone.

The town is currently zoned entirely RD-1 and, unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land.

Furthermore, Hillsborough strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last cycle (one of very few towns to do so), and yet the Draft Plan goes so far as to incorporate a 20% buffer.

We feel the current Draft Plan fails to consider these unique characteristics and, therefore, we are strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan.

We would also like to express our opposition to the plans for the proposed redevelopment of the Town Hall complex. We feel the current plan does not fully consider the impact of 100 housing units:

The traffic in the area, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming.

Accidents frequently occur at the Floribunda intersection. While some steps have been taken to reduce accidents, we fear the construction process as well as an additional 100 housing units will create ongoing safety issues.

Surrounding Burlingame streets, including Walnut Avenue and Willow Avenue, are extremely narrow streets and are already difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate. The increased traffic will create significant safety issues.

The Town Hall parking plans are inadequate. Overflow parking from 100+ units will further congest the surrounding narrow streets, creating significant safety issues. -859-
With respect to the proposed plans for the Town Hall complex, too many questions remain regarding Centennial Park, historic structures, parking, impact to surrounding narrow streets, and height for these buildings compared to neighboring structures. More thought needs to be given to alternative uses for the space. We feel the Town Hall complex plan should be removed from the Housing Element Draft Plan as there is no way we can answer these questions under the current process timeline.

Our plan should focus on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. Hillsborough’s plan should NOT include:

Smaller minimum lot sizes
Reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADUs/JADUs) Increases to height allowances
Increased floor area ratio (outside of the allowances for ADUs/JADUs) Reduced landscaping coverage
Thank you for your work on behalf of Hillsborough and for your consideration of this feedback during this process.

Regards,
Mo & Janet Cheston
-860-
From: Jaret Butler
To: General Plan
Subject: opposition to current draft housing
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:59:32 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards
Jaret Butler, MD
Hillsborough.

Sent from my iPad
-861-
From: Veronica Avalos
To: General Plan
Cc: Anthony Novosel
Subject: Current draft housing element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:59:05 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Veronica Novosel
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-862-
From: Carolyn Tsao
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:55:35 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Carolyn Tsao
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-863-
1 Lisa Natusch
From: General Plan
Subject: FW: Objection to the Housing Element draft
> On Sep 18, 2022, at 1:48 PM, Ruth Wisnom wrote:
>
> I have read the draft in its entirety, attended by zoom the HEAC and Town Council meetings. I respect the hard work that created this document but I think if enacted it would destroy our town as we know it. Dennis Moore and Ted Ullyot have presented alternative plans which are much less invasive and I think many of their ideas could replace those in the draft. There is widespread concern among the residents of the town and they feel helpless to prevent the implementation of this plan. The Wisnom Family has lived in Hillsborough since 1935 and treasures the beauty and special character of Hillsborough.
>
> I urge you to consider modifications that would eliminate rezoning and multiple family dwellings on lots that are now single family lots.
> Other crucial issues are parking if a new Town Hall campus is constructed, water shortage, overcrowded schools, public service demands for police and fire response. Taxes will inevitably have to be raised to provide these services. I understand that we must meet the state mandate but there are other options. Please consider alternative plans so we can preserve the historic character of our rural, non‐commercial, unique community. > Thank you,
> Ruth Wisnom
>
> Sent from my iPhone
-864-
From: Morvarid Ciccolella
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to "the current draft housing element” Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:54:08 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to "the current draft housing element". I would like the town to adopt plans similar to the city of Atherton as possible remedies.

Best regards,
Morvarid Ciccolella
-865-
1 Lisa Natusch
From: General Plan
Subject: FW: Comments on Housing Element
On Sep 18, 2022, at 3:12 PM, Kathleen Egan wrote:

E‐mail Memorandum
9/18/22
To: Ann Ritzma
From: Kathleen Egan
Please see my comments on Housing Elements Plan:

1. Information in Chapter 1-7 (89 pages) is excessive and should be edited. The average reader will not concentrate on the important information.

2. The buffer of 20% is too high. Cut to 10%

3. RD-2 -Cut height to 42’ Final building height often exceed height limits.

Developers do not always depict existing grade correctly. Ground Floor of wood frame buildings are often built 18” above existing grade, for low-income housing this is the most economical. This is often not correctly noted on elevations submitted to ADRB.

4. Town site -Cut height to 55’, see above.

5. RD-2 and town site Increase side set back to existing properties to 15’. Require buildings to step back in height from neighboring properties to preserve light and allow enough room for vegetation to grow.

6. What happens if owners of Strawberry Hill do not want to develop their site?

7. Circulation and access will have to be considered for developments. More than one entry egress point may be necessary. A map showing neighboring properties and access to development would be helpful. Zoom out a bit from what was shown.

Kathleen Egan
Architect
Cell
-866-
From:

To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough Draft Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:54:05 PM
I am submitting this email in response to the draft housing element that is being proposed by Hillsborough. We find the existing plan unacceptable on a number of points, and would urge the town to rethink its approach so that we can meet our requirements while still preserving the character and property values of the town and respecting the rights of homeowners.

First, it appears that none of the owners of the properties the town proposes to rezone were consulted or appear to have agreed to the change. If Hillsborough is considering going down this path, it is entirely inappropriate not to engage the landowners in their decision making.

Second, it makes sense to add housing at the town hall site, but a 5-10 story building is far higher than makes sense for the location.

Finally, it appears that other peninsula suburbs such as Atherton and Los Altos Hills have negotiated much less onerous requirements (including no 20% excess). Why is that? It does not make sense for us to agree to a more stringent plan. I strongly urge the town to reconsider the proposed plan.

Thank you,
Nancy and Mike Heafey
-867-
From: Amy B. McHugh
To: General Plan
Subject: Plan feedback
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 7:41:36 PM
Thank you for working so hard on the housing plan for our community.

I urge you to reconsider development of some of the properties you have outlined in your plan. While I think the conversion of town hall to lower income housing units makes sense due to the proximity to needed services, the other areas identified are in areas which are not close enough to necessary services. In addition, the lack of more than one egress is a concern - particularly with the wildfire risk we currently face.

With more ADU development we may be able to preserve more of our town's character. Please consider incentivizing people to invest in ADU's.

Amy McHugh
-868-
From: Sally Farr
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 6:51:07 PM
Dear Mr. Mayor and esteemed Council Members,
I am writing to express my fervent agreement and support of each and every one of the recommendations submitted to you by my fellow citizen, Ted Ullyot, in his letter dated September 17th.

