For the reasons discussed below, my clients believe that the RHNA 2023 requirements should and can be met by a combination of more aggressive ADU creation, and by the use of State Law SB9, rather than a rezoning of most or all the Town. Rather than rezoning, immediately below, I list the Committee’s proposed solutions for the 2023 RHNA Housing Element. Later in this letter I will discuss the Committee’s concerns with the Town Hall Campus and why it should be removed completely from the Housing Element plans. Finally, I will outline a few additional concerns with the proposal as it stands today.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS: SUBMIT THE HOUSING ELEMENT WITH AN
INCREASED ADU/JADU FORECAST AND SB-9 ALLOWANCES RATHER THAN REZONING We believe that the current draft underrepresents the number of ADU’s that are likely to be built or could be built with additional effort from the Town. It focuses on a 3-year average taken during a pandemic, and ADU permits still have 5+ month approval periods today. When new ADU streamlining laws took affect and the COVID pandemic eased, the Town’s ADU production jumped to 89 applications, with 81 entitlements and 64 permits given in the year 2021, and 2022 is on a similar trajectory. The three-year average methodology is only a suggestion from HCD and need not be used. The State’s Independent Auditor and The Bay Area Council suggest that an alternative accounting can be used where the pandemic or local conditions affected the ADU production rates. Please see state technical letter attached.
The State is receptive to deviations from that range were the Town to put together a plan to demonstrate to the State that the Town will exceed the current average of 62 ADU units per year.
The Town can so demonstrate by doing several things: (1) adopting the ADU suggestions in this letter; (2) implementing an ADU education outreach plan; (3) offering financial incentives including waiving fees for senior or lower income residents and waving increased taxes; (3) preapproving three ADU designs in advance as per the Town’s consultant Robert Kain; and (4) require all new homes of over $1.5 million in value to include an ADU of a minimum size and/or a Junior ADU.
1. It appears that the Town has underestimated the number of JADU’s that can be created by ignoring the fact that so many existing homes have more bedrooms, more garage space, more storage space/internal recreation space than actually needed now that the birth rate is falling, and family sizes are decreasing.
2. The Housing Element should also include an appropriate number of dwellings and ADU’s that can be created using SB 9 (without any local rezoning) since that law allows: (1) an additional regular dwelling unit in all lots currently zoned for one unit; and (2) the subdivision of lots of at least 5,000 square feet without variances; and (3) the creation of a dwelling, ADU and Junior ADU on the newly created lot and the original lot. Given this State law, there is no reason for the Housing Element to rely -2294-
Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo County
Mayor Alvin L. Royse
RE: Housing Element Opposition Letter
September 12, 2022
on rezonings throughout the Town and on the huge up-zoning of the Town Hall site for the RHNA allocation. In particular, sites along the San Mateo border should be analyzed for potential SB-9 units. The “Smart Housing” alterative suggested by some residents states that 61 SF-9 units are possible, and the Housing Element should analyze and include (if appropriate) this number.
3. Contingency Plans if the Housing Element with my clients’ changes should be rejected by the State:
a. Since 2005, the RHNA has been discussing senior housing opportunities of a lightmid density because units can be smaller. The Housing Element should investigate the utility of open town-owned sites for senior housing. With the life expectancy increasing, senior housing, already at a premium in the Bay Area, will be an increasing need.
b. The Housing Element should require the Town to request that private schools put in place long-term plans to build limited blocks of teacher housing on site everytime the Town is asked to approve construction to enlarge a school size (also in earlier RHNA plans).
c. The Housing Element should discuss requiring larger Town institutions to submit by a certain date a master plan for housing on the land of such institutions. For example, many Town churches have extra land.
IMMEDIATE CONCERNS WITH THE TOWN HALL CAMPUS AS A HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING SITE, MAKING IT UNSUITABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT:
1. There are many significant issues with the Town Hall Campus site which should have relegated this site as un-developable for high-density housing.
2. According to architectural historian Chris Van der Planck (his letter is attached), there are at least two buildings at the Town Hall campus which must be kept in place given their significance as historic resources. The police station, as the town’s oldest building, is of greatest historic significance. The site has major environmental issues as listed in Jan 2019 Indigo Report. The utilities in the area are unequal to property development, there is known and possible contamination with lead/asbestos/gas by-products, there is possible riparian/wetlands/endangered species from a nearby creek and culvert, and the area is a major seismic risk. As such it is not suitable in its current form for housing.
The site must go through significant environmental and other site reviews before even considering placing any housing on this site. The state should be informed in the Housing Element draft that there are significant environmental hazards. -2295-
Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo County
Mayor Alvin L. Royse
RE: Housing Element Opposition Letter
September 12, 2022
3. The Draft Housing Element does not sufficiently analyze the risks and expenses of development of the Town Hall site with one or more buildings of 6 or more stories.
There is no reassurance to citizens in the draft Housing Element that the important logistical and environmental issues regarding the development of the Town Center Site will be addressed. In fact, citizens have been told the CEQA document to be prepared for that development is extremely unlikely to be a full EIR. However, full EIR’s are required where, as here, significant historic resources are proposed for demolition or where environmental hazards or inadequate utilities are present. The Housing Element and its CEQA approval should list the above referenced problems with regard to such an intense development of the Town Hall site.
4. My clients believe that there is a potential conflict of interest inherent in the process of using this site, given the potential benefit to the City, city workers, and consultants working on the process. The fact that the RFP for consultant work on the Town Hall site was decided, announced and awarded before HEAC input, and that the direction of the project has been driven by that RFP work design, creates high potential for conflictof-interest concerns which my clients will be watching closely, particularly in the face of such overwhelming public disagreement with the plan.
5. To date, no zoning details have been provided for proposed RD-3 zoning for this site, meaning that there are no proposed limits on the site for height, setback, residential vs civic vs high density intermingling, etc. Residents have a right to comment on this zoning just like the other RD-1 and RD-2 zoning proposed in the Housing Element.
Additionally, during this process, there has been inconsistent information provided to residents throughout the comment period, leaving different town members with different facts; the fact that there are no details on the Town Hall site means it is premature for the Housing Element to rely on this site so strongly for delivery of a number of new units.
6. One particular concern here is moving a police station and related environmental toxins directly into a residential block.
7. Additionally, multiple proposals show a proposal to reroute Walnut Avenue which results in several issues with Emergency Access to the residents therein, many of whom have small children or are elderly and/or disabled. This proposal was already evaluated years ago and found to be unsuitable, and as such should not be reconsidered.
8. Very preliminary plans for the Town Center campus are only to be provided five days before community input closes on September 19, 2022. This is an obvious due process problem as it gives residents only five days to understand and critique the Town Hall -2296-
Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo County
Mayor Alvin L. Royse
RE: Housing Element Opposition Letter
September 12, 2022
campus plan. Moreover, as of today, a week or so before the public review period ends, the Housing Element’s “Housing Resources” section remains blank.
9. The Housing Element should look at each of the Action Items in the 2014 Housing Element to explain why those Action Items cannot be carried out in the next Housing Element cycle. In particular, the residents near the Town Hall site deserve a serious analysis as to why the lower density plan for that site is not feasible. There were some concerns from the Fire Department as to that site, but those concerns should be looked at again in light of new technology and new State Fire regulations.
10. The Housing Element states that almost all the lower income units are to be placed within the new Town Hall development. This means that the less fortunate will be “ghettoized”. They deserve to live among residents of all income categories for their own benefit and for the benefit those of upper incomes. Low to Moderate income units should be spread throughout the Town, especially in underutilized school district properties as the North School is currently subject to overcrowding.
OTHER ISSUES:
11. The Department of Housing and Community Development has created RHNA numbers for towns and cities that greatly overestimate the need for additional housing units in the next 5-10 years. The California State Auditor has done an audit requested by the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee, attached hereto. It is very critical of the RHNA process that the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has used to provide key housing guidance for the State’s local governments.
12. Moreover, the Housing Element reports that during the period January 1, 2014, through the last day of 2021, the Town exceeded the RHNA 5 allocation by 111%. This supports the idea that the town may not need a Town Hall project of the extreme density that is planned there.
13. The “buffer guidelines” the State has suggested can range between 15% and 30% in case some units do not get built. Additionally, as the buffer is intended to replace any homes or units removed from Hillsborough, and the majority of Hillsborough housing is above the San Mateo County AMI, the buffer, at a more reasonable level of 5-10%, does not need to be spread across all income levels, but instead just to the AMI or above categories, or something more balanced.
There are many inconsistencies and irregularities with how various sites were considered and how mapping occurred. Why some sites were considered, and others were not is stated, and yet there -2297-
Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo County
Mayor Alvin L. Royse
RE: Housing Element Opposition Letter
September 12, 2022
are no records of the process for evaluating sites or their site scores. This should be public information.
Town-owned open space sites should be considered. While open spaces are important, they can be relocated to other areas of town. While we were told that no open space sites were listed because of grading problems or the lack of interest by developers, these are not appropriate justifications for why the pros and cons of development of these sites were not analyzed. Grading issues should not be a justification for exclusion of those locations. Grading is cheaper and less time consuming than in past due to new technologies.
CONCLUSION:
My clients reserve the right to exercise all legal remedies unless the Housing Element is substantially changed as outlined above.
Very truly yours,
Brett Gladstone.
5328-04/090822A.docx
CC:
Mayor Royse
Vice Mayor Krolik
Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang
City Manager Ritzma
City Clerk Natusch
Planning Director
City Attorney Diaz
File
-2298-
Town of Hillsborough
To: Hon. Mayor Alvin L. Royse
Hillsborough City Council
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
From: Christopher VerPlanck, Principal
VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting
530 Rockdale Drive
San Francisco, CA 94127
CC:
Date: September 8, 2022
Re: Town Hall Campus
Hon. Mayor Royse and the Hillsborough City Council,
I prepared this memorandum in regard to the Draft Housing Element for the Town of Hillsborough, dated August 4, 2022 – in particular Housing Opportunity Site 1: Town Hall Campus. I understand that the Town has commissioned a study to analyze the proposed redevelopment of the Town Hall campus at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, but I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that parts of the property contain potential historic resources, including the Hillsborough Police Department headquarters.
I am an independent architectural historian and historic preservation consultant based in San Francisco. A native of Burlingame, I hold an M.Arch. in Architectural History and a Certificate in Historic Preservation from University of Virginia’s Graduate School of Architecture. Since 2007, I have flourished in my career as an independent historic preservation consultant. In this capacity I have completed hundreds of historic resource evaluations, historic structure reports, National Register nominations, cultural resource surveys, and all manner of analyses throughout California – including at least 30 studies in San Mateo County. I meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural History and History. In addition, I have won several preservation design awards, including from the California Preservation Foundation and the American Institute of Architects – Northern California Chapter. -2299-
2 It was recently brought to my attention that the Town has prepared a Draft Housing Element that includes the Town Hall campus in its list of potential housing opportunity sites. According to the draft, Housing Opportunity Site 1 comprises a 2.5-acre site near the intersection of Floribunda Avenue and El Camino Real. The site presently contains several buildings, including Hillsborough Town Hall, Hillsborough Police Department, a single-family dwelling, and Centennial Park. The site also includes parking, perimeter landscaping, and a corporation yard.
Although most of the site appears to have been developed in recent decades, the complex at the northwest corner of the property contains one or more buildings that may have architectural and/or historical significance. I have been asked to prepare an independent historic resource evaluation (HRE) for the property, and even though I have not yet begun in earnest, I decided to send this memo with some preliminary information about the property. The section of the Hillsborough Police Station closest to El Camino Real was initially constructed in the early twentieth century by the Pacific Bell Corporation as a switching station. In 1912, two years after Hillsborough incorporated, town officials approached Pacific Bell about purchasing the building, which at that time was in Burlingame. With the purchase complete, Hillsborough annexed the property and converted the Spanish Colonial Revival switching station into a combination town hall/police station.
Since 1912, Hillsborough’s civic center incrementally expanded. In 1927, a wing was built on the east side of the Town Hall. Several years later, the Town hired architect John E. White to design Hillsborough Fire House No. 1 adjoining the Town Hall to the south. In the late 1930s, another wing was added to the south side of the fire station. This wing, which today houses the Finance Department, is designed in a compatible, if more restrained, Spanish Colonial Revival vocabulary. A matching single-family dwelling was then constructed behind this wing in the late 1930s/early 1940s – possibly as a residence for the fire chief.1
John White, who designed the former firehouse, was an associate of Bernard Maybeck, and he was likely responsible for other parts of this complex. White specialized in suburban government buildings, having designed comparable town halls and other public facilities in Ross, Burlingame, and Atherton.2 The rest of the site, including the current Town Hall, was developed much later on toward the end of the twentieth century and even though it is designed to be compatible with the original building, the current Town Hall has no architectural or historical significance.
Although more research and investigation needs to occur before reaching a firm conclusion on the potential significance of any part of the site, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), all parts of the complex that are over 45 years old need to be evaluated prior to demolition or extensive exterior alterations. And, as you know, all projects undertaken by a public agency are subject to CEQA.3 I
assume that this analysis will be done as part of the background studies that are currently underway, but if not, I highly recommend that you have an HRE prepared by a credible consultant.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher VerPlanck
1“Town Hall – It All Started with an Historic Switchboard Center,” Hillsborough (2015):
https://www.hillsborough.net/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/168, accessed September 8, 2022. 2 Fran Cappelletti, “Howard and White: The Story of Two Architects: https://www.moyarhs.org/uploads/1/1/8/7/118735376/howard_and_white.pdf, accessed September 8, 2022. 3 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series #1: “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources”: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/ts01ca.pdf, accessed September 8, 2022.
-2300-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 1/53 Regional Housing Needs
Assessments
The Department of Housing and Community Development
Must Improve Its Processes to Ensure That Communities Can Adequately Plan for Housing
March 17, 2022
2021-125
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, my office evaluated the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (needs
assessment) process that the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) uses to provide key housing guidance for the State’s local governments. The availability of sufficient housing is of vital statewide importance, and HCD’s needs assessments are what allow jurisdictions to plan for the
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2301-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 2/53 j p
development of that housing. Overall, our audit determined that HCD does not ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and adequately supported.
In reviewing the needs assessments for three regions, we identified multiple areas in which HCD must improve its process. For example, HCD does not satisfactorily review its needs assessments to ensure that staff accurately enter data when they calculate how much housing local governments
must plan to build. As a result, HCD made errors that reduced its projected need for housing in two of the regions we reviewed. We also found that HCD could not demonstrate that it adequately considered all of the factors that state law requires, and it could not support its use of healthy housing vacancy rates. This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need.
HCD’s needs assessments also rely on some projections that the Department of Finance (Finance) provides. While we found that most of Finance’s projections were reasonably accurate, it has not adequately supported the rates its uses to project the number of future households that will require housing units in the State. Although these household projections are a key component in HCD’s needs assessments, Finance has not
conducted a proper study or obtained formal
recommendations from experts it consulted to support its assumptions in this area. Finance intends to reevaluate its assumptions related to household growth as more detailed 2020 Census data becomes available later in the year, but without such efforts, Finance cannot ensure that it is
providing the most appropriate information to HCD.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL S. TILDEN, CPA
Acting California State Auditor
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2302-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 3/53
SUMMARY
The Legislature recognizes that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and that the State and local governments have a responsibility to facilitate the
development of adequate housing. State law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
to conduct assessments to determine the housing needs
(needs assessments) throughout regions in the State. The needs assessments rely on projections of future population and households developed by the Department of Finance
(Finance). HCD is required to consider certain factors
identified in state law and then can adjust the needs
assessments for any of the factors. For example, it makes an adjustment to achieve a healthy vacancy rate in the housing market and an adjustment to reduce the number of
overcrowded households. Regions use the needs assessments to plan for additional housing to accommodate population growth and address future housing needs.
HCD’s Housing Needs Assessment
Process Lacks Sufficient
Reviews and Support
HCD does not have a formal review process for the data
it uses to determine its needs assessments. As a result, the needs assessments for two of three regions we
reviewed included errors. One data error reduced a
region’s needs assessment by nearly 2,500 housing units.
HCD also did not demonstrate that it adequately
considered certain factors when creating the needs
assessments of the three regions we reviewed. For
one of those factors, the healthy vacancy rate, HCD did not perform a formal analysis to adequately support its assumptions. HCD’s insufficient oversight of its process
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2303-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 4/53 and the lack of adequate documentation supporting the
healthy vacancy rate risks eroding public confidence in HCD’s ability to address the State’s housing needs.
Finance Provides Reasonable
Population Projections, but It Has
Not Provided Sufficient Support for
Its Household Formation
Projections
Finance’s projections of the statewide future population are reasonably accurate, but it did not sufficiently
support its projections of the number of future
households. To calculate the household projections,
Finance identifies rates at which it expects individuals in different age groups to form new households and
applies those rates to its population projections.
Although Finance worked with HCD to solicit some advice from experts when it established these rates, it did not conduct a formal study or receive clear
recommendations to support them. As a result, Finance
cannot ensure that it is providing the most appropriate information for HCD to include in its needs assessment
process. Finance stated that it intends to reevaluate its assumptions related to household growth after it reviews 2020 Census data when those data become available
later this year.
Summary of Recommendations
Legislature
To provide HCD additional clarity and guidance in
conducting its vacancy rate adjustments, the Legislature
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2304-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 5/53 g y j , g
should amend state law to clarify whether HCD should
continue to use a healthy vacancy rate that includes both rental and owned housing or whether it should
determine and use separate healthy vacancy rates for
owned housing and rental housing.
HCD
To ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and
do not contain unnecessary errors, by June 2022 HCD
should institute a process to ensure that its staff
performs multiple reviews of data in its assessments.
To demonstrate that its needs assessments are complete
and address all relevant factors, by September 2022 HCD should establish a formal process to document its
consideration of all factors required by state law in its needs assessments.
To ensure that it adequately supports the vacancy rate
adjustments it makes to needs assessments, by
February 2023 HCD should perform a formal analysis of
healthy vacancy rates and historical trends to inform
those adjustments.
Finance
To ensure that the household formation rates that it
provides HCD are appropriate, Finance should, by
February 2023, conduct a comprehensive review of its
assumptions about the household formation rates it
uses in projections, and it should document that review.
Agency Comments
HCD and Finance agreed with our recommendations and
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2305-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 6/53 Definition of Council of Governments
A voluntary association, generally of county and
city governments, created by a joint powers
agreement.
Source: State law and a council of governments’ website. plan to implement them over the next year.
INTRODUCTION
Background
As
part
of the
Legislature’s efforts to ensure that the State is planning for the construction of enough homes to meet its housing needs and that local governments are facilitating that development, state law requires the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) to conduct periodic housing needs assessments to determine existing and projected
housing needs throughout California. HCD fulfills its
responsibilities under state law by creating Regional Housing Needs Assessments (needs assessments). As Figure 1 shows, HCD provides the needs assessments to councils of
governments, which we describe in the text box, across the State and directly to counties that are not in such a council.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the councils of government
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2306-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 7/53 Figure 2 provides an overview of the councils of government in the State and also shows counties that are not part of a council. After a council of governments receives its needs assessment from HCD, it then must allocate the region’s housing needs to the cities and counties within its boundaries.
For counties without a council of governments, HCD provides allocations to those counties as well as to the cities
within them. 1 Cities and counties must then develop plans to accommodate the existing and projected housing need. HCD performs needs assessments every five to 11 years. HCD does not complete all assessments at the same time and does not always cover the same period, because it attempts to align the needs assessment process with other planning processes, such as regional transportation planning. The three needs assessments that we reviewed are those of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (Santa Barbara
Association), the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (Sacramento Council), and Amador County.
Figure 1
HCD’s Housing Needs Assessments Inform County
and City Housing Plans
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2307-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 8/53 Source: State law and HCD housing needs assessments.
Figure 2
Most California Counties Have a Council of
Governments That Receives Needs Assessments
From HCD
Source: HCD housing needs assessment letters.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2308-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 9/53 Needs Assessment Components
State law requires HCD to use population projections
developed by the Department of Finance (Finance) when it completes the needs assessments. Finance factors into its projections multiple sources of information, including data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) and records of driver’s licenses, births and deaths, school enrollments, and tax filings.
Finance provides state‑ and county‑level population
projections to assist state, regional, and local planning, among other purposes. Finance also projects the number of future households, based on the population projections and the percentage of people in the population who are expected to form their own households in the future, which is known as the household formation rate.
Table 1 describes the factors that state law requires HCD to consider in its needs assessments, including vacancy rates.
State law requires HCD to consider vacancy rates in existing housing and the vacancy rates for healthy housing markets when developing the needs assessments. A low supply of
housing can result in low rental vacancy rates, which in turn can lead to housing price increases. Therefore, HCD adjusts its needs assessments so that housing markets can achieve a healthy vacancy rate. In some cases, that adjustment will add to the number of housing units HCD determines a region
needs so that the region can obtain a healthy vacancy rate.
State law specifies that the minimum vacancy rate for a healthy rental housing market is 5 percent, but the law does not define the healthy vacancy rate for owned housing.
Table 1
Factors HCD Must Consider in Its Assessments
FACTOR DESCRIPTION
Anticipated
P l ti Projection of future population growth in the
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2309-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 10/53
FACTOR DESCRIPTION
Population
Growth
j p p g
region.
Household
Formation
Rate
The rate at which individuals form new
households in the region.
Household
Size
The number of people per household in the
region.
Vacancy Rates
The percentage of homes available for rent or
sale compared to the total number of housing
units, less vacation and seasonal homes.
Overcrowding The percentage of households that have more than one resident per room in a housing unit.
Replacement
Needs
Replacement of housing units lost during the
planning period, such as because of
deterioration.
CostBurdened
Households
The percentage of households that are paying
more than 30 percent of their income on
housing costs.
Units Lost to
Emergencies
The loss of housing units during a state of
emergency declared by the Governor, such as
in wildfires, if the lost units have not yet been
rebuilt or replaced.
Jobs/Housing
Balance
The relationship between the number of jobs
in a region and the number of housing units in
that same region.
Other
Characteristics
Other characteristics of the composition of the
projected population.
Source: State law, the Census website, HCD needs assessments, HCD work
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2310-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 11/53 group reports, and interviews with HCD staff.
Note: State law does not require HCD to consider these factors for its needs assessments in counties that do not have a council of governments; however, HCD’s practice is to do so.
State law also requires HCD to adjust its needs assessments to account for long‑term housing challenges, such as
overcrowding, which occurs when a housing unit has more than one resident per room. The Legislature added this
overcrowding factor to the needs assessment process in 2017.
HCD must also consider cost‑burdened households, which are households that pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. When it determines it is appropriate to do so, HCD includes in its assessments adjustments for cost burden and overcrowding. Among the sources HCD uses to determine these adjustments is data that state law requires councils of governments to provide. The councils provide data comparing the cost burden and overcrowding for their respective regions with that of other comparable regions in the United States.
HCD then uses this information to calculate adjustments for each council of governments’ needs assessment. Table 2
shows a hypothetical example of how HCD incorporates
adjustments for the various factors to determine the number of housing units in its needs assessments. Appendix A shows the three needs assessments that we reviewed.
Table 2
Housing Needs Assessments Contain Many
Factors and Adjustments
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF HCD NEEDS
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
FACTOR/SOURCE
PROJECTED
CALCULATION
8-year Population
Projection (Finance) 1,500,000
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2311-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 12/53
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF HCD NEEDS
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
FACTOR/SOURCE
PROJECTED
CALCULATION
Projection (Finance)
– Group Quarters Population
(Finance)* – 35,000
Population Needing
Housing (Finance) 1,465,000
Household Formation Rate Adjustment
(Finance)†: 36.6% average
Projected Households
(Finance) 540,000
+ Vacancy Rate Adjustment
(HCD): 2.2%
11,900
+ Overcrowding Adjustment
(HCD): 0.6%
3,200
+ Replacement Needs
Adjustment (HCD): 0.5% 2,700
Units Lost to Emergencies
(HCD)‡ —
Jobs/Housing Balance (HCD)‡ —
– Occupied Units (Finance) – 480,500
Subtotal 77,300
+ Cost Burden Adjustment
(HCD)§: 0.55%
3,100
T t l N d A t 80 400
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
JUNE
2020–
JUNE
2028
(8
YEARS)
-2312-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 13/53
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF HCD NEEDS
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
FACTOR/SOURCE
PROJECTED
CALCULATION
Total Needs Assessment 80,400
Housing Units
Source: Auditor review of HCD housing needs assessments. * This reduction includes individuals housed in prisons and in college dormitories.
† The household formation rate represents the likelihood that individuals in the region’s projected population will head their own households. Finance uses different household formation rates for different age groups, which we have simplified for illustrative purposes here.
‡ Factors that state law requires HCD to consider, but that it did not include as an adjustment in the needs assessments we reviewed.
§ HCD makes the cost burden adjustment only after applying all the other adjustments.
Finally, state law requires HCD to consider housing units that communities will need to plan to replace. Some housing units become uninhabitable during the future period covered by the assessments, such as housing lost due to damage,
deterioration, and house or apartment building fires. State law requires HCD to review housing replacement needs, and HCD does so by obtaining from Finance the number of
housing units a council of governments or county has lost over the past 10 years. HCD then determines the rate at which the region loses housing units and makes an adjustment in the needs assessment to replace those houses. In response to recent wildfires that have destroyed a significant number of houses, the Legislature added the requirement in 2018 that HCD must also consider any housing recently lost during a state of emergency that the Governor declared. Similar to the cost burden factor discussed above, state law requires
councils of governments to provide data to HCD on housing lost during a state of emergency for consideration in the needs assessments.
Local Actions After HCD Completes a
Needs Assessment
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2313-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 14/53 After HCD makes a final determination for a needs
assessment, state law requires the council of governments to create housing needs allocations for the cities and counties within its region. The council, in consultation with HCD, must develop a proposed methodology for distributing the
allocation. The council of governments must conduct a survey and ensure public participation when developing the
methodology. The council of governments establishes a draft allocation and then may hear appeals of the allocation, if any are raised. It then must make the allocation final and adopt it.
State law requires local governments, such as cities and counties, to create plans to meet housing needs. Local
governments must adopt a general plan, which is a blueprint for meeting the community’s long‑term vision for the future.
Within the general plans, state law requires local governments to include a housing element, which contains an analysis of existing and projected housing needs in their communities.
Cities and counties must state their goals, policies, and programs related to the development of housing, to
accommodate projected housing needs allocated by their
council of governments or HCD. The community, through the housing element, must attempt to meet these housing needs, such as by changing the zoning on specific parcels to allow residential development.
Needs Assessments Can Be
Contentious but Are a Critical
Component of Addressing Housing
Challenges
Some stakeholders have criticized the needs assessment
process and HCD’s needs assessments. For example, some
homeowners and advocacy organizations believe that HCD’s needs assessments have produced higher numbers of
housing needs than are reasonable. Changes to state law that became effective in January 2019 allow HCD to account for
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2314-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 15/53 J y
present unmet housing needs in addition to future housing needs. Potentially as a result of these statutory changes, some regions received housing needs allocations that are more than double the amount of their previous allocations.
We are aware of two lawsuits that challenge HCD’s process, including one that alleges that HCD did not consider all factors as required by state law. In one lawsuit, the Orange County Council of Governments, which is independent from the
larger Southern California Association of Governments, sued HCD, alleging that HCD failed to use the appropriate
population forecast, failed to appropriately evaluate
household overcrowding and cost burden rates, and used
unreasonable vacancy rates. In the other lawsuit, several interested individuals and two nonprofit corporations filed a lawsuit alleging that HCD failed to consider data regarding the relationship between jobs and housing in its assessment for the Association of Bay Area Governments, which is the
San Francisco Bay Area council of governments. Both lawsuits are pending final resolution. To avoid interference, we did not review the needs assessments for either of the councils involved in these lawsuits as part of this audit.
The needs assessments affect the planning for housing
availability across the State and are an important but
sometimes contentious component in addressing California’s housing crisis. Housing availability and affordability has become a key economic issue, as the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported in 2019. The LAO noted that the
significant shortage of housing, particularly within coastal communities, contributed to higher housing costs for
Californians. The LAO also noted that high housing costs increase the State’s poverty rate and, in particular, put low‑income Californians at risk of instability and
homelessness. As discussed above, the State’s role in
identifying existing and future housing needs to guide the housing planning process is under public scrutiny.
Determining accurate, appropriate, and defensible housing needs is a key step in facilitating state and local efforts to plan for housing development.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2315-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 16/53 HCD’s Housing Needs
Assessment Process Lacks
Sufficient Reviews and
Support
Key Points
HCD made several errors when entering data into
calculations for its needs assessments, which reduced
the amount of housing needs in the needs assessments
for two of the three regions we reviewed. HCD does not
have a sufficient management review process to ensure
that it identifies such errors before finalizing needs
assessments. Without effective review processes, HCD
may be making similar errors in needs assessments for
other councils of governments.
