Agenda — Hillsborough City Council, October 10, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ [email protected] Form + One
4843 Silver Springs Drive
Park City, UT 84098
P+ 415.819.0304
E + [email protected]

TRANSMITTAL FORM
To: Town of Hillsborough From: Tim Raduenz
Subject: Response to Neighbor’s Letters Date Sent: 05/31/2022 1950 Ralston Review Number of Pages:2+attachments
Response to Neighbors Letters (Schmidt + Andrews)
Hello: Planning + Commission:

In response to the 2 letters received currently about the project at 1950 Ralston, I would like to point out a few items to help justify our design and decision, as we also understand and empathize with their comments, we do not fully agree with their stand.

Comments to justify our design and decision making.

1. We have made the overall footprint of the house smaller by going 2 stories, which helps with sound mitigation, and also the privacy concerns that both (Our Clients) and the neighborhood both care so deeply about.

2. Landscape plan shows over and above privacy trees and that we are offering to plant at start of construction instead of waiting to the end, giving the landscape a 1.5 to 2 year head start!

3. I do empathize about their concerns about their neighborhood on Country Club Court, but we are not on country club court, and well we are on the major road way into Hillsborough (Ralston) with many major 2 story homes, and that the road way should be more symmetrical as you drive down Ralston…keeping that feeling of neighbor intact is our design aesthetic.

4. The letters are to the point and we understand some of the points. We do wish the neighborhood WOULD form a HOA or a neighborhood commission, so that there’s a document they can forward to prospective owners and buyers of that neighborhood, to our knowledge there are no such written agreements or any type of covenants, or rules, or anything in writing. (this is what we think is unfair) not having a writing (LEGAL) document saying you can’t, or to that fact even persuaded to NOT design 2 story homes is amazing…. These are standard items/guidelines any good neighborhood group (neighborhood) has if they want to protect something the majority wants to protect. Even in small communities which I work in the Midwest and Mountain West (where I now live), they have simple written guidelines (that are recorded + with lawyers) so to make it binding for everyone to see. Like 1 or 2 story homes, exterior colors, air bnb/vacation retail guidelines, as simple examples.

My humble opinion: This seems very gangsterish that there is no legal or even a simple letter of agreement -258-

Page 2 of 2 ends

Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ [email protected] from a majority of the neighborhood stating their wants and needs for the community.

5. We have designed a more 1.5 story home with lowered roof plains and have worked with the neighbors that have spoken up with their concerns, we have addressed them time and time, removing the ADU from above the garage, we could have just said no, as its state mandated but we gave on this point, to help with neighborhood concerns…we hope that all our work does not go to the wayside.

6. To that end we believe we have an approvable project and that all planning comments and guidelines have been met, and that we are not asking for any exceptions and or variances, that this would be an easy approval if in any other area of the Town.

Best,
Tim Raduenz
ATTACHMENTS: 2 letters from most current neighbors to the town. -259-

Page 1 of 2 ends

TRANSMITTAL FORM
From: Tim Raduenz
Date Sent: 05/31/2022
To: Town of Hillsborough
Subject: Response to Neighbor Letters
1950 Ralston Review Number of Pages:2+attachments
Response to Neighbors Letters (Schmidt + Andrews)
Hello: Planning + Commission:

Comments to justify our design and decision making.

2. Landscape plan shows over and above privacy trees and that we are offering to plant at start of construction instead of waiting to the end, giving the landscape a 1.5 to 2 year head start!

My humble opinion: This seems very gangsterish that there is no legal or even a simple letter of agreement -260-

Page 2 of 2 ends

Best,
Tim Raduenz
ATTACHMENTS: 2 letters from most current neighbors letters to the Town. -261-
From:

To: Linda Roberson
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Proposal of 1950 Ralston Avenue Project
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 9:54:04 AM
Hello,
It has been brought to our attention your upcoming proposal to completely demolish and rebuild the property you purchased at 1950 Ralston Avenue. Your plans and intention are being brought to the ADRB and we are objecting to your plans to build a 2 story home. We purchased our home in 1985 and have lived at , Hillsborough the entire time. When we purchased our home, we were advised that we could not add an extra story which would have been fabulous, especially since our position on the circle would not prevent anyone from having their privacy diminished. Instead, we were advised we could build down and out on our sport court. We have done some remodeling but with restraints which have not impacted other neighbors.

The charm and appeal of this area is that we have neighbors and consistency in the neighborhood. It has been challenging for us that the City won't even let us cut trees down which could impact our total property in case of a storm or major earthquake. Having you design a home that is 2 story does not go with the design of the neighborhood and is not fair to us who were denied the opportunity to do so.

Although, homes are being sold and remodeled, there is a respect to the beauty of our neighborhood and our neighbors. Therefore, we are opposing your design plans which could have impact on further development and sales.

If there are any questions, you can contact us directly.

Regards,
Marilyn Linda Schmidt
Nathan Schmidt
Hillsborough, California 94010
-262-
From: Peggy Andrews
To: Linda Roberson
Subject: 1950 Ralston project
Date: Friday, May 6, 2022 10:19:37 AM
Dear Linda,
I am writing to the ADRB in regards to 1950 Ralston. My husband and I have resided at since 1984. As you know, over the years there have been a number of projects that have come before the board to seek approval for two story projects in a community that was designed as one story ranch style houses, most have not been approved and for that I am grateful. The 2 homes on Hillsborough blvd created basement space and the one on Ralston and also Country Club did the same.

The situation with this project is unique. The 3 homes on Country Club that are truly affected were built on the other side of the creek so their homes and yards are pushed to the rear of their lots . Their pools and outdoor spaces are up against the fence lines. If this project proceeds they will have no privacy . The developer promises screening with landscaping but that will not mitigate the problem, not to mention that the new owners may not like what he has installed and remove it .

There are a number of "tired" ranchers that will be on the market as the owners move out of the area or pass on. Approval of this project sets a dangerous precedent for the future of Country Club Estates. I respectfully ask that the board reject this planned project.

Peggy Andrews
Norm Brod
-263-
From: Tim Raduenz
To: Linda Roberson; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1950 Ralston_Andrews letter2
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:08:23 PM
Attachments: 50 Country Club Dr - Google Maps.pdf
1950 Ralston Ave_Story Pole APPROVAL.pdf
Hi Linda:

Thanks for forwarding me the email from Peggy Andrews!
Please Linda, include this correspondence with the package you give to the ADRB! WE want this recorded with the Town:

Response to Email (July 18, 2022) from Peggy Andrews @ 50 Country Club Drive

1. We understand the concern about privacy; hence we only have awning style windows on the east side of the building and only (1) set. We all care about privacy. Including the Builder + Owner.

2. Mapping: 30 Country Club is directly behind 1950 Ralston Ave. not 50 Country Club Drive (See attached map) still understand your property is close to project site.

3. We are currently installing story poles, it would be great if Peggy can include photos of it after installation. See attached schedule for story pole installation, Peggy, please email (Linda) at the town it would be great to see! or if you would! let us see in person the impact and work forward more to make a solution. (Jason) would love to stop by and check out the view impact after story poles are up. best,
PS:

Peggy if you have any other questions, please let me know you can email me or call me any time.
tim raduenz - 415.819.0304 - form + one
4843 silver springs drive / park city, ut 84098
park city ut / san francisco ca / sister bay wi
From: Linda Roberson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:24 PM
-264-
To: Tim Raduenz <[email protected]>
Subject: 1950 Ralston_Andrews letter2
Tim,
Please find attached a public comment letter we received from an adjacent neighbor for the above referenced project.

Thank you,
Linda
Town Hall Hours: Mon - Thurs 8:00am - 5:00pm / Fri: 8:00am - 12:00pm Linda Roberson, AICP
Associate Planner
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
t: (650) 375-7437
e: [email protected]
www.hillsborough.net
Subscribe to Town News and Alerts: http://www.hillsborough.net/list.aspx Drought is Here: Is Your Yard DrSught Ready? Visit www.hillsborough.net/Drought for more information.

Download the new Simplicity App for Hillsborough to stay up-to-date Subscribe to the Town’s e-Announcements
Sign up for SMCAlert to receive emergency updates by phone and email The opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the sender and are not an official position of the Town of Hillsborough, of the respective body, or of the board I serve on at the Town. -265-
Imagery ©2022 CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, U.S. Geological Survey, Map data ©2022 50 ft 50 Country Club Dr
Building
Directions Save Nearby Send to
phone
Share
Photos
50 Country Club Dr, Hillsborough, CA 94010
50 Country Club Dr
-266-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
California

Story Pole Plan Approval and Key Dates
PROJECT ADDRESS:
(APN: 028-234-130) 1950 Ralston Ave.

The attached story pole plan has been approved for your project scheduled for the ADRB meeting on:

Monday AUGUST 1, 2022 @ 4:00 PM
Please keep in mind the following deadlines:

July 22, 2022 - The story poles must be installed, as per this plan, by 5:00pm.

July 29, 2022 - An emailed copy of the certification from a licensed surveyor or civil engineer that the story poles have been installed as per the approved plan must be submitted to the Planning Office. Certification must include the surveyor’s or engineer’s professional stamp and signature; a copy of the approved story pole plan must be attached. Certification by architects is not acceptable.

Story poles shall be installed as follows:
• All story poles shall be painted with 12” high stripes, alternately black and white, to assist with the visual verification of indicated heights above grade.
• Netting at least 12” wide of woven plastic fencing, or another equally suited material (in “international orange”, yellow, red, or other contrasting color), shall be assembled to represent the proposed structure.
• All story poles; netting, stakes, and/or support wires shall be installed so as to withstand weather (and remain standing and correctly reflective of the plans) until the approved removal date.

Failure to install and verify the story poles as required will mean that the application cannot be considered at the above scheduled ADRB meeting.

If the project is approved, story poles may be removed from the site no earlier than August 16, 2022, and must be removed from the site by August 31, 2022, unless the Planning Office has notified you that there will be an additional hearing on the application or has otherwise requested the story poles remain in place.

If you have any questions, please call (650) 375-7422
Attachment: Approved Story Pole Plan
-267-
8"OAK LOT AREA 22,486 SQ. FT. SS D.S.

LSM 45 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 30'-2" 30'-2" 30'-2" 30'-2" 30'-2" 30'-2" 30'-2" 11'-4" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 17'-10" 27'-9" 27'-9" 11'-4" 13'-11" 13'-11" 30'-2" 27'-9" 27'-9" 22'-3" 22'-3" 27'-9" 27'-9" 27'-9" 27'-9" 27'-9" 27'-9" 22'-3" 22'-3" 22'-3" 22'-3" 22'-3" 22'-3" 11'-4" 11'-4"11'-2" 11'-2" 11'-2" 29'-11" 11'-2" 29'-11" 29'-11" 29'-11" 24'-7" 24'-7" 24'-7" 24'-7" Sheet Scale:

All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings.