I apologize for my tardiness in weighing in on this very important issue, but I am currently traveling outside of the country. I will return on the 26th and plan to be in attendance at your meeting that evening.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Sally Farr
Hillsborough CA
Sent from my iPhone
-869-
From: Keith Diggs
To: General Plan
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: YIMBY Law comment on Hillsborough housing element Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 6:30:25 PM
Attachments: 220918 CFHE_YL Letter to Hillsborough.pdf
Hello,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's comments on Hillsborough's draft housing element. Please contact me with questions.

Keith Diggs $B!i (J
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager
703-409-5198
-870-
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The Town of Hillsborough
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
September 18, 2022
Re: Hillsborough’s Draft Housing Element
To the Town of Hillsborough:

YIMBY Law commends the Town on its well-written housing element. We appreciate the Town’s candor as to how it constrains housing (Draft, pp.78-83), as well as the clarity of its proposed zoning reforms (id. pp.91-94).

That said, the draft has glaring problems. Chiefly, the Town expects 172 homes from the nonvacant Strawberry Hill site (Draft pp.101, 104), whose trustee told the Town he does not intend to redevelop. The draft likewise fails to show that 48 homes would be built on the nonvacant De Guigne Estate (id. Pp.100, 104).

The draft also makes unrealistic assumptions about ADU affordability. Bay Area watchdogs for YIMBY Law report that Hillsborough ADUs are in fact rarely rented to lower-income households, rather than kept vacant for guests or pool maintenance.

Without a registry to track ADU use or a concrete and current program to monitor ADU production (id. p.147), it is impossible to tell whether the City’s projection of 168 lower-income ADUs (id. p.90) will in fact be built and affordably rented.

It is also impossible to evaluate the relative severity of Hillsborough’s development fees (see id. p.81) without the kind of dollar-denominated comparison Hillsborough included in its fifth cycle draft (pp.27-28). Why omit the comparison in the sixth cycle? -871-
Finally, Hillsborough commits to no timelines for implementing its various policies, goals, and actions (Draft pp.141-48). Many of the proposed programs are also weak commitments to “review,” “conduct,” “establish,” “assess” or “complete” various things the Town can table for later (ibid.). Please specify what the Town will actually do.

We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me with questions.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
-872-
From: John Hampton
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 5:45:48 PM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

My family has lived in Hillsborough since 1962. I attended North School from Pre-School through 5th grade and was a member of the first class after the school's re-opening.

I am concerned about the future of our town and my sentiments are perfectly captured in the attached letter from my friend and fellow resident, Ted Ullyot.

Sincerely, John M.B. Hampton
-873-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-874-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -875-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-876-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

My grandmother built her Hillsborough house in 1962 and lived in it until her death in 1997.

My wife and I bought our Hillsborough house in 1989 and last March a Hillsborough house was acquired for the enjoyment of our son, his wife and our granddaughter.

Attached is the letter to you written by my friend and neighbor, Ted Ullyot.

I am writing to you to state for the record that I and my family agree with its contents in every particular and with absolute conviction.

Sincerely, Gregory J. Hampton
-879-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-880-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -881-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-882-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

Please see the attached objections to the draft plan along with an alternative approach - we support the position of Mr. Ullyot's letter.

In addition, we have completed the survey
https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/467e65233a544c21893f1321c3a72c32 to express our willingness to build an ADU/JADU.

We urge the Council to amend the Draft based on the will of our residents.

Best regards,
Brad and Sarah Freitag
-885-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-886-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -887-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-888-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

On September 12, 2022, we attended the Hillsborough town council meeting to hear a proposal for the redevelopment and rezoning of the existing Hillsborough Town Hall and police station, with a proposed rezoning to add a new multi-story low income residential building to the campus.

Our concern is the multi story residential building that is being proposed. There is not adequate parking for the present buildings on the site. The proposal does not include enough parking to serve the building's occupants. Where are they and the employees of the town and police department going to park. Where are people coming to special events going to park? Clearly there is a lack of foresight as to how those cars will be accommodated. There is no parking on Hillsborough streets.

Which brings me to our block on Walnut Avenue. Walnut is one of the most narrow streets in Burlingame.

When cars are parked on both sides of the street, it becomes one way. It is a cut through street for those going to El Camino. If there is inadequate parking for the residents and employees of the town hall campus, they will park on Walnut. This will become dangerous and untenable not only for the residents but also for emergency vehicles trying to get through.

The intersection of El Camino and Floribunda has been notoriuosly dangerous with accidents on a regular basis. Many families and children from both Hillsborough and Burlingame use this intersection to cross to school at McKinley or to walk into downtown Burlingame. During construction of this project, where will these people cross the street? How will El Camino traffic handle this construction? After completion, how will the increase in the number of cars using this intersection affect traffic flow and the safety of these pedestrians?
As residents who will be directly affected by this project, why were we only given a weeks notice before the city council meeting to discuss it? At the meeting, Hillsborough residents expressed that same frustration.

Clearly there is an agenda by a specific group of people to privatize this piece of city owned land. Only a small select group seemed to know about the project.

Please do the right thing. Rethink this project after it has been open to discussion for ALL residents of both Hillsborough and Burlingame, and not just a select few. Let’s come up with a plan that makes sense for everyone.

Sincerely,
Kerry and Ken Mahrer
-891-
From: ROBERT WOODS
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Housing element plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 2:32:40 PM
Dear Council Members,
We have read and re-read the draft plan as posted on the Town’s website, and some thoughts occur to us.

Not only would implementation of this plan destroy our town as we know it, but we have no infrastructure to support an influx of people, particularly if they have no transportation of their own. We have no retail stores, no medical facilities, and no places of worship within walking distance of nearly anyplace in town. Neither have we nearby sources of employment. For additional population with transportation, our roads are not designed to handle a substantial increase in traffic, not to mention places to park.

Supposedly the purposes of SB9 and SB10 were to relieve the shortage of housing in California, rather than just burnish Gov. Newsom’s resume for a presidential run.

How does one square that with the large number of “For Rent” and “For Sale” signs (and houses simply left vacant) on the Peninsula?
ADUs listed as “dwelling units” are, as a number of others have suggested, are potentially an excellent solution to this problem.

Others have made the case against our Town’s destruction more eloquently (and with more factual information) than we can, but we thought we needed to add our voices to theirs.

Thank you all for your service, and please accept our sincere best regards.