HCD could not demonstrate that it followed work group
recommendations when it considered the balance
between jobs and housing, and did not maintain
consistency in its consideration of housing destroyed
during a state of emergency, when it produced the needs assessments for the three regions we reviewed. In at
least one needs assessment, the omission led HCD to
understate housing needs by not accounting for units
that had been destroyed in a wildfire.
HCD did not adequately support its adjustment to the
needs assessments to address vacancy rates for the
councils of governments we reviewed. Despite the
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2316-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 17/53 g p
significant effect that HCD’s vacancy rate adjustments
have on needs assessments, it has not completed a
thorough analysis to determine whether it used the most appropriate value in its calculations.
HCD’s reviews of comparable regions selected by
councils of government have been inconsistent because
the department does not have a formal process for such
reviews. As a result, it did not identify a problematic proposal from a region and inappropriately reduced its
needs assessment.
HCD Has Made Errors When
Completing Its Needs Assessments
Because It Does Not Sufficiently
Review and Verify Data It Uses
HCD does not have an adequate review process to ensure
that its staff members accurately enter data that it uses in the needs assessments. As Table 1 shows, state law requires HCD to consider a variety of information for its needs assessments for councils of governments, including population projections, housing vacancy rates, and income data. HCD staff members enter the data the department obtains from various sources into a spreadsheet for each council of governments and uses the information to determine the housing needs. However, HCD does not sufficiently review its staff member’s data entries for accuracy. As Figure 3 shows, we noted data entry errors in two of the three assessments we reviewed. We
discuss the other issues presented in Figure 3, including an inadequate consideration of the relationship between jobs and housing, in the following section.
Figure 3
HCD’s Errors and Omissions Understated the
Needs Assessments for Multiple Regions
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2317-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 18/53 eeds ssess e ts o u t p e eg o s
Source: Analysis of state law, HCD needs assessments, and HCD’s 2010 SB 375 implementation work group report.
Note: We were able to determine the impact on needs assessments from some, but not all errors and omissions presented in this figure. For example, HCD did not collect data on the jobs/housing balance, and therefore we could not quantify the effect of HCD not considering this factor. We discuss selected errors’ impacts on HCD’s needs assessments here and here in the report text.
* Because HCD makes the cost burden adjustment after applying the other adjustments, errors that increase or reduce other adjustments also increase or reduce the cost burden adjustment.
One data entry error resulted in a lower, inaccurate number of needed housing units in the Santa Barbara Association’s needs assessment. HCD’s needs assessment letter explained that its overcrowding adjustment relied on Census estimates from five years of survey data However HCD had only used
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2318-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 19/53 from five years of survey data. However, HCD had only used Census data from a one‑year estimate when determining the overcrowding adjustment, which is both less accurate and inconsistent with other steps in the calculation that used the five‑year estimates. HCD explained that staff members
entered data from the wrong table on the Census website.
Had HCD used the five‑year estimates as it intended for this step in its calculation, Santa Barbara’s needs assessment would have included 1,338 more housing units, or about
5 percent more than the inaccurate assessment HCD provided to the Santa Barbara Association.
HCD made a similar error when using Census estimates to adjust the Sacramento Council’s assessment. It had intended to use the 2013–2017 Census vacancy estimate for all the counties within the Sacramento Council, but it mistakenly entered the 2012–2016 estimate for Sacramento County. This error reduced the Sacramento Council’s needs assessment by 2,484 units. Although this number represents a small portion of the region’s overall needs assessment of more than
153,000 units, it still represents homes for individuals and families for which the Sacramento Council needs to plan to accommodate.
Because HCD did not verify the information the Santa Barbara Association submitted for its needs assessment, it made an additional error. HCD incorporates into the needs
assessments some information it receives from the councils of governments, such as data on overcrowding. The
Santa Barbara Association submitted data on comparable
regions’ overcrowding rates using the 2014–2018 Census data, which HCD then incorporated into its overcrowding
calculation. However, HCD had intended for its calculation to incorporate 2015–2019 data. Although this particular error was not large, it was in addition to the other errors in the assessments we reviewed, as discussed above. It concerns us that HCD does not have a formal review process to ensure that these important housing needs assessments are as
accurate as possible.
We identified these errors, which would be difficult to detect in documentation supporting HCD’s needs assessments by
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2319-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 20/53 in documentation supporting HCD s needs assessments, by comparing the data in the needs assessments to the correct source documents. Therefore, we expected that HCD would have a robust process for dedicated reviewers and
management to verify that staff members retrieve and enter the correct data in the spreadsheets. However, HCD told us that its primary process for identifying errors in its needs assessments is to send a draft assessment to each council of governments for review rather than to have HCD supervisors or other HCD staff members review the drafts.
HCD’s reliance on the councils of governments for checking the accuracy of the needs assessments is problematic. As we discuss in the Introduction, the needs assessment process can be contentious and draws attention from numerous
stakeholders. Therefore, some councils of governments may be reluctant to propose changes or corrections to their needs assessments that increase their own housing needs. In fact, two of the errors we identified inaccurately lowered the needs assessments, but HCD stated that neither the Santa Barbara Association nor the Sacramento Council notified HCD of the errors, and no record we reviewed indicated whether the two councils of governments noticed the errors at all.
When we brought these concerns to HCD’s attention, its
deputy director of housing policy development (housing policy deputy) stated that the department plans to conduct and document supervisor reviews of its needs assessments for its next planned round of assessments in 2023. It is crucial that HCD do so to ensure that councils of governments plan for the appropriate amount of housing and to maintain public confidence in the validity of the State’s assessments of local housing needs.
HCD Did Not Demonstrate That It
Adequately Considered Certain
Factors That State Law Requires for
Housing Needs Assessments
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2320-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 21/53 HCD did not demonstrate that it adequately considered
two factors listed in state law when preparing the three needs assessments we reviewed, which potentially further reduced the reliability of its needs assessments. The law requires HCD to review data and assumptions that councils of governments submit for the factors considered in housing needs
assessments, and it allows HCD to make adjustments to the needs assessments after this consideration. HCD may accept or reject the submitted information, and it must issue a written determination on the data assumptions for each
factor and the methodology it will use.
Although HCD generally included most of the factors outlined in state law in the three needs assessments we reviewed, it did not adequately demonstrate how it considered two
factors: the balance between jobs and housing in the region (jobs/housing balance) and housing lost in emergencies, such as wildfires. The housing policy deputy stated that HCD addresses these factors through its projected household data and other adjustment factors, and currently documents that consideration with an assertion in its final needs assessment that it considered all factors specified in state law.
When we asked HCD about its specific consideration of the jobs/housing factor, HCD indicated that it relied on a work group’s draft analysis of jobs/housing relationships. However, this analysis is outdated and provided limited direction for how the jobs/housing balance would affect needs
assessments. The housing policy deputy stated that HCD had studied the jobs/housing balance factor in 2010, 12 years ago.
The analysis noted that the inconsistent data available between regions makes regional comparisons of jobs and
housing difficult and that statewide standardized employment data are not available for comparison purposes. Although it did not recommend specific adjustments for the jobs/housing balance factor, the 2010 work group indicated that HCD
should solicit specific information from councils of
governments to address this factor. However, HCD did not specifically request such information from the Sacramento Council, the Santa Barbara Association, or Amador County—
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2321-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 22/53 the three needs assessments we reviewed—in order to
determine those needs assessments.
HCD believes that its other adjustments for different factors also addressed the jobs/housing balance factor. Specifically, HCD asserted that its adjustments to address low vacancy rates, high overcrowding, and high cost burdens address jobs/housing balance issues. However, HCD did not provide an analysis that demonstrated how, or to what extent, these adjustments address the jobs/housing balance. The housing policy deputy also noted the potential for inequitable
adjustments for jobs/housing balance between regions
because regions receive needs assessments at different times but agreed to review data sources and seek academic
perspectives on approaches to account for the jobs/housing balance in the next round of needs assessments. HCD also agreed that as part of its review of the jobs/housing balance factor, it would consider either adding a specific adjustment or modifying its other adjustments, such as increasing the cost burden adjustment, to better account for the factor in the future.
The second factor HCD inadequately considered was housing lost during emergencies. HCD did not consider housing lost during emergencies in a consistent manner across different regions, which led it to understate housing needs in the Santa Barbara Association’s needs assessment. State law requires HCD to consider data and assumptions submitted by a council of governments on housing lost during a state of emergency declared by the Governor if that lost housing has not been rebuilt or replaced at the time of the collection of data for the needs assessment. In 2017 the Governor
declared a state of emergency in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties due to the Thomas Fire, which destroyed more than 1,000 housing units and other structures. HCD did not
consider the loss of units caused by this wildfire, as required by state law, and did not make an adjustment for this factor in the 2021 Santa Barbara Association needs assessment, as it did in another region, which we discuss below. We believe HCD should have worked with state and county officials to
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2322-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 23/53 y
consider this factor in the assessment so that the
Santa Barbara Association can plan to address actual housing needs.
HCD’s housing policy deputy explained that HCD believes another factor addresses housing lost to fire emergencies. As we discuss in the Introduction, HCD determines the
replacement rate at which each council of governments’
region loses housing units and applies an adjustment in the needs assessment to replace housing. The replacement
adjustment reflects the average annual rate of housing loss over the past 10 years that a council of governments needs to replace for units that have been destroyed or demolished, or are no longer inhabitable. The housing policy deputy stated that Finance provides it with information on the rate of housing replacement, such as when there is a fire that
requires a building to be replaced. Although HCD considered replacement units in the Santa Barbara Association needs assessment, it did not include a separate consideration for units destroyed in emergencies. HCD’s replacement
adjustment identified the average rate that housing is
replaced in Santa Barbara County based on 10 years of data from Finance. However, this approach minimized the effect of a wildfire by combining it with normal years of housing losses, resulting in less overall housing than actually needed.
Furthermore, HCD’s approach to the Santa Barbara
Association’s declared state of emergency was not consistent with the approach it took in another assessment. Specifically, for the Butte County Association of Governments, HCD
worked with county and state officials, including Finance, when it considered and then included an adjustment
specifically for housing destroyed in the 2018 Camp Fire, for which the Governor also declared a state of emergency. HCD noted that it included the adjustment for the Butte County Association of Governments because this fire and associated housing loss was particularly large. We expected HCD to consider housing lost in declared emergencies consistently.
HCD needs to thoroughly document its required
consideration of each factor because the needs assessment
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2323-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 24/53 process is complex and can be contentious, drawing
significant attention from local governments as well as interest groups. Therefore, it is critical that HCD’s actions increase confidence in the needs assessment process.
Although state law permits HCD to determine what
adjustments, if any, to make in response to a particular factor, documenting the specific methodology and determination will enhance transparency and public trust. It will also allow HCD to more effectively justify its conclusions to stakeholders and potentially avoid litigation. It is also important that HCD conduct its needs assessments consistently across different regions and in compliance with state requirements, especially when adjusting for sensitive issues such as wildfire disasters.
The Healthy Vacancy Rate HCD Used in
Assessments We Reviewed Was Poorly
Supported
HCD did not provide adequate support for a critical
determination it made about the healthy housing vacancy rate that it used in the three needs assessments we reviewed, raising questions about whether HCD can support the rate in its other assessments. State law requires HCD to consider how councils of governments’ vacancy rates compare with healthy vacancy rates when determining housing needs
assessments. As we discuss in the Introduction, state law specifies that a healthy vacancy rate for rental housing should not be less than 5 percent, but it does not specify a healthy vacancy rate for owned housing, allowing HCD to make that determination.
HCD used a 5 percent healthy vacancy rate for the combined rental and ownership markets for two of the councils of governments’ assessments we reviewed. 2 HCD calculated the vacancy rate adjustment by subtracting the region’s overall vacancy rate from the 5 percent healthy vacancy rate. Based on that rate, the vacancy rate adjustment for the
Santa Barbara Association resulted in an increase of more h h h ll h d
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2324-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 25/53 than 4,000 housing units to the overall housing needs. Even a 1 percent difference—higher or lower—can make a significant difference in the needs assessment. For example, if HCD had used a 1 percent higher healthy vacancy rate target, the adjustment would have increased by 40 percent, to
5,600 housing units. Therefore, it is important that the rate that HCD uses is adequately supported.
HCD concluded that its choice of a single healthy vacancy rate for the overall market instead of separate rates for owned and rental housing was appropriate. HCD stated that in 2018, for the current round of needs assessments, it began
evaluating vacancy rates across the total number of homes available, a change from its previous approach of separating the rental and ownership markets before evaluating vacancy rates in each of them. HCD stated that it changed its approach to reflect the fact that some owned housing becomes rental housing over time. Conversely, a development may be rented for an initial period and then sold to owners after a
condominium conversion. However, as shown in Figure 4, the vacancy rates of the two categories are significantly different —ownership vacancy was much lower than rental vacancy
over the past 15 years. We are concerned that HCD has not completed a formal analysis to support its claim that a single healthy vacancy rate was appropriate.
Figure 4
HCD Targeted a Vacancy Rate That Is Between
Historical Rates for Rented and Owned Housing
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2325-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 26/53 Source: Data from the Census and HCD websites.
* Before it started using a single 5 percent vacancy rate in 2018, HCD used separate rates for rental and owned housing for each assessment.
When we asked HCD for its support for using the 5 percent healthy vacancy rate in the assessments, it provided only limited information that did not adequately support its assumptions. HCD explained that although it understands that the ownership vacancy rate is somewhat lower than
5 percent, the literature it reviewed indicated that a healthy rental vacancy rate is likely somewhat higher than 5 percent, and it believes the 5 percent is defensible for the combined market. However, HCD did not thoroughly analyze vacancy rates when it began to use this healthy vacancy rate
assumption in 2018. HCD provided a summary document
from a work group it convened in 2010 that reviewed
historical vacancy rates in different regions, but the work group’s summary did not reach a conclusion on a healthy vacancy rate. Instead, the summary referenced information the work group had reviewed, including government reports, and noted a range of vacancy rates among other states that included separate rates for owned and rented housing.
Additionally, some of the information was outdated because several of the government reports the summary cited were published in the 1980s. The summary also stated that HCD had used the same healthy vacancy rates—using separate
rates for owned and rental housing—since 2006 and may
adjust them for current economic conditions.
Despite the large impact of the vacancy rate adjustment on a region’s total needs assessment, HCD has relied on the
5 percent healthy vacancy rate without providing adequate support for its approach. For example, HCD made a vacancy rate adjustment to increase Sacramento’s needs assessment by more than 22,700 units, or nearly 15 percent of the total housing needs. Therefore, we expected HCD to provide
sufficient analysis and support for its assumptions underlying h h l h i d i h
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2326-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 27/53 the healthy vacancy rate it used in the assessments we
reviewed. When HCD does not develop a strong analysis with clear justification for its assumptions, especially those that have significant impact on the size of its final assessments, it risks making adjustments that are not reflective of a region’s true housing needs.
HCD Did Not Identify a Problematic
Proposal From a Region and
Inappropriately Reduced Its Needs
Assessment
HCD did not sufficiently review the regions that councils of governments compared themselves to as part of the needs assessment process. For two factors in its needs assessments, state law requires HCD to consider how a council of
governments’ regional data compares to that of other similar regions in the nation. For these factors—overcrowding and cost burden—the law requires councils of governments to provide data from regions they propose as “comparable.” For the cost burden adjustment, state law requires councils to provide data from “healthy” housing markets. State law allows HCD to adjust a council of governments’ needs assessment based on these factors, thus allowing communities to plan for more housing to better address the housing crisis. Under state law, HCD must consider the information a council of governments submits, though it does not have to use that information in its final needs assessment. State law does not provide criteria for the councils of governments to select comparable regions to propose. However, in correspondence to the council of governments we reviewed, HCD
recommended that several non‑housing factors—such as
population, median income, and jobs per capita—be included for comparison to help guide councils of governments in their selections of comparable, healthy regions.
HCD’s reviews of comparable regions selected by councils of government have been inconsistent because the department
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2327-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 28/53 g p
does not have a formal process for such reviews. The housing policy deputy explained that HCD reviews the appropriateness of the regions that councils of governments propose as
comparable and has rejected a proposal in the past. However, HCD does not have a documented process to guide its
evaluation of councils of governments’ proposals to ensure that its reviews are consistent. HCD explained that even though it does provide guidance on what criteria councils of governments could use for their proposals of comparable regions, it has avoided instituting a specific, formal review process because state law specifically allows councils of governments to determine what regions are comparable.
However, state law also gives HCD the ability to reject those same proposals. Therefore, we believe it is important for HCD to have a formal process to review the comparable regions that councils of governments propose so it can ensure that it is using this authority consistently for different needs assessments.
The Santa Barbara Association provided HCD with a
comparable region proposal that we found problematic. In January 2021, after working with HCD to adjust its comparable region proposal, the Santa Barbara Association provided a memo to HCD explaining that it based its selection of
comparable regions on certain categories, such as population, household size, rent‑to‑income ratio, age distribution, and poverty. These criteria resulted in the Santa Barbara
Association choosing regions that were likely experiencing housing problems similar to its own region because they also had higher, unhealthy, rates of overcrowding and
cost‑burdened households compared to national averages.
The use of household sizes and rent‑to‑income ratios to select comparable regions was problematic. For example, the
overcrowding rate—reflecting the number of housing units that have more than one person per room in a region—is
likely higher in a region with a higher average household size.
Similarly, a region with a higher rent‑to‑income ratio is likely to have more households with heavy cost burdens. Higher overcrowding and heavier cost burdens than the national average indicate that those housing markets are not healthy.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2328-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 29/53 HCD accepted the comparable regions the Santa Barbara
Association proposed, which likely lowered the needs
assessment from what it would have been had HCD used
healthy housing markets for one of the adjustments. HCD explained that it views its role as providing guidance to councils of government in their process of selecting
comparable regions, rather than being prescriptive. However, our concern is that the Santa Barbara Association specifically used certain criteria that resulted in it selecting unhealthy housing markets, which HCD acknowledges is an approach
that has led it to reject other councils’ comparisons. Had HCD compared the Santa Barbara Association to regions with cost burden rates closer to the national average, we estimate that its needs assessment would have increased by 470 housing units to about 25,300, or an increase of 1.9 percent. Without a consistent process to review the criteria that councils of governments propose to identify comparable regions, HCD may be allowing some regions to plan for less housing than they otherwise should.
Recommendations
Legislature
To provide HCD additional clarity and guidance in
conducting its vacancy rate adjustments, the Legislature should amend state law to clarify whether HCD should
continue to use a healthy vacancy rate that includes both rental and owned housing or whether it should
determine and use separate healthy vacancy rates for
owned housing and rental housing.
HCD
To ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and
do not contain unnecessary errors, by June 2022 HCD
should institute a process to ensure that its staff
performs multiple reviews of data in its assessments,
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2329-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 30/53 performs multiple reviews of data in its assessments,
including data that staff members input and councils of governments submit.
To demonstrate that its needs assessments are complete
and address all relevant factors, by September 2022 HCD should establish a formal process to document its
consideration of all factors required by state law in its needs assessments.
To ensure that it adequately supports the vacancy rate
adjustments it makes to needs assessments, by
February 2023 HCD should perform a formal analysis of
healthy vacancy rates and historical trends to inform
those adjustments.
To ensure that it does not reduce its needs assessments based on inappropriate information provided by councils of governments, by June 2022 HCD should develop a
formal process to review the appropriateness of councils of governments’ proposed comparable regions, including
identifying the criteria it will consider when reviewing councils of governments proposals. HCD should use this
formal process and criteria to consistently evaluate the appropriateness of the proposals to ensure that they
identify regions with healthy housing markets.
Finance Provides
Reasonable Population
Projections, but It Has Not
Provided Sufficient Support
for Its Household
Formation Projections
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2330-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 31/53 j
Key Points
Finance’s population projections are the basis of HCD’s needs assessments, and they are generally accurate.
Projections for counties with less than 250,000 residents were less accurate than for counties with more than
1 million residents, but the accuracy of projections has improved over time.
Finance also creates projections of the number of future households in the State by county. Although HCD uses
the household projections in its needs assessments,
Finance has not conducted a rigorous analysis to support the household formation rates it uses for the projections.
Finance’s Population Projections Have
Generally Been Accurate
The basis of housing needs assessments are population
forecasts that Finance produces. State law requires Finance to produce short‑ and long‑range projections of the population, and it does so for the entire State and its counties. To develop its population projections, Finance projects future births, deaths, and migration, or movement into and out of the State, to determine the State’s future population by county. HCD then uses the projections for five to 10 years into the future in its needs assessments, depending on the period the
assessment covers. 3 To review the accuracy of Finance’s previous population projections and their potential impact on HCD’s needs assessment process, we compared the statewide population projections for 2020 that Finance published
in 2011 to Census data for 2020. We found that its projections were overestimated by just 2.7 percent. The variables that
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2331-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 32/53 affect population estimates, such as the number of deaths, births, and migration, are not constant values and are difficult to predict precisely; therefore, we considered Finance’s statewide projections reasonable.
We also reviewed the process and data that Finance uses to make its projections and found that it is appropriate. Finance has programmed the software that it uses to make
projections to identify and remove illogical results and fix errors in the results. Finance staff members also perform reviews of these projections. Staff members compare the projections to previous projections to ensure that there are no unexpected or dramatic changes. Finance also stated that managers review the results before the department provides the data to HCD.
When we reviewed Finance’s county‑level projections over several years, we noted that their accuracy varied. The projections Finance made in 2011 for the 2020 population were less accurate in counties with less than
250,000 residents than in counties with more than 1 million residents. For example, Finance projected that Colusa
County’s 2020 population would be nearly 25,000, but the actual population according to the 2020 Census was only about 22,000, a difference of 12 percent. In contrast, Finance projected that Orange County’s 2020 population would be
3.2 million, and the actual 2020 population was 3.19 million, a difference of 0.4 percent. However, we reviewed subsequent projections that Finance published in 2013, 2016, and 2019 of 2020 county populations and found, as would be expected, that its 2019 projections were more accurate.
Finance plans to account for 2020 Census results when
making its next population projections in 2023. When we asked Finance about the differences that we identified in its projections compared to Census data, it had already begun reviewing those differences in preparation for its next population projections. In fact, it had identified a series of events and changes that may have affected the accuracy of its projections in specific counties. For example, Finance noted that its projection for Mono County was inaccurate due to population reductions resulting from staffing changes at a
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
March 17, 2022
-2332-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 33/53 military facility in that county. Further, it explained that it overestimated international migration into Imperial County, leading to differences between the Census data and its
projection. As a result, Finance told us that it plans to make adjustments in its approach for projections as it incorporates 2020 Census data into its next population projections, which it expects to release in early 2023.
Finance Has Not Adequately
Supported Rates It Uses to Develop
Household Formation Projections
Finance did not have a rigorous process to support its
projections of the number of households in each region, despite the importance of this data in determining a region’s housing needs. One of the factors that HCD’s needs
assessments include are the projections of the number of households that Finance expects in future years in
communities across the State. Finance estimates the number of expected households by identifying a household formation rate for different age groups in each county. The household formation rate represents the likelihood that individuals in particular age groups will have their own households. HCD applies the rate by age group to the population projections to estimate the number of households that will exist in the future in a region. Because local governments will need to plan housing to accommodate these new households, HCD
includes this expected new demand in its needs
assessment process.
We expected Finance to use household information in the 2010 Census as its basis for projecting household formation rates, as 2010 data forms the basis of its current set of population projections. 4 However, Finance explained that instead it estimated current household formation rates using information from earlier Census data as well as the
2010 Census. Specifically, Finance projects that Californians will be increasingly likely to form their own households in the l h h ld f h l l
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
HCD’s Housing
Needs Assessment
Process Lacks
Sufficient Reviews
and Support
Finance Provides
Reasonable
Population
Projections, but It
Has Not Provided
Sufficient Support
for Its Household
Formation
Projections
PDF | Fact Sheet
-2333-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 34/53 coming years until household formation rates reach levels seen before 2010. Finance explained that before 2010, more people were willing to live independently than do currently.
However, Finance noted the 2010 Census identified a
relatively low household formation rate, which may have resulted from cultural, demographic, or economic changes, such as the Great Recession that began in 2007. According to Finance, its household formation rate reflects an assumption that household formation patterns in California will increase over time to pre‑2010 levels—those before that recession, when people were more likely to own homes or take on fewer roommates.
However, Finance did not formally study how Californians would form households. In partnership with HCD in 2014, it solicited advice from some experts participating on the 2015– 2025 Statewide Housing Plan Technical and Research Advisory Committee (advisory committee) to guide its decisions on household formation rates. Finance noted that its household formation rates were the result of deliberations among
members of the advisory committee. This advisory committee is different from the work group mentioned previously that HCD convened in 2010 that discussed vacancy rates. However, our review of available documentation from the advisory committee found that it did not make any conclusions about household formation rates. The advisory committee also did not provide Finance any formal guidance, analysis, or report on household formation rate trends.
In 2015 and 2016, Finance and HCD staff members reached out to several university professors and other experts from the advisory committee to discuss household formation rates.
In a series of emails, staff members from Finance and HCD communicated with experts to discuss factors that may affect household formation rates, such as changes in young adult behavior after the Great Recession and slowing immigration and birth rates. This discussion also reflected concerns about relying on 2010 Census data, because the data reflected conditions during a recession. As part of these conversations, HCD and Finance proposed to the experts several different household rate trends, one of which Finance now uses.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2334-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 35/53 Although Finance believes its household formation rates are reasonable, these discussions do not constitute a thorough analysis. Given that this rate is an important component of the household projections that Finance used for multiple years, we expected Finance to better support the assertion that it is using the most appropriate rate. For example, Finance could have documented an analysis of historical household formation trends, a review of academic literature, and its consideration of all factors relevant to household formation rates to demonstrate that its household projections are defensible.
Needs assessments can change significantly depending on the accuracy of Finance’s assumptions. Slight changes to
household formation rates, which directly increase or
decrease the number of projected households, can change HCD’s needs assessments by thousands of units. For example, if HCD’s needs assessment for the Santa Barbara Association used household formation rates 1 percent lower, the region’s needs assessment would decrease by 17.5 percent, or about 4,350 fewer units of housing. 5 Similarly, if the needs assessment used 1 percent higher household formation rates, the needs assessment would increase by as many units.
Finance plans to reevaluate its household formation rates soon. Finance believes the household formation rates it uses are still reasonable because available Census data generally indicated that it was still a reasonable expectation for household formation rates to increase in the future and that it would make sense to wait to formally reevaluate its
assumption after detailed 2020 Census data is available.
Finance also explained that its assumption that household formation rates will grow over time helps it to avoid projecting that recession‑era economic issues and housing affordability problems will persist and affect household growth indefinitely in the State. However, without a formal comprehensive review of more recent demographic and economic information,
Finance cannot adequately assure the public, stakeholders, and HCD that it is providing the most appropriate household formation rates that HCD includes in the critical needs assessment process.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2335-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 36/53 Recommendations
Finance
To ensure that the population projections it provides to inform HCD’s needs assessments are as accurate as
possible, by February 2023 Finance should review its
projections for the counties with the most significant
projection inaccuracies and adjust its methodology as
necessary based on 2020 Census data and other
information.
To ensure that the household formation rates that it
provides HCD are appropriate, Finance should, by
February 2023, conduct a comprehensive review of its
assumptions about the household formation rates it
uses in projections, and it should document that review.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL S. TILDEN, CPA
Acting California State Auditor
March 17, 2022
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2336-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 37/53 Appendix A
HCD HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENTS
WE REVIEWED
The chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed the California State Auditor (State Auditor) to conduct an emergency audit to examine HCD’s regional housing needs determination process. We reviewed three of HCD’s regional housing needs assessments: the
Sacramento Council, the Santa Barbara Association, and
Amador County. We provide those assessments in tables A.1 through A.3 to give context to the findings in our report. As noted in the Introduction, for counties without a council of governments, HCD also provides allocations of housing needs to the county and cities within it. Table A.4 provides the allocation HCD provided to Amador County and the cities within that county. In contrast, the councils of governments provide allocations of housing needs by income category to their member counties and cities.
HCD did not provide consistent details in the three
assessments reviewed, and as a result, there are some
differences among the assessments we display below. The time covered by the assessments, and the total housing needs that communities must accommodate, vary. HCD does not
complete all assessments at the same time and does not
always cover the same period because it aligns the needs assessment process with other planning processes, such as regional transportation planning. The total regional housing needs assessment corresponds to the time period displayed
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2337-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 38/53 either in the assessment header as in the case of the
Sacramento Council, or in the population projection.