Rev.:
001
002
003
004
005
006
Description : Date :

Revisions 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 415.819.0304 Park City, UT 84098 Greg Gambrioli
1950 Ralston Ave.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
Title :

Project :

Date : 07-15-21 Drawn : TIM RADUENZ 21_24 Job No. :

Owner :

APN#: 028-234-130
Contractor :

PLANNING SET
Zoning: RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING SET
Greg Gambrioli
1950 Ralston Ave.

Hillsborough, CA 94010 one DESIGN PLANNING form
LOT SIZE: 22,486 SQ. FT.

Story Pole Plan See Details SP Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" SP STORY POLE PLAN 1 Scale: N/A SP STORY POLE PLAN INSTRUCTIONS 2 -268-

Page 1 of 3 ends

TRANSMITTAL FORM
To: Town of Hillsborough From: Tim Raduenz
Subject: Overall Review Date Sent: 07/22/2022
1950 Ralston Review Number of Pages:

OVERALL RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORS COMMENTS
To: Planning + Commission:

Was asked to do a review letter of where we are at with neighborhood responses to the 3 or maybe 4 letters we have received at the town, and to the additional number of neighbors coming in to the town and reviewing plans.

We have received 3 letters from neighbors (Linda/Planner) to confirm What we have done to accommodate the neighbor’s concerns + also our privacy (future owners)

1. We have created minimal windows on second floor looking towards the rear yard, and also the 2 side yards, the side yards only have awning windows that are high for privacy! So privacy was controlled that way, for these 2 side neighbors.

2. We also created VERY large side setbacks on each side yard, this creates privacy of site and also sound, which is a concern of ours as well, as 1 story homes lay more sq. ft. on the ground floor pushing homes closer together.

3. We committed to installing landscaping at the perimeter of the property line starting before large construction activities start

4. We have only one master bedroom window in the rear elevation that will be the only window with concern, and the neighbor to the rear of our property has not commented fully about this. The other window at the rear is in the 2-story volume of the family room, so you have complete privacy at that window.

5. We have reduced the height of the building (main home) After the review from neighbors at 2 Zoom meeting we held.

6. We have removed the 2nd floor ADU above the garage, after the review from neighbors at 2 Zoom meetings.

7. We removed standard casement windows on side yard bedrooms (converted) to awning (to promote) complete privacy for side neighbors.

8. We are open to the notion of keeping 2-3 of the larger trees (see arborist) report, per some of the commissions concerns, also will help the overall massing. We will keep a few of the health trees as noted if we can come to an approval for the project.
-269-

Page 2 of 3 ends

Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ [email protected] The Designers + Owners Comments for this project:
(Added to conversations we had at our neighborhood outreach and also our overall comments on this project and future building on the Ralston corridor)
a. Technically we are not on Country Club Circle, we are on the Ralston roadway side, which have many 2 story homes on the south side and more down the road on the same side of street. I would think the Ralston corridor would be the one articulation we should be worried about; this corridor should be more like West Santa Inez, driving both of these major corridors into the heart of Hillsborough you understand which road is (articulated correctly and which one needs help with having “that feeling”) Santa Inez is the roadway that you feel is really done well and that most homes and setback fit.
b. We have made many concessions noted above with neighborhood outreach, which I think helps the neighbors at the rear of this property (on country club). At the expense of our client. c. Also please read the response to the 2 latest letters from country club neighbors, they are also not attached to the project site, as in being next door to project site. Also, I have a few compelling notes about how protective covenants could help them in the future from having this hassle. This is how most of the US and most communities protects themselves from something they (they as a whole) community wants their neighbors and neighborhood to act and look like. d. Finally, to end on a good note and also to talk about code and the Town of Hillsborough, we have designed a conforming home to the planning regulations, including larger setbacks then required, being well below maximum height limits, with also working with the planning department through out this long process, with also taking most of the comments from neigbhors into consideration, as you can see from the first paragraph of our concessions, WE really did listen to them. To the point where they just don’t want a 2nd floor built, I do understand they have the right to have an opinion, but to that point, we also have the right to build a 2-story home and are not asking for any variances and or close to any maximum requirements as far as height and setbacks!
To that end, I know this is a difficult decision, but as a commission, you need to ask your self is this a project that is appropriate and approvable by code/planning + building.

Are there:
any protective covenants that loom over the project (NO) are the qualities of design and construction materials present, Yes. is there a good mix of styles along the Ralston area, Yes.

Are there ago amount of 2-story homes along Ralston, Yes.

Have the owners reached out the neighbors for their comments, Yes.

If the answer is yes to all of them except (are there protective covenants) the response should be approved. -270-

Page 3 of 3 ends

Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ [email protected] Best,
Tim Raduenz
-271-
ADRB Comments and Responses
1950 Ralston Ave.

The proposal received preliminary review at the January 24, 2022, ADRB meeting. Below is a list of their comments/recommendations:

Board Comments Applicant Responses
Board member appreciates the design of the
house, and recognized the setbacks look good.

Concerned about the character of the
neighborhood. Understands the concerns of
the residents, appreciates the outreach done
so far. Recent building in the area is ongoing
so there is a lot of change happening. In
general, doesn’t object to the design however
doesn’t find it to be consistent with the design
guidelines specifically Ch. 5-6 and is
concerned.
a. Removed adu from second floor @ garage
b. Removed windows or reduced size of windows
at second floor
c. Committed to installing landscaping at START
of project.
d. We have overly large setbacks as this will help
with sound and privacy, we want privacy as much as
everyone else, the overly large setbacks do this, and also the pre-planting of the landscape does as well.
e. as for Chapter 5-6 massing + materials, I believe we have completely worked with the Ralston corridor, with
many new larger than what we are proposing projects
happening, we considered this in design and trying to
equal out the Ralston Ave. streetscape.

Board member does feel that the proposed
design is consistent with the neighborhood.

Doesn’tthink the massing should be a big issue
but would like to see the applicant work with
the neighbors.
a. Removed adu from second floor @ garage
b. Removed windows or reduced size of windows
at second floor
c. Committed to installing landscaping at START
of project.
d. We have overly large setbacks as this will help
with sound and privacy, we want privacy as much as
everyone else, the overly large setbacks do this, and also the pre-planting of the landscape does as well.
e. We did do major review with another zoom
meeting this spring as well.

Board member respectfully disagrees with
previous comment, does believe this is
inconsistent with the single-story articulation.

Second floor is too much, setbacks and
impacts are of significance.
a. Technically we are not on Country Club Circle,
we are on the Ralston roadway side, which have many
2 story homes on the south side… I would think the
Ralston corridor would be the one articulation we
should be worried about; this corridor should be more
like West Santa Inez… driving both of these major
corridors into the heart of Hillsborough you understand which road is(articulated correctly and which one needs help with having that feeling) Santa Inez is the roadway that you feel is really done well and that most homes
and setback fit.
b. We have made many concessions noted above
a-d… which I think helps the item with the neighbors at the rear of this property (on country club) have issues with.
c. Also please read the response to the 2 latest
letters from country club neighbors, they are also not
attached to the project site, as in, being next door to project site. Also, I have a few compelling notes about how protective covenants could help them in the future
-272-
ATTACHMENT 5
from having this hassle. This is how most of the US and most communities protect themselves from something
they (they as a whole) community wantstheir neighbors
and neighborhood to act and look.
d. Technically we are not on Country Club Circle, we are on the Ralston roadway side, which have many 2 story
homes on the south side… I would think the Ralston
corridor would be the one articulation we should be
worried about; this corridor should be more like West
Santa Inez… driving both of these major corridors into
the heart of Hillsborough you understand which road is
(articulated correctly and which one needs help with
having that feeling) Santa Inez is the roadway that you feel isreally done well and that most homes and setback fit and are correctly sized and scaled.

Board member understands perspective of
each side. Has an issue with some of the trees,
protect tree #2, tree #10 can be protected,
tree #20 should be saved. Disturbing amount
of tree removals proposed. The side facing
garage is good, likes the parking strip. The
second floor may be an issue because it is
close and overlooks the neighbors. Consider
relocating this part of the addition.
a. Removed adu from second floor @ garage
b. Removed windows or reduced size of windows
at second floor
c. Committed to installing landscaping at START
of project.
d. We have overly large setbacks as this will help
with sound and privacy, we want privacy as much as
everyone else, the overly large setbacks do this, and the pre-planting of the landscape does as well.
e. if we need to keep 1-2 of the trees to get this
approved, we will make that concession.

Board member encouraged applicant to think
creatively about how this project can be developed
without being such an afront to the existing
neighborhood character. Supportive of the design
but not necessarily for this neighborhood. There is
a lot of flexibility with respect to design given that
there is not a current owner. Don’t get wedded to
this design as it will need to remain flexible.
a. Removed adu from second floor @ garage
b. Removed windows or reduced size of windows
at second floor
c. Committed to installing landscaping at START
of project.
d. We have overly large setbacks as this will help
with sound and privacy, we want privacy as much as
everyone else, the overly large setbacks do this, and also the pre-planting of the landscape does as well.
e. We did do major review with another zoom
meeting this spring as well.
f. Technically we are not on Country Club Circle, we are on the Ralston roadway side, which have many 2 story
homes on the south side… I would think the Ralston
corridor would be the one articulation we should be
worried about; this corridor should be more like West
Santa Inez… driving both of these major corridors into
the heart of Hillsborough you understand which road is
(articulated correctly and which one needs help with
having that feeling) Santa Inez is the roadway that you feel isreally done well and that most homes and setback fit and are correctly sized and scaled.
-273-
-274-
-275-
Town of Hillsborough TCLA Landscape Design Review
Address: 1950 Ralston Tier 2 Submittal Requirements
Plan Date: April 29, 2022 plans prepared by Bergez & Associates (landscape designers) by B Chan 07-15-22 Category/ Design Scope Description QTY Visual Exposure & Remarks Field Observation Findings Recommendations (as shown on the plans) Site Development
1 Parcel 22,486 SF
2 House type New two story house Visible to Street
3 Landform Fairly Level
4 Addition None Proposed
5 Accessory Structures None Proposed
6 Earthwork & Grading Minor
7a Retaining Walls - Frontyard Proposed New Visible to Street 18" h Stone Suitable Design Appropriate PS 7b Retaining Walls - Backyard None Proposed
8 Landscape Structures New Trellis Visible to neighbor Suitable Design Appropriate PS 9 Swimming Pool New Proposed PS
10a Paving - Parking Strip Proposed Visible to Street Unit Paver Suitable Design Appropriate PS 10b Paving - Frontyard driveway Replace Ext'g Visible to Street Unit Paver Suitable Design Appropriate PS 10c Paving - Front Entry Walk Proposed Visibile to Street Cut Stone Suitable Design Appropriate PS 10d Paving - Rear Patio & Walkways Proposed Not Visible to neighbors Cut Stone Suitable Design Appropriate PS 10e Paving Coverage & Setback Req's Checked Complies w/ TS PS 11a Special Construction New Built-in Barbeque Not Visible to neighbors Suitable Design Appropriate PS 11b Special Construction Suitable Design Appropriate PS 12a Trees proposed for removal, 12" + Oak & Ornamentals 11 Mitigated by proposed planting Suitable Design Appropriate PC, See Note 1 12b Vegetation to be removed Proposed throughout Trees (<12") & shrubs Mitigated by proposed planting Suitable Design Appropriate PS 13 Special Conditions
14 Trees Proposed throughout 19 - 24" box Species OK to Climate Zone Suitable Design Appropriate PC, See Note 1 15 Screening Proposed Species OK to Climate Zone Suitable Design Appropriate PS 16 Shrubs & Groundcover Proposed throughout Species OK to Climate Zone Suitable Design Appropriate PS 17 Turf or Grass Proposed New See Note 2 See Note 2 See Note 2 See Note 2 18 Lighting - Landscape None Proposed See Note 3 See Note 3 See Note 3 19a Fencing @ Street Proposed Visible to Street Stucco Wall, 6'6" high Suitable Design Appropriate PS 19b Fencing rear & side Proposed Visible to neighbors Solid Wood, 6' high Suitable Design Appropriate PS 20 Columns @ street Proposed New Visible to Street Brick, 7'6" hi Suitable Design Appropriate PS 21 Driveway Entry Gate Proposed New Visible to Street Wood Slat, 6'6" hi Suitable Design Appropriate PS 22 Pedestrian Entry Gate Proposed New Visible to Street Wood Slat, 6'6" hi Suitable Design Appropriate PS 23 Mailbox Proposed Visible to Street Brick, 4'0" high Suitable Design Appropriate PS 24 Irrigation & Water Efficiency Checked Complies w/ TS PS 25 Hydrozones Checked Complies w/ TS PS
Note 1. Larger trees should be selected for the street frontage/ driveway area for the purpose of having a better canopy and proportional balance. There is also a need to offset the amount of foliage loss resulting from proposed tree removal.