Bob & Leone Woods
Hillsborough
-892-
From: Roger Trinkner
To: General Plan
Subject: Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:46:37 PM
Dear council: I strongly support Mr Ullyot’s suggestions of meeting Hillsborough’s housing requirements by:

Eliminating the buffer
Take credit for exceeding previous requirements
No housing construction on City Hall Site
Sincerely, Dr Roger Trinkner
Sent from my iPad
-893-
From: Beth Grossman
To: General Plan
Subject: Proposed Housing Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:24:21 PM
To whom it may concern:

My husband and I are writing to express our deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough - and to 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.

We respectfully ask that council members consider alternatives to preserve HIllsborough. We also wanted to thank you for representing our community! We realize it’s a volunteer position. Thank you for your time.

Warm regards,
Beth and Brian Grossman
Beth Grossman
C.
-894-
From: Michele Dee
To: General Plan
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element Plan - Redington Road Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:14:48 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-09-18 at 1.07.39 PM.png
To whom it may concern:

I know we are all in a tough situation. I do have some comments regarding the housing element plan that was provided by our LA consultants.

I will speak to the issues that I’m very familiar with, and that is the plan development above Strawberry Hill Estate. The plan shows Redington Road as a potential access point for the 172 units under the housing element plan. The current portion of Redington Road is very narrow and doesn’t seem to be a likely candidate for an access point for the potential of hundredths of cars that will be traveling this corridor daily. The state is mandating housing, it’s not mandating easy access to lower Hillsborough. Additionally, the elevation in the proposed access point off of Redington that’s going up to the new development doesn’t seem conducive to building a two way road. The driveway for Strawberry Hill Estate, is scary and seems unsafe! It has drop off points and the side of the narrow and long driveway going up the hill is an example of the terrain in this area, and doesn’t seem desirable for an access point for new development. Are we building a bridge to gap the dangerous terrain? In fact, the plan shows this area as having environmental constrains. That being said, why is it on the plan as an access point? The Architects of this plan seem to have failed in many ways.

I’ve lived at for 30 years. A few years after I purchased my home, I think it was in 1994-1995, the ground near Spencer Lake gave way (right above Strawberry Hill Estate), the water from the lake rushed down the hill, and damaged my property and 1 Fern Ct ( lowest elevation) suffered the worst of the water damage. I’m aware of 1 landslide in that area. It’s my understanding that Ada Regan reported the landslide to the Town, and the Town has replaced the soil that was washed away.

In California when you have a substantial project, an environmental report is required. I searched the Housing Element Plan, I don’t see an environmental report. Was an environmental report completed for this area ? If we don’t have an environmental report, how do we know this area is suitable for this type of development?
Best,
Michele Dee
-895-
From: Jennifer Budge
To: General Plan
Subject: Plan comments
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:39:51 AM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Chuang, Cole and May, and City Manager Ritzma, Thank you for the efforts made to comply with the state housing mandate. I appreciate the thought and time that has gone into the process.

It seems that if the draft plan was actually put into motion, the character of Hillsborough would fundamentally change.

As someone who grew up here when the town’s population was 3,500, I would hate to see it happen.

I generally concur with the points made by Ted Ullyot in his September 17th letter to the Council opposing the draft plan.

Additionally, I have overriding concerns about the state mandate as a whole.

We already have issues with adequate water and electric supplies. Adding more people will intensify these problems.

Increasing the number of people in Hillsborough and the surrounding communities will increase the amount of support services required, amplifying the housing needs in the area.

Landscaping is important to the quality of life in Hillsborough and the character of the town as well as to minimizing climate change. The current draft plan continues “hardening” our town to the detriment of these.

San Mateo County saw a drop in population from 2020-2021. Will we be changing the town’s standards based on pre-Covid population trends?
The state mandate appears to have been made with tunnel vision on one issue without taking into account these other realities.

When meeting state requirements, the town should minimize the amount of new building allowed without adding a buffer for even more units. Hillsborough should receive as much credit as possible for exceeding requirements in the past. The town should avoid adding other types of zoning if at all possible, and use ADUs as extensively as permitted to achieve the requirements.

I very much hope that high-rises and townhouses are not in our town's future. If they cannot be avoided, the placement in a few specified areas makes sense.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jenny Budge
-896-
From: Eric Tilenius
To: General Plan
Subject: Please provide below-market-rate TEACHER HOUSING as part of the Housing Element! Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 9:37:48 AM
Dear Town Council:

Building housing for our TEACHERS (and perhaps also police and other city workers) would be a fantastic thing to include in the Housing Element. Daly City is doing this, pretty awesome. Here’s an article – read some of the quotes from the grateful teachers (and teachers who switched into the district for this benefit): https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-F-andDaly-City-embarked-on-teacher-housing-17250359.php We should offer subsidized housing while someone is a teacher to them and their families and have some nice units (apartments/condos) for them!
This will help recruit and retain great teachers plus it would not add burden to the school district since we already give teachers’ kids a spot in the district as part of their package anyway! It will also help create a tighter knit community when those who work here have an option to live here.

After teachers, I would make the reduced-rate housing available to other Town workers (police, maintenance, Town Hall workers) and their families. We could then rent the remaining stock (if any) at market rates, but a year at a time so that new teachers, police, or other Town workers can take advantage of it.

I think this will be super important to recruiting and retaining great teachers (which improves quality of life and property values in the Town!) and can be compatible with adding housing on, say, the Town Hall site or another multi-family appropriate site! Thanks for listening!
Eric W. Tilenius
Homeowner
Hillsborough, CA 94010-7233
[email protected]
-897-
From: Peter Chartz
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Input on the Housing Solution from the Chartz Family Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:59:59 AM
Attachments: Hillsborough Housing Letter from Chartz Family 9.18.22 Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee Members, Vice Mayor Krolik, Mayor Royse and Town Council Members,
My wife and I are sending you our attached letter because we wish to share our input on the housing solution under consideration. We are long term residents who are now recently retired. My wife taught for 30 years in Burlingame and Hillsborough schools.

Thank you for your work on behalf of our community and for taking the time to consider our input. Sincerely,
Peter and Theresa Chartz
-898-
Theresa & Peter Chartz
Hillsborough, CA 94010
September 18, 2022
Town of Hillsborough
RE: Housing
We believe any housing plan which trades the beautiful Town Hall Campus for dense house is a terrible idea. We moved into Hillsborough and purchased our home 30 years ago and don’t recall any community decision opportunity of the magnitude of this housing plan which will change the character of the Town forever.

Communities throughout the Bay Area, California and our country believed they solved their housing problems by shoving segments of the population into dense corners of their cities with mixed results and in some cases quite abysmal outcomes leading to their short-sighted solutions being razed 40-50 years down the road.