Table A.1
HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the
Sacramento Council
SACRAMENTO COUNCIL:
JUNE 30, 2021–AUGUST 31, 2029 (8.2 YEARS)
STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT
Population: August 31, 2029 (Finance
June 30, 2029,
projection adjusted +2 months to
August 31, 2029)
2,844,860
– Group Quarters Population – 57,315
Adjusted Household Population 2,787,545
Projected Households Minus South Lake
Tahoe 1,021,005
+ Vacancy Rate Adjustment (2.23%) 22,730
+ Overcrowding Adjustment (0.60%) 6,111
+ Replacement Needs Adjustment (0.50%) 5,105
– Occupied Units Estimated (June 30, 2021) – 908,396
+ Cost Burden Adjustment 6,957
Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs
Assessment Total
153,512
Housing
Units
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2338-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 39/53 Source: HCD’s needs assessment for the Sacramento Council. * South Lake Tahoe is not in the Sacramento Council planning area, but it is included in Finance’s population and household projections for El Dorado County. Discussions between HCD, the city of South Lake Tahoe, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the Sacramento Council have resulted in the determination that the households projected by TRPA for the 2021– 2029 needs assessment cycle (445 units) should not be included in the needs assessment determined for the Sacramento Council region.
Table A.2
HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the
Santa Barbara Association
SANTA BARBARA ASSOCIATION:
PROJECTION PERIOD (8.6 YEARS)
STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT
Population: February 15, 2031 (Finance
June 30, 2031,
projection adjusted ‑4.5 months to
February 15, 2031)
488,190
– Group Quarters Population – 27,525
Adjusted Household Population 460,665
Projected Households 160,850
+ Vacancy Rate Adjustment (2.51%) 4,030
+ Overcrowding Adjustment (6.44%) 10,359
+ Replacement Needs Adjustment (0.50%) 804
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2339-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 40/53 SANTA BARBARA ASSOCIATION:
PROJECTION PERIOD (8.6 YEARS)
STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT
– Occupied Units – 152,576
+ Cost Burden Adjustment 1,389
Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs
Assessment Total
24,856
Housing
Units
Source: HCD’s needs assessment for the Santa Barbara Association.
Table A.3
HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for
Amador County
AMADOR COUNTY:
PROJECTION PERIOD (10.9 YEARS)
STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT
Population: September 15, 2029 (Finance
June 30, 2029,
projection adjusted to September 15,
2029)
40,090
– Group Quarters Population – 4,405
Adjusted Household Population 35,685
Projected Households 15,330
+ Vacancy Rate Adjustment (0.04%) 6
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2340-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 41/53 AMADOR COUNTY:
PROJECTION PERIOD (10.9 YEARS)
STEPS TAKEN TO CALCULATE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS AMOUNT
+ Overcrowding Adjustment (0%) 0
+ Replacement Needs Adjustment (0.50%) 68
– Occupied Units – 14,697
+ Cost Burden Adjustment 34
Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs
Assessment Total
741
Housing
Units
Source: HCD’s needs assessment for Amador County.
Table A.4
HCD Regional Housing Needs Assessment for
Amador County
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
ALLOCATION
BY INCOME CATEGORY
JURISDICTION
VERY
LOW LOW MODERATE
ABOVE
MODERATE TOTAL
Amador County
Total 189 123 140 289 741
Amador 1 1 1 2 5
Ione 30 20 25 42 117
Jackson0 27 23 24 64 138
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2341-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 42/53
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
ALLOCATION
BY INCOME CATEGORY
JURISDICTION
VERY
LOW LOW MODERATE
ABOVE
MODERATE TOTAL
Plymouth 7 5 5 13 30
Sutter Creek 15 12 13 34 74
Unincorporated
Amador County 109 62 72 134 377
Source: HCD’s needs assessment for Amador County.
Appendix B
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The Audit Committee directed the State Auditor in October 2021 to conduct an emergency audit to examine the regional housing needs determination process. The audit was
approved under Joint Legislative Audit Committee Rule 17.
Recognizing that Rule 17’s cost limitations prevented us from satisfying all objectives of the emergency audit, we focused our work on the first three objectives contained in the emergency audit request. The table below lists those
objectives and the methods we used to address them.
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to
Address Them
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2342-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 43/53
AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
1 Review and evaluate the
laws, rules, and
regulations significant to
the audit objectives.
Reviewed relevant laws, rules,
regulations, policies, and procedures
related to the housing needs
assessment process.
2 Assess Finance’s process
for developing population
projections used by HCD.
Determine what changes
Finance made to its
projections in response to
economic and
demographic changes
caused by the pandemic
as well as new Census
information. Evaluate
historical accuracy of
Finance’s population
projections
Reviewed Finance’s calculation
process for its most recent set of
projections and assessed the
reasonableness of its process and
the information Finance uses to
generate its projections.
Assessed Finance’s planned
modifications to future
projections based on COVID‑19
impacts and found them to be
reasonable. Finance intends to
update its projections in January
or February 2023 to take into
account recent Census data that
reflects reduced births and
increased deaths due to the
pandemic in 2020 and early 2021.
Compared Finance’s past
population projections to 2020
Census data to assess
their accuracy.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2343-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 44/53
AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
3 Evaluate HCD’s process for
developing regional
housing needs
determinations to
ascertain whether it
complies with state law
and results in appropriate
calculations. Assess
whether HCD properly
used vacancy rates for
rental markets and for the
entire housing market.
Reviewed the process HCD used
to create three needs
assessments for the Sacramento
Council, the Santa Barbara
Association, and Amador County,
and determined which factors
listed in state law it considered,
and whether its consideration was
appropriate.
For the same three assessments,
which HCD completed after
changes to state law in 2018,
reviewed each adjustment HCD
made in the assessments and
determined the relative impact of
the adjustments on the overall
assessment.
For the three assessments we
reviewed, assessed HCD’s support
for the 5 percent healthy vacancy
rate it uses for the overall housing
market, including reviewing
available historical information
and economic research.
Source: Audit workpapers.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2344-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 45/53 Responses to the Audit
Business, Consumer Services and
Housing Agency
March 4, 2022
Michael S. Tilden Acting State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Agency Response to 2021-125 Regional Housing Needs
Assessments: The Department of Housing and Community
Development Must Improve Its Processes To Ensure
Communities Can Adequately Plan For Housing
Dear Mr. Tilden:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide
comments to the audit pertaining to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process led by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
①As noted, the state’s RHNA process requires consultation with Councils of Governments and intensive data analysis to
determine the housing needs for regions. We appreciate that the audit found that HCD follows a sound methodology in administering this responsibility and offers some process improvement recommendations.
Attached you will find a detailed response from HCD
summarizing the additional resources and process
improvements that are underway including increasing staff and standardizing documentation processes.
The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
(Agency) and HCD are committed to maximizing opportunities f ll C lif i h bl ff d bl l ll
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2345-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 46/53 for all Californians to have a stable, affordable place to call home.
If you have any additional questions for my team at Agency or HCD, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Lourdes Castro Ramírez, M.A.
Secretary
Department of Housing and
Community Development
March 4, 2022
Michael S. Tilden Acting California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Dear Mr. Tilden:
①This is the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) response to the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) audit conducted by the California State Auditor. HCD is pleased to see the audit found no significant problems with the methodology or instances of double counting. The auditor also identified that statutory changes that allow HCD to provide adjustments to the existing and projected regional housing needs have resulted in larger determinations.
Still, the audit found opportunities for process improvements and HCD is committed to implementing those
recommendations. HCD has already added more staff to the RHNA team and, in partnership with our internal audit team, continues to improve the quality of our determination
process HCD remains confident in its approach to the 6th
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2346-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 47/53 process. HCD remains confident in its approach to the 6th Cycle RHNA Determination both from a legal and
methodological perspective. HCD is also confident that, in particular following the auditor’s review, process and quality control improvements will be beneficial moving forward.
Recommendation 1 (Quality Control/Quality Assurance):
To ensure that its needs assessments are accurate and do not contain unnecessary errors, by June 2022 HCD should
institute a process to ensure its staff perform multiple reviews of data included in its assessments, including data that staff input and councils of governments (COGs) submit.
Response: HCD agrees with the first recommendation
(page 25 of 38) and will complete documenting the
process by the proposed deadline. HCD has started to
create additional process documents to aid in
implementing this recommendation. HCD is committed
to more accurately determining the housing need
moving forward and values the improved process
suggestions.
Recommendation 2 (Jobs Housing Factor and Units Lost):
To demonstrate that its needs assessments are complete and address all relevant factors, by September 2022 HCD should establish a formal process to document its consideration of all factors required by state law in its needs assessments. ② Response: HCD is committed to continuous process
improvement and providing public documentation of the
processes we implement. While HCD does consider all
factors described in statute, HCD agrees with the second recommendation (page 26 of 38) and has already
initiated the creation of additional process documents to aid in implementing this recommendation.1 HCD will
complete the documentation process by the proposed
deadline.
Recommendation 3 (Vacancy Rate): To ensure that it
adequately supports the vacancy rate adjustments it makes to
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2347-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 48/53 adequately supports the vacancy rate adjustments it makes to needs assessments, by February 2023 HCD should perform a formal analysis of healthy vacancy rates and historical trends to inform those adjustments.
③ Response: As the auditor’s report states, the
Legislature did not specify what vacancy rate to use for ownership housing. Given that housing units can
fluctuate between renter and home ownership, and
acceptable rental vacancies could be higher than 5
percent, HCD’s 5 percent target rate for total housing
stock vacancy is a reasonable application of the statute.
However, HCD agrees with the third recommendation
(page 26 of 38) and will complete a formal analysis of
trends and compile updated research on this topic by the proposed deadline.
Recommendation 4 (Comparable Region Analysis): To
ensure that it does not reduce its needs assessments based on inappropriate information provided by councils of
governments, by June 2022 HCD should develop a formal
process to review the appropriateness of councils of
governments' proposed comparable regions, including
identifying the criteria it will consider when reviewing councils of governments’ proposals. HCD should use this formal
process and criteria to consistently evaluate the
appropriateness of the proposals to ensure that they identify regions with healthy housing markets.
Response: HCD agrees with the fourth recommendation
(page 26 of 38) and, by the proposed deadline, will
formalize a technical assistance document outlining the comparable regions process, as well as a list of criteria HCD will use when reviewing comparable region
proposals. Though HCD can accept or reject data
provided by COGs, HCD also recognizes the inherent
challenge of COGs identifying regions that meet both the undefined concept of comparable and having a healthy
housing market given the extent California’s housing
crisis.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2348-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 49/53 Sincerely,
Gustavo F. Velasquez
Director
1 At the time of this drafting, under confidentiality provisions related to litigation and mediation, HCD is unable to publicly share the details of how it intends to establish a more formal process to document its consideration of all factors in its needs assessments. These confidentiality provisions are anticipated to be lifted contemporaneously with the current publication date of this audit. Should the Auditor require, though HCD does not believe it to be necessary, HCD will supplement this response with the additional information it currently is unable to disclose.
Comments
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON
THE RESPONSE FROM THE BUSINESS, CONSUMER
SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to the audit from the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (agency) and HCD. The numbers below
correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the response.
①The agency and HCD mischaracterize our conclusions. Our report does not state that HCD follows a sound methodology when developing needs assessments. Rather, we identified several problems with HCD’s methodology, such as its limited review of staff members’ data entries and a lack of adequate consideration of factors required by state law
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2349-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 50/53 consideration of factors required by state law.
②As we state in the report, HCD could not demonstrate it adequately considered two factors required by state law in the needs assessments we reviewed. Specifically, for the jobs/housing balance in the region, it relied on outdated information during its consideration and did not follow up with regions as it intended. For housing lost in emergencies, HCD did not consistently consider this factor across different regions. As a result, HCD understated housing needs in the Santa Barbara Association’s needs assessment and potentially reduced the overall reliability of the assessment.
③HCD asserts that the 5 percent target rate for total housing stock vacancy is a reasonable application of state law.
However, as we note in the report, HCD did not adequately analyze healthy vacancy rates when it began to use this healthy vacancy rate assumption in 2018. We are
concerned that HCD has not completed a formal analysis to support its claim that using the same healthy vacancy rate for both rental and owned housing was appropriate.
Department of Finance
March 4, 2022
Michael S. Tilden California State Auditor (Acting)
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Department of Finance Response to Draft Audit 2021-125 Dear Michael:
The California Department of Finance has received the
California State Auditor’s (CSA) draft findings concerning the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Process. The below
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2350-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 51/53 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Process. The below
response addresses CSA’s findings and recommendations on Finance’s household projections.
CSA first recommends that Finance review its population projections for counties after 2020 Census data are made available. As this is a standard practice for any demographer updating population projections after the release of a new decennial Census and the department intends to conduct this review as it always has, we agree with CSA’s recommendation.
Finance’s household projections rely on projecting trends in household formation from the 1990, 2000, and 2010
Censuses to 2030. They are intended to show what might
happen if these trends continue into the future. There are various reasons why patterns of household formation may be different in the future, such as economic changes, the impact of new government policies, as well as imbalances between housing supply and demand. As these are not generally
predictable, we periodically reevaluate trends and
assumptions, particularly after the release of a new Census; thus, we agree with the Auditor’s second recommendation that Finance review assumptions used in projecting
household formation rates after the release of the necessary detailed Census 2020 data later this year.
CSA also recommends that Finance document this review.
Each decennial Census is an opportunity to reevaluate and reexamine models and assumptions. Much of Finance’s
analysis and deliberation has traditionally been internal.
Finance agrees with the Auditor’s recommendation and will explore ways to more fully document existing processes. ①Finally, as the audit notes, Finance reasonably limits its reliance on Census 2010 data for its household projections because that census occurred during the unique—and
temporary—economic conditions present in the wake of the Great Recession. In consultation with an advisory committee composed of demographers and other experts in academia, government, and the private sector, Finance’s process also reflects the long-run trend evident from the 1990 and 2000 C b i th f 2000 d 2010 C
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2351-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 52/53 Censuses by using the average of 2000 and 2010 Census
headship rates as a reasonable proxy for this trend.
Furthermore, Finance notes that the methods used for the current DOF household projections are informed by analysis of as much recent American Community Survey (ACS) data as possible to evaluable changes in household formation since the 2010 Census. Comparisons of Finance’s earlier projected headship rates and ACS data indicates that the assumptions underlying the projections are reasonable; and that use of Census 2010 based rates exclusively would have resulted in household under-projection.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report. If you have any questions, please contact Walter Schwarm, Chief Demographer.
Sincerely,
Keely Bosler
Director
Comment
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE
RESPONSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on Finance’s response to our audit. The number below
corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of the department’s response.
①Finance overstates our report’s conclusions. We did not make a determination that Finance’s reduced reliance on 2010 Census data was reasonable. As we indicate in the report, Finance explained that its household formation rate reflects ti th t h h ld f ti tt ill
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2352-
9/2/22, 11:30 AM Report 2021-125
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2021-125/index.html#section6 53/53 an assumption that household formation patterns will
increase over time to pre-2010 levels, and we note that some experts Finance contacted expressed concern that 2010
Census data reflected recession conditions. We further note on that page that Finance asserted to us that its household formation rates are reasonable based on these and other considerations. However, Finance did not provide us a
documented analysis to demonstrate that the household
formation rates it used in its projections were reasonable.
PUBLIC LETTER SUMMARY INTRODUCTION CHAPTERS APPENDICES
RESPONSES
-2353-
-2354-
-2355-
-2356-
From: Reid Stephenson
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Concerns with the Draft Housing Plan
Date: Saturday, September 10, 2022 12:27:08 AM
Dear: Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz
I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for us all. I want to register my strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan is not good for the town, in my opinion.
Specifically:
1) Why concentrate all this dense new housing in four areas of town as opposed to allowing the town’s natural annual ADU growth to meet the required quota? Why undertake the expense of tearing down the town hall and replacing it with a high-rise with no parking allocation for 100 new residents?
2) While I understand you hired the consulting firm after an extensive RFP process, I fail to understand why a Chicago firm with no understanding or sensitivity to the Peninsula real estate market was hired. Additionally, why all these tight time schedules are now being imposed with just a couple of days to respond. I understand the town has missed various deadlines which has contributed to this last-minute scramble. Why isn’t your consulting firm managing the process better?
3) Why hasn’t the alternative plan been given more visibility to the community. It does not appear that any consideration has been given to their plan. You wouldn’t even allow them to present within last evenings indoor function. You force them to be outside behind a table with limited visibility. From my perspective that just doesn’t seem fair.
Thank you,
Reid Stephenson
Hillsborough
-2357-
From: Nancy Probst
To: General Plan
Cc: Hillsborough Mail; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz
Subject: Housing/Zoning Policy
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 3:53:16 PM
To whom it may concern:
We strongly oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan, and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it for the following reasons:
1. There is no need to rezone the entire city of Hillsborough.
2. School enrollments will increase 10%-25%, our community school system will be severely impacted, real estate values will suffer.
3. It creates an opportunity for future "up-zoning”.
4. It erodes our property rights, including a goal to prevent owners of smaller homes from upgrading their properties
5. The plan underestimates the number of ADUs likely to be built while overestimating the "buffer" units needed.
6. The plan completely omits large town-owned parcels.
7. There is a lack of planning for infrastructure - sewer, water, parking, traffic, electrical, etc.
We are urging the city council to adopt the plan proposed by the town of Atherton - remove multi-family zones, reject rezoning, and meet the state requirements by increasing the numbers of ADU’s and JADU’s.
Please enter this comment into the public record.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Probst
Larry Probst
Hillsborough, CA
-2358-
From: Carol Rossi
To: General Plan
Cc: [email protected]; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; Ann Ritzma
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 1:08:54 PM
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it for the following reasons:
1. It unnecessarily rezones ("up-zones") the entire City.
2. It will cause dramatic change to the landscape and 10%-25% increase in school enrollments will destroy major reasons why people want to live here
3. It Opens a slippery slope making future "up-zoning" easy.
4. It erodes our property rights, including a goal to prevent owners of smaller homes from upgrading their properties
5. It imposes necessary burdens on all residents by underestimating the number of ADUs likely to be built while overestimating the "buffer" units needed.
6. It omits large town-owned parcels
Please enter this comment into the public record.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Rossi
Hillsborough
-2359-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: Comments: DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT & PLAN Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 12:25:17 PM
From: Orna Resnekov
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 12:24 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>
Cc: Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>; Orna Resnekov Subject: Comments: DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT & PLAN To whom it may concern, I request that all comments
submitted to the town of Hillsborough on the DRAFT 2023- 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT & PLAN be made publicly available
to all town residents.
THOUGHTS ON THE DRAFT 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT &
PLAN
Good things that have happened:
1. Town residents and the HCA are getting involved in the discussion
2. Town staff have made limited efforts to involve town residents Significant Problems:
1. I do not see any appreciable buy-in from either 1) Town staff or 2) Town residents for the overall goals of the "Housing Element" o 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 -2360-
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):
o Schools
o The water system
o The police
o The firemen
o Town staff (who clearly are already over capacity and currently are not able to properly monitor building projects in the town) o Evacuation routes in the event of an emergency situation o The power grid (which is already not maintained properly) o Communications
o 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
o Roads
o Additional impervious surfaces
o 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 -2361-
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 young tenants in Hillsborough who are already within the 4 AMI categories (120%, 81-120%, 51-80%, 0-50%). Have town staff made
themselves aware of how many such parties are already within Hillsborough? Should they (and the homes/ADU's/Jr ADU's/rooms that they occupy) be counted for the purposes of meeting the Housing Element?
Best,
Orna Resnekov, Trustee
--
ORNA
(cell)
-2362-
From: Nader Maghsoudnia
To: General Plan
Cc: Mariviv Torres Maghsoudnia
Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element/Plan
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 12:00:44 PM
Hillsborough City Council:
I strongly oppose Hillsborough's current draft of the proposal to satisfy and in some respects exceed the CA state requirement. I do not agree that drastic changes to existing zoning ordinances, creating substantial congestion/safety risks, and taking away from the nature like setting of our town is necessary in order to gain certification from HCD.
My recommendation is for Hillsborough to:
- Allow sufficient time for residents to properly review and provide feedback to the current plan only recently circulated. Many residents are completely unaware of the drastic changes intended to be pushed through in the near term.
- Revise the plan to disallow changes to zoning ordinances unless completely necessary and to be evaluated strictly on a case by case basis.
- Revise the plan to consider Hillsborough's good work in development of ADUs which has significantly exceeded set targets in the recent past and may be accelerated to help meet the required thresholds. Further on this point, my understanding is that town owned sites are available to be incorporated into the submitted plan.
Hillsborough will not be able to maintain its community feel while paving the way for dense development being proposed and contemplated in the current plan. Many thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Nader Maghsoudnia
-2363-
From: Gina Rosenfield
To: General Plan
Cc: [email protected]; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; Ann Ritzma
Subject: Hillsborough housing plan
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 11:58:11 AM
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it for the following reasons:
1. It unnecessarily rezones the entire City. We should rezone only where appropriate.
2. It will cause dramatic change to the landscape.
3. It will cause10%-25% increase in school enrollments. The "temporary" portables have been employed at South school for over 23 years!
4. It erodes our property rights, including a goal to prevent owners of smaller homes and older from upgrading their properties.
5. It imposes necessary burdens on all residents by underestimating the number of ADUs likely to be built while overestimating the "buffer" units needed.
6. It omits large town-owned parcels.
7. Any high density housing should be designated as senior housing to minimize the burden on our schools.
8. There are more moderate plans and solutions put forward that should be considered by the council.
Please enter this comment into the public record.
Respectfully submitted,
Gina Rosenifield
Hillsborough
--
Gina Rosenfield
rosenfieldinteriors.com
-2364-
From: The Zees
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback on Hillsborough Housing Element
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 11:43:27 AM
Thank you for all the work put into the current Hillsborough Housing Element Plan.
Several comments/suggestions for the plan:
1. Do NOT rezone the entire town/all parcels - the amount of resources, time, and disruption this causes is not worth the churn and concern it creates among residents. In addition, it is unlikely that it will create more affordable housing as private landowners will not take action on this rezoning for decades, if ever.
2. Instead, focus only on town-owned / city hall parcel of land as it is sizable, and easily accessible to downtown amenities being on El Camino.
1. Senior residents can downsize and retire in these condos, thus freeing up more housing stock in Hillsborough
2. It will provide more affordable housing to new residents
3. It will not disrupt the property values and character of the town that many residents have voiced as a valid concern
Thanks for taking this feedback into account.
-2365-
From: Oliver Zee
To: General Plan
Subject: Re: suggestion for draft housing element
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 11:28:55 AM
To whom it may concern,
I believe we should build all of the new housing on the city hall parcel, since it is large and close to el camino. building low income housing in the interior of the town would be detrimental. thanks,
Oliver Zee
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 11:26 AM Oliver Zee wrote:
I believe we should build all of the new housing on the city hall parcel, since it is large and close to el camino. building low income housing in the interior of the town would be detrimental.
-2366-
From: Veronica Krivkovich
To: General Plan; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Subject: Opposition to the draft Housing Element plan
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 10:41:54 AM
Hello,
I’m writing to express my deep concern about the draft Housing Element plan that is currently being considered by Hillsborough, and to voice my opposition to the plan. I do not support it.
I believe the plan should be adjusted to put a far greater emphasis on ADU’s as a solution to meet California’s requirements.
I prefer the Smart Housing For Hillsborough Plan and would urge the town of Hillsborough to adjust the current draft proposal to incorporate many elements of this alternative plan.
Finally, I’d like to say a big ‘THANK YOU!’ to all of you for representing our community! I realize it’s a volunteer position — and at times a thankless one! Warm regards,
Veronica Krivkovich
--
Veronica Krivkovich
M:
-2367-
From: Bob Comartin
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 10:16:58 AM
I attended the meeting on Tuesday Sept 6th at North School! My general overall first impressions:
Overall I object to the top down form of government by the State! (I realize it’s not part of this, just my opinion) I don’t think rezoning of the entire town is a good idea! Seems like the addition of ADU’s is going fine! (Sixty units in a year?) I understand the the need for affordable housing! (Not sure it’s possible in Hillsborough other than ADU’s) It seems like there are many apartments units being built all over the Peninsula! (What is the number of affordable units and what is the vacancy factor?)
Is the population on the Peninsula increasing or are people leaving the area? In general, I think more consideration should be given to alternative plans! Thank You!
-2368-
From: Lorne Rosenfield
To: General Plan; [email protected]; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May Subject: Housing Element formal statement of opposition Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:23:38 AM
Dear Hillsborough Council:
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it for the following reasons:
1. It unnecessarily rezones ("up-zones") the entire City.
2. It will cause dramatic change to the landscape and 10%-25% increase in school enrollments will destroy major reasons why people want to live here
3. It Opens a slippery slope making future "up-zoning" easy.
4. It erodes our property rights, including a goal to prevent owners of smaller homes from upgrading their properties
5. It imposes necessary burdens on all residents by underestimating the number of ADUs likely to be built while overestimating the "buffer" units needed.
6. It omits large town-owned parcels
7. It burdens our schools and related infrastructure and instead should be designated for seniors
Please enter this comment into the public record.
Respectfully submitted
Lorne Rosenfield
Hillsborough, Ca 94010
Lorne King Rosenfield MD
University of California SF Clinical Professor
Stanford University Assistant Professor
Duke University Consulting Professor
Board Member American Aesthetic Society
Board Member Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Comm Member Am Board of Plastic Surgery
1750 El Camino Real Suite 405
Burlingame California 94010
www.DrRosenfield.com
INDIE AESTHETIC SURGERY SUMMIT 2.0
-2369-
AUGUST 27 & 28, 2022
-2370-
From: Linda Batt
To: General Plan; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Christopher Diaz; Ann Ritzma
Subject: FW: Hillsborough low income housing plan
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 5:26:40 AM
I oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element
plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it
for the following reasons:
1. It unnecessarily rezones ("up-zones") the entire
City.
2. It will cause dramatic change to the landscape
and 10%-25% increase in school enrollments will
destroy major reasons why people want to live
here
3. It Opens a slippery slope making future "upzoning" easy.
4. It erodes our property rights, including a goal to
prevent owners of smaller homes from upgrading
their properties
5. It imposes necessary burdens on all residents by
underestimating the number of ADUs likely to be
built while overestimating the "buffer" units
needed.
6. It omits large town-owned parcels
Please enter this comment into the public record.
Respectfully submitted,
[Full name and address]
Linda J. Batt
Hillsborough, California 94010-
-2371-
Linda J Batt
Voice:
Fax: 650-348-6395
Cell:
-2372-
From: Heidi Leupp
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:45:03 PM
To whom it may concernI oppose Hillsborough's proposed Housing Element plan and urge Hillsborough City Council to reject it for the following reasons:
1. It unnecessarily rezones ("up-zones") the entire City.
2. It will cause dramatic change to the landscape and 10%-25% increase in school enrollments will destroy major reasons why people want to live here
3. It Opens a slippery slope making future "up-zoning" easy.
4. It erodes our property rights, including a goal to prevent owners of smaller homes from upgrading their properties
5. It imposes necessary burdens on all residents by underestimating the number of ADUs likely to be built while overestimating the "buffer" units needed.
6. It omits large town-owned parcels
Please enter this comment into the public record.
Respectfully submitted,
Jay and Heidi Leupp
Hillsborough CA 94010
--
Best,
Heidi L. Leupp
cell:
-2373-
From: Sapna Jain Palrecha
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; [email protected]; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:26:35 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I have lived in Hillsborough since 2014 and have been impressed by the growth and development of our town. Thank you for the fine work you are doing on the mandate to increase low income housing across the state.
I have read the full draft plan and various associated documents posted on the Town website and developed an understanding of the State’s RHNA6 mandate. To all of the Councilmembers, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, both generally and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area but we must ensure we do so in a thoughtful, carefully considered, and long-term manner. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan is not that.
Hillsborough possesses attributes that are important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan, which brings a one-size fits all approach to a town that is objectively, based on the data, an outlier. There is absolutely no reason to rezone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus heavily on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. We must engage in thoughtful, long-term planning with fulsome and transparent discussion and community engagement and appropriate consideration of the cost and impact of any proposed changes.
I want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the -2374-
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.
Best,
Sapna Palrecha
--
Sapna Jain Palrecha, MD
Neuroradiologist and Musculoskeletal Radiologist
MRI Chief, KP Greater Southern Alameda Area
Musculoskeletal Radiology Chief, KP Greater Southern Alameda Area Kaiser Permanente
-2375-
From: Renee Fitzpatrick
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Subject: Housing Zoning policy
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:42:26 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to share my comments. I have reviewed the draft housing plan and would like to request that you consider incorporating more ADUs and reject the other strategies that have been presented. The obvious strain on infrastructure: water, sewer, cellular, parking, and electrical are a major concern. And most importantly, the long standing education system that has so carefully been built and fostered over the years would be inundated and stressed.