Note 2. Applicant should consider using synthetic lawn in the rear yard landscape for the purpose of conserving water.

Note 3. If landscape lighting fixtures over 3' high from finish grade are proposed, a Landscape Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Town for review and approval.

Abbreviations: RC = Response to Community Comments; TS = Town Standards; CK = Checked & Accurate Recommendations: PS - Pass Submitted Design; PC - Pass with conditions; RR - Revise & Resubmit -276-
From: Peter Benz
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: 1950 Ralston avenue
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 4:59:25 PM
Kelli and Peter Benz of are opposed to the approval of a two story structure at 1950 Ralston Ave.
-277-
ATTACHMENT 6
From: Peggy Andrews
To: Linda Roberson
Subject: 1950 Ralston
Date: Monday, October 3, 2022 10:19:59 AM
Dear Linda,
I am again writing to you and the ADRB regarding 1950 Ralston. I have had sometime to reflect on the last meeting and I want to share my thoughts with the ENTIRE board.

1. I was deeply disappointed that the entire board was not present at the last meeting. The two members that were absent expressed their reservations about the project last January and I am convinced that their vote might have changed the outcome for our neighborhood.

2. I believe that member Foster had his mind made up before the meeting as he expressed his thoughts towards that approval early in the meeting. His constant referral to "diversity" in the neighborhood was excessive and frankly irrelevant to the issue at hand. If Foster was referring to diversity in the architectural sense , there are plenty of diverse styles in the neighborhood which I have no problem with. We are concerned about privacy and respect for the 70 year model of ranch style homes that set our neighborhood apart.

3. If this home is allowed to be built as a 2 story there will be a future of contentious design review board meetings , not to mention litigation .

4. It is important that the board pays respect to the overwhelming support in the neighborhood in rejecting this design. We only ask that the developer design a one story home as many other architects have in the County Club Manor area.

I will be out of town for the meeting and unavailable on the meeting date. Please share my letter to the City Council and the Design Review Board.

Peggy Andrews
Norm Brod
-278-
-279-
-280-
-281-
-282-
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “A”
-283-
10 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PICTURE -284-
20 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PICTURE -285-
900 HILLSBOROUGH BLVD. P CTURE -286-
1850 RALSTON PICTURE -287-
-288-
1850 RALSTON PICTURE -289-
-290-
2000 RALSTON PICTURE -291-
2050 RALSTON PICTURE -292-
ANOTHER HOME -293-
30 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PICTURE -294-
NEIGHBORHOOD P CTURE -295-
NEIGHBORHOOD P CTURE -296-
EXHIBIT “B”
EXHIBIT “B”
-297-
-298-
-299-
1950 RALSTON CONSTRUCTION -300-
-301-
ATTACHMENT 7
-302-
-303-
-304-
Skyfarm D rive
Chateau Drive
Ralston Ave
Eucalyptus
Ave
El Cerrito Ave
Black Mountain Rd
Hayne Rd
Skyline Boulevard
Summit Dr
Tournament Dr
Crystal Springs Rd
Hayne Rd
Robin
Rd
Lakeview
Dr
West
School
Fire Station #33
Nueva
School
Regan
Estate
Burlingame Country Club
Town-owned single family residence
Town Hall Facilities
North School
Crocker Middle School
The Bridge School
Corporation
Yard
Fire Station #32
South
School
Hillsborough
Racquet Club
Crystal Springs
Upland School
Crossroads
Park
Vista Park
De Guigne
Estate
HCSD Administrative
Offices
FIGURE LU-1

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

GENERAL PLAN
Residential
Public Facilities and Services
Private Schools
Open Space and Conservation
Private Recreational
00 0.25 .5 1 Mile
*
* SUBJECT PROPERTY
-305-
ATTACHMENT 8
1950 RALSTON AVE, LLC
100 Green St.

San Francisco, CA 94111
October 5, 2022
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Town of Hillsborough:

We want to bring to your attention that we respect and understand the process for approving construction and New Home projects. As an ownership group that was born and raised in this area, we have abided by and followed this process in Hillsborough, Burlingame, and other cities in the peninsula for 20 + yrs.

The architect & design team followed the Ralston Ave frontage as our major design review. (Please refer to our attached presentation). Ralston Ave has many (existing) 2 stories on the roadway. When looking at neighborhood aesthetics, you use the main front road as the majority of your neighborhood feel. This is why we feel we are approaching our design appropriately with this project. There are newer homes in this area, particularly at 1850 Ralston Ave, a taller house for a 1-story home. We envision in the (not to) future, many ranchers in this area on the north side of Ralston, will be replaced with newer homes of various designs and styles.

The timing of this appeal could not have been worse for us, given our escalating carrying costs, and what has happened with interest rates. We were on a path to have this project approved in June or July. Accommodating the neighbors with their 1-story (desire) feedback for 6 + months, and now the appeal (since process with building has come to a stop), is going to cost us close to $290k in extra costs for this project, and it impacted our ability to pre-sell the home with approved plans by Summer/Fall 2022 which was part of our marketing plan.

While we get the risk that we take on in this profession, we felt it was necessary to point out there is a critical economic impact to us that we hope you seriously take into consideration.

Sincerely,
Member
1950 Ralston Ave, LLC
ATTACHMENT 9
-306-
1950 Ralston, Hillsborough, CA 94010
Oct 5, 2022
Ownership: 1950 Ralston Ave, LLC
-307-
ü Following the process in accordance to the Town of Hillsborough's Development Standards August 2021 ü These are the development standards for all projects within the Town of Hillsborough. All exterior changes are subject to Design Review approval (including re-roofing, landscape installations, color or material changes, fencing, additions, and other new construction), either by the Town’s Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB) or by Planning Staff (for minor projects only). It cannot be assumed that designing a project to the technical maximums (or minimums) contained in these standards will result in design approval. ü The Town’s “Residential Design Guidelines,” available in the Planning Office and from the Town’s website (www.hillsborough.net), should be consulted to better understand the criteria used by the ADRB when considering an application. Project conformance with the Residential Design Guidelines will be strongly encouraged by the Town through the Design Review process as these guidelines express the community’s values and the Town’s expectations for new development. Project plans that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines are more likely to be successful.
ü Setbacks
ü Height Limits
ü Required Parking
ü Minimum and Maximum House Size
ü Maximum Lot Coverage
ü Existing Nonconforming Structures
ü ETC….

Elements of a Successful Permit Application
Reference Town of Hillsborough Development Standards 2021 -308-
-309-
-310-
-311-
-312-
-313-
-314-

TOWN OF

HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
13 OLD BUSINESS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SUMMARY: The Town's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 6 Draft Housing Element was released for public review on Thursday, August 4, 2022. The public review period for the Draft Housing Element was open for 45 days, from Thursday, August 4, 2022 until Monday, September 19, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. During this period the project team was in listening mode, collecting comments and feedback on the Draft Housing Element. Following the close of the public review period, the team catalogued all public comments, which are available the public, have been shared with the City Council, and will be shared with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Based on the public comments received in writing and at the City Council meeting on September 12th, staff synthesized a summary of the policy alternatives for the City Council to consider. Staff presented the summary of policy alternatives and potential revisions to the First Draft of the Housing Element Update at the City Council Meeting on September 26, 2022. The policy alternative areas included the “No Net Loss” Buffer, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), RD-1 Zoning, RD-2 Zoning/Opportunity Sites, and RD-3 Zoning – Town Hall Complex.

At the City Council meeting on Monday, September 26, 2022 the City Council discussed the Draft Housing Element Update, opportunities for revision, and gave staff direction to revise the draft Housing Element prior to submitting the document to HCD for review.

The Town’s RHNA allocation is 554 net new housing units, and the strategy direction includes:
• Reduce/Eliminate the “No Net Loss” Buffer
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): 520 ADUs - Utilizing a 2-year average (2021-2022) to project the ADU production for RHNA6
• RD-1 Zoning: No rezoning, no reduction to minimum lot size or minimum lot width • RD-2 Zoning/Opportunity Sites: No rezoning, no increased density. No housing development proposed at the SFPUC or Tobin Clark properties • RD-3 Zoning – Town Hall Complex: No rezoning, eliminate housing identified at the Town Hall Campus, at this time
• Emphasize potential development on existing vacant lots and lots that qualify for potential subdivision under existing development standards
Based on direction received from the City Council at the September 26th City Council meeting, staff has redrafted the Draft Housing Element to support the Council’s strategy and include the required data, methodologies, and programs/policies for submission to the State. The revisions to the document will be presented to the City Council at the regular meeting on October 10, 2022. -315-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

The Draft Housing Element is comprised of nine sections. Given the tight timeline, Staff prioritized revisions to the first draft of the housing element to focus on those that were critical to support the Council’s strategy and related required data, methodologies, and programs/policies, based on direction received from the City Council. Below is a summary of modifications:

Section 1: Purpose of the Housing Element and History of the Town (No revisions) Section 2: Public Participation (Revised)
Section 3: Review and Revision of Past Performance (No revisions) Section 4: General Plan Consistency (No revisions)
Section 5: Housing Needs (No revisions)
Section 6: Housing Constraints (Revised)
Section 7: Housing Resources (Added)
Section 8: Sites Inventory Analysis (Revised)
Section 9: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) (In progress, revisions required) Section 10: Housing Plan (Revised)
The most substantial revisions are included in Section 8: Sites Inventory Analysis, which outlines the Town of Hillsborough’s Cycle 6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and how the Town plans to meet its allocation, and Section 10: Housing Plan, which outlines the Town’s policies, goals, and actions.