Why on earth would the good people of Hillsborough do the same? The objective of concentrating 554 additional housing units within proximity to El Camino Real is not exactly new age thinking; it is more like following the heard. Over the last ten years, tens of thousands of housing units were constructed along the Peninsula transit corridors; the majority of those new residents still are 100% car dependent.

Instead of looking to concentrate the 554 housing units within a mile or so of El Camino, we would suggest a more interesting solution is to sprinkle the 554 units through the Town. Let private enterprise and our fine architects drive the solution. The Town could provide a helping hand by making exceptions to ½ acre lot minimums; maybe some homes when sold could be consider by developers for high-density town home style designs.

Our point is that, in our opinion, the Town’s charm would be enhanced by doing whatever it takes over the next eight years to gently intersperse 554 new housing units throughout the community. This could be accomplished through both (1) construction of ADU’s, and (2) promoting higher density town house/patio style homes on individual lots as developers bring forth proposals and with the Town’s ARB having design approval rights.

Sacrificing the Town Hall Campus and concentrating the housing solution into a corner of the Town does not seem a prudent or democratic way to go.

Sincerely,
s/ Theresa and Peter Chartz
-899-
From: Brian Hetherington
To: General Plan
Subject: Objection for Plan
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:23:13 AM
Attachments: page1image4679632.png
page2image4523440.png
page2image4523648.png
page2image4525104.png
page2image4524272.png
page2image4524480.png
page3image4525936.png
page3image4525312.png
page3image4526352.png
page3image4526560.png
page4image4590016.png
page4image4587936.png
September 18, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

My family has been in Hillsborough for the last 8 years. We initially moved to the city renting a home on Eucalyptus for 3 years, and ended up purchasing our home on Seabury Road 5 years ago. We have loved our time in Hillsborough and appreciate many qualities that make The Town charming, elegant and relevant. We are also very good friends with the Ullyot, and would like to reinforce Ted’s letter by opposing the draft Housing Element Plan.

As I am sure, you have seen Ted’s letter. I have attached it to this note as a strong supporter of his efforts to quell the HEP. We are not opposed to additional housing in Hillsborough, but believe it should have a plan that helps maintain the “unique residential community” we moved from San Francisco to receive. Our family appreciates the efforts to manage these issues, and again reiterate our “no” on the HEP.

Respectfully,
Brian & Jill Hetherington
Hillsborough CA 94010
-900-
Although the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has imposed on the Town a mandate of 554 additional housing units for the 2023-31 HE6 cycle, the Draft Plan is an unacceptable proposal for meeting that number. Among the most objectionable features of the Draft Plan are the introduction of a new three-zone scheme in place of Hillsborough’s current single-zone (RD) zoning framework; the introduction of multi-family housing to our Town; and the introduction of multi-story buildings to our residential community (including at our historic Town Hall, Centennial Park, and Veterans Memorial). If adopted, the Draft Plan would radically and irreparably change the character of our Town.

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.” In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritageprotecting plan was duly approved by the State. 1 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our -901-
HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish.
*****
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. 2 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

Hillsborough has an exemplary track record of meeting and even exceeding its HCD- assigned HE number. In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Town’s State-mandated target was 91 and we hit 192 housing units actually created. Hillsborough was a model community in HE5 – not simply being one of only 38 jurisdictions in California to meet its HE5 target and plan, but more than doubling our target number. A “buffer” might represent an appropriate “best practice” for some jurisdictions – namely, those communities that fell short of their recent Housing Element plans. But not for Hillsborough, given our track record of not just meeting but indeed -902-
dramatically exceeding our HE targets.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101- unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
3 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

Because the Town can meet its HE6 target through a combination of ADUs and partial- credit for our HE5 overage, we do not need to – and should not – change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi-family housing, nor erect a multi-story building on Town property at El Camino and Floribunda – all of which are strategies proposed in the Draft Plan. Each of those steps would bring about fundamental negative change to the beauty and character of our Town, and I join many other Hillsborough residents in objecting to those proposals. Under the above strategy I have outlined, neither new zoning, nor multifamily housing, nor a Town Hall multi-story complex, would be necessary to meet the Town’s 554 target number for HE6.3
*****
The ideas and methodology I have outlined above are one reasonable, low-impact -903-
pathway for the Council to devise a Final Plan that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community, and (2) represents a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation of 554 housing units. There undoubtedly are other means of doing so – without the need for re-zoning, for multi-family housing, for multi- story apartment buildings, and the like. In addition to its natural beauty, unique history, and character, our Town is blessed with a thoughtful, engaged, civic-minded citizenry, many of whom have participated actively and respectfully in this process since the unveiling of the objectionable Draft Plan six weeks ago. Collectively, the residents of Hillsborough have stated well-founded concerns and objections to the Draft Plan and proposed a range of creative alternatives. It is now up to the Council to be responsive, listen and incorporate that feedback, and produce a Final Plan that is right for Hillsborough and protects our unique Town. 3 There are likely other means of meeting our HE6 target of 554 housing units that likewise would be respectful of, and preserve, Hillsborough’s essential character. For example, I understand that there is land near I-280 that is owned by the San Francisco PUC, which the Town might be able to annex, acquire and rezone for HE6 compliance purposes. This is the kind of option that should be fully explored before adopting radical changes to our Town. 4 Respectfully submitted, Theodore W. Ullyot
-904-
From: JULIUS YOUNG
To: General Plan; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole
Subject: Housing Element draft and AB-2097
Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:20:37 AM
This comment on the draft Housing Element supplements other comments I have filed.

As a HEAC member, I don’t recall Houseal Lavigne or the town consultants discussing the progress of AB-2097 through the 2022 legislature. If they did so it was only in passing at an early HEAC meeting very early in the legislative process, As of the date I am filing this comment Governor Newsom has not signed AB-2097, but I think most observers expect him to do so within the next couple of weeks.

If members of the town council are not familiar with AB-2097, I have provided a link to the California Legislative Website at the bottom of this comment (that includes the text of the bill and the California Senate and California Assembly Analysis).

I am out of California at the moment and I wasn’t able to attend the recent town council meeting but watched on Youtube. Obviously one of the major concerns about the town owned Floribunda site is parking. The WRNSStudio consultant presented slides about conceptual alternatives including the number of ground level parking spaces that could be provided (even if the town did not require underground parking).

As the California Senate analysis notes, AB-2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing parking minimums on developments within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop.

It seems appalling that the looming passage of AB-2097 was not mentioned by the WRNSStudio, town staff or the town attorney as the commenters and town council struggled to understand the basic concepts of how the Floribunda site might affect the neighborhood.