Rezoning and lot splitting is not the best solution for Hillsborough. I think we can work together to encourage and incentivize residents to build more ADUs as we’ve seen with neighboring towns such as Atherton. Let’s remove all multi family overlay zones from the proposal and stay true to the long standing neighborhood and community that is Hillsborough.
Thank you for all your hard work on this matter and for your dedication to our town and residents.
Sincerely,
Renee Fitzpatrick
Sent from my iPhone
-2376-
From: Vannessa Seacrest
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Hillsborough Re-Zoning Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:14:29 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I have read the full plan and various associated documents posted on the Town website and developed an understanding of the State’s RHNA6 mandate. To all of the Councilmembers, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, both generally and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area but we must ensure we do so in a thoughtful, carefully considered, and long-term manner. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan is not that.
Hillsborough possesses attributes that are important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan, which brings a one-size fits all approach to a town that is objectively, based on the data, an outlier. There is absolutely no reason to rezone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus heavily on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. We must engage in thoughtful, long-term planning with fulsome and transparent discussion and community engagement and appropriate consideration of the cost and impact of any proposed changes.
I want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank you for your public service.
-2377-
Kind regards,
Vannessa
-2378-
From: Leanne Zhu
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing Element.
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:12:36 PM
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
My family has been Hillsborough residents for seven years. We all enjoy very much what Hillsborough has been well known for - its green and lush woods and hills, its super low crime rates, and its extreme privacy.
We appreciate all your efforts to serve the public in Hillsborough, and want to voice our strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan will hurt our town significantly in the long run, in our opinion.
First of all we strongly oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning. This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create more danger for fire and other emergency situations and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. Do not change our zoning. Most areas of the town have already been marked as " high fire danger zone" by the state, therefore getting home insurance have already been very difficult. We can not make it worse.
Second, we very much oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan. Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. If Atherton, a community similar to us, adopted a reasonable method to estimate their number of ADUs (which is much higher than the number based on the safe harbor method), we do not see why we need to use the safe harbor method when we have a track record of completing a much higher number of ADUs in the past . The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years.
Third, 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 homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation.
Please remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future. We also oppose having any new housing units (other than ADU’s) that do not have 1:1 parking.
All in all, we want to work together to at least maintain the charm of our town, to keep Hillsborough special as it has been. The burglary rate has increased quite much over the past period, we would like to turn it around, not making it worse. Building dense units on or near woody slopes will only increase the fire danger, earthquake danger, and restraint on water usage.
In summary, we heartily support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the unreasonable 20% “ buffer” to achieve our RHNA goals. We support the evaluation of senior housing as suggested by both the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC.
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 considerations
-2379-
Sincerely,
Hillsborough Resident
Leanne Zhu on behalf of her family
Tournament Drive, Hillsborough CA 94010
-2380-
From: Khristine Holterman
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Cc: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:52:51 PM
Dear Council Members,
First, I’d like to thank you for your commitment to our Town and the time you have spent working with the consultants on the Draft Housing Element. As you know, I was on the HEAC and observed the process and the decision making of the consultants. While I appreciate that we were present in theory to give feedback and express opinions, I did not feel that the final draft is reflective of what many of us believe is best for HIllsborough in the long term. Houseal Lavigne pushed an agenda that was ignorant of the particular and very unique aspects of our small town and the result is a draft that may work in a larger city with an urban and commercial center, but not one that works for us. Many alternatives to rezoning were quashed at the moment they were introduced during the HEAC meetings, leading me to believe there was an agenda that was decided before the community was enlisted to discuss the topic. We were given information (e.g. we had to do this or we would go into receivership) that was misleading and prevented honest analysis of the situation as well as potential other options. What the consultants created to present to Sacramento leaves no negotiating power in the future, and no consideration for the ramifications of what this plan will mean for the viability of our schools, our infrastructure, our neighborhoods and management of safety and emergency systems. We can meet most of the housing quota through ADUs and more logical use of our current town-owned vacant properties.
Additionally, few citizens really understood what was happening around this issue, and while the Town did send postcards and emails, the information was vague. At this point, however, the community at large is engaged and ready to add to the discussion. As you all know, we have an educated and productive citizenry and it is time to consider their ideas, their thoughts and utilize their skills and knowledge to work towards a solution that actually makes sense for our town and that will not jeopardize the characteristics of Hillsborough that make it a great place to live.
I do not approve of the Draft Housing Element plan and hope each of you will consider further edits and constructive and open discussion with the community to improve upon the -2381-
plan.
Best,
Khristine Holterman
-2382-
From: Joy Chen
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposition on draft housing plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:32:42 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members May, Chuang and May, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
Thank you for all your efforts and support for residents in Hillsborough.
I strongly oppose the draft housing element as I attended the open house on Tuesday and review the draft housing element. The plan is very bad for our town.
I strongly oppose changing the zoning to reduce the lot sizes and to build the high density housing through our neighborhoods. For example, On the draft housing element, high density housing will be builded in 50 brook ct.
This will create danger of fire and other emergency situations.
Please review our feedback and consider alternative proposal.
Sincerely,
Joy Chen
-2383-
From: John Huang
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposing Housing Element Draft and a Proposal for Proposition to Meet the Demand Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:21:28 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I have reviewed the draft of the proposed housing element plan. I am emailing you to strongly oppose it. Instead, I am presenting an alternate option:
The proposed plan clearly underestimate the potential of ADU and JADU as it uses the projection based on previous year. Many residents are still not aware of building ADU/JADU in their backyard. Therefore, I am proposing the following:
In order to satisfy the state legislature, a Proposition is to be presented to the voters of the town for the following:
Residents can elect to build ADU/JADU in their backyard if they are willing and their property is able to comply to the building requirement. These residents will receive subsidies and even incentives.
Residents who are not willing to build or their property is not suitable for building ADU/JADU will subject to a parcel tax of a certain amount. These tax collected will be used for subsidies and incentives.
Town will go door by door to promote and educate every resident if the proposition is passed. If the town failed in getting enough ADU built, the money can be used for paying the fine imposed by the state.
Sincerely,
John Huang
Hillsborough Resident on
-2384-
From: Phyllis Bedford
To: General Plan
Cc: Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Larry May; Al Royse; Sophie Cole; Scott Bedford Subject: Affordable Housing and the RHNA6 mandate
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:57:09 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I am proud to live in a town like Hillsborough with committed and hardworking Council members. I first want to thank you for your service. I am also grateful to live in a town with thoughtful and caring citizens. I am confident that together we will identify and present the best solution to the State’s RHNA6 mandate. Thank you for listening to the town’s voice.
We all love our town and desire the best possible outcome.
I am supportive of the development of more affordable housing throughout the state and in the Bay Area. 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. I attended the September 6 Open House and learned more about the Draft Plan. Unfortunately, I am not on board with the Draft Plan, matter of fact, I am strongly opposed.
It 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 re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents.
This is ill-considered and actually reckless.
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 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.
My hope is that together we can come up with an affordable housing plan that is thoughtful, carefully considered and analyzes the long-term impacts on our town. See you on September 12th!
-2385-
Warmly,
Phyllis Bedford
-2386-
From: Lillian Wu
To: General Plan
Subject: Hillsborough general plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:57:02 PM
As a long time resident of this town, we must consider the present condition of Hillsborough as a town with no commercial or low income housing.
Resident
Lillian Wu
Lillian sent by iPhone
-2387-
From: Bruce Weitzman
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:37:50 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-5.png
I am registering my objection to the Draft Housing Element recently shared with me. These plans are not good for me or the people of Hillsborough.
I believe that there is a lack of information and yet the impact could be devastating to the Town of Hillsborough. This should not be rushed to judgement until someone evaluates what needs to be done and what other cities are doing to deal with this issue.
I have lived in Hillsborough for 48 years. Our kids grew up here and also live in this community because of the schools, police department, fire department and feeling safe in a community like ours. What will be the implication of all these changes and who would like to be held accountable for bad decisions.
When we moved into our home, it was a 2200 square foot home but as our family grew we increased the size to 3800 square feet. I oppose the goal of discouraging redevelopment of existing sites to larger homes. This would violate homeowners’ property rights and makes no sense at all. I oppose any other changes to our current "RD” zoning. I believe we can achieve our required allotment with the use of ADU’S and vacant lots as a contingency.
As I said earlier, what are other cities implementing and why? I feel we should be moving slowly to reach a reasonable goal..
Thank you,
Bruce Weitzman
Thank you,
Bruce Weitzman
Corporate Office
395 Mendell St.
San Francisco, Ca. 94124
415.495.2002
Cell
[email protected]
Locations:
San Rafael - San Francisco
-2388-
From: Vivian Weitzman
To: Al Royse; Sophie Cole; General Plan; Larry May
Cc: Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz
Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:48:59 PM
I am registering my objection to the Draft Housing Element recently shared with me. These plans are not good for me or the people of Hillsborough.
I believe that there is a lack of information and yet the impact could be devastating to the Town of Hillsborough. This should not be rushed to judgement until someone evaluates what needs to be done and what other cities are doing to deal with this issue.
Our family has lived in Hillsborough for 48 years. Our kids grew up here and also live in this community because of the schools, police department, fire department and feeling safe in a community like ours. What will be the implication of all these changes and who would like to be held accountable for bad decisions.
When we moved into our home, it was a 2200 square foot home but as our family grew we increased the size to 3800 square feet. I oppose the goal of discouraging redevelopment of existing sites to larger homes. This would violate homeowners’ property rights and makes no sense at all. I oppose any other changes to our current "RD” zoning.
I believe we can achieve our required allotment with the use of ADU’S and vacant lots as a contingency.
As I said earlier, what are other cities implementing and why? I feel we should be moving slowly to reach a reasonable goal..
Thank you,
Vivian Weitzman
Hillsborough, CA
-2389-
From: Roberta Salma
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposition to the Housing Element Draft
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:25:18 PM
Dear Mayor Royce and Town Council,
We strongly oppose this current draft and request that the Town Council recommend a complete rejection of the draft and redraft a new Housing Element that reflects the needs and desires of the community while also addressing our responsibility to the State.
Our names are Karim and Roberta Salma. We’ve lived in Hillsborough for close to 50 years, raised three children here and are now retired here at the ages of 81 and 88 years old. We were shocked to recently learn what the Town has proposed in the Housing Element Draft. We do not feel properly notified and we do not feel the Town has given its citizens a reasonable amount of time to review the draft or the Town Hall proposal. This draft is out of touch with the needs of our Town and has a terribly flawed plan to solve our housing allotment.
I support using ADU’s to solve our housing allotment. We should not use 2019 and 2020 in our ADU calculation because those two years had work restrictions and the ADU process was not as advantageous. We also need to reduce the buffer zone of 20% to a more reasonable number of 10% or less. If any denser housing is needed, it must be for seniors. In only a few years 25% of the population will be seniors, where will they live?
I support the evaluation of senior housing in both
the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC. No matter what is built it needs to have a ratio of 1:1 parking and guest parking. I’m 88 and my wife is 81 and we and all our friends still drive.
Now that we know the ramifications of not meeting the housing allotment goals, we are now looking seriously into building an ADU on our property. Many other residents may hear this "call to action" if they are properly informed and educated by the Town.
Thank you,
Karim & Roberta Salma
-2390-
From: Mike Folgner
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Draft Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:22:02 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I appreciate the open house and the opportunity to learn more about this issue.I appreciate your work on this matter and thank you for it. I have a few concerns with the draft plan:
1. I would encourage the town to focus on ADU development. The plan forecast can be more truthful to the recent changes in the rate of ADU development and reflect a much more likely number. This forecast will greatly change the gap needed to make up the difference.
2. I would encourage the town to adopt changes to the ADU process to make them easier to build, including removing fees and allowing for tiny homes and prefabricated units.
3. We should be very aware of parking and hold any plans accountable to include parking and not overwhelm streets with parked cars. We should not assume that any housing will have occupants that will not own cars.
4. I would encourage the town to spread the higher density housing between the three elementary schools as we can assume these new neighbors will want to be a part of our great school system.
Thank you,
Mike Folgner
-2391-
From: Linda Lin
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Feedback on current housing element plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:12:39 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
We are writing to express concerns about the Hillsborough Town’s draft Housing Element plan recently shared with the public. We would like to ask you not to vote for or pass the current plan that was led by an outside consultant with no personal ties to Hillsborough that is home to us. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done.
Specifically, we 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. Secondly, we do not agree on 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 it helped to preserve their town while meeting the state requirements.
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.
Sincerely,
Danny and Linda Lin
, Hillsborough
-2392-
From: Carley Goldberg
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Concerned citizen with STRONG Opposition to the Draft Housing Element.
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:39:45 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I’d like to thank all of you for the time and energy you give to serve the residents of the town of Hillsborough. We have chosen to live and raise our families in this town because it truly is a unique and special place.
I was born and raised in the town of Hillsborough (Mayor Royse: Jennifer and I went to West together and were friendly as children) and have made the choice to raise my 4 children here as well. One of things I often hear within our community is how unique our town is as so many who were raised here have also chosen to return and raise our own families here. I am writing to you because I do not want to see the spirit of our town shift for the worse. I want to note my strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. In my opinion, this plan will destroy the fundamental concepts that Hillsborough was built on and the reasons why so many of us have chosen to live here.
I am specifically opposed to a reduction in lot sizes and any other changes to our zoning in order to accomplish the number of housing units mandated by the state. We should be utilizing the maximum number of ADU’s/JADU’s as possible, reducing or eliminating the buffer and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. I oppose having any new housing units (other than ADU’s) that do not have 1:1 parking. This denser housing will have dangerous implications on our environment, schools, road and the infrastructure our town was built on. Do not change our zoning as this is what makes Hillsborough special.
I oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan.
I believe the town should be re-negotiating with the state in regard to the number of housing units that need to be built just as other towns in our area did. In addition, the other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years.
I oppose the lack of transparency and the timing in the process. Our town is being blindsided by the draft housing element as so many people that I have spoken to have no idea that the draft housing element exists. Minutes to many HEAC and other planning committee meetings are unavailable, planning department team members provide different details at different times, and “preliminary” plans for the “Town Hall Campus” are only being provided three days before public review. Nearly every resident has been surprised by this process and the lack of details, yet the impact has been categorized as “Major” by town planning staff.
The denser housing, particularly the inclusion of multiple family units at any one site (Deguine Estate, Strawberry Hill, Town Hall, etc), has not been sufficiently studied in regard to the impact on town utilities and schools, nor has there been adequate time for community input. Please remove these from the draft 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.
-2393-
Sincerely,
Carley Goldberg
Hillsborough Resident:
-2394-
From: Sheila McWilliams
To: General Plan; Keith McWilliams
Cc: [email protected]; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; Ann Ritzma
Subject: HB low income housing plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:26:25 PM
My name is Sheila Burns McWilliams and my husband, Keith McWilliams, and I reside at . We have been homeowners in Hillsborough for 20 plus years. I was raised in Hillsborough at and numerous family members either live in or lived in Hillsborough. We love Hillsborough and it is our hope to remain here as long as possible.
I am writing today to express my very serious concern about the proposed city council plan for additional housing. I am distressed that efforts were not made to appeal our state allocation of 554 units. As you know, other communities such as Atherton, Woodside and Portola Valley have been successful at lowering their required numbers. My understanding though is that it may be too late for any appeal. This is very unfortunate.
With regards to the current proposal we are very much against this plan for the following reasons:
1. rezoning of the entire city is unnecessary
2. the corresponding increase in population will overwhelm our school districts and town systems
3. future “up zoning” will be easier to achieve if this plan is appproved
4. the erosion of our property rights and the resultant decrease in our property values as a result of this plan
5. omission of large town parcels is an over reach and unnecessary
6. reduction in lot size will completely change the nature of our town
7. frontage landscape coverage reduction will devalue all of our homes and greatly impact our neighborhoods
Please reconsider and cast your votes and efforts toward the alternative plan of “Hillsborough 2023-2031 Housing Element, A better Plan: Smart housing for Hillsborough” Thank you
Sheila Burns McWilliams
-2395-
From: Scott Aronson
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Cc: Scott Aronson; Tiffiny Cota
Subject: Draft Housing Element Thoughts
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:17:23 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
Thank you all for the efforts that lead up to the open house this week. Dealing with some of the mandates for our town is no small task, the work is appreciated. I was fortunate to hear about the open house the day of and upon attending really learned a lot. Much of which was very new information to me as I believe much of the communication fell below my radar.
As I have learned of the current thinking, I’d like to register my concerns and fundamental lack of support given what I have seen thus far. I do, however, firmly believe there are some compromises and alternatives that could work for all interested parties. In the spirit of this belief, I’d like to outline a few key elements that could benefit from some additional thought and adjustment. - The redevelopment and re-zoning of the town hall sight is issue number one for me. Zoning specifications need to be broadly socalized. The size/number of units most certainly must be revisited. A hight cap of 3 stories as to enable it to stay tucked in behind oaks on the El Camino side is very important, a requirement of parking in the structure, and prohibiting decks and balconies at the location are big items.
- The baseline count for ADUs is a foundational point, we can do more in this area…no doubt about it.
- Changing the existing zoning requirements as it pertains to lot size, etc is very destructive to a defining element of Hillsborough’s differentiation.
These were just a few points that were top of mind. I do have thoughts and ideas on a forward direction and I am willing and able to commit time and energy to work together with other community members to find a solution. I simply felt this too important not to make my feelings known and to offer my support in any way….
Thanks for listening and stay well.
- sa
-2396-
Scott Aronson
Pepper Ave
Ryan Tract
-2397-
From: Marci Palatella
To: General Plan
Subject: From resident Palatella regarding proposed zoning changes Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:16:32 PM
Regarding the plan to rezone Hillsborough, the current proposal is not only flawed, but rezoning our entire town will be detrimental to our property values, and the environment that makes Hillsborough so esthetically attractive and livable for thousands of residents.
You’ve accepted housing and density numbers that far exceed the close by towns of Portola, Woodside and Atherton. This is unacceptable.
There are alternative proposals out there, far more reasonable, and we are insisting those be considered, and our voices heard.
Hire a person to help expedite ADUs for the next 24 months, and modify some of the overreaching barriers to those. Give homeowners here a reasonable chance to apply for and build attractive ADUs as housing on our own properties that can be rented to teachers and others needing affordable housing.
We completely object to the current proposed plan.
Sincerely,
Marci and Lou Palatella
Homeowners
Hillsborough, CA
Visit us in Bardstown, Kentucky
Preservationdistillery.com
PRESERVATION DISTILLERY
he r i t a g e crafters of memorable whiskey
-2398-
From: Kelli Benz
To: General Plan
Subject: Changes in Zoning , Housing Element in Hillsborough Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:00:33 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
My husband and I have been residents of Hillsborough for 22 years. We have raised our children here and established strong roots. When we heard about the proposed plan to replace our beautiful town hall with a 100 unit housing complex, we were absolutely stunned that this would even be considered. We are opposed to this 100%, we live on Floribunda Drive in Hillsborough. The last thing we need is more housing and what is even more shocking is that there are no plans for parking. Where will residents of this apartment building park, on our streets? The traffic on Floribunda is already crazy without adding more traffic and possibly parked cars. Our infrastructure is already compromised on
El Camino without adding hundreds of more cars.
This is the worst decision that could ever be considered. Not only will this decision impact the value of our homes but it will impact the three schools in the Hillsborough school system.
You must reconsider, this is a terrible proposal and many of my friends who are residents are opposed to this plan as well.
Kelli Benz
Hillsborough
Sent from my iPad
-2399-
September 09, 2022
Dear Hillsborough City Council:
We are writing on behalf of South Bay YIMBY regarding Hillsborough’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. As a regional pro-housing advocacy group, South Bay YIMBY works to ensure cities adopt housing elements that are fair, realistic, and lawful.
Per GOV §8899.50(a)(1), Hillsborough's housing element must affirmatively further fair housing by 'taking meaningful actions... that overcome patterns of segregation.' As our past letter showed, your city is segregated from the rest of the Bay, as only the richest 1% of households can afford an average home in your city. To grow into an integ‐ rated city, law requires you to provide low income (LI) folks with a range of housing op‐ tions that meet their needs. Yet, your Draft falsely claims 57% of LI folks would have their needs met by ADUs built in Hillsborough.
Few, if any, of your ADUs further fair housing goals. A 2020 survey from Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation found 40% of ADUs are held off the long-term rental market, often as home offices, while 32% of ADUs are rented to families or friends for dis‐ counted rents. Sweetheart deals to family and friends do not promote integration, as re‐ quired by law. When your city is 38% whiter than the Bay Area, providing LI units dispro‐ portionately to family members reifies existing patterns of racial segregation.
Less than a third of ADUs are actually rented on the open market. But ABAG’s gen‐ eral findings on ADU affordability don't extend to your city, where LI folks can't afford open market rate rents. The cheapest Hillsborough ADU on Zillow rents for $4,500.
Hillsborough will likely reply to these objections by pointing to a local ADU survey, but that local survey had only five respondents indicate the rent they charge. Portraying this as a valid survey on affordability is malpractice. What's more, the survey does not show a single ADU is rented affordably to a tenant who is not simply a family member.
To be clear, ADUs are a valuable part of a healthy mix of housing choices. But not every LI family wants to live in someone else’s backyard. Not every LI family is small enough to live in a small ADU. And even those LI families who'd happily live in an ADU can’t do it in Hillsborough because virtually no ADUs are available to the public at an affordable rent.
To AFFH, your city should entirely lift its ban on Mullin-density housing. As of 2020, your city banned apartments in 100% of residential areas, effectively banning affordable hous‐ ing built at-scale. Aside from creating more choice for LI families, lifting exclusionary zon‐ ing will also yield homeownership opportunities to build intergenerational wealth in a high opportunity community that ADUs, as rentals, cannot. Plus, more choice allows larger LI families to find 3+ bedroom units, rare among ADUs, that meet their needs.
We appreciate that the Draft proposes lifting some exclusionary zoning, but the Draft still nonetheless slots nearly twice as many LI families into ADUs as do drafts from other small, exclusionary cities. Hillsborough should, at minimum, add 80 more units of LI capa‐ city by expanding RD-2 and O-AH zoning to govern more parcels. A Draft that did this -2400-
would at least be normal among small, exclusive towns in the Bay Area, in terms of the re‐ liance on ADUs to AFFH and integrate low income folks into the town. Being average among other exclusionary towns should be the absolute bare minimum for AFFH.
Thank you,
Salim Damerdji, South Bay YIMBY
-2401-
From: Kent Liu
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Strong opposition to the Draft Housing Element Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:25:05 PM
Dear 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 us all. We want to register our strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan is not good for the town, in our opinion. Specifically:
* We support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the “ buffer”, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. We support the evaluation of senior housing as suggested by both the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC.
* We oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan.
Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years.
* We oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning. This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger for fire and other emergency situations and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. Do not change our zoning. * 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 homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future.
*We oppose having any new housing units (other than ADU’s) that do not have 1:1 parking. * We oppose the redevelopment of the historic town hall site and believe we can achieve our allotment through the use of ADU and vacant lots as a contingency. We particularly oppose the inclusion of >100 units (density calculation sources for the 2.5 acre site not provided) on the “Town Hall Campus” in the housing element submission with no zoning specifications listed, before any environmental or other studies on the impact on town utilities, parking, schools and other services have been completed, and with no time provided for adequate community input. In our opinion this is far too many units at this site.
Because it is a town-owned site, development will be expected once this site is included in the plan, it cannot be included without proper and thoughtful preliminary planning. It should be removed from the draft plan.
* We oppose the lack of transparency and the timing in the process. Minutes to many HEAC and other planning committee meetings are unavailable, planning department team members provide different details at different times, and “preliminary” plans for the “Town Hall Campus” are only being provided three days before public review. Nearly every resident has been surprised by this process and the lack of details, yet the impact has been categorized as “Major” by town planning staff.
Many people in our town agree on these points - We're 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,
-2402-
Helena Yang and Kent Liu
Hillsborough Residents at
-2403-
From: Tal Simon
To: General Plan
Cc:
Subject: Affordable Housing Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:24:47 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
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.
We also have no sidewalks, no street lights, and thanks to our town’s incompetency, extremely poor cellular service. Building out affordable housing units would further exacerbate these already concerning safety issues.
Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan, which brings a one-size fits all approach to a town that is objectively, based on the data, an outlier. There is absolutely no reason to rezone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus heavily on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. We must engage in thoughtful, long-term planning with fulsome and transparent discussion and community engagement and appropriate consideration of the cost and impact of any proposed changes.
I want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the -2404-
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.
Tal and Cinthia Simon
Get Outlook for iOS
-2405-
From: Melissa Hamilton
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Sam Hamilton Subject: Hillsborough Housing Draft Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:11:21 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
My husband and I live in North Hillsborough and we have 2 young boys who attend North Hillsborough Elementary. We moved to Hillsborough 7 years ago because we felt this town was beautiful, safe, and had top tier schools but we are very concerned with the current Draft Plan. We are worried the Draft Plan will increase class sizes and ruin our prestigious public schools that we have worked so hard to preserve. We 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. We are 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.
We are 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 re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity.
Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
We are 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.
-2406-
We want to voice our 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,
Melissa and Samuel Hamilton
-2407-
From:
To: General Plan
Subject: Low income
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:01:09 PM
Matt and I are are totally opposed to the tax increase and low income housing.
M and c
Sent from my iPhone
-2408-
From: Claire Wolfenden
To: General Plan
Subject: Oppose Draft Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:56:37 PM
Dear Hillsborough Council members:
We appreciated the opportunity to attend the September 6 Open House to learn more about the Draft Plan. We 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. We are 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 carryforward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
WE ARE 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 re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
WE ARE 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.
We want to voice our 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,
Claire and Bill Wolfenden
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-2409-
From: Casey Sternsmith
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element Feedback
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:52:52 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
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. I was present on Tuesday evening and had the opportunity to ask additional questions. To all of the Councilmembers, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, both generally and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area but we must ensure we do so in a thoughtful, carefully considered, and long-term manner. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan is not that.
Hillsborough possesses attributes that are important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
Due to our unique qualities, I feel that this plan neglects to look at the long term ramifications of rezoning. Most particularly to our school districts facilities, police and fire capabilities, current infrastructure limitations and the long term environmental implications.
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 re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. 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 -2410-
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,
Casey Sternsmith
www.sternsmith.com
Connect with me on:
-2411-
From: Joanie Schlampp
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Housing Element draft response
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:44:27 PM
Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Attorney,
I am writing with concern about the Housing Element Plan for our town. I’d like to first thank all of you for your efforts in attempting to create a Housing Element draft that meets the state requirements. I’m sure the task of trying to please the community as well as satisfy the state is daunting. However, I don’t think the current plan is the right one for Hillsborough.
I strongly oppose the Housing Element draft as proposed. While I understand that Hillsborough needs to meet the Housing Element allotment due to the current housing crisis, this plan does not reflect the interests of the residents of Hillsborough in any way.
While there
are many issues with the current plan including water needs, fire safety, parking, future impact on our schools I would like to address just two that I feel I can speak on with clarity as I was only made aware of this issue two weeks ago.
Similar to other towns like ours, we should be attempting to meet our allotment mostly with ADU’s. My husband and I have a pool house we are currently remodeling to meet the requirements of an ADU, so you can add one more to Hillsborough’s total for 2022. Meeting our allotment with ADU’s stays consistent with our town’s history and avoids a slippery slope that could lead to the eventual downfall of our very special community.
Another serious issue to consider is that most people in our community to do not understand what is happening and what the potential impacts of the Housing Element will be.
It seems the communication efforts made by the town were ineffective, leaving residents feeling blindsided and that our interests were neither considered nor understood by the council. In the past week or so, many more community members have become aware and are trying to educate themselves on this issue as it will have a significant impact on our town.
With this in mind, I’d like to suggest that you make more targeted efforts to reach and inform the community as well as extend the deadline to provide feedback.
Thank you ,
Joanie Schlampp
Housing Element draft plan letter to city council
-2412-
From: Tess Salter
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; General Plan Subject: Letter from Tess Salter ~ Housing Plan ~ Opposed to proposed plan Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:35:12 PM
Attachments: untitled
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
For the past 38 years, I have had the privilege of being a Hillsborough Resident. I am a proud past student of West, North & Crocker, and now my two boys attend West. First of all, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. As a Hillsborough, Mother & homeowner, I am writing to strongly discourage you to say NO to the current proposed plan.
I have read the full plan and attended the September 6th Open House. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area, and we MUST be thoughtful and considerate to the impact in our community, climate, the schools & the charm Hillsborough is known for. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan (in my opinion) completely misses the mark.
Hillsborough is unique with having no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. There are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in 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.
Please note that I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan (and I hope you are too), 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 re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents.
This is ill-considered and reckless.