Consistent with the direction from City Council, the Sites Inventory Analysis has been re-drafted to reduce the buffer to 1.3% (7 Units), project development of 520 ADUs for RHNA6, eliminate proposed re-zoning, eliminate proposed modifications to development standards, and focus on potential residential development on existing vacant lots and lots that qualify for potential subdivision under existing development standards. The Sites Inventory Analysis focuses on four strategies to meet the Town of Hillsborough’s Cycle 6 RHNA; ADUs, Pipeline Projects (projects that are already in varying stages of the approval process), Vacant Opportunity Sites, and Subdivision Opportunity Sites. The policies, goals, and actions outlined in the Housing Plan have been redrafted to support these strategies.

The project team anticipates submitting the Draft Housing Element to HCD during the first half of October. Once the Draft Housing Element is submitted, HCD has 90 days to review and provide feedback in writing. If the Town submits the First Draft Housing Element in early October, we anticipate receiving the 90-day comment letter from HCD in early January. The Town, within the first 30 days following submittal, could provide HCD with amendments to or additional information for the submitted draft document.

The HCD deadline to adopt the Housing Element Update is January 31, 2023 and the Housing Element Update must be certified within 120 days, no later than May 31, 2023, to avoid penalties.

When the Town receives the 90-day comment letter from HCD, this letter will be shared with the public and the City Council. Staff and City Council will review the scope of the comments received from HCD and staff will request direction from the City Council regarding how to proceed in response.
-316-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

Updates along with all presentations, meetings recordings, and other documents related to all public housing element update meetings are available for public review on the Town’s Housing Element Update page. Notice of Town meetings will be posted on Town bulletin boards, on the online Town calendar, and sent out in the Town's e-announcements and newsletter.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Town is in the process of preparing the necessary environmental review for the Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update. Prior to the time that the City Council is required to adopt the Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update, CEQA review will have been completed and will be available to the City Council for consideration prior to any discretionary action of the City Council to adopt the housing element.” ATTACHMENT:

1. Revised Draft Housing Element

2. September 26, 2022 Staff Report (Item 2) – First Draft of the RHNA 6 Housing Element Update – Consider and Provide Direction on Policy Alternatives

3. September 12, 2022 Staff Report (Item 12) – Study Session: RHNA 6 Housing Element Update – Project Briefing on Public Comment Received to Date

4. Public Comment Received after 12:00 p.m. on September 22, 2022 through 12 p.m. on October 6, 2022
PREPARED BY: Liz Ruess, Long-range Planning and Special Projects RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff with direction regarding submittal of the draft housing element to HCD and based on any revisions to the proposed document finalize the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) section for submittal to HCD.
-317-
2023-2031

HOUSING ELEMENT
Town of Hillsborough
October 6, 2022
Draft for HCD Review
ATTACHMENT 1
-318-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Purpose of the Housing Element and History of the Town 1 Section 2: Public Participation 4
Section 3: Review and Revision of Past Performance 18
Section 4: General Plan Consistency 30
Section 5: Housing Needs 32
Section 6: Housing Constraints 78
Section 7: Housing Resources 88
Section 8: Sites Inventory Analysis 91
Section 9: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 103
Section 10: Housing Plan 138
-319-
1 PURPOSE

AND HISTORY
-320-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element of the Hillsborough General Plan is intended to plan for the housing needs of the Hillsborough community while meeting the State’s housing goals as set forth in Article 10.6 of the California Government Code. The Housing Element analyzes housing needs in Hillsborough, the resources available to meet those needs, and the governmental and non-governmental constraints that tend to work against increasing the supply of affordable housing. Goals, policies, and action programs have been crafted to facilitate the Town’s use of its limited financial resources and buildable land to maximum advantage.

The Hillsborough Housing Element represents 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. The Town has developed innovative ways to provide housing for all segments of the population, within the constraints of very limited land availability, the extreme steepness of the terrain, and the extraordinarily high cost of land in Hillsborough.

Over the past 20 years, Hillsborough has experienced changing demographics. The population of Hillsborough has been diversifying while also seeing an increase in the median age. Home values have increased significantly since 2000, with a significant portion of the housing stock being owner-occupied single-family units and 100 percent of extremely low-income, and most low-income homeowners, in Hillsborough being cost burdened. Jobs in Hillsborough have decreased significantly from 2002-2018, as most workers commute to other cities to work. These changes in demographics will help the Town plan for housing that is accommodating for all demographics over the next 8-year cycle.

Hillsborough Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
2 -321-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
History of the Town
In 1824, 16-year-old William Davis Merry Howard, son of a wealthy Hillsboro, New Hampshire shipping magnate, sailed on one of his father’s ships from Boston around Cape Horn to the West Coast. Upon returning home, he convinced his father of the fortunes to be made in the West and returned to California some 15 years later. Howard became a partner in a general merchandising firm in 1845.

The following year, he purchased Rancho San Mateo from the Mexican Governor, Pio Pico. The Rancho was a tract of land that became the City of San Mateo. He paid $25,000 for the tract, or approximately $3.88 an acre. For the next few years, Howard and his wife, Agnes, lived a comfortable life on the isolated Peninsula. They built a fine home which they called El Cerrito and made San Mateo a successful working ranch.

When the Gold Rush began a few years later, the thousands of prospectors flooding California needed provisions, and only a few outlets were present. In a short time, Howard and his partner became wealthier than even the most successful gold seekers.

Mexican rule ended legally in 1848, and California became a state in 1850. Although Howard died in 1856, his children and his wife’s family “set the pattern for genteel living down on the Peninsula,” according to historian Frank Stanger. The Howards, the Poetts, and several other families became the leading members of the community. By the late 1860s, parcels of the Howard estate had been sold in chunks large enough to provide ample estate property for the new generation of founding families.

The area also became attractive to many San Francisco businessmen who wanted to live in a relaxed, uncrowded country setting while working in the city.

As San Mateo and Burlingame continued to grow, the need for money to make improvements became acute, and the residents began to show interest in annexing the estate owners’ lands. The owners of the estates were not well disposed to contributing tax dollars toward the improvement of neighboring city life; nor were they interested in any of the benefits incorporation would bring, e.g., sidewalks and other amenities which would detract from the atmosphere of the area. Accordingly, in 1910, residents filed incorporation papers with the County Board of Supervisors, and on April 25th of the same year, by popular vote of 60-1, the Town of Hillsborough was born. The Town had 89 registered voters at the time out of an estimated population of 750. (Women did not have the franchise to vote.) Hillsborough was incorporated on May 5, 1910.

Between 1910 and 1938, Hillsborough’s population grew from an estimated 750 to over 2,500, but the era of unusually large estates was coming to a close. Uplands, Home Place, La Dolphine, and other classic estates were gradually subdivided into smaller lots, usually leaving the original house and several acres intact. Hillsborough’s zoning laws varied throughout the earlier years, but the policies behind the laws basically stayed the same: preserve the character of Hillsborough. More recently, the Town reduced its lot size minimum to one-half acre single-family lots, and its frontage minimum to 150 feet, which are the limits in force today.

One of the main attractions that Hillsborough has for homebuyers is its charm, which is not always captured in newer developments.

In that regard, Hillsborough resembles other similar communities in Northern California such as Atherton, Los Altos Hills, and Woodside, and still offers escape from the pressures of the city. In addition to its generally quiet atmosphere, Hillsborough has excellent, award winning public schools, public works, and stability. These are qualities that have formed the character of the town for over 100 years.

Hillsborough Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
3 -322-
2 PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION
-323-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Introduction
The Town of Hillsborough conducted a robust public engagement campaign to build community consensus and ensure transparency throughout the Housing Element update process. The Town’s multifaceted approach involved the establishment of a Housing Element Advisory Committee, a series of public meetings and elected and appointed official updates, one-on-one meetings with potential opportunity site property owners, a project website, online questionnaires, e-newsletters, community-wide mailings, and more as detailed in the schedule of participation below. Additional detail on the purpose, process, and outcomes of the public workshops and online questionnaires is included in the following pages while full summaries are included in the Public Outreach Appendix.

Feedback received through these many avenues formed the foundation of the policies, programs, actions, and opportunity sites included in this Housing Element. This document reflects the community’s vision for expanding housing opportunity and affordability for all current and future residents while protecting community character and the Town’s beloved sense of place.

Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and guidelines regarding social distancing in place during the majority of the Housing Element update process, the majority of outreach activities were conducted virtually. • Electronic and Mailed Communications
• 88 e-announcements (electronic)
• 4 Town Newsletter articles (paper; sent to all Hillsborough residents) • 1 Hillsborough Living article (paper and electronic)
• 1 informational handout (paper; distributed at Light Up the Town, Celebrate May, and available at the public information counter at Town Hall and the Hillsborough Police Department) • 2 post cards (paper; sent to all Hillsborough residents) • 7 invitations to participate in the public review process sent Hillsborough City School District (HCSD) families (electronic; via the HCSD newsletter)
• Virtual Engagement
• 2 community-wide questionnaires (online)
• 7 Housing Element Advisory Committee meetings (one upcoming) • 17 City Council Subcommittee meetings
• 14 City Council Meetings
• 1 Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB) Meeting • 5 Citizen Communications Advisory Committee (CCAC) Meetings • 1 community-wide virtual Visioning Workshop
• 1 community-wide virtual Open House
• In-Person Engagement
• In-person Open House #1 on August 18, 2022
• In person Open House #2 on September 6, 2022
• City Council Study Session on September 12, 2022
• City Council Meeting to review policy alternatives on September 26, 2022 • City Council Meeting to review revised Draft Housing Element on October 10, 2022 Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
5 -324-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
City Council Subcommittee
Two representatives of the Hillsborough City Council were included in the Housing Element Subcommittee. The role of the City Council Subcommittee was to provide strategic direction to Hillsborough staff and the consultant team as well as act as a liaison to the wider City Council.

Housing Element Advisory Committee
A 17 person ad-hoc committee to the Director of Building and Planning was formed to advise Town of Hillsborough staff on the Housing Element update. The Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC) was comprised of Town residents with a broad range of perspectives, ages, abilities, and backgrounds. HEAC members were selected through an application process that was open to all residents of Hillsborough. In the application, prospective members were asked:

1. What experience do you bring? Please explain any skills, experience or other factors that you feel uniquely qualify you to serve on the Town of Hillsborough HEAC.

2. What civic affiliations and community activities have you been involved in?

3. Why are you interested in serving on the HEAC?
The Committee will meet 8 times throughout the course of the update process and provided invaluable feedback that was integral to the development of this document. Additional detail on the purpose, process, and outcomes of the HEAC meetings is included in the following pages and full summaries as well as links to meeting recordings, agendas, and other materials are included in the Public Outreach Appendix.