Early in the HEAC process I had favored the development of housing on the Floribunda site but I am no expert in planning and was not tracking all the bills pending in the legislature this year.

I personally feel sandbagged by Houseal Lavigne, town staff and WRNSStudio insofar as AB2097 will remove ability to enforce parking minimums. This is something the consultants and staff must have known about but yet were not discussing. Even if they think that AB-2097 would not apply for some reason, I think they were derelict in not mentioning their thought process about how AB-2097 would affect the site and would/would not apply.

How the WRNSStudio consultant could give a presentation to a roomful of people and Zoom attendees and not mention this and the effect it could have on his slides is beyond me.

I think a lot of attendees are going to feel sandbagged by the process here and the lack of quality information.

Going forward, if AB-2097 is signed and the Floribunda campus is built, we could have a situation where to make numbers work a developer uses AB-2097 with reduced parking there and a lot of daytime parking in neighborhoods results. Ultimately the town might be forced to have difficult decisions about whether to aggressively enforce nighttime street parking -905-
restrictions if the residents (and their nighttime visitors) have no other place to park.

Here is a link to the official legislative website on AB-2097:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097 Thank you
Julius Young
-906-
From: Ted Ullyot
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Objections to Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:15:51 PM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
Pursuant to the instructions on the Town's website, I am submitting the attached letter setting forth my objections to the Draft Housing Element Plan (dated Aug. 4, 2022).

Respectfully,
Theodore W. Ullyot
Hillsborough Resident
-907-
1 THEODORE W. ULLYOT
September 17, 2022
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May:

Hillsborough truly is a special place worthy of preservation. As Mayor Royse states in his Welcome Message on the Town website, we are a “unique residential community” with a “rich history,” and a “park-like setting and quiet atmosphere.” Mayor Royse’s message rightly states:
“Hillsborough strives to maintain the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town. We are dedicated to preserving our history, natural beauty, architectural heritage and small town atmosphere that contribute to the essential character of our community and make it a wonderful place in which to live and raise a family.”
In the 2014-22 HE5 cycle, the Council (which included current members Chuang, May, and Royse) was careful to protect Hillsborough’s unique character and heritage in meeting its RHNA/HE5 obligations. The Town’s HE5 Plan, by its own explicit terms, “represent[ed] a sincere and creative attempt to meet local and regional housing needs in a community that doesn’t meet the urban norms around which the State Housing Element law was created,” see Town of Hillsborough 2014 Housing Element (HE5 Plan) at p. 4 – and the Council’s heritage-protecting plan was duly approved by the State.
-908-
2 I have no doubt that Town Staff (and its consultant) worked diligently and earnestly to develop their Draft Plan. But the Staff’s Draft Plan is only a draft, and it is up to the Council to make the final decision and craft the final plan to be submitted to the State. You Councilmembers – not the Staff, and certainly not the outside consultant – are the Hillsborough residents whom we elected and to whom we’ve entrusted the responsibility of representing, leading, and preserving our Town and its unique and historic character. With due respect, now is time for the Council to take ownership of the final decision and to show the leadership, responsiveness, and stewardship that we elected you to provide – in this case, not by deferring to Staff and consultants, but by directing the Staff to revise its Draft Plan in a manner that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community1, and (2) produces a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation while preserving “the rustic character and rural charm that are the hallmarks of our town” and what makes Hillsborough the “wonderful place in which to live and raise a family” that we all cherish. * * * * *
As the Council considers how to craft a final plan that corrects the deficiencies and shortcomings of the Draft Plan, I submit the following key points for your consideration.

First, we should target the HCD-mandated 554 housing units, not a number higher than that (which is what the Draft Plan proposes). HCD’s 554 number is already too high, representing a remarkable 12% increase over Hillsborough’s existing 4000-unit housing stock – in an era when the population of California, and the population of San Mateo County, are decreasing.2 The Draft Plan proposes that we should voluntarily exceed the 554-unit mandate, in the name of a creating a “buffer” that would take us to a goal of 665 new housing units for 1 Although the HE6/RHNA process has been going on for many months, it was only with the issuance of the Staff Draft Plan in early August of this year (barely six weeks ago – at a time when many residents were enjoying the last days of summer, sending kids off to college, and so on) that the true threat to our community became clear (the prospect of zoning changes; 12-15% increase to our housing stock; multi-story buildings; dramatic transformation of Town Hall without accommodation for the Veterans Memorial; etc.). And in those short six weeks, Hillsborough residents have rallied and responded, engaging with remarkable speed and unanimity – and always respectfully – to make our voices and concerns heard, in person and in writing. The community has responded in plenty of time for the Council as our elected representatives – and community stewards – to receive and incorporate our feedback and develop a revised, creative final plan that is true to Hillsborough’s essential character. 2 I understand that some other jurisdictions in California have challenged their assigned HE6 numbers. To the extent it remains possible for Hillsborough to challenge our target number of 554 (and seek to reduce that number to one that more accurately reflects the current population trends), the Council should pursue such a challenge. -909-
3 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 (at most) 554 housing units, not 665.

For the remaining 34 units, there are a number of paths to get there. One example: We should continue to lobby the State (see Housing Element FAQ 12) to accept some or all of our 101-unit overage from HE5. The FAQs say that the Town “is currently working with our lobbyists to petition the state” to get credit for the 101 extra units we created in HE5. Let's at least pursue that route to completion (including appeal), before fundamentally changing Hillsborough and putting our property values at risk.
-910-
4 Between ADUs and petitioning for retroactive credit on our HE5 overage, that gets us to 621 units, thereby substantially exceeding our HE6 allocation. Even if the State were to give us credit for only one-third of our HE5 excess (34 units of the 101 excess), that would get us to the required 554.