I understand that employees of the city have requested a lower number of low income homes required, and I encourage our city to continue to push back and request 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 -2413-
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.
Sincerely,
Tess Salter
--
Tess Salter
#1 in San Mateo
#45 in CA - Real Trends Medium Teams
#135 in US - Real Trends Medium Teams
Your Realtor Matters. Experience the Difference!
sternsmith.com
Compass #01527235 / License #01999389
-2414-
From: Christine Corsetti
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Christopher Diaz Subject: Housing Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:22:13 PM
To whom it may concern:
I am learning more about the draft housing plan, and while I absolutely recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and deeply appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our town, the current plan is not acceptable. The consulting firm seems to have run a playbook that was one size fits all approach to appease Sacramento without thinking critically if there is a better path forward. The consultant has offered a blanket plan (ie: re-zoning) that is NOT tailored to our community. I hope that everyone can partner together to come up with a better solution.
The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must be on ADU and vacant lot development and must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. Not enough has been done by way of partnering with residents to explore satisfying State requirements through more aggressive measures around allowing for and providing incentives for ADU's & JADU’s. The State guidelines on the ADU calculations suggest taking the previous rolling three year average. But there is a flaw with the calculation in that we had COVID-19 where the state limited certain types of construction. As soon as the new legislation for ADU’s came out (which streamlined the process), coupled with COVID-19 pandemic ending, our ADU production increased substantially. Based on the 2021 ADU run-rate it seems the entire 8 year allocation can be met through ADU’s alone and the town is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan. While I understand this may not satisfy the state completely, we need to enter into a negotiated outcome and follow the lead of other towns like Atherton and Woodside.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking need to be heavily considered. More specifically, where is the parking plan for the 100+ units located on El Camino? What about the impact on our streets and sidewalks? If 100+ units are to be built in the Town Hall area, the traffic, which is already very busy, will become overwhelming. Without a proper parking plan in place, there will be a direct impact on all of the streets in the surrounding area. It doesn’t seem that a proper Environmental impact survey has been accomplished prior to putting together this plan. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger in fire and other emergency services, diminish the quality of our town’s crown jewel (our schools) and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special. -2415-
The fact that we have zero commerce, no retail, no industrial, the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1 and 70% of our town is designated as a High Fire Risk zone, 554 units seems like a very aggressive requirement for our town and must also be addressed and lowered.
Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. There are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State.
I know the town is trying their best and I recognize this is an impossible situation, but as Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. The clear answer here is incorporating much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's as other towns have done with the rejection of all other strategies.
Atherton removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. Listen to your citizens and set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing and work to come up with a better plan while negotiating with the state.
Christine Corsetti
Hillsborough
-2416-
From: Suzanne Kim Tomlinson
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Hillsborough Re-Zoning Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 12:30:13 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
My name is Suzanne Tomlinson and I am currently raising four children in this wonderful town of Hillsborough. My parents immigrated to this country from Korea over 45 years ago with almost nothing in their pockets and worked incredibly hard to provide us with stellar public school education. That hard work ultimately allowed me to build a career here in NY and then California and for me to raise my children in this very special town.
I attended the September 6th Open House at North School to learn more about the Draft Plan and have read the full plan posted on the Town website. I support the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area, and in particular, for members of these actual communities such as teachers, nurses, police and firefighters. As a child of an immigrant family who watched her parents work 3-4 jobs at a time, overnight, and her mother work countless midnight shifts as an ICU nurse, I love the thought of giving contributing community members the ability to live in the communities in which they serve.
I am also appreciative to all of the Councilmembers for serving this town and giving its citizens the opportunity to have input on this very big decision. The incredible public schools, focus on safety, and deep respect between neighbors are all reasons I carried out my parent’s legacy and worked so very hard to be able to raise my four children here. I trust that the Councilmembers are doing everything they can to maintain the integrity of this very unique town – and again I truly thank you for spending the time to read this letter!!
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan. Hillsborough’s attributes are really important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and has 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.
The current Draft Plan feels like an outside-in, cookie-cutter consultant approach that does not take into account these unique qualities of the town. At the open house, the sentiment I heard was that the consultants did not have the perview to consider implications of safety, education, traffic & congestion among other topics that directly impact all citizens of this town. I was also upset to hear that the 17-person citizen’s committee feedback was not incorporated into the draft plan.
Specifically, I am concerned about: (1) the many unintended consequences of re-zoning the entire town through a blanket plan without understanding what all potential implications will be; (2) related to that, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed changes on current residents – as mentioned, what specific impact will the plan have on schools, safety (we are already seeing an uptick on this front), public departments, traffic, congestion, maintenance, etc. If citizens are going to ultimately bear the cost of such plan, we -2417-
should be informed as to what that impact will be and have input into such a big decision; (3) Hillsborough strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so). I really do not understand why we are not able to carry-forward those units when no other neighboring town was even able to meet its goal (and by the way without any consequence).
Can we not push harder to make sure we get credit for those excess units created? (4) personally, I did not feel like the forum of the September 6th open house was conducive to collecting and hearing actual feedback from citizens. I had expected a presentation of the plan and a chance (as a group) to hear Q&A from actual citizens/neighbors. I felt the diffused “table station” format was a very ineffective way for me to learn more about the proposal and hear other people’s perspectives – which was the reason I left work early to attend such event.
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 demonstrated our ability to meet and exceed set goals. [In fact, I have recently received approval for an ADU on our property - where I am very hopeful my parents can ultimately move into.] 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. Let us please not rush into a plan developed by third-party consultants without taking the time to really think through all the unintended and potential long-term implications. There are many citizens of this town who are willing to volunteer their time to help think through these potential implications, so do kindly call upon us to do so.
I therefore wanted to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft 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,
Suzanne Tomlinson
-2418-
From: James McDowell
To: General Plan; Hillsborough Mail
Cc: Caryn McDowell; Lisa Natusch; Al Royse; Christine Krolik Subject: Comments for Housing Element Plan
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 12:18:19 PM
We are James and Caryn McDowell, and we own and reside on Fagan Drive, here in Hillsborough. We moved here in 2016 with our two children, who graduated from both North School and Crocker Middle School, and during that time, I served on the Board of the Hillsborough Schools Foundation (HSF) for two years. We are submitting this comment to the City of Hillsborough on the current draft housing element plan, scheduled for discussion at the September 12, 2022 meeting.
We recognize the need for more affordable housing units in CA and understand the efforts that have been put forth on behalf of our Hillsborough, however, the current plan is not acceptable to us.
In addition to our comments below on the overall impact to Hillsborough, we have additional objections because of our painful experience of subdivision in the neighboring property. Our quiet cul-de-sac has already been subject to two re-zoning efforts in the past two years, one of which was approved over the objection of every resident commentor, and the other (which sought to further subdivide the justapproved subdivision) appeared to be on track for approval, until a resident identified issues of non-compliance with the existing regulatory rules in Hillsborough. A citywide plan that allows smaller lots and smaller frontage will likely encourage yet another subdivision, which will lead to further long-term loss of the semi-rural character of the neighborhood and Hillsborough as a whole, additional loss of property value, and extraordinary disruption caused by building multiple new homes.
The focus of Hillsborough’s plan must NOT include any mention of smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks (outside of the reduced setbacks for ADU's/JADU's, although some additional thought must be given to neighbor privacy in this matter), increases to height allowances, increased floor area ratio or reduced landscaping coverage. These existing rules are critical to the character of Hillsborough. Although the extraordinary increase in ADUs and JADUs has given us some concern, especially some of the extraordinarily small setback requirements, it appears the entire 8 year allocation required by California can be met through ADU’s alone and the city is underestimating the potential for ADU's as part of its proposed plan. While we understand this may not satisfy the state completely, we need a negotiated outcome and follow the lead of other towns like Atherton and Woodside.
Furthermore, there is a clear lack of planning for infrastructure in this plan: sewer, water, cellular coverage, electrical and parking are already difficult or insufficient for the current housing stock – while we suffered no power outages in 2017, there have been multiple outages in the last two years, and the frequency of these interruptions is increasing. The cellular coverage has been an ongoing issue for as long as we have lived in Hillsborough, and we all know the water system is stressed across the entire region. Additionally, reduction in lot sizes and denser housing throughout our -2419-
neighborhoods will create additional fire danger and tax other emergency services.
As we understand it, 70% of our city is designated as a High Fire Risk zone—we are subject to inspection by County fire—adding density without the ability to widen streets appears to be a recipe for disaster in case of fire or earthquake. And any plan must recognize that shocks to the school-aged population will stress and possibly destroy the decades-long work the City, the School Board and HSF have done to make our schools among the best in California!
We understand this is a difficult dilemma, but the consulting firm used by the city seems to have used a one-size-fits-all approach, including a blanket re-zoning of Hillsborough. As Atherton has shown, the support of the council is needed to push forward a plan that does NOT include rezoning or lot splitting. Atherton removed multi-family townhomes and overlay zones from their RHNA proposal with the help of their mayor and councilwoman. Hillsborough must follow the plan Atherton has proposed and remove all multi-family overlay zones from the proposal. Please listen to your citizens and set aside the consultant's flawed recommendation. If the Council passes ordinances allowing for more ADU's/JADU's, it can all but eliminate any need for high density housing and work to come up with a better plan while negotiating with the state. I hope that everyone can partner together to come up with a better solution.
Please feel free to include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Thank you again for all you do!
Sincerely,
James and Caryn McDowell
Fagan Drive
James McDowell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mcdowellj
-2420-
From: Lena Chang
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing Element
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 12:17:45 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I understand that this draft will be a compromise to what make Hillsborough special. Below are my views:
- I oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan. Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years. - I oppose having a goal (Policy 4, Goal 4.5) to "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes." This goal and its implementation will violate homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no
compensation.
- I oppose having any new housing units (other than ADU’s) that do not have 1:1 parking.
- I oppose the redevelopment of the historic town hall site and believe we can achieve our allotment through the use of ADU and vacant lots as a contingency. I particularly oppose the inclusion of >100 units (density calculation sources for the 2.5 acre site not provided) on the “Town Hall Campus” in the housing element submission with no zoning specifications listed, before any environmental or other studies on the impact on town utilities, parking, schools and other services have been completed, and with no time provided for adequate community input. In my opinion this is far too many units at this site. Because it is a town-owned site, development will be expected once this site is included in the plan, it cannot be included without proper and thoughtful preliminary planning. It should be removed from the draft plan. - I oppose the lack of transparency and the timing in the process.
Minutes to many HEAC and other planning committee meetings are unavailable, planning department team members provide different details at different times, and “preliminary” plans for the “Town Hall Campus” are only being provided three days before public review. Nearly every resident has been surprised by this process and the lack of details, yet the impact has been categorized as “Major” by town planning staff.
-2421-
Many people in our town agree on these 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,
Lena Chang
Hillsborough Resident
-2422-
From: Yahoo Mail
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Al Royse Subject: Opposition to the Draft Housing Element.
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 12:13:52 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
First, I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, Keeping Hillsborough one of the best places to live, but all the change will change our inhabitant area forever, both for human and for animal who live in Hillsborough. I want to register my strong opposition to the draft Housing Element recently shared with the public. This plan is not good for the town, in my opinion. Specifically:
1) This plan will completely change the town’s dynamics and culture and inhabitant which residents as we worked so hard and appreciate and cherish. 2) I see this Housing Element presented as a worst-case scenario so that we residents can accept a compromised plan which is still a bad plan for the town and us residents.
3) I strongly oppose the redevelopment of our historic town hall site especially the inclusion of a high density building without careful study of impact on town’s infrastructure, schools, utilities, parking, etc.
Take a look at the population, Hillsborough has more retired, and seniors live in than other place, take a look at the population chart, it is making their life very difficult.
4) I oppose any reduction in lot sizes, and any other changes to our current “RD” zoning. This denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will create danger for fire and other emergency situations. DO NOT CHANGE OUR ZONING.
It seems we do have bigger living space, but on the other hand, we do have more people live in the household than US average. the number is people per household in Hillsborough is 3.1, and the US nationwide average of people per house is only 2.6. and it is absurd to even try to downsize it. -2423-
5) I oppose using such a small number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's and JADU's) in the plan. Other towns are using much higher numbers of ADU/JADU's in their plans, and so should we. The Town should allot a minimum of 62 ADU’s/ year, which is what we are already on track to complete for the most recent two years.
6) I oppose having a goal (Policy 4, Goal 4.5) to "Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes." This goal and its implementation will violate homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation. Remove this goal from our plan, and do not implement it in the future.
7) I oppose having any new housing units (other than ADU’s) that do not have 1:1 parking.
8) I oppose the lack of transparency and the timing in the process. Minutes to many HEAC and other planning committee meetings are unavailable, planning department team members provide different details at different times, and “preliminary” plans for the “Town Hall Campus” are only being provided three days before public review. Nearly every resident has been surprised by this process and the lack of details, yet the impact has been categorized as “Major” by town planning staff.
9) I support an alternate approach for our Housing Element, utilizing the maximum number of ADU's/JADU's possible, reducing or eliminating the “ buffer”, and utilizing vacant lots to achieve our RHNA goals. I support the evaluation of senior housing as suggested by both the 2014 Housing Element and the 2022 HEAC.
10) I support an approach that reduces the lengthy permit application process and gives incentives to ADUs for rental purposes so that residents can decide what they want to do.
Many of my neighbors agree on above mentioned points. Please include this email in the public record and consider it on September 12 and beyond as you finalize our submission to the state.
Sincerely,
Maggie Huang
Hillsborough Resident
<!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportLists]-->o <!--[endif]-->
-2424-
From: Cameron Douraghy
To: General Plan
Subject: housing plan
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2022 10:56:14 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". Best regards,
Cameron Douraghy
Hillsborough, CA 94010
ATTACHMENT 3
-2425-
From: Irina Reykhel
To: General Plan
Cc:
Subject: State Mandated Draft Housing Plan
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2022 9:44:26 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
As Hillsborough residents, my husband and I would like to express our concern and opposition to the current draft housing plan.
Regards,
Boris & Irina Reykhel
Churchill Drive
-2426-
From: Aaron Zornes
To: Al Royse
Cc: Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Larry May; Sophie Cole; Ann Ritzma; Lisa Natusch Subject: survey results from 12% of Hillsborough households attached Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 8:05:54 PM
Attachments: survey-results.
Al—
As we discussed this morning, attached are the latest results as of 5pm yesterday cutoff for public comments on Housing Element plan.
Over 520 households responded (12% of Hillsborough) with more surveys still coming in daily.
220+ of these indicated they wanted to submitted as PUBLIC COMMENT to town, so we crated PDFs of those survey responses and forwarded them to LisaN’s office.
We are all interested in the ADU responses. Currently our EXPORT link to Excel is not working so we have to debug that before we can see if there are substantial changes to the answer to that single ADU intent question.
Most importantly, we sent 6,000 email invitations out (see below) that PROMOTED the town’s ADU survey prominently, so hopefully you will get large number of responses for town ADU survey.
Hope this helps the group effort.
--Aaron
SUBJECT: share your concerns re: proposed re-zoning & learn about alternative plan LET'S BE HEARD AS A COMMUNITY BY TAKING A QUICK 3-5 MINUTE SURVEY TO GIVE “HOUSING DENSITY” FEEDBACK TO OUR CITY COUNCIL.
Per our mayor Al Royce, "“THIS IS BIGGEST SINGLE ISSUE TO CONFRONT HILLSBOROUGH IN 50 YEARS.” The mayor was commenting on Hillsborough’s plan to meet the state mandate for higher-density housing during 2023-31 which must be submitted to & approved by the state during the next 2 months.
TO TAKE THE “3-5 MINUTE SURVEY”
• Click on www.bit.ly/hillsborough-housing
• FYI = Survey is best experienced on Windows 7/10 or MacOs • Note = Both Apple & Android phones/tablets may want to flip their devices to LANDSCAPE mode to best enjoy the experience
• If you indicate so in the survey, we will send your comments directly to our town council members in time for the 19-Sept-2022 deadline for public comments -2427-
REVIEW THE “INTERIM SURVEY” RESULTS SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN • Click on https://0046c64.netsolhost.com/PDF/survey-results.pdf TO LEARN ABOUT A RESIDENT-DRIVEN “ALTERNATIVE PLAN” (TO OUR TOWN’S “LA CONSULTANTS’ PLAN”)
• We studied the town's draft Housing Element plan (185 pages) & discussed it with dozens of neighbors
• As input to our town, numerous concerned groups of residents assembled an alternative plan
• This plan was developed with input from Town Council, HEAC members, realtors, developers, parents, staff, & other neighbors
• View this alternate plan at https://app.box.com/s/caegj8llugehg61u73amgp6pgdavyqcg – & feel free to share this link with other Hillsborough neighbors BONUS SURVEY – OUR TOWN’S “ADU INTENTIONS” SURVEY
• Would you be willing to build an ADU on your property? Click on Take the town's ADU survey
UNSUBSCRIBE???
• We get it. We all get too much unsolicited email.
• This is a political email which is NOT considered SPAM by US law & Internet Service Providers.
• If, however, in the interests of being GOOD NEIGHBORS, & you STILL would like to NOT receive such occasional emails about Hillsborough political issues (5-10 times per year), then SIMPLY REPLY with the word UNSUBSCRIBE.
• Just REPLY with UNSUBSCRIBE in the email body.
• WE WILL DO THE REST AND REMOVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESSES FROM OUR POLITICAL EMAIL DATABASE.
-2428-
6.53 “HILLSBOROUGH IS UNITED”
Resident feedback on draft Housing Element
3Q2022 survey (12%+ of Hillsborough households)
-2429-
HILLSBOROUGH RESIDENTS UNITE ON THESE KEY
ITEMS OF TOWN’S DRAFT “HOUSING ELEMENT”
• By more than 11:1, oppose this Housing Element plan as drafted • By about 14:1, oppose re-zoning
• By more than 11:1, reject reduced minimum lot size & street frontages • By more than 10:1, concerned about excluding town-owned open space
• By more than 7:1, want our proposal to be based on ADUs/JADUs • By about 14:1, want our town to understand what other towns like Hillsborough are doing, & to engage with them to fight for our common interests
• There is overwhelming consensus on these items, & the Housing Element plan must reflect this feedback
2 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2430-
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THESE ITEMS
• Allowing multiple detached ADUs
• Small plurality (not a majority) in favor of exploring denser housing at the Town Hall campus site
• Plurality (not a majority) opposed to considering taller building heights at the Town Hall campus site
• By a margin of about 3:2, residents support the concept (but not any specific plan) of focusing on area near El Camino Real for appropriately locating higher density housing.
However, there is a very large undecided block.
• For these items where there is no strong consensus, the town must make a specific proposal with a good case for this to our citizens, & reach consensus in the town, if any of these are to be included in our Housing Element
3 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2431-
ADDITIONAL LEARNINGS
• More than half the town respondents were not aware of the Housing Element until the past 3 months, including almost 3 out of 10 who just learned of this in the 2 weeks before this survey • 56% of survey respondents learned about the Housing Element from social media or email, while only 24% learned about this from Town communications • Such low awareness implies issues with how the Town engages our residents & homeowners • We need to rethink how the Town communicates overall, especially on critical issues like this • The Town needs to bolster its online marketing methods/channels • Better outbound communcations via social networking sites including Hillsborough Together & Nextdoor Hillsborough
• Strengthen email & SMS channels, including OPT IN capture of contact information for all residents
• The newsletter may be good for community relations, but doesn’t engage sufficiently • The Town needs to grab attention with improved and visible key messaging for topics such as this plan, elections, etc.
• Well-constructed surveys both educate & assess residents’ positions – with a high response rate 4 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2432-
6.53 SURVEY DETAILS
12% of Hillsborough’s 4,000+ households responded
during September 1-19, 2022
-2433-
BACK STORY
• For 2 years (since 2020), our town council has attempted to craft its state-mandated “Housing Element” to plan & execute for higher density housing as mandated by the state of California
• For the past year, the town organized a “Housing Element Advisory Committee" (HEAC) comprised of 17 residents & affected organizations (CSUS, Nueva) to make recommendations to the city council
• The town has also retained a consultancy (Houseal Lavigne) to manage the process for our proposed plan to the state
• The draft HEAC plan was revealed the week of August 8th to city council & the town residents
• Currently the town's plan is to submit the revised HEAC proposal/response as required in October 2022 at which time the state will review our plan • TOWN could have surveyed residents, to have better data to represent their constituency ... So we residents took it on ourselves using our professional skills, software & personal time 6 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2434-
SURVEY OVERVIEW/METHODOLOGY
• Using publicly available databases, we created a pool of 6,000+ validated email addresses, landlines & mobile phones for each Hillsborough address • During Sept 1-18, 2022, we sent email invitations to this group in addition to posting SURVEY INVITATION to all 5,000+ members of Nextdoor Hillsborough & Hillsborough Together social networks
• In addition to our own research questions, we also included the questionnaire that the 17 member HEAC group used to survey itself as well as survey questions proposed by Hillsborough Citizens Alliance (HCA)
• 520+ survey responses were received (12% of Hillsborough households) of which 200+ provided full contact info for the public record, & the 300+ other anonymous responses were confirmed via IP address; we assume that given the nature of our town’s “own” online survey for Housing Element feedback (which are anonymous as well) that these “anonymous” survey responses are critical data points that merit full town council & management attention 7 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2435-
SURVEY INVITATION
-2436-
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN 9
Our goal was to (neutrally) educate, as well as capture feedback on several different viewpoints of the proposed plan
85%
15%
1A. Are you aware state law mandates affordable low
income & moderate income housing in ALL cities?
Yes No
-2437-
10 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
4%
6%
9%
18%
18%
20%
21%
22%
25%
During town council meeting
Local TV report
Other (please describe)
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Local newspaper article
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
This email survey invitation
Hillsborough Together post
2A - How did you learn of Hillsborough's mandate?
56% learned about this issue from social media & email. 24% learned about this from the town communications.
e need to rethink how the town communicates overall, especially on critical issues like this. -2438-
11 56% learned about this issue from social media and email. 24% learned about this from the town communications.
We need to rethink how the town communicates overall, especially on critical issues like this.
During town council meeting
20%
Local TV report
14%
Other (please describe)
12%
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
10%
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter
(print/mail)
12%
Local newspaper article
10%
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter
(email)
2%
This email survey invitation
11%
Hillsborough Together post
4%
Word of mouth from fellow
residents/neighbors (email, phone,
conversation, etc.)
5%
2A. How did you learn of this state-mandated housing density mandate requirement for Hillsborough (multiple selections allowed) RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2439-
12 More than half the town respondents were not aware of issue until past 3 months, including almost 3 out of 10 who just learned of this in past 2 weeks before survey.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2440-
13 More than half the town respondents were not aware of issue until past 3 months, including almost 3 out of 10 who just learned of this in past 2 weeks before survey.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2441-
14 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2442-
15 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2443-
16 By a margin of nearly 14 to 1, the town is highly, very, or somewhat concerned about the re-zoning.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2444-
17 By a margin of nearly 14 to 1, the town is highly, very, or somewhat concerned about the re-zoning.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2445-
18 By a margin of more than 10 to 1, our town is concerned about excluding town-owned open space.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2446-
19 By a margin of more than 8 to 1, our survey respondents are concerned about reducing minimum lot sizes according to the draft Housing Element.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2447-
20 By a margin of more than 11 to 1, our residents
care about preserving 150 foot street frontages.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2448-
21 By a margin of almost 14 to 1, our residents are concerned about reducing setbacks.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2449-
22 By an 11 to 1 margin, our citizens don't want
to allow or increase the number of lot splits & duplexes on lots RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2450-
23 By almost 6 to 1, our residents don't want a plan
that decreases minimum landscape coverage.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2451-
24 By a margin of more than 8 to 1, our townspeople don't want to reduce the minimum dwelling size from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2452-
25 By more than 12 to 1, our town doesn't want high-density housing anywhere but near El Camino or another high traffic route.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2453-
26 Our town overwhelmingly thinks the Housing Element team should have approached the owners of the large parcels included in the plan.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2454-
27 About 1/3 of our town is planning on adding at least one ADU now, with fewer than half not currently planning (& about 1/5 unsure) RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2455-
28 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2456-
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2457-
30 By more than 11 to 1, our town opposes this plan.
RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2458-
SURVEY SUMMARY:
HILLSBOROUGH RESIDENTS ARE UNITED
ON KEY ITEMS IN OUR DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT**
• By more than 11:1, oppose the Housing Element plan as drafted • By about 14:1, oppose re-zoning
• By more than 11:1, reject reduced minimum lot size & street frontages • By more than 10:1, concerned about excluding town-owned open space • By more than 7:1, want our proposal to be based on ADU/JADUs • By about 14:1, want town to understand what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & to engage with them to fight for our common interests • There is overwhelming consensus on these items, & the housing element must reflect this feedback
31 **TOWN could have surveyed residents, to have better data on how to represent their constituency ... So we residents took it on ourselves RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2459-
ADDENDUM ITEMS FOLLOW
7/1/20XX Pitch deck title 32
1. Other survey findings of importance
2. Partial list of survey respondents
-2460-
OTHER SURVEY FINDINGS
• By >11:1, our residents want to preserve 150 foot street frontages. • By ~14:1, our residents oppose reducing setbacks.
• By >8:1, our town opposes reducing minimum lot sizes according to the draft Housing Element. • By 11:1, our citizens don't want to allow or increase the number of lot splits and duplexes. • By ~6:1, our residents oppose any decrease in minimum landscape coverage. • By >8:1, our townspeople oppose reducing the minimum dwelling size from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft.
• By >12:1, our town opposes high-density housing anywhere except near El Camino or another high traffic route.
• By ~3:1, the residents oppose including highest density housing near the I-280 corridor • By 8:1, our town overwhelmingly thinks the Housing Element team should have approached the owners of the large parcels included in the plan.
• By ~3:1, our residents support increasing the ADU component of our plan, and eliminating any "up-zoning" and overlay zones. The town must explore and attempt this approach. • By >5:1, our residents support using Town-owned parcels (including better ingress/egress for evacuation safety) to achieve a portion of our RHNA housing unit allocation. 33 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-2461-
SURVEY RESPONDENTS (PARTIAL)
7/1/20XX Pitch deck title 34
REDACTED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
TO PROTECT PII (Personal Identifiable Information)
-2462-
THANK YOU
(MORE ANALYSIS TO FOLLOW
AT LATER DATE)
Aaron ZORNES
7/1/20XX Pitch deck title 35
-2463-
-2464-
-2465-
From:
To: General Plan
Subject: Town Hall planning
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:01:35 PM
Thank you for your time reaching out for community input, and reading and listening to it all! I am against the idea of closing Walnut, should planning to redevelop the Town Hall site move forward. When the idea of closing Walnut was considered in the past, the majority of nearby residents of both Burlingame and Hillsborough were against the road closure as well. I understand that studies would/will be done looking into the feasibility of road closures, but I thought I’d speak up now. Closing Walnut would cause major traffic repercussions in the neighborhood and I think local residents’ safety, as well the safety of northbound and southbound drivers on El Camino, would be compromised. The “feeder” streets in the area surrounding Town Hall are narrow and I can’t think of a street that could be effectively widened to offset the closure of Walnut. Also, the closure would result in more westbound left-turns off El Camino which would potentially cause more severe rear-end accidents and additional back-ups on El Camino.
Thank you,
Anne Baxter
Newhall Road, Hillsborough
-2466-
From: Vesna Swartz
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 5:53:23 AM
We have been residing in Hillsborough for over 30 years on Craig Rd. I am sending this email to express my concern about the Draft Housing Plan developed by the town with a lead from a consultant in an effort to reach our 2031 affordable housing targets The plan presented drastically changes the nature of our town and leaves important issues of accompanying infrastructure, fire danger, and additional taxes unanswered. As a resident, I find this plan unacceptable.
I fully support the Alternative Housing Plan submitted by Hillsborough residents. I also support that low income housing be made first available to the employees of institutions in Hillsborough such as policemen, firefighters, teachers, town employees Please take this into consideration as we move forward with the planning process Vesna Swartz
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
--
Vesna Swartz
-2467-
From: Breigh McCall
To: General Plan
Subject: Alternative plans
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 5:03:15 PM
Dear town Council, I have been a member of this community for over a decade and have been in various leadership positions including most recently president of Hillsborough schools foundation and prior to that president of the North parent group.
I echo many of the sentiments you’ve already read, and most closely align with Mr. Ulyot’s deeply well thought out alternative plan. It is deeply concerning to me that employees of the town may have missed a deadline to gain credit for overage aid use in plan five, that could be credited toward the enormous requirement and plan six.
Further to that, it would make sense for the town to have a process to verify those who are renting out rooms in their house, not just a do use to qualified income threshold individuals.