Public Workshops
Virtual Visioning Workshop
Purpose
The Virtual Visioning Workshop was held to provide the community with an overview of the RHNA and California Housing Element update process and discuss how this applies to the Town. The workshop also aimed to collect stakeholder and citizen feedback to generate ideas for potential Town-specific approaches to meet the Town’s RHNA and to gain insight on the greatest challenges and opportunities that face Hillsborough.

Process
Eleven Hillsborough residents participated in the Virtual Visioning Workshop as well as Town staff and members of the consultant team.

The workshop began with an introduction of the consulting team, a workshop agenda and a detailed project introduction that described the RHNA and Housing Element update process. The workshop then transitioned into a visioning exercise where participants were split into breakout rooms. Facilitated discussion questions were then asked to gather feedback on strategies Hillsborough should consider to meet the Town’s RHNA, and challenges and opportunities the community feels are most important. Participants then regrouped and presented the major themes from the breakout room discussions to the larger group. Question-and-answer segments were conducted throughout the workshop in which attendees could provide written input through the Zoom chat feature.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
6 -325-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Outcomes
Highlights from the facilitated discussion questions include:

What strategies could the Town consider using in order to successfully meet the state mandate? Participants discussed that increased density on Town owned sites near transit and amenities are appropriate strategies to be considered in Hillsborough. Participants also shared that amending the Town’s zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for more density and affordable units and increasing housing diversity through alternative housing types that complement the existing character of Hillsborough would also be appropriate strategies.

What do you think is the best way to address the state’s affordability requirements? Participants discussed inclusionary zoning to allow for affordable housing through ADU’s and multi-family development as good ways to address the states affordability requirements. Additionally, participants would like to see new workforce and senior housing, and to explore subsidies to fund affordable housing and supporting infrastructure projects.

What about the RHNA 6 process are you most concerned about? Participants discussed that the process lacks a holistic approach to meet the Town’s housing needs, that they are concerned about the effectiveness of zoning to meet future housing demands, and the impacts of zoning changes in high fire hazard severity zones.

What opportunities do you see for the Town as a part of the RHNA 6 process? Participants discussed that there is opportunity for an inclusive, Town-wide discussion on housing challenges in Hillsborough and an opportunity to brainstorm creative solutions as a community.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
7 -326-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
HEAC Meeting 1
Purpose
HEAC Meeting 1 was intended to be an introductory meeting to introduce the Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC), the RHNA and California Housing Element update process, and how it applies to the Town. The meeting also provided the HEAC with an overview of the Virtual Visioning Workshop and discussed major themes from the participant’s feedback.

Process
The meeting was joined by 32 participants which included HEAC members, Town staff, the consultant team, the Housing Element City Council Subcommittee, and members of the public.

HEAC Meeting 1 started off with introducing Town staff, the consultant teams, and the HEAC members, followed by an overview of HEAC member roles and responsibilities, an overview of the Housing Element update and RHNA process, and an opportunity for question-and-answer. The meeting then opened general poll questions for HEAC members to respond to, as summarized in the outcomes section below. After the poll questions were answered, the presenter provided an overview of the feedback received from the facilitated discussion questions during the Virtual Visioning Workshop. Then the presenter discussed how HEAC members can spread the word to community members to participate in the Housing Element update process. Then project next steps were reviewed, and a second question-and-answer opportunity was given. The meeting concluded with an opportunity for public input.

Outcomes
The HEAC members were asked to answer general poll questions regarding the Housing Element update. Below are the key themes from the poll questions. A full summary of the poll is available on the Housing Element webpage on the Town's website.

What do you like most about living in Hillsborough?
Quality schools and sense of safety and security received the most votes, with 23 percent of HEAC members choosing the topics.

Single-family residential character received the second most votes with 17 percent of members choosing for the topic.

As the Town seeks to meet the state mandate to plan for 554 new housing units at all levels of affordability, which housing types do you feel are most appropriate for Hillsborough? Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units received the most votes, with 22 percent of HEAC members choosing this housing type. Mixed income senior housing received the second most votes with 20 percent of HEAC members choosing this housing type.

How can Hillsborough address housing affordability within Town limits? The allowance for an increase in density received the most votes, with 19 percent of HEAC members choosing this option. Encouraging preservation of existing smaller-scale housing received the second most votes with 16 percent of HEAC members choosing this option.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
8 -327-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
HEAC Meeting 2
Purpose
HEAC Meeting 2 was held to introduce the HEAC members to the Public Safety Element, Land Use Element and recent State legislation that will influence the 6th cycle Housing Element update. The meeting also gave Town staff and the consultant team an opportunity to address questions that the HEAC members submitted via email prior to the meeting during the question-and-answer.

Process
The meeting was joined by 35 participants which included HEAC members, Town staff, the consultant team, the Housing Element City Council Subcommittee, and members of the public.

HEAC Meeting 2 started off by introducing the consultant teams and their roles in the process, followed by an overview of the Public Safety Element, and an opportunity for question-and-answer. The presenter then provided an overview of the Land Use Element followed by a second opportunity for question-and-answer. The next part of the meeting included an overview of Housing Element related legislation relevant to the 6th cycle Housing Element update and a third opportunity for question-and-answer. The presenter then went over the project next steps and how HEAC members can spread the word to community members to participate in the Housing Element update process. The meeting concluded with an overview of the ADU Survey, which was sent out after the meeting, a question-and-answer opportunity regarding the ADU survey, and an opportunity for public input.

Outcomes
HEAC meeting 2 was intended to provide the HEAC members with an overview of the Land Use Element, Public Safety Element, and Housing Element related legislation. Question-and-answer opportunities were provided for each topic where the HEAC members asked clarifying questions regarding each topic. The outcome of the meeting was a better understanding of the various elements and related legislation by HEAC members.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
9 -328-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
HEAC Meeting 3
Purpose
HEAC Meeting 4 was held for HEAC members to discuss the how, what, and where in regard to housing to meet Hillsborough’s RHNA requirements, to provide direction for the development of the policies and programs to be included in the Town’s Housing Element, and to identify what additional data is needed to further inform the HEAC members to reach consensus. Process The meeting was joined by 38 participants which included HEAC members, Town staff, the consultant team, the Housing Element City Council Subcommittee, and members of the public.

HEAC Meeting 3 started off with a welcome from the Housing Element City Council Subcommittee. Then, HEAC members were given the opportunity to ask questions regarding the pre-meeting reading materials that were sent to the group and covered the Town’s housing needs, constraints and opportunities. The presenter then provided an overview of the meeting goals and discussion format, followed by the meeting discussion which was structured around three questions as summarized in the outcomes section below.

The meeting concluded with project next steps, and an opportunity for public input.

Outcomes
The HEAC members answered three questions from a survey that was sent prior to the meeting. Below is summary of the key takeaways from the responses of each question. A full summary of the results of the Hillsborough HEAC Meeting 3 Prep Questionnaire is included in the Public Outreach Appendix.

What housing types and densities would you find acceptable in Hillsborough? HEAC members discussed that housing types such as ADUs, JADUs, smaller single-family detached homes, duplexes, and fourplexes may be appropriate in Hillsborough. They also expressed that increased density throughout the community should be accomplished through lot splits while greater density should be concentrated near El Camino Real due its proximity to transit stops.

Where in Hillsborough should these new housing types and densities be located? HEAC members discussed that multiple ADUs per lot and Missing Middle Housing types should be allowed throughout the Town, and that higher density housing should be located in areas near transportation like the Town owned property, the DeGuigne estate, as well as school and country club property. They also mentioned that higher density housing should be located in areas near transportation such as El Camino Real, Crystal Springs Road and I-280, and that developing new high-density housing should avoid open space and natural hazard areas.

How can the Town encourage/promote the development of these new housing types and densities? What barriers exist? How do we overcome them?
HEAC members discussed that the biggest barriers to developing new housing types in Hillsborough are public opposition, the Town’s current zoning ordinance standards, and the likeliness that developers will want to develop these housing types. The HEAC members discussed ways that Hillsborough can overcome these barriers and encourage the development of new housing types and densities through financial incentives that support higher density and affordable housing, amending the Town’s current zoning ordinance to enable new housing types and densities, and to provide transparency and education to residents.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
10 -329-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
HEAC Meeting 4
Purpose
HEAC meeting 4 was intended to provide an overview of the findings on the different strategies to meet Hillsborough’s RHNA, and then receive direction for the development of the policies and programs to be included in the Town’s Housing Element. The meeting also helped to identify what additional data is needed to further inform the HEAC members to reach a consensus.

Process
The meeting was joined by 34 participants which included HEAC members, Town staff, the consultant team, the Housing Element City Council Subcommittee, and the public.

HEAC Meeting 4 started off by introducing the consultant teams and a Housing Element City Council Subcommittee welcome, followed by a question-and-answer opportunity for the Hillsborough Preliminary Policies and Programs HEAC Feedback Questionnaire Summary. In April 2022, the Town of Hillsborough developed a preliminary list of policies and programs for inclusion in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The questionnaire was intended to gain feedback from HEAC members to continue to facilitate the development of policies and programs during the Housing Element Process. Then, HEAC members were provided with an understanding of how ADUs, subdivisions under current standards, and the development of the Town Hall Campus impact the Town’s RHNA. HEAC members were then asked to discuss their preferences regarding amendments to the subdivision standards as a strategy for planning for the remaining RHNA. The meeting concluded with project next steps, an opportunity for public input, and an opportunity for HEAC members to provide closing comments.

Outcomes
A follow up questionnaire was sent out to HEAC members after the meeting to gauge whether or not the group had reached consensus on key topics discussed. Below are the highlights of the Key Consensus Points Questionnaire A full summary of the results of the HEAC Meeting 4 Follow Up Questionnaire is available on the Housing Element webpage on the Town's website.

ADU’s
• 87 percent of HEAC members agree that ADU’s should be utilized to fulfill the Town’s RHNA requirements. • 80 percent of the HEAC members agree that more than one ADU should be allowed on a lot greater than one acre in size.

Town Hall Campus Site
• 73 percent of HEAC members agree that a density greater than 20 dwelling units per acre should be explored for the Town Hall Campus site.
• 100 percent of the HEAC members agree that building heights greater than 22-32 feet should be considered for the Town Hall Campus Site and 50 percent of HEAC members would support a building height of 6+ stories.

Subdivision Standards
• 40 percent of HEAC members agree that new standards for minimum lot area and lot width should be explored to encourage the subdivision of existing lots.

Proximity to Transportation Corridors
• 80 percent of HEAC members agree that higher density housing should be allowed in key locations of the community. • 73 percent of HEAC members agree that the area within both a quarter mile and a half mile of El Camino Real is a key location for higher density housing.
• 60 percent of HEAC members agree that the area within a quarter mile of I-280/Black Mountain Road is a key location for higher density housing.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
11 -330-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
HEAC Meeting 4.5
Purpose
HEAC Meeting 4.5 was held to have additional discussion, carried over from HEAC Meeting 4, on how the Town can meet its RHNA focusing on zoning standards.

Process
The meeting was joined by 32 participants which included HEAC members, Town staff, the consultant team, the Housing Element City Council Subcommittee, and members of the public.