Because the Town can meet its HE6 target through a combination of ADUs and partialcredit for our HE5 overage, we do not need to – and should not – change Hillsborough’s zoning to add the new HD-2 and HD-3 zones, nor add multi-family housing, nor erect a multi-story building on Town property at El Camino and Floribunda – all of which are strategies proposed in the Draft Plan. Each of those steps would bring about fundamental negative change to the beauty and character of our Town, and I join many other Hillsborough residents in objecting to those proposals. Under the above strategy I have outlined, neither new zoning, nor multi-family housing, nor a Town Hall multi-story complex, would be necessary to meet the Town’s 554 target number for HE6.3
* * * * *
The ideas and methodology I have outlined above are one reasonable, low-impact pathway for the Council to devise a Final Plan that (1) addresses the widespread concerns and objections you’ve heard from the community, and (2) represents a good-faith, sincere, and creative proposal for satisfying our HE6 obligation of 554 housing units. There undoubtedly are other means of doing so – without the need for re-zoning, for multi-family housing, for multistory apartment buildings, and the like. In addition to its natural beauty, unique history, and character, our Town is blessed with a thoughtful, engaged, civic-minded citizenry, many of whom have participated actively and respectfully in this process since the unveiling of the objectionable Draft Plan six weeks ago. Collectively, the residents of Hillsborough have stated well-founded concerns and objections to the Draft Plan and proposed a range of creative alternatives. It is now up to the Council to be responsive, listen and incorporate that feedback, and produce a Final Plan that is right for Hillsborough and protects our unique Town. 3 There are likely other means of meeting our HE6 target of 554 housing units that likewise would be respectful of, and preserve, Hillsborough’s essential character. For example, I understand that there is land near I-280 that is owned by the San Francisco PUC, which the Town might be able to annex, acquire and rezone for HE6 compliance purposes. This is the kind of option that should be fully explored before adopting radical changes to our Town. -911-
5 Respectfully submitted,
Theodore W. Ullyot
-912-
From: Christopher Polizzi
To: General Plan
Subject: OPPOSE proposed new zoning
Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 6:37:08 PM
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> We are without qualification opposed to the proposed new zoning for Hillsborough. We have been residents in this lovely community for almost 30 years. We chose Hillsborough for its significant special qualities including its privacy and lower density. These two very attributes would be severely compromised by the loosening of zoning rules currently being proposed. The very fabric and setting for Hillsborough are being placed at risk, and deliberately so, as though what the residents care about and would want to preserve does not matter. >
> Hillsborough set itself as a special community since its beginning, for many years, and the zoning rules in place have reflected that vision as they should. It is wrong and more than unfair to change that and compromise some of the core and key qualities, especially privacy and lower density, not to mention the potential impact on schools and public services.
>
> We strongly encourage the decision-makers to reconsider this proposal. >
> With our thanks,
>
> Catherine Polizzi, Ph.D., J.D.
> Christopher Polizzi
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
-913-
From: D Payne
To: General Plan
Cc: D Payne
Subject: Comments regarding the Housing Use Element due by September 19 Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 3:12:47 PM
Emailed September 17, 2022
To the Town of Hillsborough Housing Element Group
The enclosed comments are in response to the public review comment period, due by September 19, 2022 in regard to the Hillsborough Housing Element. Kindly confirm receipt.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Deborah Payne

1. Feasibility of the Town of Hillsborough using a portion of its schools and/or replacing one of the schools with a housing element.

Some cities are building teacher/staff housing on school grounds. Great idea and this concept needs to be considered by the Town of Hillsborough. Include housing for school maintenance staff, teaching assistants… Plus housing for emergency workers (fire, police, paramedics), Town employees. All provide service to the schools in some way.

With four big schools (three elementary and one middle school) accommodating under 2,000 (1)(2) students, what is actually needed now and into the future based on the size of the Town and the potential for student growth.

Is it possible to consolidate a portion of school grounds – soccer fields, tennis courts, etc. Can some current space activities be shared rather than duplicated from school to school. What is currently being used (i.e., how much is used for how many children). Hillsborough can maintain beautiful award winning schools while pitching in to meet a portion of the housing requirements.

2.Any housing development needs to be located in an appropriate area that benefits both those who currently live in Hillsborough as well as those for which the housing is developed.

The Housing diagram, found on the open house link of the Hillsborough website, shows identified properties for subdivision development.

Subdividing large properties in the hills is not a good idea. In the long run it will cost more to handle safety issues, water issues, traffic congestion, wildlife concerns, potential litigation from owners…. exacerbating costs and neighborhood angst.

2.1 Safety is a big issue. How many people will new housing bring in and what impact will it have on roadways. Added cars on narrow windy streets, with no sidewalks and no street lighting, creates safety and quality of life problems. The cost of trying to expand roadways in steep, windy areas to get to and from housing to the freeway will be extremely challenging and also creates added problems with land slippage, imminent domain issues, etc. On Summit Drive, for example, neighbors won a suit against the Burlingame School District over added school traffic and congestion from Hoover School on Summit Drive. The Summit Drive neighbors won. It is clear that subdividing in this area will not solve the very issue that the neighbors won over the Burlingame School District. As is well known, Hillsborough was not designed for traffic especially on narrow winding roads with no sidewalks.

Our Town is described as a country setting and housing was designed with that in mind.

2.2 Further, cutting into the hillside around the Hoover School located along the edge of Hillsborough, created major water drainage problems for the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Burlingame. Water drainage issues in the Hills are well known.

Neighbors have water challenges on their own properties. Some have installed sump pumps in basements to use during the -914-
winter season. It was evident when the school construction work was in process with large metal catch basins collecting water behind covered fencing along Summit Drive in an effort to try to hide the extent of the problem. Later with drainage problems continuing above the school, a rainstorm caused water to flow down the school driveway and flood houses at the bottom of the hill. The water drainage in place could not accommodate the deluge. Currently work continues behind the school with teacher parking having to be moved temporarily to accommodate the work needed. In a storm earlier in the year water poured from the hillside above the school covering the parking lot and the street. Simply for this reason subdividing property in the Summit area is not recommended.

2.3 Properties identified for subdividing, while appearing large in size on a map to accommodate more building, often have buildability challenges (artesian springs, streams and gulches, or located on inclines with the potential for slides) especially in “earthquake” country where we live and also these issues may not be easily visible. Water goes where it wants to go. In the dry season, there is little evidence of water. When it is wet, water percolates up. Plus hillsides have the potential to slide. What initially appears straightforward may instead present enormous challenges to overcome.

2.4 We need to consider wildlife as well. Large properties in the Hills provide vital open space for wildlife who rely on these areas for survival. There are also old growth sections that need to be preserved rather than bulldozed. Identifying what is best for the community and for our local wildlife is vital.

2.5 Property devaluation is a hot button and especially for properties that lie alongside developments as well as neighbors in the vicinity. How will the development be designed to benefit current Hillsborough residents. How will the housing fit into the Hillsborough community and the immediate neighborhood. Does it make sense (beyond fulfilling the need to meet housing requirements). The same goes for ADU housing and other housing options.

2.6 Design considerations. Important to consider sufficient green space, appropriate building designs that blend into the community (no protruding structures, limit density of buildings, limit building heights, no high rises, sufficient green zone spaces between neighbors and the new construction) -- keep the charm of the community. It is vital that these types of concerns are carefully addressed and fully vetted. Important to avoid litigation with potential to go on for years that could cost the Town and its citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars.