I encourage the town to consider what is best for Hillsborough, rather than to just meeting the initial “requirements“ put forward that do not provide for the current residents, nor would they provide well for any future residents inclusive of the over 500 households we are expected to add.
Best,
Breigh McCall
--
Thank you,
Breigh
-2468-
From: Jan Mendez
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 11:03:06 AM
I am not in favor of the plan drafted by the HEAC, but rather am in favor of the plan suggested by Dennis Moore.
Janet Mendez
Hillsborough
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
-2469-
From: Heather Willis
To: General Plan
Cc: Alan Willis
Subject: Future plan for an ADU at 576 Craig road
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 10:35:34 AM
To whom it may concern,
My name is Heather Willis and my husband, David Alan Willis, and I previously planned to build an ADU when we built our home at (completed in 2018). We paused the plan in order to leave space for a children’s play structure. We already have an ADRB approved plan designed by Eric Nyhus at NDG. Once our children no longer use the play structure, we will consider adding back this ADU (plan in the next 5-7 years). Please reach out with any questions.
Warm Regards,
Heather Willis
-2470-
September 19, 2022
Dear Mayor Royce, Vice-Mayor Krolik, and Councilmembers Chuang, Cole, and May.
I would like to express my general support for the current draft Housing Element Plan.
California has doubled its population since 1970, from 20 million to 40 million residents. We have not doubled the amount of land in our state. We have to build somewhere. NIMBYism like ours has driven the housing crisis in California. Estimates say we are 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 units below what we need for a healthy, vibrant society.
Since 1980, the number of occupied units in Hillsborough has barely moved. In 1970, the number of US Census recorded Hillsborough households was 2,598. By 1980, the number had increased to 3,400. Likey the NIMBYism started around that time, because for the past 40 years, Hillsborough occupied households have leveled out at approximately 3,600.
California’s situation has changed. We need to evolve, not stick to a policy written in 1910.
The housing crisis causes:
1. Economic burden - workers and companies moving out of California because housing costs are too high. California lost population for the first time ever in 2021. We are driving new businesses out of our area. My daughter is a 2022 Stanford graduate.
Her tech-employed friends have mostly left the Bay Area.
2. Pollution - by forcing people to drive hours to work
3. Social injustice
a. Low income workers in CA spend 67% of their wages on rent. This is a higher proportion than any other state in the US. Refusing to build directly causes childhood poverty and homelessness.
b. It’s shameful that the people who contribute to our amazing town do not have the means to live here: teachers, policemen, and staff. They help make Hillsborough what it is. Shouldn’t they be able to afford to live here and send their kids to our acclaimed schools?
California has to build denser housing that is closer to jobs and opportunities. Most long term residents, like myself, know people who’ve moved to Tracy in order to have a reasonably priced home. This creates a daily 3-4 hour commute. This is not the society we should create. It’s terrible for people and for families, especially the children.
At the same time, we need to add housing in a way that does not screw over a few people. We need NOT to do what was done for the cell tower fiasco: throw up giant poles at terrible -2471-
locations, chosen for the convenience of Verizon, not Hillsborough residents. Data-driven analysis showed those poles would reduce adjacent property values by 20%.
Personally, I’m extremely disappointed in my neighbors’ reactions to the draft housing plan.
Many of the objections seem to center around hurting their property values by a percentage point or two or the horror of having their children attend schools with less affluent children.
Pretty rich given that so many of my neighbors were willing to knock a true 20% off my property value for their own convenience by approving a cell tower in my backyard, 40 feet from my son’s bedroom.
I’ve amused myself by cross-checking the list of people who supported those cell towers as compared to the list of people complaining that the new HE Plan will destroy the property value and ambiance of their homes.
Other options were clearly available to improve cell service. But for whatever reason, Hillsborough didn’t hire its own consultant to deliver an alternate plan that was less burdensome.
I appreciate that we at least hired a consultant to create this housing plan, but believe we should need another round with either that consultant or a new firm in order to incorporate some of the more reasonable citizen suggestions (like using town-owned parcels).
There is a survey going around Hillsborough claiming that adding housing will decrease all our property values by 20%. That number is clearly false. But we do need to consider where and what to build to avoid having a major impact on nearby properties.
The same information campaign claims Woodside and Atherton have “50% or less” units compared to Hillsborough. The March 2022 final allocation shows 328 and 348, respectively for those cities. That’s nowhere near the “50% or less” claimed in the information campaign, more like ⅓ less. Furthermore the allocations are in line with their relatively lower populations compared to Hillsborough’s.
The City Hall proposal seems reasonable to me, given there is a 4 story apartment building directly across the street. Ensuring adequate parking is the right thing to do, as well as keeping the building height reasonable so that it doesn’t tower over neighbors.
ADUs should certainly be part of the solution. But it’s unrealistic to think that we can get 550 actual rented units from ~3800 lots. Hillsborough currently has 114 rented units. Of those, 47 rent for less than $3,000 per month. The remaining 67 rent for more money and are likely actual houses. Currently, of all the ADUs ever built in Hillsborough, ~50 are actually rented as separate housing. We might achieve 550 pool houses, but not 550 new homes for families.
Insisting we can meet our housing allotment through ADUs alone is unrealistic. It continues to shirk our responsibility for helping cause this crisis with our anti-development policies. -2472-
For those concerned about appearances, attached housing that appears like a single unit could be a good solution. Empty city lots should be used as much as possible.
My street, Ralston, would be a good candidate for slighter higher density. It’s a wide road, by Hillsborough standards. It doesn’t have great public transport access, but there is plenty of parking. Especially the lots that are set below street level could be built with 3 or 4 plexes without sticking out like a sore thumb.
My neighbor, the Realtor who sold us our house, verbally promised not to build across our view.
Three years after that promise, he presented us with plans for a new build stretching across our entire view corridor and 12 feet above our fence line. He finally presented something more reasonable after much arguing before the ARDB. He could have entirely preserved our view by moving his house 20 feet towards the street, but refused to. I promise you, if we had done the same to him, he would have sued us and we’d still be in court. Another case of not treating others as you would wish to be treated.
I don’t have a great data set to work from, but I’d estimate destroying our Bay view would knock 10% off our price. Again, this was considered reasonable and fair by the town and by my Realtor neighbor. But I think it’s a terrible way to treat your neighbor, especially given he made his 5% commission off us and lied to us about his intentions to build when he sold us the house.
I would NOT support housing options that deliver true hurt to adjacent property owners. By the way, if anyone wants to buy my neighbor’s property and build a 3-plex that DOESN’T go across my view, I’d strongly support them. Highly preferable to his planned McMansion. YIMBY.
If you live in Hillsborough, you are by definition well-off compared to most Californians. Please loosen your Scrooge McDuck-like grip on every dollar and be reasonable about small compromises that are necessary to create a just society. Money is not the only thing in life. Try to treat others as you would want to be treated if you were in their situation.
Finally, if my appeals to ethics and humanity don’t seem convincing to town residents and decision makers, I invite you to Google “Redondo Beach RHNA.” That city is currently out of compliance. A developer has appealed directly to the State of California for approval to build a 2,000 unit apartment complex. If he gets approval, the development can go ahead regardless of whether Redondo Beach submits a plan that satisfies HCD. Serves them right.
The data showing Hillsborough only has 50 true ADU rentals after years of building are publicly available. I’m sure the HCD will consider those data when deciding if our plan is acceptable.
Thanks for your attention. I leave you with the thought encapsulated by the below cartoon.
I think we all know who is who in this cartoon.
Jean Parekh,
-2473-
-2474-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: Fw: STOP the high density housing in Hillsborough Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 9:26:25 AM
From: M L
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:57 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP the high density housing in Hillsborough
I OPPOSE THE HILLSBOROUGH DRAFT HOUSING PLAN!
We live in HILLSBOROUGH because we value the unique elements that HILLSBOROUGH offers. This housing plan will destroy all the beautiful elements that we are enjoying here.
I am May Leung. My address is , Hillsborough, CA 94010.
I strongly oppose the High Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.
Signed: May Leung
Date: September 19, 2022
Sent from my iPhone
-2475-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: Fw: I Oppose The Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan! Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 9:24:40 AM
From: Bill Leung
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 6:08 PM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>; Bill Leung
Subject: I Oppose The Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan!
I Oppose The Hillsborough Draft Housing Plan!
Comments:
I do not believe in this PLAN will help Hillsborough
I, William Leung, resident of Hillsborough, CA 94010, strongly oppose the high Density Housing Element in Hillsborough.
Sign William Leung, Date: 9-19-22
-2476-
From: elizabeth battat
To: General Plan
Subject: Please listen
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 8:05:22 AM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
Sent from my iPhone
-2477-
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.
-2478-
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. -2479-
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.
-2480-
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. -2481-
5 Respectfully submitted,
Theodore W. Ullyot
-2482-
From: Hema Shah
To: General Plan
Subject: Hema Shah- Hillsborough resident
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 7:14:19 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
Our family is opposed to the development of high density housing in our town.
The traffic congestion would be too much to handle.
There would be multiple cars parked on the streets in a city where we don't even have side walks. We don't have public parks for children to play in. Also not having side walks is also a problem for our elderly residents who have to be extremely careful to avoid falls.
The town has not thought of the infrastructure such as school space, traffic, and access to public spaces.
Already with Crocker Middle School the traffic can be hard to get in and out of Hillsborough to El Camino and if the housing development goes up near another entrance close to El Camino then getting in and out will become extremely difficult.
Fundamentally we all moved into Hillsborough to get a small town feel which will be uprooted with more housing development.
We would be willing to add extra ADUs to help with the housing probelm.
Sincerely,
Hema Shah
-2483-
From: Vesna Swartz
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing for Hillsborough Public Employees
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:03:20 AM
As a Hillsborough resident I completely support prioritizing housing for our public employees in the Housing Plan. This has already been by other cities in the Bay Area and is legal.
Doing this will allow us to retain valuable employees and give a competitive edge to hiring new ones
Vesna Swartz
Hillsborough, CA 94010
--
Vesna Swartz
-2484-
From: Aaron Zornes
To: Lisa Natusch; General Plan
Subject: another 10 came in just before 5pm today
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:31:06 AM
Attachments: Beth Ailanjian -
Veronica Kriv - f
Susan Pellegrini -
Rohit Bhagat -
Philip Malouf -
Maricar Pacquing -
Manjiv Vohra -
Lauren Williams -
Judith Iocco -
Jeetil PAtel -
Sorry—we did *not* catch these as we were “exhausted” and off-email-for several-hours But these residents did GOOD FAITH efforts at taking survey with assumption that we would send them to town as PUBLIC COMMENTS
So here it is 12:30am and I am still working on these as PDFs to get them to you AS PER USUAL, only PII info is at end in CONTACT INFO
Thx/sorry
-2485-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/skgo0zdl.htm 20-Sep-22 -2486-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/skgo0zdl.htm 20-Sep-22 -2487-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/skgo0zdl.htm 20-Sep-22 -2488-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/skgo0zdl.htm 20-Sep-22 -2489-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Beth
Last/family name (optional) Ailanjian
Telephone (optional) 1
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/skgo0zdl.htm 20-Sep-22 -2490-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/skgo0zdl.htm 20-Sep-22 -2491-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/dpx14e8b.htm 20-Sep-22 -2492-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/dpx14e8b.htm 20-Sep-22 -2493-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other 0.9 acres
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/dpx14e8b.htm 20-Sep-22 -2494-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/dpx14e8b.htm 20-Sep-22 -2495-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Jeetil
Last/family name (optional) Patel
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/dpx14e8b.htm 20-Sep-22 -2496-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/dpx14e8b.htm 20-Sep-22 -2497-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/xg2yp9ey.htm 20-Sep-22 -2498-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/xg2yp9ey.htm 20-Sep-22 -2499-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/xg2yp9ey.htm 20-Sep-22 -2500-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/xg2yp9ey.htm 20-Sep-22 -2501-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Judith
Last/family name (optional) Iocco
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/xg2yp9ey.htm 20-Sep-22 -2502-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/xg2yp9ey.htm 20-Sep-22 -2503-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/0j4ceyav.htm 20-Sep-22 -2504-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/0j4ceyav.htm 20-Sep-22 -2505-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/0j4ceyav.htm 20-Sep-22 -2506-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/0j4ceyav.htm 20-Sep-22 -2507-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Lauren
Last/family name (optional) Williams
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/0j4ceyav.htm 20-Sep-22 -2508-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/0j4ceyav.htm 20-Sep-22 -2509-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/53934gim.htm 20-Sep-22 -2510-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/53934gim.htm 20-Sep-22 -2511-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/53934gim.htm 20-Sep-22 -2512-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/53934gim.htm 20-Sep-22 -2513-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe) Get creative -- we moved to Hillsborough for a reason.
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Manjiv
Last/family name (optional) Vohra
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/53934gim.htm 20-Sep-22 -2514-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/53934gim.htm 20-Sep-22 -2515-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/508kbqie.htm 20-Sep-22 -2516-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/508kbqie.htm 20-Sep-22 -2517-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/508kbqie.htm 20-Sep-22 -2518-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/508kbqie.htm 20-Sep-22 -2519-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Maricar
Last/family name (optional) Pacquing
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/508kbqie.htm 20-Sep-22 -2520-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/508kbqie.htm 20-Sep-22 -2521-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/rkqzmgzq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2522-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/rkqzmgzq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2523-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/rkqzmgzq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2524-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/rkqzmgzq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2525-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Philip
Last/family name (optional) MALOUF
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/rkqzmgzq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2526-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/rkqzmgzq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2527-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/5u15b9cq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2528-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/5u15b9cq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2529-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/5u15b9cq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2530-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/5u15b9cq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2531-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Rohit
Last/family name (optional) Bhagat
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/5u15b9cq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2532-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/5u15b9cq.htm 20-Sep-22 -2533-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail)
Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/c8frtfcr.htm 20-Sep-22 -2534-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/c8frtfcr.htm 20-Sep-22 -2535-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/c8frtfcr.htm 20-Sep-22 -2536-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/c8frtfcr.htm 20-Sep-22 -2537-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe) enforce dead tree and vegetation ordinances and nuisance laws. Other (please describe) Challenge state to increase water storage before increasing density Other (please describe) Discuss state rent laws and the impact on Town ambiance Other (please describe) Environmental impact study
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Susan
Last/family name (optional) Pellegrini
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/c8frtfcr.htm 20-Sep-22 -2538-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/c8frtfcr.htm 20-Sep-22 -2539-
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY
Section A. SHORT SURVEY (3-5 minutes) - NATURE OF "HOUSING DENSITY" REQUIREMENT & OUR TOWN'S PROGRESS BACK STORY: Our Hillsborough community of 4,000+ homes is mandated to add an additional 554 “housing units” during the 8 year period 2023-2031 (average of 69 units per year) ... whether they be ADUs (accessory dwelling units/granny flats, in-law apartments), duplexes, lot splits (take one lot, break into two lots, build duplexes on each new lot), multi-story apartment buildings or simply more single family homes on much smaller lots. This is required by our California state government (SB 8/9/10 effective 1-Jan-2022) and is related to our official RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) obligations to increase the number of housing units available across all income levels. A portion of these units MUST be designated LOW-INCOME HOUSING to encourage housing equity for underserved populations of San Mateo County.
LEGEND: ADU = accessory dwelling unit; H = Hillsborough; HCD = California Department of Housing & Community Development; HEAC = Housing Element Advisory Committee; Housing Element = component of Hillsborough's general plan; RD-1, -2 & -3 = residential districts within town of Hillsborough; RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation plan (RHNA plan); SB-9 = State Bill 9 allows homeowners in most areas to streamline housing permitting & to divide their property into two lots; SB-10 = State Bill 10 makes it easier for cities to zone for smaller, lower-cost housing developments of up to 10 units 1A. Are you aware that state law (housing affordability/density mandate a.k.a. "Housing Element") is forcing all cities & towns in California to eliminate barriers that prevent incre Yes
No
2A. HOW did you LEARN of this state-mandated HOUSING DENSITY MANDATE requirement for Hillsborough? [pick multiple] This email survey invitation
Local newspaper article
Local TV report
Nextdoor Hillsborough post
Hillsborough Together post
During town council meeting
Town of Hillsborough weekly e-newsletter (email)
Town of Hillsborough quarterly newsletter (print/mail) Word of mouth from fellow residents/neighbors (email, phone, conversation, etc.) Other (please describe)
3A. WHEN did you learn about the STATE MANDATE for the first time? [pick one] Upon receiving email promoting this survey
In the past 1-2 weeks
In the past 3 months
In the past year
Other
4A. Were you aware that the proposed housing plan for Hillsborough calls for MORE THAN 550 LOW, AFFORDABLE & MODERATE INCOME HOMES WITHIN THE NEXT YES
NO
5A. Are you aware that similar Bay Area communities such as Atherton & Los Altos Hills have housing unit TARGETs 50% OR LESS THAN HILLSBOROUGH'S TARGET OF YES
NO
6A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN our Town is supporting would RE-ZONE THE ENTIRE TOWN? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
7A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN EXCLUDES ANY CONSIDERATION OF 250+ "OPEN SPACE" ACRES in Hillsborough? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
8A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LOT SIZES (from current 1/2 acre mininum to as low as 1/3 acre)? 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 1 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/r0nx6bfw.htm 20-Sep-22 -2540-
Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
9A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to MINIMIZE "FRONTAGES" (from current 150' to as low as 50')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
10A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE "SETBACK" DISTANCES (from current 20' to as low as 5')? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
11A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW "LOT SPLITS" TO BUILD DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES & MORE? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
12A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE from 50% to 30% (structures and hardscaping can be Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
13A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to REDUCE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE by 70% (from 2500 sq ft to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivision Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
14A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN changes zoning laws to ALLOW HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING AWAY FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC ROUTES (El Camino Real, Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
15A. How concerned are you that CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT APPROACHED 10+ ACRE PARCEL OWNERS for their feedback/participation? Highly concerned
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not concerned
Don’t know enough
Don’t care
16A. Are you planning on adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to your property in the next 5 years (thru 2027)? [multiple choices = select all that apply] 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 2 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/r0nx6bfw.htm 20-Sep-22 -2541-
Yes = I am planning to add single ADU (maximum legal size allowed = xxx square feet) Yes = I am willing to add 1-2 ADUs of average xxx square feet Yes = I am upgrading my pool house to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting my garage to official ADU status Yes = I am planning on converting a portion of the interior or one of the floors of my house to official ADU status Yes = I am applying for amnesty for my previously unofficial ADU / guest house Yes = I am planning to add a single “junior” ADU (JADU = without full kitchen) No = I am not planning any ADU activity
Don't know
FYI = On average, ~35 ADUs per year were built in Hillsborough between 2019 and first half of 2022 17A. What is your LOT SIZE? [pick one]
0.5 acres (minimum legal size currently in Hillsborough) 1-5 acres
5-10 acres
10+ acres
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
18A. Are you aware of these 10+ ACRE SITES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER PROPOSED PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT into multi-tenant, multi-story housing (40% low in 80 New Place Rd a.k.a. Burlingame Country Club (72.1 acres); Country Club Manor neighborhood 1551 Crystal Springs Rd; 60 acres; Baywood Park
Strawberry Hill Estate(Regan Estate); 2260 Remington Rd; 49 acres; Skyfarm De Guigne Estate; 891 Crystal Springs Rds, 47 acres, Parrott Dr area 200 Tobin Clark Dr; 15 acres, Tobin Clark Estate
Meadowood Estate; 12 acres, 30 Bayberry Pl, Homeplace
270 Robin Wood; 12 acres, Carolands (canyon along Hayne Rd) 50 Brooke Court; 11 acres, Tobin Clark Estate (next to College of San Mateo) The other parcels shown on this map
19A. SUMMARY: Do you APPROVE of Hillsborough’s current “HOUSING DENSITY” plan for 2023-2031 (a.k.a. "Housing Element")? [pick one] Yes - with no reservations
Yes - but with conditions [Please explain:
No – unless [Please explain
No - the town must work with similar towns to get our target reduced No, I do not support this plan
Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
TWO **BONUS** SHORT SURVEY QUESTIONS
20A. How is Hillsborough City Council doing on the following 2020 election issues? Poor OK Great
1 2 3
(1) Wildfire preparation - e.g., removing high-danger vegetation, adding wildfire-fighting capabilities (2) Celltower upgrades - e.g., providing basic cell data coverage for all town residents without negatively affecting Hillsborough's rustic beauty (3) Ban of gas-powered leaf blowers - e.g, not just on city-owned property, but all of the town (4) Increased transparency of governance - e.g., better communications & open governance (5) Viable, tested evacuation plans for earthquakes/wildfires (6) Establishment of working emergency broadcast system - e.g., not dependent upon wireless carriers' celldata 3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 3 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/r0nx6bfw.htm 20-Sep-22 -2542-
21A. Do you approve of August 25th decision by the current city council to CANCEL town elections for November 2022 & instead appoint two such council members? Yes - with no reservations
No - we need elections, even if traditional "write-in" option is only viable means to compete Don't know
Prefer not to answer
Other
Section B. Questions from internal HEAC survey (official Hillsborough city committee) 1B. More than one ADU (accessory dwelling unit) should be allowed on lots that are greater than one acre in size Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2B. Density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3B. Building heights in excess of what is currently allowed (22-32 feet) should be considered for the Town Hall Campus site.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4B. What building height would you support for the development of the Town Hall Campus site? 2-3 stories (current height restriction for Hillsborough) 4 stories
5 stories
6+ stories
No answer
5B. Throughout Hillsborough, the minimum standards for lot area (0.5 acres per lot) & lot width (150 feet per lot) should be amended to encourage subdivision of existing lots & inc Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6B. What minimum lot area requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough?
0.5 acres (current ½ acre requirement)
0.3 acres (1/3 acre)
0.25 acres (1/4 acre)
No minimum lot size
Other
7B. What minimum lot width requirement would you support for lots throughout Hillsborough? i.e., street frontage minimum 150 feet (current requirement)
100 feet
75 feet
50 feet
No minimum lot width
Other
8B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
9B. The town residential area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate.
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 4 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/r0nx6bfw.htm 20-Sep-22 -2543-
Section C. SUGGESTIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH CITIZEN ALLIANCE (HCA) TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN (WE URGE OUR TOWN TO):
1C. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing & engage with them to fight for our common interests Agree
Disagree
Undecided
2C. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones & the overlay zone in favor of expanding the Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) / Junior Auxiliary Dwelling Units (JADU) allocation Agree
Disagree
Undecided
3C. Get creative & practical in increasing number of units on the large town parcels (private & public) by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements Agree
Disagree
Undecided
4C. Forswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing Agree
Disagree
Undecided
5C. Submit an ADU-only proposal (this is essentially what Atherton & others have done) Agree
Disagree
Undecided
6C. Please share any OTHER IDEAS on how we might IMPROVE this survey Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Other (please describe)
Section D. ABOUT YOU
1D. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you wish to submit your response "anonymously" that is fine. All questions are "optional”.
However, if you choose to provide your name and address, then we can include that data as supporting documentation to our Hillsborough City Council as an addendum.
If you would like a copy of the survey results (which will *not* include the identifying names/addresses/phones), please at a minimum, include your email address below.
First name (optional) Veronica
Last/family name (optional) Krivkovich
Telephone (optional)
Street address (optional)
Email address (optional - only needed if you would like copy of survey results or stay in touch with the survey organizers)
Please confirm your email address (optional)
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 5 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/r0nx6bfw.htm 20-Sep-22 -2544-
NOTE = Ballot stuffing does NOT work with this survey as we deduplicate based on your IP address ... therefore ONE survey per household maximum is permitted.
3Q2022 HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING DENSITY SURVEY Page 6 of 6
file:///C:/Users/Aaron%20Zornes/AppData/Local/Perseus/r0nx6bfw.htm 20-Sep-22 -2545-
From: Dana Sakal
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Hillsborough Housing Element — opposition to current Draft Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:32:20 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I have read the plan and various associated documents posted on the Town website and developed an understanding of the State’s RHNA6 mandate. To all of the Councilmembers, thank you for your service on behalf of Hillsborough, both generally and especially as we navigate this challenging issue. I am supportive of the objective to develop more affordable housing throughout the State and in the Bay Area but we must ensure we do so in a thoughtful, carefully considered, and long-term manner. Unfortunately, the current Draft Plan is not that.
Hillsborough possesses attributes that are important to properly contextualize when considering a Housing Element plan. We have no retail, no industrial, no commerce, and the town is currently zoned entirely RD-1. Unlike the vast majority of other towns fully zoned as RD-1 in California, we have very limited undeveloped land. Hillsborough also faces very high costs for both land and construction. Empirically, there are very few towns with situations similar to Hillsborough in the State. Furthermore, Hillsborough also strongly outperformed our allocation by 111% in the last RHNA5 cycle (one of very few to do so), and yet under the current legislation we receive no carry-forward credit for the excess units that we delivered.
I am strongly opposed to the current Draft Plan, which brings a one-size fits all approach to a town that is objectively, based on the data, an outlier. There is absolutely no reason to rezone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan fails to articulate in any form the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This is ill-considered and reckless.
I am supportive of a Housing Element plan that builds on our existing demonstrated strengths. Our plan should focus heavily on ADUs, where we have consistently exceeded expectations. We must engage in thoughtful, long-term planning with fulsome and transparent discussion and community engagement and appropriate consideration of the cost and impact of any proposed changes.
I want to voice my strong opposition to the current Draft Plan. There are superior alternative plans to propose to the state for our RHNA6 submission. Please include this email in the public record and consider it as you finalize our submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thank you for your public service.
Kind regards,
-2546-
Dana Sakal
-2547-
From: Melinda Glafkides (Nick"s mom)
To: General Plan
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:40:04 PM
I am a Hillsborough resident and opposed to the rezoning ordinance. I live at Please note as submitted.
Melinda Glafkides
-2548-
From: Kiele Neas
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang Subject: Hillsborough Re-Zoning Plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:31:05 PM
Dear Hillsborough Councilmembers:
I enjoyed the opportunity to meet Mayor Royse and Vice Mayor Krolik 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. 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 consider 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 re-zone the entire town through a blanket plan that creates unnecessary complexity. Crucially, the current Draft Plan lacks critical information, including the expected cost and impact of the proposed zoning changes on current residents. This could result in catastrophic impact to our basic services including police and fire and creating significant water, parking, noise, traffic congestion, fire hazards, etc.
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 several superior alternative 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. -2549-
Thank you for your consideration and your service.
Sincerely,
Kiele Neas Wolf
-2550-
From: Annie Ng
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to Current Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:57:23 PM
Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members
I would like to voice my opposition to the "Current Draft Housing Element". The plan will depreciate our home value, deteriorate our school system and make our community less desirable compared to Atherton, Woodside etc.
I would like the town to explore more alternatives, build more ADU's and adopt plans similar to Atherton as possible remedies.
Thanks,
Annie Ng
, Hillsborough
-2551-
From: Karen Crawford
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Ann Ritzma; Al Royse
Cc: Nate Crawford
Subject: Feedback and opposition to current "Housing Element Draft Proposal" Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:07:22 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 work to provide clearer information to the residents of Hillsborough on the "Housing Element Draft Proposal.'' We also thank you for your willingness to accept and consider feedback from residents on that proposal.
We would like to respectfully add our names to the list of many residents to express our 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.
Sincerely,
Karen and Nate Crawford
-2552-
From: Ina Sheynblat
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing plan
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:46:43 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 plan".
Best regards
Regina Sheynbllat
Hillsborough , CA
-2553-
From: Steven Rosston
To: General Plan
Subject: Current draft housing element concerns and opposition Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:27:34 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 or other approaches as possible remedies.
Best regards,
Steven Rosston
, Hillsborough, CA.
--
Steve Rosston
-2554-
From: Cynthia McCormick
To: General Plan
Subject: Rezoning Hillsborough
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:22:19 PM
I oppose the town’s idea of rezoning. ADUs can satisfy the state’s requirements. Hillsborough residents just added another school tax to our tax bill. If this plan goes through, residents can expect taxes to rise considerably and continually. Thank you. Cynthia McCormick
Sent from my iPhone
-2555-
From: Qi Chen (QI)
To: General Plan
Subject: State housing mandate
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:16:51 PM
To meet the state mandate, housing for public employees and senior citizens should be the priority in a long term housing plan.
Qi Chen
-2556-
From: Jamie Greene
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Housing Elements
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 6:47:45 PM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
I am following up on my email sent prior to the September 12th City Council Study Session. I wanted to thank you for holding the session which I did attend. The comments from the residents of our town almost unanimously rejected the Draft Housing Elements Plan dated August 4,2022 (“Plan”). I concurred with many of the comments made. In fact, I have not changed my mind and continue to believe it is in the best interests of our Town to significantly redraft the Plan.
I am attaching a letter sent to you by Ted Ullyot which I believe states my positions very well. I would encourage you all to follow Ted’s ideas and suggestions for redrafting the Plan.