HEAC Meeting 4.5 began with a Housing Element City Council Subcommittee welcome, followed by an overview of where the Town currently is in the Housing Element update process, and an overview of the responses to the Key Consensus points questionnaire that was sent out after HEAC meeting 4. The meeting then transitioned into the main discussion, which continued from HEAC meeting 4. Prior to the discussion, the presenter provided an overview of how new base and overlay zoning districts could be established to allow for more density. Then each HEAC member answered a series of questions regarding these strategies. The meeting concluded with an overview of the project next steps, and an opportunity for public input.

Outcomes
A follow up questionnaire was sent out to HEAC members after the meeting to gauge whether or not the group had reached consensus on key topics discussed. Below are the highlights of the Key Consensus Points Questionnaire A full summary of the results of the HEAC Meeting 4.5 Follow Up Questionnaire is included in the Public Outreach Appendix.

Affordable Housing Overlay
83 percent of HEAC members agree that an affordable housing overlay district should be established.

New Base Zoning District
67 percent of HEAC members agree that a new base zoning district that allows for higher density missing middle housing, should be established.

Senior Village
83 percent of HEAC members agree that a Senior Village that consists of multiple, small-scale single-family homes on a single lot, should be allowed on properties 10 acres and larger.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
12 -331-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
City Council Project Updates
Purpose
The City Council has discussed the Housing Element Update at 14 individual meetings. Many meetings, staff brought the item to provide the City Council and community with an update of the Housing Element Update status.

Process
The initial meetings included a detailed project introduction that described the RHNA and Housing Element update process, an overview of the project timeline. At subsequent meeting, staff provided the status of the project, a summary of what has been completed, upcoming HEAC meetings and project next steps with an opportunity for question-and-answer. At each meeting staff provided information on how to stay up to date with the Town’s Housing Element update and how to provide feedback.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
13 -332-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Online Questionnaires
Housing Element Questionnaire
Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element Questionnaire was to identify the community’s housing needs and priorities, as well as identify the community’s preferred choices to meeting the Town’s state housing requirements. The responses gathered from this initial questionnaire has served as an overall foundation for the Town’s strategy to meet its RHNA requirement. This questionnaire was shared through ArcGIS Survey123 after the initial Virtual Visioning Workshop and continued to be available throughout the Housing Element update process. A total of 72 surveys were collected.

Outcomes
Highlights from the Housing Element Questionnaire are included below. A full summary of the results of the Hillsborough Housing Element Survey is included in the Public Outreach Appendix.

What do you like most about living in Hillsborough?
Single-family residential character received the most votes with 76 percent of participants choosing this option. Sense of safety and security received the second most votes, with 67 percent of participants choosing this topic.

How important do you think these housing-related challenges are in Hillsborough? Concerns about environmental impacts on new housing received the most votes with 40 percent of participants voting that this challenge is very important. Concerns about increased traffic and parking for new housing received the second most votes, with 38 percent of participants voting that this challenge is very important.

As the Town seeks to meet the state mandate to plan for 554 new housing units at all levels of affordability, which housing types do you feel are most appropriate for Hillsborough? (Select your top three answers).

ADUs and JADUs received the most votes with 68 percent of participants choosing this option. Smaller single-family homes on smaller lots received the second most votes, with 46 percent of participants choosing this topic.

How can Hillsborough address housing affordability within Town limits? (Select your top three answers).

Encourage preservation of existing smaller-scale housing (preventing up-sizing) received the most votes with 44 percent of participants choosing this option. Streamline residential approval process (ADRB) received the second most votes, with 42 percent of participants choosing this topic.

What do you think are the most important ways to ensure housing opportunities are available to all members of Hillsborough, especially those who have not had fair access to housing in the past? (Select your top three answers).

Education and counseling on fair housing received the most votes with 33 percent of participants choosing this option. Landlord and tenant counseling services received the second most votes, with 24 percent of participants choosing this topic.

Is there anything else you would like to tell us about housing needs in Hillsborough? In general, Participants shared that they would like to see ADU and infill development that supports aging in place and employee housing. Participants also expressed concerns about new development due to the desire to preserve the Town’s character, quality schools and open space, and concerns of development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
14 -333-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
ADU Questionnaire
Purpose
The purpose of the ADU Questionnaire was to gain input on the community’s opinions towards ADU development. The questionnaire was broken into three parts. The first was aimed at current ADU owners, the second to homeowners who are interested in building an ADU on their property, and the third to homeowners who are not interested in building an ADU on their property. This questionnaire was shared through ArcGIS Survey123 after the second HEAC Meeting. A total of 160 responses were collected.

Outcomes
Highlights from the Current ADU Owner Questionnaire are listed below:
• 54 percent of respondents intend for their ADU to be occupied by a renter. A majority answered that they charge a monthly rent of $0-$2,175.
• Easing zoning standards, speeding up the ADRB process, and providing tax incentives were cited as ways that Town could encourage property owners to build a second ADU.

Highlights from the Perspective ADU Owner Questionnaire are listed below:
• 54 percent of respondents would intend for their ADU to be occupied by a renter and a majority answered that they charge a monthly rent of $2,176-$3,480.
• Minimizing the time and cost, providing development subsidies, assistance with finding a tenant and providing legal advice on laws and regulations were cited as ways that Town could incentivize perspective ADU owners to offer their ADU at a more affordable rental rate.
• Providing financial incentives and reducing the cost and the ADRB process were cited as ways that the Town could encourage perspective ADU owners to build an ADU. Additionally, some participants shared that there was nothing the Town could do to encourage ADU construction due to the lack of space or need for an ADU.

Highlights from the Homeowner Questionnaire are listed below:

Simplifying and providing assistance with the permitting and review process, amending the Town’s zoning ordinance to be less restrictive, and providing financial incentives were cited as ways that the Town could encourage Homeowners not interested in an ADU to build an ADU or JADU. Providing advice and assistance on current ADU laws, regulations and the planning process, allowing for more flexibility with the Town’s zoning standards, and providing financial incentives were cited as additional ways the Town could encourage residents to build an ADU or JADU.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
15 -334-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Preliminary Policies and Programs Questionnaire
Purpose
The purpose of the Preliminary Policies and Programs Questionnaire was to gauge the HEAC members position on the appropriateness of the preliminary policies and programs that the Town had developed. The HEAC members were asked to rate each program with 1, 2, or 3 stars based on its appropriateness for Hillsborough. The results helped to refine the policies and programs included herein.

Outcomes
The top three programs that were most favorable to the HEAC members are listed below with the most common responses for each.

A full summary of the results of the Preliminary Policies and Programs Questionnaire is included in the Public Outreach Appendix.

Program 1 of Policy 2: Improve internal procedures to make it easier for property owners to develop ADUs and JADUs.
85 percent of HEAC members gave this program 3 stars and explained their rating by stating that this program would be very effective and favored by the public. The HEAC members would also like to see an analysis on the administrative cost of this program, the degree to which this program would help to accelerate the development process, and what the primary barriers to developing ADU’s currently are.

Program 2 of Policy 2: Improve public information on the ADU application and permit process so it is clear and comprehensive.
92 percent of HEAC members gave this program 3 stars and explained their rating by stating that this program would streamline the process, offer development incentives and would enable communication to residents on the process. Additionally, HEAC members would also like make sure this information is clearly explained so everyone can understand the process and would like to see the Town encourage residents to communicate with one another.

Program 4 of Policy 9: Develop a plan to better meet the needs of seniors. Provide education and outreach on all options for seniors, including “age in place”, assisted living, and independent living (Carried forward from the Town's Cycle 5 Housing Element).
92 percent of HEAC members gave this program 3 stars and explained their rating by stating that this program would allow senior residents to remain in Hillsborough. The HEAC members would also like to provide outreach to senior residents to clarify what their housing needs are.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
16 -335-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Public Workshops: Public Review Draft
To facilitate robust community engagement in the refinement of the Public Review Draft Housing Element, the City Council extended the required 30-day public comment period by 10 days. The public comment period began with a presentation of the draft document to the Town Council in a public work session where public comment was received. Then, during the 45-day public comment and review period, the Town hosted two community Open Houses to collect comments and feedback on the Draft Housing Element from the public.

Open House #1 on August 18, 2022: 80 members of the community attended.

Open House #2 on September 6, 2022: 134 members of the community attended.

After the public open houses, the key themes of public comments received to date were presented to the City Council in a public work session where public comment was received. Then, after the close of the 45-day public review period, alternative policy directions, drafted based on the feedback received from the public, were presented to the City Council in a public work session where public comment was received.

Recordings and PDFs of presentations made at the City Council work sessions discussed above are available on the Town's website https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/City-Council-3 Hillsborough Housing Element | Public Participation
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
17 -336-
3 REVIEW OF PAST

PERFORMANCE
-337-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Overview
As a part of the RHNA 6 Housing Element update, state housing element law requires communities to assess their progress in achieving the policies and programs that they committed to in their previously adopted Housing Element. This analysis should include the following components:
• Progress & Effectiveness: How much progress was made in implementing the plans that the jurisdiction outlined in the previous element? How successful was the jurisdiction during the last RHNA cycle in achieving the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of their previous housing element and, more specifically, what has been the cumulative impact on special needs populations?
• Appropriateness & Lessons Learned: What was learned in the last RHNA cycle, and how has that informed the current RHNA 6 housing element update?
The following narrative will outline the Town’s key accomplishments during the RHNA 5 period, assess the overall progress and effectiveness of the RHNA 5 policies and programs, and discuss RHNA 5 lessons learned and applied to the Town’s RHNA 6 update.

Discussion
RHNA 5: Progress and Effectiveness
The Town laid out the following four goals during the RHNA 5 cycle, and overall, the Town was exceptionally effective in achieving them. These goals and an overview of the Town’s key accomplishments related to each are outlined below. A full overview of the Town’s progress in accomplishing the goals outlined in the RHNA 5 policies and programs is provided in Table 3.3.

Goal 1: Increase Housing opportunities in Hillsborough and surrounding communities Key Action: The Town issued building permits for 192 of the 91-unit RHNA 5 allocation.

Between January 1, 2014-December 31, 2021, the Town issued building permits for 192 new units, exceeding the 91 RHNA 5 allocation by 111%. Per the most recent SB 35 Determination Memo issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on June 30, 2022, the Town of Hillsborough is one of only 38 jurisdictions in the state to have achieved this goal.

The Town has satisfied the RHNA 5 income category distribution assignment as follows:
• Very Low-, Low- and Moderate-Income Units: In the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town was assigned 70 units in the very low, low- and moderate-income categories. The Town has exceeded this assignment through the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), discussed in greater detail, below. In 2021 alone the Town received 89 applications for ADU development, issued planning entitlements for 82 ADUs, and issued building permits for 64 ADUs. • Above-moderate Income Units: To date the Town has issued permits for 30 of the 21 above-moderate units needed by the end of 2022, primarily through the development of net new single-family homes on vacant lots (note that this is not one-for one replacement on previously developed lots).