2.7 For current residents and for those with limited resources who would be the targeted new residents, it is also critical to consider the proximity of housing services and transportation, to work and school, and getting to critical services, such as to the doctor. Low-income housing, senior housing, housing for families with children are examples. Also important to include maintenance into whatever is designed and approved. This needs to be part of the agreement with a contingency to include in the approval process and costs -- clarify who is responsible for keeping the ongoing buildings and grounds well maintained and neat, free from graffiti and garbage. Also need to have a way to handle noise; who comes and goes and when. Is what laws/rules we have in place sufficient or is more needed. Let us develop ways to maintain the character and charm of the community for all who live here. Let us be open to what is possible while addressing carefully what needs to be done to protect the beauty and serenity of where we live.

Notes:
(1)https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hillsboroughtowncalifornia/AGE135221 (US Census quick facts) (2)
The Hillsborough City School District is a public school district in Hillsborough, California, United States. Currently, the district serves over 1530 students who live in the town of Hillsborough.

Students: 1,268 (2020–2021)
NCES District ID: 0617190
Student–teacher ratio: 13.49:1
Grades: K–8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_City_School_District#:~:text=The%20Hillsborough%20City%20School%20District,in%20the%20town%20of%20Hillsborough.

Hillsborough City School District - Wikipedia
-915-
From: Marilyn M
To: General Plan
Subject: Comment
Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 9:33:37 AM
At the meeting I attended on 9/13, I thought that I heard someone mention a possible zoning change to a 4 ft side allowance. I think that is too small. If we want to allow a 100 ft frontage for a lot (which I think would be ok) , those homes should be much smaller in square footage than the current Hillsborough home and the side lot allowance should not be less than 10 ft. I think small and less expensive homes would add diversity to our community but we do not want to lose our greenery. We need to leave space for plantings and privacy.

Thanks for your efforts
Marilyn Meier
-916-
From: Jessica Tang
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough State Mandated Draft Housing Plan Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 8:39:29 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to the “current draft housing plan.” Respectfully,
Jessica Tang
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
-917-
From: Maggie Tang Hom
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough State Mandated Draft Housing Plan Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 8:08:45 AM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to the “current draft housing plan.” Respectfully yours,
Maggie Hom
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
--
Maggie Tang Hom
-918-
From: KaiYen Mai
To: General Plan
Cc: Kenneth Heath
Subject: I oppose the draft Housing Element
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 10:51:13 PM
Councilmembers, 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 oppose: * Reduction in lot sizes, and 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. * 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 home owners' property rights and penalize those home owners with no compensation. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future. * 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. Many people in our town agree on these three 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 16 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Sincerely, KaiYen Mai & Ken Heath
, Hillsborough
-919-
From: Jenny Tsang
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing element
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 10:01:20 PM
I am writing because I STRONGLY OPPOSE the draft
housing element.

In particular, I do not approve of recommendations to build high density/townhomes in Hillsborough. I am a second
generation resident of Hillsborugh. My 2 sisters and I all went through the Hillsborugh school system and all moved back when we were able to. There are many obvious reasons to move back, more important ones being the schools, the quiet neighborhoods, and sense of tradition.

By allowing townhomes and other high density dwellings
completely changes the essence of Hillsborough! In addition, there will be a large increase of students. This may increase the teacher to student ratio - which is a hallmark of HSD - that is so critical for the success of our children. I’m not sure our current buildings and teachers are sufficient for the increase either. As is, we rely so much on our tax (based on our land and house values) and donations to support our schools. I don’t foresee low income townhouse owners being able to contribute much financially - which will spread the existing dollars so thinly among the schools.

I also have concerns about increased traffic, need for more police patrol, and just general stress on our basic
infrastructure.

Hillsborough has always been a single family residential -920-
community - that is our history, our character, and essence.

We need to preserve what is so unique to Hillsborough. Please try to find a solution that does not take away what is truly the core of Hillsborough.

Regards,
Jenny Tsang
Sent from my iPad
-921-
From: Susie Campbell
To: General Plan
Subject: NO to Draft Housing Element
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 8:23:05 PM
Absolutely no in its current form.

Hillsborough is a town, not a city, and needs to retain its town features. I will not go into my questions as to how Hillsborough ended up with its current allocation vs similar size town of Atherton (and with more population). However, there are a lot of lessons to learn and follow from their response. In general, the draft plan presented by the town council seems to be negotiating against itself - don't give away the farm, so to speak, up front - the final plan needs to be realistic and then negotiate against the housing authorities if not accepted.
1) reduce current 20% buffer - it's way too high: reduce to 10%. We are a small town. Do not think like a big city - Hillsborough does not have the ability to absorb high density housing the same way cities such as Burlingame or Millbrae and all the development along 101 in those towns are doing.
2) absolutely no zoning changes (possible exception - see 4) below), to either lot size or minimum home size. Hillsborough is 60-70% high-fire severity zone. We do not need dense housing in the high-fire zone.
3) increase ADU component - thank you for sending out a survey on this topic specifically. A plan backed by data is a realistic plan. 4) reduce height of Town Hall complex - Five stories? Really? Reduce to height of buildings along ECR in Burlingame. This site makes the most sense to develop as it is close to public transportation (SAMTRANS, CalTrain) and not within WUI.

In summary, please do not present a plan that changes the character of the town. The current draft does that and is completely unrealistic.

Regards,
Susie Campbell and John Sheputis, Homeowners
cell
-922-
From: Stephanie Flynn
To: General Plan
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 6:49:17 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to the current draft housing plan.

Thank you,
Stephanie
-923-
From: Stacy Mezzetta de Cossio
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Stacy M. de Cossio
Subject: Resident Opposition to Hillsborough Housing Element Draft Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 6:08:54 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
We appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for the entire community.

We would also like to register our opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public, and propose an alternate approach.

IN OUR OPINION, THE CURRENT PLAN AS PRESENTED LAST WEEK WILL NEEDLESSLY:

1. Change the character of the town for the worse and negatively affect our life savings

2. Compromise further our infrastructure problems including water supply, wildfire evacuation plans, and more

3. Increase our wildfire risk from dire to unwise and catastrophic

4. Create even more danger for (increased number of) pedestrians and wildlife among our dark and winding roads, many with no sidewalks, and

5. Create hazards and nuisances due to increased traffic and projected construction AMONG THE SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN, WE URGE OUR TOWN TO:

1. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing and engage with them to fight for our common interests

2. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones and the overlay zone in favor of expanding the ADU/JADU allocation

3. Get creative and practical in increasing number of units on the large parcels by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements

4. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing
Sincerely,
Stacy and Dan de Cossio
Hillsborough
-924-
From: Christian Sepulveda
To: General Plan
Subject: comments on Housing plans
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 5:47:10 PM
I'd like to share my thoughts on the town's proposal regarding the Draft Housing Element.