Once again thank you for your service.
Best regards,
Jamie Greene
-2557-
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.
-2558-
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. -2559-
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.
-2560-
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. -2561-
5 Respectfully submitted,
Theodore W. Ullyot
-2562-
From: Manjiv S. Vohra
To: [email protected]; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan
Cc: Poonam Vohra
Subject: Draft Housing Plan Feedback
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 6:44:18 PM
Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members and Hillsborough Housing Committee, Thank 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.
My wife and I 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 such drastic changes to our community. One such plan is called the Smart Housing for Hillsborough. We should look carefully at other towns (Atherton, Woodside) with similar profiles and consider what they've done. We should also use the most qualified consultants on this matter rather than the cheapest ones (though I understand that this is easier said than done!)
Please do not vote for or pass the current plan.
Again, I urge you to reach out to your constituents (Hillsborough residents), and get their input to draft a new plan.
Warmly,
Your name and address
Manjiv S. Vohra, P.E., REP
President & CEO
ECC
Dr. Poonam Vohra
Assoc. Professor
UCSF
-2563-
From: Lily Dong
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposition to high density housing
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 6:13:11 PM
Dear city planners,
I strongly oppose the high density housing plan as it will congest our streets, crowd our schools and ultimately devalue our properties. Our schools are the best things about this town.
Lily and Tony Dong
-2564-
From: Jeremy Levine
To: Vikki Grundmann; Lisa Natusch
Cc: Ann Ritzma
Subject: Public Comment on Hillsborough"s Housing Element Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:31:02 PM
Attachments: 9.19.22 Hillsborough Housing Element Letter.pdf
9.19.22 Hillsborough Housing Element Letter.pdf
Good afternoon,
I am submitting the attached comment on behalf of the Housing Leadership Council in regards to Hillsborough's draft housing element. Please share this comment with the entire city council and distribute as public comment before the next public meeting regarding the housing element.
If any member of the Hillsborough community would like to connect to discuss this letter, they can arrange a meeting with me at calendly.com/jlevine97.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.hlcsmc.org
650.242.1764
Facebook • Twitter • LinkedIn • Instagram • Become A Member! -2565-
City of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Ave
Hillsborough, CA 94010
To the honorable Hillsborough City Council,
The Housing Leadership Council (HLC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the city of Hillsborough’s housing element. HLC works with communities and their leaders to create and preserve quality affordable homes. We were founded by service providers and affordable housing professionals over 20 years ago to change the policies at the root cause of our housing shortage.
Hillsborough has undergone one of the most comprehensive public input processes in San Mateo County to craft its housing element, with more than a dozen meetings of Hillsborough’s Housing Element Action Committee. The quality of Hillsborough’s draft housing element reflects the HEAC’s hard work: Among many virtues, the plan presents a credible vision for low density multi-family housing in Hillsborough, with commitments to upzone that will unlock new capacity for affordable homes. The plan empowers property owners by committing to facilitate new ADU development and below-market rentals. Most significantly, Hillsborough’s draft housing element envisions affordable housing on town-owned land directly next to its town hall, a demonstration of the community’s commitment to promoting housing affordability with its next housing element.
Though Hillsborough has surpassed its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals for moderate- and above moderate-income housing over the 5th cycle, the city faces significant challenges as it plans for housing at all levels of affordability over the next eight years.
Hillsborough home prices have more than tripled over the last 20 years, from approximately $1.2 million in 2001 to more than $4.5 million in 2020.1 More than 30% of households are cost burdened, meaning they pay more than 30% of their income in rent; 100% of extremely low-income homeowners and 88% of very low-income renters face cost burdening.2 As a result of its high housing prices, the entirety of Hillsborough is classified as a racially concentrated area of affluence, indicating the community’s high housing costs cause segregation.3 In response to Hillsborough’s urgent housing need, this letter provides proposals for changes and additions to the housing element that will enable the city to meet its housing obligations for all residents regardless of income. The first part of this letter examines Hillsborough’s site inventory and constraints analysis, evaluating whether the city has demonstrated capacity for 3 Draft Housing Element, pp. 125-126
2 Draft Housing Element, pp. 46-47
1 Draft Housing Element, p. 72
-2566-
affordable housing as required by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The second portion of this letter suggests changes and additions to Hillsborough’s goals, policies, and programs that will help the city better meet the housing needs of all its residents.
Site Inventory & Constraints
With their site inventory, cities demonstrate that they have adequate locations with the necessary policies in place to produce the RHNA allocations. Recent changes to state law require cities to meet a higher burden of proof for affordable housing in their site inventories.
Sites projected for lower-income housing must demonstrate substantial evidence that the existing use will be discontinued during the planning period, particularly if more than 50% of lower-income units are projected to come from non-vacant sites–as is the case in Hillsborough.4 Hillsborough proposes to meet the entirety of its RHNA allocation with ADUs and four sites. The site inventory is significantly better than others HLC has seen from similarly sized towns; Hillsborough does not engage in the legal chicanery, such as inflated SB 9 projections, that undermines most other housing elements in San Mateo County. Hillsborough’s ADU projections start from a realistic place, assuming 35 ADUs will be built per year over the 6th cycle, which is the average rate of ADU development Hillsborough has experienced since 2018.
However, Hillsborough overcounts the proportion of ADUs that will be afforable, assuming that ADUs will be built at 30% very low-income, 30% low-income, 30% moderate income, and 10% above moderate income, when it should actually project a majority of ADUs to be above moderate-income. The town justifies its affordability assumptions by pointing to a survey it conducted of Hillsborough homeowners, which is not included in the housing element.
The housing element omits relevant information regarding the town’s ADU survey, which does not meet HCD’s standards for a “reasonable methodology to demonstrate the level of affordability.”5 Though 160 Hillsborough residents filled out the survey, only 22 respondents are current ADU owners.6 Of the ADU owners who took the survey, only 6 filled out the question on how much they charge for monthly rent. Hillsborough’s housing element ignores the 16 residents who did not answer their survey’s rent question–indicating that those ADUs are probably not being rented at all! Instead, the city assumes that the 6 residents who did respond are perfectly representative of the entire city of more than 11,000 residents. Furthermore, though 42% of the total survey respondents indicated an interest in building an ADU (~67 people), of those 67, only 10 described what range of rent they would plan to charge, again indicating that a large proportion of Hillsborough residents who want to build an ADU would not rent it out.
When choosing ADU affordability assumptions, cities with affirmatively furthering fair housing concerns must be conservative, especially in a racially concentrated area of affluence, like 6 Draft Housing Element, p. 17
5 HCD’s ADU Handbook, p. 19
4 HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 27
-2567-
Hillsborough. Therefore, the town should use the affordability recommendations provided to all cities of the 21 Elements housing element consortium, of which Hillsborough is a part: 5% very low income, 30% low income, 50% moderate income, and 15% above moderate income.7 Though these numbers are also surely an overestimate, they are more defensible than Hillsborough’s current assumptions. Hillsborough will need to identify new capacity elsewhere in order to compensate for the shortfall of 70 very low-income homes in its site inventory, which could be achieved by increasing density at some of its planned opportunity sites or by identifying additional sites.
Hillsborough’s plans for its opportunity sites have more potential to be realized than its ADU affordability assumptions. In particular, the town proposes to redevelop its town hall and police station in order to accomodate at least 100 new homes, at least 80% of which would be affordable. This site represents the most significant opportunity for affordable housing in Hillsborough currently described in the town’s housing element.
Though Hillsborough’s town hall represents a great opportunity for new affordable homes, potential barriers could undermine the draft housing element’s claims. The town released conceptual plans for the redevelopment of its town hall sites on September 12, more than 30 days after the release of the housing element for public comment, with three potential options to choose from.8 Of these options, two of them plan for fewer units than are projected for the site in the city’s housing element.
In order to justify inclusion of the town hall at the planned density in the housing element, Hillsborough’s housing element should explicitly commit to picking option 3, the “Gardens” 8 September 12 Hillsborough City Council meeting agenda, p. 270 7 21 Elements Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units, p. 2 -2568-
proposal. Otherwise, the town should only project the lowest number of units presented in its preliminary site plans for the town hall site, which would then require the shortfall to be made up elsewhere in the inventory. Either way, additional programs will likely be required to ensure housing at the town hall site is developed within the planning period, as discussed in the next section.
Hillsborough’s other sites also present exciting opportunities for new housing, as long as the city addresses barriers to developing on those properties and amends its development standards.
The draft housing element anticipates the De Guigne Estate could accommodate 24 market rate single-family homes, that Strawberry Hill could accommodate 15 market-rate single-family homes, and that the 50 Brooke Court site could accomodate 12 market-rate townhome units.
Though optimistic, these numbers are achievable under the draft housing element’s proposed zoning changes.
However, the draft housing element’s projections for affordable housing do not meet the same standard: The draft projects 48 affordable multi-family homes, 30% of which would be very low income, for the De Guigne Estate and 172 multi-family homes, 30% of which would be very low income, for Strawberry Hill. The element justifies these assumptions by pointing to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (AH-O) district, which would allow 20 du/ac for non-age restricted housing. Though the AH-O district significantly loosens a number of development standards, 20 du/ac is too low a density to make 30% very low-income housing feasible. State density bonus law stops providing incentives for very low-income housing after 15% in recognition that it is simply infeasible to provide a higher proportion outside of subsidized 100% affordable housing projects.9 Hillsborough should either increase the density of its affordable housing overlay or add additional incentives for very low-income homes.
Further factors affect the likelihood of development for the city’s opportunity sites and merit further consideration, particularly permitting. On the De Guigne property, all of the ingress/egress options require complicated permits; one crossing in particular, from Crystal Springs, would require a county permit, which county residents have opposed in the past. In order to justify the De Guigne property in its site inventory, the housing element should evaluate permitting barriers and commit where possible to providing the necessary permitting.
Lastly, the Strawberry Hill property has a complex trust ownership structure that could limit development. At a city council meeting to discuss the Strawberry Hill site, a trustee called in to say that he has “a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the value of the estate is maintained to the highest level practicable and to defend against takings.” Therefore, the city should zone the site in such a way that selling is more valuable to the trustees than maintaining its current use, which may require a higher density than the proposed 8 du/ac.
Several constraints to housing do not receive adequate consideration in the site inventory or the constraints analysis and so require further discussion as well. Table B.4.2 in the site inventory document, Current Land Use and Development Standards, describes development standards 9 Meyers Nave’s Guide to the California Density Bonus Law, pp. 5-6 -2569-
that may constrain housing development, but which are not adequately analyzed in the constraints analysis. In particular, HLC notes the following standards likely pose a constraint on housing and should be addressed in the goals, policies, and programs:
- Hillside Development Standards are recognized as a constraint, but the housing element proposes nothing to address it. Other cities around the Bay Area allow higher densities on slopes steeper than Hillsborough’s while successfully mitigating the impact of erosion and landslides. Hillsborough’s housing element should actually evaluate whether or not these standards can be loosened, rather than dismissing potential revisions without any analysis.
- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuits have historically been used to disincentivize housing element in communities similar to Hillsborough. Though Hillsborough cannot reform CEQA, the town can limit its impact by allowing ministerial approval for housing on its opportunity sites. The town can also limit the scope of project-level review to aesthetic issues.
- Permitting timelines should be assessed relative to other jurisdictions and state law, and the information should be used to inform revisions to Action 1.2(c).10 - Parking minimums will constrain multi-family housing in Hillsborough unless the city commits to reducing them. The constraints analysis determines that parking has a “negligible” effect on single-family production without evaluating the large per-unit costs parking requirements pose to multi-family housing.11 Furthermore, costs should be evaluated as objective values; in California, the average parking space costs more than $50,000, a value that is surely higher in Hillsborough because land is so costly.
Other constraints may go underanalyzed and unaddressed as well. Hillsborough could improve the likelihood of affordable housing development by making changes to its goals and actions.
Goals, Policies, and Programs
In the following section, HLC describes how Hillsborough can strengthen its Goals, Policies, and Programs to more effectively promote low- and very low-income housing as needed to create a viable site inventory. The city already has a number of strong policies and programs in place.
However, several programs that would otherwise be adequate lack clear timelines and quantified objectives, and some opportunities to promote affordable housing go unconsidered.
New state laws have added new requirements to the goals, policies, and programs section of a housing element. Passed in 2018, AB 1397 requires cities to directly connect policies and programs to the identified needs, governmental constraints, and site inventory, among other analyses.12 Another 2018 law, AB 686, implemented Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing mandates, specifically requiring cities to consider how their goals, policies, and programs can better advance fair housing goals, especially the production of low- and very low-income 12 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (b), (c); HCD, Building Blocks, at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/ index.shtml 11 Draft Housing Element, p. 80
10 HCD’s Bulding Blocks, Processing and Permitting Procedures -2570-
housing. The specific programs cities implement must include “concrete steps, timelines and measurable outcomes.”13
As released for public comment, Hillsborough’s draft housing element has several policies that meet these criteria, for which the town merits recognition. The town’s planned rezonings and the creation of new R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts are important first steps toward making affordable multi-family housing development feasible on Hillsborough’s opportunity sites. Actions 4.3a-e outline a clear path for the city to establish an affordable housing impact fee.
Overall, Hillsborough’s policies and programs do an admirable job laying out the steps that the city will take to formulate and pass a new policy. However, because the planned actions lack measurable objectives, there is no way to evaluate whether the city’s actions will deliver the desired results or if more actions are necessary. Per HCD guidelines, housing element programs must have discrete timelines for implementation within the first half of the planning period and measurable objectives to gauge whether the actions have had the intended impact.14 Every action should have an implementation timeline for which the city can be held to account.
A non-exhaustive list of the actions that would benefit from measurable metrics includes:
- Action 1.2(c): Describe the current application review time in Hillsborough and the speed at which the city wants to be processing applications. - Action 2.2(c), which is mislabeled as “2.4(c)” in the draft housing element released for public review, should provide a metric for the quantity of second ADUs the town predicts the action will produce.
- Action 2.3(e): Specify the number of ADU conversions the city hopes to incentivize. - Goal 3.1: Specify the minimum number of units planned for the Town Hall site. - Goal 4.1: Reiterate the planned number of units to be produced from the revised RD and new RD-2 and RD-3 districts. Propose additional development incentives if opportunity sites have not received proposals for development in the first half of the planning cycle. - Action 4.3(d): Specify the amount of revenue the city would like to generate from its Affordable Housing Impact Fee throughout the planning period. The fee should be set at a rate that meets the city’s revenue goals. However, the city should be mindful that the fee should not be so high as to discourage market-rate development; HLC recommends the city evaluate placing a higher impact fee on market-rate single-family homes relative to multi-family homes due to the naturally higher social costs of single-family properties.
All of the above actions should be paired with new associated actions that will trigger mid-cycle if the town’s metrics are not being met. Several other goals and actions could be added or improved to better support the housing element’s sites and help the city make new parcels available for affordable homes, as described below:
- Add Goal 1.6, “Expedite ADU production”
- Add Action 1.6(a), “Create preapproved ADU designs which receive by-right approval and expedited permit processing.” This program has been included in 14 HCD’s Building Blocks: Program Overview and Quantified Objectives 13 HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidebook, p. 55 -2571-
many San Mateo County housing elements, from smaller communities like Portola Valley and Atherton to larger cities like Redwood City. - Action 1.6(b), “Waive impact fees for ADUs with at least 30-year deed restrictions for low- or very low-income housing.” In order to justify even the conservative projections for affordable ADUs projected by HLC, Hillsborough needs substantial new policies to incentivize ADU production of lower-income housing.
- Eliminate Actions 3.3(b) and 3.3(c), which describe studies and focus groups that will unnecessarily delay housing on institutional sites.
- Amend Action 3.3(d) to read “Apply Hillsborough’s R-2 zoning district and affordable housing overlay zone to all sites used for institutional purposes, such as educational facilities and churches.” Currently, Action 3.3(b) and 3.3(c) describe processes that will unnecessarily delay the planned rezonings and any potential housing. The town can simply change the zoning standards to facilitate affordable housing at these locations without frivolous studies, with much lower cost to the city as a result. - Amend Actions 4.1(b) and 4.1(c) and the associated portions of the Site Inventory Analysis to increase the base density on the Strawberry Hill, De Guigne Estate, and Town Hall sites to 20 dwelling units per acre, the “mullin density.”15 Increasing the base density to the mullin density will strengthen the city’s case for projecting affordable housing on its opportunity sites.
- Amend Action 4.1(d) and the associated portion of the Site Inventory Analysis to clarify that the city will allow developers to apply the state density bonus law to apply to the Affordable Housing Overlay, as is required by state law.16 HLC recommends increasing the allowable density under the Affordable Housing Overlay to 30 dwelling units per acre, which will make affordable housing development much more feasible, as higher densities are required for projects to qualify for tax credits. - Amend Action 4.2(b) to describe specific factors that would allow up to 50% waiver for project review, permit, and impact fees for all affordable units, whether in a 100% affordable project or a mixed-income project. Also, specify the metric that would be used to grant fee waivers.
- Amend Action 4.3(a) to “Undertake a nexus study to support the establishment of and structure of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee to be assessed against new, above-moderate income housing development and renovations.” Mansion renovations can be used to finance affordable housing.
- Add Action 4.3(f), “Implement a transfer tax on single-family homes costing more than $2 million.” Transfer taxes on large, expensive homes is one of the lowest-externality strategies to raise funding for affordable housing.
- Add Action 4.3(g), “Issue an annual Notice of Funding Availability for affordable housing funds once the city has more than $1 million in Affordable Housing Impact Fee funds. - Amend Goal 4.5 to read “Encourage preservation of naturally affordable housing.” Rather than “discouraging redevelopment of sites with existing” homes, which will inflate the cost of housing and reduce its quality in the long run, Hillsborough should be 16 HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 15
15 HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 13
-2572-
encouraging preservation while also promoting small-scale development. It is good for housing affordability if small single-family homes get replaced with missing middle housing such as fourplexes, where the per unit cost of new development will likely still be more affordable than the original single-family home.
- Eliminate all actions currently under Goal 4.5, which describe potential constraints to housing, and replace with a new Action 4.5(a), “Assess regulatory updates that ensure naturally affordable housing options remain affordable without disincentivizing new development,” and Action 4.5(b), “Based on the outcomes of Action 4.5(a), present to City Council for consideration and adoption ordinance language that would preserve affordability in lower-cost areas of town.”
- Add Goal 6.5, “Tracking Rental Opportunities and Protecting Tenants” - Add Action 6.5(a), “Increase relocation payments for no-fault evictions from one month to two months rent.” Current state law mandates only one month of relocation benefits for renters, which typically does not cover the full cost and disruption of unplanned moves. As Hillsborough grows its rental stock, renter protections will be increasingly important.
- Add Action 6.5(b), “Create a rental registry,” listing all properties available for rent in the city, especially affordable rentals. Aggregating information about rental availability helps tenants with special housing needs locate the best options to accomodate them. Furthermore, Hillsborough needs a rental registry in order to track its ADUs and justify their ongoing inclusion in the site inventory.
All of the above programs should be implemented as early in the planning period as possible, particularly the zoning code updates that will make new homes much more feasible to build. An additional associated program should be added that would trigger additional policy changes if Hillsborough is not on track to meet its housing goals midway through the planning period. The draft housing element may benefit from adoption or adjustment of other policies as well, which HLC may recommend in the coming months as we review the document more closely.
HLC wants to be a partner to the city, sharing our collective knowledge of state law and best practices to facilitate fair housing. Please contact me or other HLC staff if you would like to talk further about how Hillsborough can identify and implement policies that will best meet the community’s needs.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Policy Manager, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County -2573-
From: Jad Fakhry
To: Christine Krolik; Al Royse; General Plan; [email protected]; Laith Salma Subject: Fwd: Opposition to the proposed Hillsborough Housing Element and Town Hall Campus projects Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:25:48 PM
Mayor Royse,
I have lived in Hillsborough for for eleven years at .
I wanted to echo the thoughts of Laith Salma: “We want to voice our strong and complete opposition to the HE6 Draft, but most of all we object to the subdivision and liquidation of our most prized Town asset, the Town Hall site.”
Thank you,
Jad and Natalie Fakhry
Begin forwarded message:
From: Laith Salma
Date: September 19, 2022 at 3:28:13 PM PD
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
My family moved to Hillsborough when I was three years old and my parents still live in the same home. I moved back here with my wife in 2010, to join my siblings who also live here. We love living here and we love our community. We attended the Open House and the last Town Council meeting with the Town Hall study session. We want to voice our strong and complete opposition to the HE6 Draft, but most of all we object to the subdivision and liquidation of our most prized Town asset, the Town Hall site. Besides being some of the most expensive real estate in the world, this is an irreplaceable, flat, 2.5-acre lot in lower Hillsborough and has enormous, untapped potential to act as a site which benefits ALL the residents, a site that encourages more community interaction and activity, a site which our Town is desperately missing. I implore you to protect the integrity of the Town Hall site by removing it entirely from any future Housing Element plan. Please, do not let the destruction and liquidation of our historic Town Hall campus be your legacy! If you rezone it in any way, there will be State expectations that it be built. Please, do not open the door to any possibility of this happening. Be the Town council and Mayor whose legacy is that of those who were faced with Herculean pressures to destroy our Town, but, -2574-
through your diligent efforts, masterful and timely push backs you saved our Town from peril. That is a legacy to be proud of!
As I became more involved in the Housing Element process and began to study the materials it became apparent the City Manager, staff and the consultants have been steering this process- none of whom live in Hillsborough and are not representing the interests of the residents of Hillsborough. They have presented you with a false set of options that are completely out of touch with Town residents needs and desires. How else can one explain the logic of subdividing the Town’s most valuable asset and placing 135 units of 80% affordable housing project that self-selects for cheap materials and unsightly aesthetics? How else could you explain thinking that putting commercial buildings on a residential block could be even slightly palatable? You must see the insanity of this. We need YOU to step up to this task, stand up for Hillsborough, do not allow us to succumb to outside pressure influencing you to agree to damaging solutions.
Your charge is to meet the States housing allotment and that can be accomplished with ADU’s only.
The HE6 draft in no way represents residents’ interest, feedback, or objections. It is, frankly, infuriating that this process has somehow managed to get so far down the line, going in such the wrong direction. I think that many of us feel let down by our elected officials for not sooner standing up to what we all see as obvious and major problems with the philosophy behind this HE6 draft. Every effort should have been made to avoid multi-family housing in Hillsborough and preserve our Town while also satisfying the State. You have seen in our community feedback that the Town has many more options than what was presented- options that preserve the Hillsborough we love and call home. Please adopt these practical and legal options.
HE6 draft is filled with errors and mistakes which were presented to you all as fact. These mistakes, lies of omission and/ or misrepresentations resulted in a plan that will scar Hillsborough indefinitely. Three quick examples:
1. ADU Calculation- This entire plan of dense housing is based off our consultant’s desire to operate in the “safe harbor” without questioning the RHNA calculation and what those disastrous effects have on Hillsborough.
The domino effect that followed is the failed HE6 Draft.
2. The HE6 Draft makes a critical error on Page 4. It states, “Since the Town would need to further study the feasibility of eliminating fees related to ADU review and approval and since the Town’s unique topography makes pre-approved ADU plans not feasible”, Hillsborough proposes to utilize HCD’s approved methodology for counting ADUs and is not proposing any increases”. This is NOT true. Hillsborough contains hundreds if not thousands of lots that have flat areas of 800 sq ft. It’s these kinds of ridiculous and erroneous assumptions that have gone unchecked which -2575-
have all combined and contributed into making the HE6 draft a completely unusable document.
3. The Town Hall Site renderings show the properties across El Camino being close to 60 ft tall. Just walk outside. They are 3 stories. How can they represent that a 6-story building is going to be the same height as a 3-story building, and nobody questions them or looks outside across the street? As part of my comments that were part of the public record on September 6th, I spoke about the need for the Town of Hillsborough to incorporate more ADU’s in our plan. The Town can intelligently demonstrate and evidence to the State our ability to reach our quota with ADU’s alone.
Supportive Plan for Increased ADU RHNA Calculation
1. State Audit- Cite the State audit that eviscerates the States RHNA calculation methodology
2. ABAG- Cite the Association of Bay Area Governments exempting COVID years in the RHNA calculation
3. 496 Minimum ADU Projection- We are averaging 62 ADU’s per year for 2021 & 2022.
a. We exempt 2019 and 2020 COVID years as throw
away numbers not worthy of being seriously
considered unless we are projecting for a pandemic.
4. 58 ADU’s (only 7 additional ADU’s/ year needed)- We add these into the calculation, the following outline shows how pathetically easy it is to achieve 7 more ADU’s/ year
a. All new construction homes will be required to have
an ADU, netting 2 units instead of 1.
b. All new construction homes on 1 acre+ parcels will
be required to have an ADU and a JAU, netting 3
units instead of 1.
c. All remodels exceeding $2,000,000 must include an
ADU, netting 1 unit when there was none.
d. Develop an ADU Outreach, Education and Incentive
Plan: “Help Avoid Dense Housing by Doing your
Part, Build an ADU!”. The residents have
demonstrated they desire to do their part, they just
have not been educated.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->i.<!--[endif]--
>Conversions of existing Guest Houses/ Cottages
may be grandfathered in and need not comply with
all new codes to convert to ADU. Fees will be
waived; process will be streamlined.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->ii.<!--[endif]-->PreApprove of 3-5 prefabricated ADU designs. There are hundreds of lots whose topography supports
this as being a suitable option, despite the HED
-2576-
stating the opposite.
e. Town will offer financial support for fixed income elderly by waiving fees associated with new ADU’s
f. Town will discount all ADU fees by 50% for the next 8 years.
g. Town will further streamline the permitting process. (The Town has represented they have already done this, however, most people I know have felt that the permitting process is taking far longer than represented/ advertised).
4. Surveys
a. Provide the State with the completely valid and
verifiable survey of Town residents, where 7% of the
Town responded and demonstrated 35% of our
residents are planning on building some type of
JADU or ADU. This survey is valid because the
hundreds of residents who took the survey provided
their names, addresses, phone numbers and emails for
verification. It is a verifiable survey- this carries high value, regardless of if the Town did not conduct it. It is much more thorough and representative than the
Town survey and should not be disregarded.
b. Provide the State with the Town survey which most
likely supports the ADU solution as well (results are
not posted yet).
5. Remove the buffer entirely
a. There is NO legal requirement to maintain the buffer b. Hillsborough has a strong challenge to the buffer due to:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->i.<!--[endif]-->Having to
satisfy an unreasonable housing allotment,
increasing our current housing stock by 15%
already.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->ii.<!--[endif]-->Having
been a model municipality for the HE5 cycle
demonstrates we know what we’re doing, and we
have a track record of getting it right. We were one
of only 34 municipalities that exceeded our
numbers.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->iii.<!--[endif]-->Cite the
ADU Outreach and Education Plan outlined above
7. Challenge- Continue to challenge the State in allowing our previous 101-unit overage from HE5. This also provides
justification for removing the buffer. We are a landlocked community with very little undeveloped space, we have undue and imbalanced burden and need an exception.
-2577-
My final comments to you regard the lost and unseen potential of our Town Hall site. The conversation regarding Town Hall can go from an idea the community hates, to an idea the community loves. It can go from a nightmare of an idea to an idea that gets residents engaged and electrified in a positive way! The idea of subdividing and liquidating this piece of land is so terribly foolish. The Town Hall site should be looked at through the lens of providing amenities to the residents, and nothing else! We can create a community minded Civic Center that is a model for every Town in the Bay Area. Hillsborough lacks a Recreation Hall for people to gather (like Burlingame), participate in programs, have movie nights, etc. A small amphitheater where we could have speaking events, theater productions or a summer concert series would be wonderful! We have an incredible community of citizens who would be excited to participate in volunteering and programming for these types of amenities. Hillsborough lacks playgrounds, basketball courts, pickle ball courts, etc. This site is perfect for some or all these things and of course for a site to host all these amenities it will need to have underground parking, which will also contribute to a beautiful Civic Center. I understand that funding is a challenge for an endeavor like this, but this is the exact type of project that is perfect for community fundraising. Every citizen of Hillsborough is someone who could benefit from a project like this, so every citizen is a potential donor. At an engagement the other night, we proposed the idea of a world class Civic Center for ourselves and our kids to enjoy and use.
We propositioned the crowd to take the temperature of who would be willing to donate. It was unanimous and it was verbal commitments of millions of dollars.
This is anecdotal, but I believe it is representative of our community. We are a community that loves being here and anything we can do to make Hillsborough a better place, we’re willing to do it. Fundraising could be a 2-3 multi-year effort while the design, plans and bidding is being worked out. In the end we have a beautiful partnership between the Town and the residents to create something truly historic and worthy of celebrating. Splitting this lot will be a mistake of historic proportions and one that can never be reversed. When San Francisco lost the 49er’s, the rational was to save money, but in the long run it cost SF hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, but worse, San Francisco lost a part of itself.