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
19 -338-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.1, below, demonstrates the breakout all building permits by income category, following the HCD-approved methodology identified in the Town’s certified RHNA 5 Housing Element.

Key Action: Technological Upgrades Made to Streamline the Development Review Process During the RHNA Cycle 5 period the Town consistently worked to improve and streamline the development review process. Improvements since 2014 included:
• Making back-end changes to the Town’s aging permit tracking system to allow building permit applications to be submitted an online portal;
• Establishing a workflow to enable digital planning application submissions via the use of a cloud-based .ftp site; • Allowing payment by credit card and e-check at no fee to applicants • Securing funding for an upgrade to the Town’s aging permit tracking software, including an approved General Fund allocation request and SB2 grant award;
• Soliciting proposals from cloud-based permit tracking software vendors in preparation for an upgrade to the Town’s platform; • Executing a contract with the selected vendor and beginning upgrade rollout. Once training is completed (late 2022) the new application submittal program will be available for both planning and building division applications, and available to applicants 24-hours/day, 365 days/year.

Table 3.1: Town of Hillsborough RHNA 5 Building Permits Issued by Income Category
RHNA Allocation
per
Income Level
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Units
(all years)
32 Very Low 16 4 8 6 9 9 24 76
17 Low 8 2 3 4 2 7 18 44
21 Moderate 10 2 4 3 4 6 13 42
21 Above Moderate 5 2 3 3 5 3 9 30
Total RHNA 91
Total Units 39 10 18 16 20 25 64 192
Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
20 -339-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Goal 2: Housing consistent with the character of the community Key Action: Significant Increase in Accessory Dwelling Unit Production The Town of Hillsborough has only one zoning district, Residence District (RD), and the sole housing type allowed within that zone is single-family residential. As such, given their small scale and low-density (currently only one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit are permitted per single-family home), ADUs are the housing development type most consistent with the character of the Hillsborough community.

As such, the Town of Hillsborough has a strong track record of supporting and encouraging accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. In response, the Town has seen a significant uptick in ADU development applications during RHNA Cycle 5. The Town’s ADU Permits Issued by year for the years between 2014-2022 (June) are outlined in Table 3.2.

To support this trend and facilitate further ADU development, in 2020 the Town established an ADU Ombudsman program staffed by an ADU Specialist specifically trained to guide people through the Town’s ADU review and approval processes. Since the establishment of this program, ADU development has doubled since June 2017.

Goal 3: A continuum of housing opportunities for
the members of the Hillsborough community in all stages of life with or without disabilities Key Action: The Town exceeded the annual RHNA 5 funding goal for County homeless and transitional programs by an average of 36% per year During the RHNA 5 Cycle, the Town contributed annual grant awards to County homeless and transitional programs such as the Human Investment Project (HIP housing), HEART of San Mateo County, LifeMoves, and the County of San Mateo Department of Human Services. The Town’s objective was to contribute $7,000 per year to these efforts, but rather contributed an average of $9,500 per annum, an additional $2,500/year, or an increase of 36%.

Goal 4: Equal Housing Opportunities for All
Key Action: Approval of Request for Reasonable Accommodation During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town continued to implement Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance, Requests for Reasonable Accommodation, to expedite retrofit efforts and to allow for exceptions to development standards to best accommodate disabled community members and to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Town received and timely granted one such request during the RHNA Cycle 5 period, the first such request to the Town during the RHNA 5 cycle and the only such request in recent memory. The Town also provided guidance to several other individuals considering submitting Reasonable Accommodation requests, and is committed to providing flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Table 3.2: ADU Building Permits
Issued By Year
Year ADU Building
Permits
Issued
2014 16
2015 39
2016 10
2017 18
2018 16
2019 20
2020 25
2021 64
2022 (Jan-September) 45
Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
21 -340-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
RHNA 5: Lessons Learned & Policy Appropriateness for RHNA 6 Much has changed since 2014 and much has been learned during the RHNA 5 Cycle that has informed the Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update. Key insights are outlined below:

ADUs for the Win in Single-Family Residential Communities With appropriate promotion and support, ADUs can be an extremely successful and housing solution in predominately built-out, single-family residential communities.
• This lesson learned is captured in the Housing Element Update in Policy 2: Promote the Construction and Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The goals under this policy will include:
• Continuing to support and fund a Town ADU Ombudsman to guide property owners through the Town’s ADU process. • Allowing one JADU and ADU on lots one acre and larger on qualifying parcels. • Creating programs to encourage and expedite the conversion of accessory structures to recorded ADUs/JADUs and retroactive permitting for existing, unpermitted ADUs.

Government Must Move at the Speed of Technology
The world is becoming ever more digital and ever less paper based. Applicants expect the ability to interface with their government in 24-hours/day, 7 days/week, and do not expect to pay extra to do so (e.g. convenience fees) • This lesson learned is captured in the Housing Element Update in Policy 1, through the Town’s plan to complete the update of our permit tracking software to offer a streamlined, user-friendly web-based platform accessible to applicants 24-hours/day, 365 days/year.

Every Little Bit Helps
Providing funding to housing related programs is critical, and more can always be done. • This lesson learned is captured in the Housing Element Update in Policy 3: Facilitate Housing Development on Public, Recreational, and Institutional Sites, through a Town-owned property study to identify those properties which may be suitable for future redevelopment for housing.
• This lesson learned is additionally captured in Policy 6: Actively Participate in Addressing the Housing Needs of the Region, where the Town plans to continue to provide financial support to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs, such as the Human Investment Project (HIP housing), HEART of San Mateo County, LifeMoves, and the County of San Mateo Human Services.
• The Town plans to develop and adopt a Town philanthropy policy which establishes consistency in giving to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs whose organizational missions align with the Town’s value statement.

Specificity = Achievability
Broad objective and goal statements may be intended to be all-encompassing; however, focused, quantifiable actions best allow for an objective analysis of progress—and positive recalibration, if needed.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
22 -341-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
RHNA 5: Cumulative Impact of RHNA 5 Policies and Programs in Meeting Housing Needs of Special Needs Populations
The Town remains committed to eliminating discrimination in housing and meeting housing needs of Special Needs Populations.

The most notable implementation is through the Town’s implementation of Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation) to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Housing that is accessible to people with disabilities has been identified as a special housing need in the town’s housing element adopted in 2002.

Chapter 17.42 of the Town’s Municipal Code establishes a formal procedure for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing to request for reasonable accommodation may include a request for modification or exception to the Land Use Rules for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of that person’s choice. To date the Town has granted all requests for reasonable accommodation.

Information related to fair housing laws is easily available on the Town’s website and at key Town facilities, including the Town Hall Campus and Police Station.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
23 -342-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.3: Town of Hillsborough Previous Housing Element Evaluation 2014‐2021 Housing Element Program - Progress: RHNA Cycle 5 Goal 1: Increase Housing opportunities in Hillsborough and surrounding communities Policy 1-A: Actively participate in meeting the housing needs of the community. 1-A1 Appoint a councilmember for regional housing
efforts.

YES
For the duration of RHNA Cycle 5 the City Council has annually appointed a councilmember to represent the Town and provide continuing participation with Association of Bay Area Governemnts (ABAG).
1-A2 Work with nearby communities to explore
subregional housing needs and solutions and
develop innovative ideas to increase the supply
of housing.

YES
During the RHNA Cycle 5 the Town has participated in the following local collaborative efforts:
• The 21 Elements project, a collaboroative, housing-related information and resource sharing group of all 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County. • The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) "Shift the Bay" 8-series housing learning lab.
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) "Wildfires and Housing" 5-series learning lab.
• The "Little Four" meetings, a regular collaboration and brainstorming effort of the four small, high-resource, predominately single family communities in San Mateo County
• Annual "Housing Leadership Day" hosted by the Housing Leadership Council
1-A3 Work with local institutions under Chapter

17.16 of the Zoning Ordinance to consider
developing employee housing on existing
institutional lands in Hillsborough.

YES
• In June 2003 the Town updated Chapter 17.16.030 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code to allow housing on Private school properties via an amendment to their special use permit. This language remained in place for the durantion of RHNA Cycle 5.
• The Town annually undertakes an analysis of Town-owned properties to assess what sites may be identified as surplus and reports such properties on in its Annual Progress Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for addition to the list of sites to be made available to affordable housing developers.
• In May, 2022 the Town initiated a study of the Town-owned Town Hall Campus site to determine how the site may be re-developed to include mixed-income housing. This study will continue into the RHNA 6 Cycle. 1-A4 Promote development of affordable
multifamily housing on nearby institutional
lands, such as Burlingame Country Club.

YES
• In June 2003 the Town updated Chapter 17.16.030 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code to allow housing on Private school properties via an amendement to their special use permit. This language remained in place for the duration of RHNA Cycle 5.
• In June 2003 the Town updated Chapter 17.16.010 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code to allow housing by right on the Burlingame Country Club property. This language remained in place for the duration of RHNA Cycle

5. Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
24 -343-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.3: Town of Hillsborough Previous Housing Element Evaluation 2014‐2021 Housing Element Program - Progress: RHNA Cycle 5 1-A5 Evaluate and report annually to the City
Council on progress in developing cooperative
solutions to regional housing issues.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town has been actively involved in subregional housing planning efforts via participation with the following groups:
• The 21 Elements project, a collaboroative, housing-related information and resource sharing group of all 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County. • The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) "Shift the Bay" 8-series housing learning lab.
• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) "Wildfires and Housing" 5-series learning lab.
• The "Little Four" meetings, a regular collaboration and brainstorming effort of the four small, high-resource, predominately single family communities in San Mateo County
• Annual "Housing Leadership Day" hosted by the Housing Leadership Council
• The Town reports on its efforts annually to Council in March as a part of the Annual Progress Report (APR) submittal to HCD.
1-A6 Contribute to County homeless and transitional
programs and partner with existing programs.

Objective is $7,000 per annum funding.

YES
• -During the RHNA Cycle 5 period, the Town contributed annual grant awards to the Human Investment Project (HIP housing), HEART of San Mateo County, LifeMoves, and the County of San Mateo Human Services. • From 2014-2022, the contribution goal of $7,000/year was exceeded by 36%. The Town contribted and an average of $9,500 per annum, an additional $2,500/year.

Policy 1-B: Facilitate the private development of housing in Hillsborough. 1-B1 Process design review applications and building
permits promptly. Continue to assist in the
housing development process. Objective is to
have 21 above-moderate income units built.

YES
• During the RHNA Cycle 5 period the Town consistently worked to improve and streamline the development review process. Improvements since 2014 included making technological upgrades to allow permit applications to be submitted online (2020), the acceptance of payment by credit card and echeck (2020), the hiring of an ADU ombudman to assist ADU applicants in navigating the application process applications (2020), the hiring of additional full-time Planning staff to assist with administrative application processing (2021), and timely updates to the Town's municipal code in response to state housing legislation (ongoing).
• As of June 30th, 2022 the Town has issued building permits for 192 net new units, exceeding the 91 total unit RHNA 5 allocation by 111%. • As of June 30th, 2022 the Town has exceeded the goals for every AMI income category assigned in RHNA Cycle 5.