In reviewing the plan, my primary concern is that it is hard to anticipate the consequences of changes, especially at this scale. So I advocate to enact the minimal changes.

With this in mind, I would prefer that the town focus on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

There are many ADUs already in Hillsborough and I think increasing the number of ADUs would have the smallest impact on the town.

I urge the council to NOT
-change setback nor lot sizes
-create zones for apartment buildings, townhouses or similar housing types I am glad to read about the ADU successes in the RHNA Cycle 5. I would expand on the town's support of ADUs. Besides the outreach and expediting processes being done, I would consider things like
-financial incentives and support for ADU development
-partnering with developers/contractors to enable less expensive and easier ADU construction -explore other zone, policy, etc. changes to ease ADU applications -first-come, first serve (with quotas) incentives to accelerate ADU applications and construction
As a practical matter, also like many residents, my home is my largest asset. I wish to preserve property values and avoid anything that could undermine them. But I also want to preserve the character of our town. Hillsborough is a unique community that my family loves.

Thank you.

Christian Sepulveda
-925-
From: Paul Longhenry
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Al Royse Cc: Rhoda Longhenry
Subject: Housing Element Concerns
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 4:16:32 PM
All - my better half and I have serious concerns about the housing plan that has been assembled by what appears to be either biased or misguided consultants that have been used to date. Everything that I've read to date suggests that these recommendations are overly conservative, putting Hillsborough in a position where we are starting from a position of weakness in negotiations with the state.

We all love the Hillsborough community and want to protect its unique character. I strongly suggest that we take the most aggressive positions that can be justified when making our proposal to the state.

Sincerely,
Paul, Rhoda, Storm and Breeze Longhenry
-926-
From: Brent Regan
To: General Plan
Cc: Ada Regan; Ann Ritzma
Subject: Comments regarding the Draft Housing Element
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 4:04:31 PM
Greetings,
My name is Brent Regan and I am the son of Ada and Barrie Regan and trustee for the various Regan Family trusts.

I am representing AKA Strawberry Hill.

I grew up in Hillsborough and lived here from 1962 to 1987. I attended North Hillsborough and Crocker schools and am well familiar with the nature and unique charm of our municipality.

I was shocked to learn of the planned high density housing options and was further shocked that the consultants had targeted Strawberry Hill to bear the majority of the planned low cost / high density housing. It seems that 50 acres of mostly undeveloped land was too tempting a feature and that the plan was not to treat all properties equally but to single out some (>10 acres) for special zoning. While I appreciate the the proposed plans are "optional" it is not unreasonable to assume that which may now be optional will, in the fullness of time, become strongly recommended or even required. While we can reasonably trust our local elected officials, who are also our friends and neighbors, to keep our interests first and foremost, we cannot reasonably expect the same from the legislators in Sacramento. Legislators who seem to see Hillsborough residents as more a resource to be exploited than constituents to be represented.

Zoning is, in effect, a contract between the municipality and the residents. It is an agreement about the future expectations for property use. Real property is often a families most monetarily valuable asset and may represent a bulk of a person's stored wealth. As such, it is imperative that the landowner's expectations for future development are known so that reasonable planning can take place. For the municipalities' part, the restrictions that are implemented as a consequence of zoning are taken in trade for certainty about future conditions. The landowner trades specific freedoms for future certainty. Changing the zoning violates this covenant unless it is with the consent of all parties. Elected officials who fail to attain consensus before changing zoning are typically rewarded by being relieved of their authority.

One solution to ensure that Strawberry Hill is treated no differently than any other parcel would be to divide the 50 acres into a number of smaller (<5 acre) parcels, thus removing the potential of spot zoning.

Dividing the parcel does not cause development to be done but it does ensure and any future development is in line with the existing character of the community and cannot be the out of character high density option proposed.

One may wonder why we would take steps to limit the type of future -927-
development that may take place on Strawberry Hill as those options may in fact be more lucrative then the traditional Hillsborough property.

The reason is simple. My mother, myself, and and the Regan family does want the legacy of our family name being associated with some future high density monstrosity that would be universally despised by our current neighbors.

I have taken steps to begin the division process and intend to proceed at a reasonable pace. I have instructed our engineering company to begin evaluating the various elements of the property and propose divisions that meet the existing requirements. I expect to begin the formal process with the city in the coming weeks and certainly before the end of the year. Please plan accordingly.

Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter.

Regards
Brent Regan
-928-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: WE OPPOSE THE HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DRAFT ELEMENT (Resident Responses) Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 3:26:47 PM
Attachments: Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Email - Joe Cohn.pdf
Email - - Cindy Xide Lin.docx
Email - - Hsiao Lieu.docx
Email - - Martin Keyser.docx
Email - - Jiequn Pan .docx
Email - - Alice and TK Chang.docx
Email - - Richard and Barbara Kuersteiner.pdf
Email - - Richard Finn.docx
Attached are just some of the responses I've received so far from Hillsborough residents opposing the Hillsborough housing draft element. Please see the attachments. These officially inform you of the strong opposition to the Hillsborough draft housing element. The responses have included their names and addresses.

Hi, Stanley:

This is Cindy Lin and Yingyi Liang. We live at , Hillsborough. --
Sincerely,
Cindy Xide Lin

-930-
From: alice chang
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:46 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP high density housing element in Hillsboroug

Hi Stanley,
Just received your letter today (9/15) & the letter stated we must submit the form no later than September 14?
I hope it's not too late to express that we strongly oppose the Hillsborough draft housing plan.

Following is our contact information:

Alice Chang & TK Chang
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Thank you,
Alice & TK
09/15/22
-931-
From: Martin Keyser
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:38 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: High Density Housing

Hello Stanley,

I received your mailer today and it says to mail this back to you no later than September 14th. Sorry, but I received it later than the 14th so here is my response in email format.

I, Martin Keyser, resident of , Hillsborough CA 94010 do oppose the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.

Thank you,
Martin Keyser
-932-
From: Richard Finn
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 3:13 AM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: high density housing

i wish to oppose the plan for high density housing . richartd finn , , hillsborough 94010- 6838
-933-
Friday, September 16, 2022 at 15:21:22 Pacific Daylight Time

Page 1 of 1 ends

Hillsborough City CouncilSeptember 26, 2022

Hillsborough City Council
September 26, 2022