This loss is universally seen as a major blunder, both politically and financially. It is Gavin Newsom’s biggest regret, don’t let selling off Town Hall be yours.
The Town Council, Mayor and City Attorney expressed hesitation with altering the draft in such a dramatic way that it could not be completed within our necessary timelines. The fear was that we may be sued by activists. That fear should not steer the direction of these historically impactful decisions. I think you heard from most residents that we are up for the fight if it means we create a plan that is representative of the residents’ input. In turn, if the Town, after receiving the overwhelming resident response to reject this draft, it chooses to adopt it or adopt a similar but slightly altered version instead, I think it’s inevitable that the Town will be facing multiple lawsuits from its citizens. It’s a terrible situation for the Town to be in, but I think the clear path is for the Town stick with its residents and fight with them, instead of against them. To accomplish the gargantuan task of completely redrafting the HE6, an enormous effort needs to be put forward by each of you. Special committees made of up of qualified and concerned residents -2578-
who can assist in the draft, should be considered- you will have no shortage of volunteers, including some of the best legal minds in the country. Prior to our deadline the consultants need to be instructed to work as many hours as needed to create a HE6 draft that solves our allotment through only ADUs. The plan should also include a supportive Town Action Plan (outlined above) to submit to the state to demonstrate how we get to our numbers. This can be done in two weeks if we hit the ground running and put all hands-on deck. Please, step up to the challenge and protect our Town Hall!
Thank you,
Laith Salma
-2579-
From: Samira Rahmatullah
To: Al Royse
Cc: General Plan; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Munir Alam Subject: URGENT: Resident Feedback on Housing Element Draft Plan Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:24:46 PM
Dear Mayor Royse,
I hope this note finds you doing well. My husband Munir and I, along with our two children, have lived in Hillsborough since 2009. We recently invested in rebuilding our home here. We had the pleasure of meeting you recently at the Burlingame March for our Lives event on June 11, which I helped organize and was the MC for. Thank you again for attending the event! I am also a friend of the Koppl-Grays and was at the campaign event they held virtually over Zoom, when you were running for office.
When we met at the march on June 11, you had asked us to reach out to you directly if there was ever anything you or the town council could do to help us as long time residents of our beautiful town. We are reaching out now, about the Housing Element Draft Plan.
After reviewing the plan, we are gravely concerned about its ramifications on everything we hold dear about Hillsborough. The balance of natural greenery that exists in our town today; the thoughtful and organic development - these elements of Hillsborough would cease to exist with the current plan. We want to formally voice our opposition to the current draft plan.
While we are supportive of more housing in the state of CA, every town must approach this within their own context. Hillsborough is a unique town. We have no commerce, no industry.
We must approach this in our own way. I am supportive of continuing to use ADUs to provide affordable housing in Hillsborough. Anything we can do to make the development of ADUs easier, we should do it. That is an approach that makes sense within the context of Hillsborough.
Thank you again to you and the Hillsborough Council for representing us. We sincerely appreciate your service and leadership for our town.
Best regards,
Samira & Munir
, Hillsborough
-2580-
From: Laith Salma
To: Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan; Al Royse Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Opposition to the proposed Hillsborough Housing Element and Town Hall Campus projects Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:19:18 PM
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
My apologies, one more thing, I need to retract a statement I made in my first letter prior to the September 6th meeting. My first letter was written without the benefit of new information that was disclosed during the Town Hall and through other resident letters. In my original letter, I expressed tepid support for senior housing on the Town Hall site in a much smaller building with very few units. I made that statement because, I, like the rest of the residents, was under the belief that the Town Hall site had no other options. So, I was critiquing a set of options, framed as being our only options. If I were presented with a concept of Town Hall with the resident focused amenities that I discuss in my letter below, combined with a better understanding of how we can realistically achieve a plan with ADU’s as our primary solution, I never would have suggested having any housing on the Town Hall site. I retract any support for any type of housing on the Town Hall site.
Thank you,
Laith
From: Laith Salma
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 3:00 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: Opposition to the proposed Hillsborough Housing Element and Town Hall Campus projects
Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz,
My family moved to Hillsborough when I was three years old and my parents still live in the same home. I moved back here with my wife in 2010, to join my siblings who also live here. We love living here and we love our community. We attended the Open House and the last Town Council meeting with the Town Hall study session. We want to voice our strong and complete opposition to the HE6 Draft, but most of all we object to the subdivision and liquidation of our most prized Town asset, the Town Hall site. Besides being some of the most expensive real estate in the world, this is an irreplaceable, flat, 2.5-acre lot in lower Hillsborough and has enormous, untapped potential to act as a site which benefits ALL the residents, a site that encourages more community interaction and activity, a site which our Town is desperately missing. I implore you to protect the integrity of the Town Hall site by removing it entirely from any future Housing Element plan. Please, do not let the destruction and liquidation of our historic Town Hall campus be your legacy! If you rezone it in any -2581-
way, there will be State expectations that it be built. Please, do not open the door to any possibility of this happening. Be the Town council and Mayor whose legacy is that of those who were faced with Herculean pressures to destroy our Town, but, through your diligent efforts, masterful and timely push backs you saved our Town from peril. That is a legacy to be proud of! As I became more involved in the Housing Element process and began to study the materials it became apparent the City Manager, staff and the consultants have been steering this process- none of whom live in Hillsborough and are not representing the interests of the residents of Hillsborough.
They have presented you with a false set of options that are completely out of touch with Town residents needs and desires. How else can one explain the logic of subdividing the Town’s most valuable asset and placing 135 units of 80% affordable housing project that self-selects for cheap materials and unsightly aesthetics? How else could you explain thinking that putting commercial buildings on a residential block could be even slightly palatable? You must see the insanity of this.
We need YOU to step up to this task, stand up for Hillsborough, do not allow us to succumb to outside pressure influencing you to agree to damaging solutions. Your charge is to meet the States housing allotment and that can be accomplished with ADU’s only.
The HE6 draft in no way represents residents’ interest, feedback, or objections. It is, frankly, infuriating that this process has somehow managed to get so far down the line, going in such the wrong direction. I think that many of us feel let down by our elected officials for not sooner standing up to what we all see as obvious and major problems with the philosophy behind this HE6 draft.
Every effort should have been made to avoid multi-family housing in Hillsborough and preserve our Town while also satisfying the State. You have seen in our community feedback that the Town has many more options than what was presented- options that preserve the Hillsborough we love and call home. Please adopt these practical and legal options.
HE6 draft is filled with errors and mistakes which were presented to you all as fact. These mistakes, lies of omission and/ or misrepresentations resulted in a plan that will scar Hillsborough indefinitely.
Two quick examples:
1. ADU Calculation- This entire plan of dense housing is based off our consultant’s desire to operate in the “safe harbor” without questioning the RHNA calculation. what those disastrous effects have on Hillsborough. The domino effect that followed is the failed HE6 Draft.
2. The HE6 Draft makes a critical error on Page 4. It states, “Since the Town would need to further study the feasibility of eliminating fees related to ADU review and approval and since the Town’s unique topography makes pre-approved ADU plans not feasible”, Hillsborough proposes to utilize HCD’s approved methodology for counting ADUs and is not proposing any increases”. This is NOT true. Hillsborough contains hundreds if not thousands of lots that have flat areas of 800 sq ft. It’s these kinds of ridiculous and erroneous assumptions that have gone unchecked which have all combined and contributed into making the HE6 draft a completely unusable document.
3. The Town Hall Site renderings show the properties across El Camino being close to 60 ft tall. Just walk outside. They are 3 stories. How can they represent that a 6-story building is going to be the same height as a 3-story building, and nobody questions them or looks outside across the street?
As part of my comments that were part of the public record on September 6th, I spoke about the need for the Town of Hillsborough to incorporate more ADU’s in our plan. The Town can intelligently demonstrate and evidence to the State our ability to reach our quota with ADU’s alone. -2582-
Supportive Plan for Increased ADU RHNA Calculation
1. State Audit- Cite the State audit that eviscerates the States RHNA calculation methodology
2. ABAG- Cite the Association of Bay Area Governments exempting COVID years in the RHNA calculation
3. 496 Minimum ADU Projection- We are averaging 62 ADU’s per year for 2021 & 2022.
a. We exempt 2019 and 2020 COVID years as throw away numbers not worthy of being seriously considered unless we are projecting for a pandemic.
4. 58 ADU’s (only 7 additional ADU’s/ year needed)- We add these into the calculation, the following outline shows how pathetically easy it is to achieve 7 more ADU’s/ year a. All new construction homes will be required to have an ADU, netting 2 units instead of 1.
b. All new construction homes on 1 acre+ parcels will be required to have an ADU and a JAU, netting 3 units instead of 1.
c. All remodels exceeding $2,000,000 must include an ADU, netting 1 unit when there was none.
d. Develop an ADU Outreach, Education and Incentive Plan: “Help Avoid Dense Housing by Doing your Part, Build an ADU!”. The residents have demonstrated they desire to do their part, they just have not been educated.
i.Conversions of existing Guest Houses/ Cottages may be grandfathered in and need not comply with all new codes to convert to ADU. Fees will be waived; process will be streamlined. ii.Pre-Approve of 3-5 prefabricated ADU designs. There are hundreds of lots whose topography supports this as being a suitable option, despite the HED stating the opposite.
e. Town will offer financial support for fixed income elderly by waiving fees associated with new ADU’s
f. Town will discount all ADU fees by 50% for the next 8 years. g. Town will further streamline the permitting process. (The Town has represented they have already done this, however, most people I know have felt that the permitting process is taking far longer than represented/ advertised).
4. Surveys
a. Provide the State with the completely valid and verifiable survey of Town residents, where 7% of the Town responded and demonstrated 35% of our residents are planning on building some type of JADU or ADU. This survey is valid because the hundreds of residents who took the survey provided their names, addresses, phone numbers and emails for verification. It is a verifiable survey- this carries high value, regardless of if the Town did not conduct it. It is much more thorough and representative than the Town survey and should not be disregarded.
b. Provide the State with the Town survey which most likely supports the ADU solution as well (results are not posted yet).
5. Remove the buffer entirely
a. There is NO legal requirement to maintain the buffer b. Hillsborough has a strong challenge to the buffer due to:
i.Having to satisfy an unreasonable housing allotment, increasing our current housing stock by 15% already.
ii.Having been a model municipality for the HE5 cycle
demonstrates we know what we’re doing, and we have a track record of getting it right. We were one of only 34 municipalities that exceeded our numbers.
iii.Cite the ADU Outreach and Education Plan outlined above
7. Challenge- Continue to challenge the State in allowing our previous 101-unit overage from HE5. This also provides justification for removing the buffer. We are a -2583-
landlocked community with very little undeveloped space, we have undue and imbalanced burden and need an exception.
My final comments to you regard the lost and unseen potential of our Town Hall site. The conversation regarding Town Hall can go from an idea the community hates, to an idea the community loves. It can go from a nightmare of an idea to an idea that gets residents engaged and electrified in a positive way! The idea of subdividing and liquidating this piece of land is so, so foolish. The Town Hall site should be looked at through the lens of providing amenities to the residents, and nothing else! We can create a community minded Civic Center that is a model for every Town in the Bay Area. Hillsborough lacks a Recreation Hall for people to gather (like Burlingame), participate in programs, have movie nights, etc. A small amphitheater where we could have speaking events, theater productions or a summer concert series would be wonderful! We have an incredible community of citizens who would be excited to participate in volunteering and programming for these types of amenities. Hillsborough lacks playgrounds, basketball courts, pickle ball courts, etc. This site is perfect for some or all these things and of course for a site to host all these amenities it will need to have underground parking, which will also contribute to a beautiful Civic Center. I understand that funding is a challenge for an endeavor like this, but this is the exact type of project that is perfect for community fundraising. Every citizen of Hillsborough is someone who could benefit from a project like this, so every citizen is a potential donor. At an engagement the other night, we proposed the idea of a world class Civic Center for ourselves and our kids to enjoy and use. We propositioned the crowd to take the temperature of who would be willing to donate. It was unanimous and it was verbal commitments of millions of dollars. This is anecdotal, but I believe it is representative of our community. We are a community that loves being here and anything we can do to make Hillsborough a better place, we’re willing to do it. Fundraising could be a 2-3 multi-year effort while the design, plans and bidding is being worked out. In the end we have a beautiful partnership between the Town and the residents to create something truly historic and worthy of celebrating. Splitting this lot will be a mistake of historic proportions and one that can never be reversed. When San Francisco lost the 49er’s, the rational was to save money, but in the long run it cost SF hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, but worse, San Francisco lost a part of itself. This loss is universally seen as a major blunder, both politically and financially. It is Gavin Newsom’s biggest regret, don’t let selling off Town Hall be yours.
The Town Council, Mayor and City Attorney expressed hesitation with altering the draft in such a dramatic way that it could not be completed within our necessary timelines. The fear was that we may be sued by activists. That fear should not steer the direction of these historically impactful decisions. I think you heard from most residents that we are up for the fight if it means we create a plan that is representative of the residents’ input. In turn, if the Town, after receiving the overwhelming resident response to reject this draft, it chooses to adopt it or adopt a similar but slightly altered version instead, I think it’s inevitable that the Town will be facing multiple lawsuits from its citizens. It’s a terrible situation for the Town to be in, but I think the clear path is for the Town stick with its residents and fight with them, instead of against them. To accomplish the gargantuan task of completely redrafting the HE6, an enormous effort needs to be put forward by each of you. Special committees made of up of qualified and concerned residents who can assist in the draft, should be considered- you will have no shortage of volunteers, including some of the best legal minds in the country. Prior to our deadline the consultants need to be instructed to work as many hours as needed to create a HE6 draft that solves our allotment through only ADUs. The plan -2584-
should also include a supportive Town Action Plan (outlined above) to submit to the state to demonstrate how we get to our numbers. This can be done in two weeks if we hit the ground running and put all hands-on deck. Please, step up to the challenge and protect our Town Hall! Thank you,
Laith Salma
From: Steven Jeffords
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:38 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Steven Jeffords >; Elizabeth Jeffords
Subject: Opposition to the proposed Hillsborough Housing Element and Town Hall Campus projects Dear Hillsborough Town Council and Team considering the 2023 Housing Element Plan,
We believe bringing more affordable housing to Hillsborough is a good idea; and, creating an equitable and balanced plan to do so will be required.
But, the Town so far seems to have missed an
opportunity to engage with the community and co-develop a workable plan to meet the need for housing which satisfies the environmental, safety, and day to day needs for current AND future residents.Although the Town created an HEAC committee, from what we’ve heard, their input has been largely
ignored.
Further, the public comment windows are incredibly
short (such as a mere three business days to comment on a proposed town hall campus- five days before the end of public commentary).To wit, we are extremely worried about the town submitting a poorly conceived Housing Element which residents will have to live with for the next 8 (or 16, 24, etc) years.
Here are our major concerns with the current plan, and we ask that the Town Council directly address each during the Town Meeting on the 12th of September.
-2585-
1. Please Address: It appears the current HEAC and Previous RHNA (2005, 2014) ideas & concerns were not addressed in the 2023 Housing Element draft, making it seem that the community input and past planning cycles were not honored:
a.
ADU potential is under-represented significantly by using 3- year average taken during a pandemic. Despite many
residents being excited to add ADUs, the current permit process for two of us on our street who just went through it took 5-6 months and required significant non-Code-based rework. In the 2014 RHNA Housing Element, plans were put in place to incentivize the use and development of ADU’s, but these incentives are not in place.
b.
At HEAC meeting 4 and 4.5, only 40% of the committee
(and only after significant pressure from the consultant) agreed that high density housing along ECR could move to ~20 units/acre (not the 50+/acre currently included in the town hall site plan).
c.
Less drastic zoning increases were supported, but not
applied in the HE Plan
d.Senior and School Worker Housing were set as primary
solutions, also not in plan
e.Minutes from the HEAC meetings were not collected or
shared, and the next HEAC meeting is not until December, when the process will be virtually locked.Multiple HEAC members are vocally proposing alternative plans, but have so far been ignored.
2.Please Address: The process for including broader community input is deeply flawed:
a.The majority of residents had no idea what a Housing
Element was, let alone it was being submitted to the state, regardless of the Town’s assertion of dozens of
communications to that affect.We will be directly impacted and the first we heard of the proposal for the Town Hall Campus proposals was three weeks ago.
b.
Those directly affected by a proposed site STILL have not been contacted directly, unlike standard building site inputs and despite Town Hall promises to the contrary.For example, -2586-
if my neighbor wants to remodel their home, they are
REQUIRED to alert all nearby neighbors IN WRITING.We have seen only generic postcards.
c.Preliminary “jelly” plans for the Town Hall Campus are only being provided 8 days before community input closes- and yet the town expects the Town Hall Campus site to hold 100-150 units of 650sf each (up to 450+ people)
3.Please Address: A lack of transparency has led to confusion and lack of trust:
a.There is zero detail to be found publicly about how the new Town Hall housing density calculation was created. At a recent Town Hall presentation, we were told it was calculated by the housing consultant and stressed that no developers had been contacted or involved in the current proposals…despite written proof to the contrary posted on the Town website (RFPs
(Request For Proposals) for a “Master Planning and Conceptual Design for the Re-development for Town Hall Campus” have already gone out as of April 28, 2022, according to the Town Website).
b.
Different Planning staff have told us at Open Houses the Town Hall site would be: 45 feet, 60 feet, no more than 60 feet, Greater than 60 feet.It has been labeled as 100 units, >100 units, minimum of 100 units, 100-150 units.
c.
An elderly neighbor anxious about the plan was cold-called by the planning department and actively misled – they were told that they should not worry because it was unlikely that anything would ever be built, and definitely not for
years.Christine Krolik, vice mayor, in contrast, said that town-owned sites would have the expectation that
development must occur within the 8 year period.
d.
When asked if any developers have been consulted, we
were told that they have not, that the housing consultant has consulted with developers, and that consultant has floated ideas of leasing the site to developers.This is a direct conflict of interest (see below)
e.
Why some sites were considered and others were not is not captured anywhere to be reviewed, but was apparently subject to the consultant’s review.
f.
Only 3-4 of 13 sites and 4 town-owned properties are
currently addressed in the plan.3 of the 4 are unlikely to be -2587-
developed as they are privately owned and put in the Housing Element without the owner’s consent.Target sites changed from 3 to 4 during the community input timing, from draft to proposed Housing Element Plan.
g.
RD-3 still does not have zoning specifications, despite a potential 100-150 unit development being planned in this zoning.Shouldn’t the zoning specs pre-date planning and not the other way around?
h.
Some owner-occupied sites were only considered for 12
units in a much bigger area than the Town Hall campus, which has been considered for up to 150 units, but there has been no rationale shared.
4.Please Address: Residents are being directly affected in difficult and unintended ways:
a.Per the current proposal, renters in Town-Owned houses would need to be evicted.
b.Owners of estate sites were not even consulted about
having housing built on their property.
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 -2588-
away.
g.At the recent North School Open House - Tim Anderson of City Planning said the newly proposed Town Hall Campus, at 45 feet tall would have a “significant impact” on homeowners in a 500-1000 ft radius in terms of light, noise, and parking and more.
5.Please address: To date, the proposed Town Hall Campus would be a) a major site for 100-150 units – and critical to the achievement of a 554+unit plan, b) the only site fully Town-owned (as such likely to require development within 8yrs), and c) the only site not dependent on private initiative.Despite this, there are no formal plans published and no studies evaluated for site worthiness (environmental, traffic, water, sewage, school impacts, etc.).To date, the common response to those who ask about these impacts is “It will be years/may not happen/don’t worry”; rather than actually addressing legitimate concerns.Studies should be undertaken before the Town Hall Campus project is added to the Housing Element and should include:
a.
Historical analysis
b.
Environmental- Full EIR, not just a limited CEQA, including the culvert underneath the site, migratory birds that reside in the redwoods nearby, etc
c.
Light and Shadow Impact Analysis
d.
Utilities analysis of all the utilities in places that already struggle in this area of Hillsborough (power, water, waste) e.Cost of Infrastructure repairs- our utility costs are the highest on the peninsula and growing- 5-6% increases in water and waste rates that already assume zero population growth (contrary to HE plan), including removal of water tanks and replacement of inadequate water and sewer piping across fault lines
f.
This corner of Hillsborough is in the SFO Airport Influence Zone- what is the impact?
g.Cell/Data inadequacies that currently exist
h.
School needs and impact for 400-500 additional residents i.
Parking and Traffic impact
j.
Investigation of the current vacancy rate of the housing sites already built in nearby towns.
-2589-
6. Please Address: Any Housing Element that is submitted to the State should also directly outline the impact on existing Hillsborough/San Mateo requirements/laws/guidelines, such as:
a.
“Complete Streets” adopted in 2015 ensuring throughput
and access in exchange for Hillsborough’s ability to apply for transportation grants
b.
San Mateo Emergency Vehicles guidelines allowing for 35’ wide streets with throughway or 96’ cul de sacs.
c.The ongoing multi-year project for widening/repaving of El Camino Real next to City Hall – and the impact of that ongoing project on setbacks
d.
Construction-related parking limitations including length, curb height, markings etc during what would likely be a multiyear construction process e.
Hillsborough residential parking laws, including no
overnight street parking, to ensure safety as a walking and biking hub for youth to seniors
f.
Compliance with current Hillsborough noise
limitations/ordinances for various neighborhood types
7.Please address: Perceived conflict of interest
a.
The Town says they are not currently working with any
developers– and yet mention their consultants have worked with developers to provide unit estimates, land lease ideas, ideas for public private partnerships to pay for replacement of the police department etc
b.
Developers can obtain up to $1500/month per unit from
city/state grants for low-moderate income housing. This makes it a developer’s incentive to put in as many units as possible:
by law, 650sf units can hold up to 3 people.With special highdensity exceptions, this can be with no parking- and yet anyone living on the peninsula will require parking for access to jobs and services
c.
No zoning has been set for RD-3 until after basic plans and submission to HDC is in place. This means that the zoning could be set AFTER the developers design whatever plan they would like.
-2590-
d.
No list of developers consulted by consultants has been made available
8.Please Address: Has the town studied the actual needs of low to moderate income families who would like to live here? The AMI for San Mateo County is ~$180,000 for a family of four.Very-low and Low income housing is a huge need, and honestly, so is helping our homeless and atrisk of homelessness population.
Housing is a huge issue, but so is access
to services, groceries, jobs, health support etc.Please ask those amazing citizens in our community who are experts on this topic to help support these plans.
SO- What can we do?The town cannot stick their head in the sand – increased housing is a state law, we need to do something.
Here are some ideas:
1.The easiest solution is to up the number of ADU’s in the Housing Element plan: This is happening anyways- and it helps everyone. ADU projections were woefully undercounted by using 3-yr averages during a pandemic and a time when ADU permits often ran into 5-6 month timelines.The town could vastly increase the number of ADU’s, Junior ADU’s and amnesty ADU’s. Give the incentives that have been discussed since 2014, encourage residents like the HEAC encouraged.Encourage tax breaks to rent these out rather than keep them as home offices.Perhaps even consider zoning for small live/work offices for the many work-from-home and entrepreneurs among us?
2. Since2005, 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 -2591-
disabled residents.
3.Re-approach private schools and other owners of private/business sites about putting in place long-term plans to build limited blocks of teacher housing on site every time they go through a school increase in size.
4. As a contingency, allow for small zoning changes to allow when larger sites homes become open that do not run afoul of private property rights.
Thank you for listening.We understand that you have a big task ahead of you, but we ask that you conduct it with more
transparency and care for Hillsborough and its residents.
We
moved here BECAUSE of the lovely atmosphere and great schools and that everyone here cares deeply about the future of California, Hillsborough, and our communities (now and in the future).
We look forward to seeing you address these concerns at the Town Hall.
Elizabeth & Steve Jeffords
-2592-
From: Rohit Bhagat
To: General Plan
Subject: My feedback on the Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:15:49 PM
My name is Rohit Bhagat. I’m the owner/resident of . I’m writing to voice my strong opposition to the current plan. It will destroy the character of the town and defeat the logic underlying our choice to own property and live here.
I trust that the city will reconsider this ill-conceived plan.
Regards,
Rohit Bhagat
-2593-
From: Mike Folgner
To: General Plan
Subject: Housing Element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:03:58 PM
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:
I would encourage the town to adopt a plan that is more in line with the recent ADU development and encourages ADU development. This will significantly impact all other aspects of the plan.
I would also encourage a more wholistic approach to the redevelopment of town property to consider more community amenities, such as a park or community center.
With a higher ADU projection, a smaller number of housing can be placed here and can consider other community needs.
Thank you,
Mike
-2594-
From: s
To: General Plan
Subject: housing element
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:01:17 PM
We do not support the plan as it has been presented by the town. It is unfortunate that the town did not negotiate the number of ADUs and JDUs necessary to meet the requirements of the state. When the lot size, frontage and other zoning changes are made, now the state will only require more when they need more housing. Hillsborough's infrastructure is not designed to gracefully accommodate the expansion. A large Town Hall structure would ruin our neighborhood. We have already commented on the negative traffic potential. The requirements will be best met by expanding the numbers of ADU's and JDU's.
In addition, the town's communication about this enormous project has been poor. Had residents been clearly informed about the consequences to our property and living standards there likely would have been better input and a better result.
Thank you,
Joe and Barbara Gurkoff
.
-2595-
From: Jenny MacLeod
To: Al Royse; Larry May; [email protected]; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Christopher Diaz; [email protected]; General Plan; Gina Haggarty
Subject: OPPOSE!!! Zoning Changes proposed in the Housing Element Town of Hillsborough Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:01:14 PM
Dear Town of Hillsborough,
My Husband and I are in shock that the town of Hillsborough will be changed for the worse with the proposed housing element and oppose these changes. The suggested changes will decrease the value of our land, integrity of our town and future of our town for the worse. We are 30 year residents of Hillsborough and days, literally days, from closing on , Burlingame which shares a fence line with the Town.
Only two weeks ago did we hear, through word of mouth, of such proposed changes and are sickened by the thought of our new primary residence being overlooked by 100 units, a 6 story skyrise in our beloved town.
We are 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.
We Oppose the Housing Element Plan- Residential District 1 (RD -1): Residential District 2 (RD-2) and Residential District 3 (RD-3)
We Oppose the Town Hall Expansion/Campus Site Plan- which was delivered to us this past week and it's on the 9/12 agenda.
We oppose any/all zoning or rezoning of any lot and any other changes to our current "RD" zoning.
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 homeowners' property rights and penalize those homeowners with no compensation. Remove this goal and do not implement it in the future.
You have the ability to STOP these changes. The future of our town is in your hands and we cannot say it enough - we implore you to start over with a plan that includes all ADU/JADU housing options only.
Warmly,
Jenny
-2596-
HaggartyGroup.com
#1 Hillsborough | Burlingame Team
Compass | License #02026724
Agents have not and will not verify or investigate any information supplied by others. -2597-
Town Staff/
Consultants City Council (CC)
Housing and
Community
Development (HCD)
Draft Initial
Housing Element
(HE)
Legend
Public Input Opportunity
Provide
Direction to
Staff on Initial
Draft HE
45-day public comment period
Does CC
Direct staff
to redraft
HE?
Redraft Housing
Element based
on CC direction
Review
submitted
draft HE
YES
NO
Send Final
Comments
90 days
Does CC opt
to respond to
comments or
adopt
submitted
HE?
Submit adopted Final
Draft Element to HCD
for certification
RESPOND TO
COMMENTS
Redraft Housing
Element based
on comments
Review
submitted
draft HE
Send Final
Comments
60 days
ADOPT
Deadline to adopt Housing Element
January 31, 2023
Housing Element Update must be certified
within 120 days to avoid penalties
May 31, 2023
Penalties
Post revised
draft for at least
7 days
Litigation
• From the State
• From private parties
Fines
• $10,000 - $600,000/month
• Court-ordered fine of $10,000 per housing unit denied Sanctions
• Court-ordered sanctions on City
Loss of Funding
• Ineligible for certain types of funding
• Court-ordered interception of funds to pay HE-related fines Loss of Local Control
Court mandated
• Approval of certain housing projects if court found City acted in bad faith
• Suspension of the City’s authority to issue building permits for new construction
• Approval of all applications for building or related construction permits for residential housing
• Rezoning of land
• Orders to strip City Council of land use authority
Court Receivership
• Courts may appoint an agent with all powers necessary to remedy identified housing element deficiencies and bring the jurisdiction’s HE into compliance
Catch-All
• Court retains all other remedies for a violation of any applicable housing law
ATTACHMENT 4
-2596-