Policy 1-C: Continue to improve the land use entitlement process. 1-C1 Maintain a list of certified mediators who
specialize in land issues. Cost of the mediator is
borne by landowners.

NONE
1-C2 Partner with Peninsula Conflict Resolution
Center (PCRC). Services range from one time
help resolving a conflict to ongoing assistance
and mediation.

YES
• Throughout the RHNA 5 cycle the Town continued to support the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) via an annual contract for services.

Under this contract, the Town provides funding to PCRC and Town staff can then refer conflicted parties to PCRC’s mediation services where they will pay a reduced/no fee for services.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
25 -344-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.3: Town of Hillsborough Previous Housing Element Evaluation 2014‐2021 Housing Element Program - Progress: RHNA Cycle 5 1-C3 Identify opportunities to use technology to
improve public outreach and customer service.

YES
• The Town has made technological upgrades to it's ageing permit tracking software program to allow permit applications to be submitted online and the acceptance of payment by credit card and e-check (2020). • The Town has entered into contract for a new, cloud-based permit tracking software to facilitate and further streamlined and user-friendly application process (2022). Once training is completed (late 2022) the new application submittal program will be available to applicants 24-hours/day, 365 days/ year.

Policy 1-D: Use vacant land on the periphery of Hillsborough to increase housing opportunities. 1-D1 Consider annexations of adjacent land
to Hillsborough that permit housing
opportunities. Objectives: 20 units; 12 AboveModerate units, 1 moderate income second unit, 2 second units affordable to low-income
households, 1 affordable to very low-income
households, and 4 affordable to extremely lowincome households.

YES
• While no annexations occurred during the RHNA 5 Cycle, the Town has periodically approached property owners of land adjacent to Hillsborough, including the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), to discuss potential annexation and land swap opportunities which might support the development of additional housing. To date, none of these entities has reciprocated interest; however, the Town remains open to such conversations in the future.

Goal 2: Housing consistent with the character of the community.

Policy 2-A: Allow subdivision of existing vacant lots larger than one acre. 2-A1 Permit subdivision of vacant parcels for 2+ lots,
especially those that can accommodate two
or more half-acre lots, but cannot meet street
frontage or width requirements.

YES
• The Town has a codified process that allows exceptions from street frontage and lot width requirements when the City Engineer can make the findings that will such exceptions will not not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the town, and that here are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that make strict compliance with the subject requirement(s) unjustifiable, unnecessarry or unadvisable (Hillsborough Municipal Code Chapter 1.24).
• Using the above exception process, in 2020 the Town Council approved a new, 8-lot subdivision which could result in a total of up to 24 net-new units when considering the possibility of ADU and JADU development in addition to eight single family homes. This subdivision is the largest to occur in Town in recent history, and in the RHNA 5 cycle. • In 2021, the Town updated the Hillsborough Municipal Code to implement requirements of Senate Bill 9 (SB9), which allows all properties within a “single-family residential zone” to be subdivided into two parcels and to be developed with two primary dwelling units per lot, irrespective of local standards.

Policy 2-B Promote more housing options while preserving the character of Hillsborough. 2-B1 Continue to use the density bonus, as provided
by Chapter 17.60 of the Hillsborough Municipal
Code, to encourage affordable or senior
housing or both, as well as affordable housing
for families of five or more persons.

YES
• While no density bonus applications were received by the Town during the RHNA 5 cycle, the Town has adopted a density bonus ordinance pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and continues to allow density bonuses for projects meeting the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
26 -345-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.3: Town of Hillsborough Previous Housing Element Evaluation 2014‐2021 Housing Element Program - Progress: RHNA Cycle 5 Goal 3: A continuum of housing opportunities for the members of the Hillsborough community in all stages of life with or without disabilities.

Policy 3-A Support seniors and other special needs populations 3-A1 As required by State law, continue to allow
board and care facilities for six or fewer
residents. Objectives: 1 or more houses serving
6 seniors, disabled, and other qualifying
residents, as follows: 4 above moderate, 1
moderate income, and 1 low income.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the hown has continued to allow for Residential Care Facilities for the elderly in a single-family dwelling, pursuant to the requirements found in California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.85.
3-A2 Continue to ensure that the transitional and
supportive housing is allowed as specified in
State law.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the hown has continued to allow for Transitional and Supportive Housing purusuant to the requirements of and as defined respectively in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.2(h) and 50675.14(b).
3-A3 Inform local developers of opportunities to
provide transitional and supportive housing.

Primary outreach through information on the
Town website and through interacting with
developers.

NONE
3-A4 Continue to allow an emergency shelter at
the Town’s Civic Center within the former
fire station as a permitted use, subject to
standards, as required by State law.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the hown has continued to allow as a permitted use an Emergency Shelter pursiant to the requirements of and as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50801(e).
3-A5 Develop a plan to better meet the needs of
seniors. Consider the desire of most seniors to
“age in place,” and ensure that the senior plan
includes the input of all relevant stakeholders.

NONE
Policy 3-B: Continue to permit the renting of rooms in Hillsborough homes to provide additional housing opportunities for single people.
3-B1 Continue to allow the renting of individual
rooms in Hillsborough houses
YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the hown has continued to allow for long-term (30+ days) renting of individual rooms pursuant to Hillsborough Municipal Code 17.16.010 and as defined at 17.08.115.
3-B2 Continue to support and promote the shared
housing concept.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the hown has continued to allow for long-term (30+ days) renting of individual rooms pursuant to Hillsborough Municipal Code 17.16.010 and as defined at 17.08.115.
• During the RHNA Cycle 5 period, the Town contributed an annual grant award to the Human Investment Project (HIP housing) in the amount of $5,000/year.
• During the RHNA 5 cycle the Town maintained a partnership with HIP Housing to offer a home sharing program specifically for Hillsborough. This program connects Hillsborough homeowners with available rooms/ADUs/ JADUs to rent with housing seekers.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
27 -346-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.3: Town of Hillsborough Previous Housing Element Evaluation 2014‐2021 Housing Element Program - Progress: RHNA Cycle 5 Policy 3-C: Encourage both attached and detached second units where currently permitted. 3-C1 Continue to waive planning and building permit
fees for second units.

YES
• From Fiscal Year 2014/15 until Fiscal Year 2021/22 (Seven of eight RHNA Cycle 5 years) the Town waived all Planning and Building development application review fees for ADU and JADU applications.
• In Calendar Year 2020 interest in ADU development increased substantially. In response, the Town established an ADU Ombudsman program, hiring an ADU Specialist to guide people through the Town's ADU review and approval process. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2021/22 a modest application fee was re-added to the Town's Planning Division fee schedule so that the Town might recover a portion of the costs for this new program.

Building Division permit fees continue to be waived.
3-C2 Promote and Inform the public about
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Provide the
public with the specific information as to the
viability of ADUs, jADUs, and other secondary
dwelling units, as well as providing information
about potential funding sources to promote
secondary unit development.

YES
• In Calendar Year 2020 interest in ADU development increased substantially. In response, the Town established an ADU Ombudsman program, hiring an ADU Specialist to guide people through the Town's ADU review and approval process.
• The Town has readily available at Town Hall and online San Mateo County-produced ADU collateral providing information about potential funding sources to promote secondary unit development.
3-C3 Approve ADUs administratively; ascertain
planned use for ADU and affordability.

YES
• ADU review and approval is consistent with the state requirements for ADU permits and streamlining. During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Building & Planning Department has implemented permit streamlining processes for ministerial reviews of accessory dwelling units, which do not require discretionary planning review, in an effort to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable units.
3-C4 Permit property owners to legalize
unauthorized domestic housing when they are
upgraded to code.

YES
• In 2021, the Town updated Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code to provide additional options for property owners to legalize unpermitted housing units, while still ensuring compliance with applicable building standards, Health and Safety Codes, and fire department requirements. 3-C5 Implement additional measures to encourage
ADUs. Ensure that future ADU production
meets the needs of Hillsborough residents.

YES
• In Calendar Year 2020 the Town established an ADU Ombudsman program, hiring an ADU Specialist to guide people through the Town's ADU review and approval process.
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the town held an annual permitting and construction forum which includes a section specifically focused on ADU development.
• In 2021, the Town updated the zoning ordiance to implement all requirements of Senate Bill 9 (SB9), as appropriate. SB 9 allows all properties within a “single-family residential zone” to be subdivided into two parcels and developed with two primary dwelling units per lot, irrespective of local standards.
3-C6 Continue to allow rental (not short term rental)
of ADUs.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town has continued to allow for long-term (30+ days) renting of individual rooms and ADUs, pursuant to Hillsborough Municipal Code 17.16.010 and as defined at 17.08.115.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
28 -347-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Table 3.3: Town of Hillsborough Previous Housing Element Evaluation 2014‐2021 Housing Element Program - Progress: RHNA Cycle 5 Goal 4: Equal Housing Opportunities for All
Policy 4-A: Eliminate discrimination in housing based on age, race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or occupation.
4-A1 Continue to designate the City Attorney as the
appropriate City official to receive and forward
housing discrimination complaints. Support
fair access to housing for all persons without
regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry. Assemble
and promote the distribution of information to
landlords regarding fair housing. Involve Project
Sentinel to aid in housing problem resolution.

YES
• While the Town received no housing discrimination complaints during the RHNA 5 Cycle, the Town has continued to support fair access to housing for all regardless of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, with the City Attorney designated as the appropriate City official to receive and forward housing discrimination complaints. • During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town regularly updated the Housing Resources page of its website, which includes links to fair housing infomation. • During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town continued to maintain its connection with Project Sentinel, referring tenant/landlord related inquires to them. 4-A2 Continue to implement Chapter 17.42
of the Zoning Ordinance (Reasonable
Accommodation) to expedite retrofit efforts
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), require ADA compliance in all
new development that is subject to ADA,
and provide flexibility in the development of
housing for persons with disabilities.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town continued to implement Chapter

17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance (Reasonable Accommodation) to expedite retrofit efforts to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Chapter 17.42 complies with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Town received and granted one such request during the RHNA Cycle 5 period, providing flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities. • Housing that is accessible to people with disabilities has been identified as a special housing need in the Town's housing element as of 2002. 4-A3 Reach out to local service providers of special
needs groups to assist in the identification
and analysis of constraints to the provision of
housing for persons with disabilities.

YES
• During the RHNA 5 Cycle the Town continued to support and partner with local service providers to assist in the identification and analysis of constraints to the provision of housing for persons with disabilities via the 21 Elements project..

Hillsborough Housing Element | Review and Revision of Past Performance Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
29 -348-
4 GENERAL PLAN

CONSISTENCY
-349-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
General Plan Consistency
State law requires all elements of the General Plan to be consistent with each other. The Town will amend the General Plan, originally adopted in 2005, after the adoption of the Housing Element to ensure the Goals, Policies, and Programs of the General Plan correlate with the new Housing Element.

Section 65580(e) of the Government Code reads: “The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility … to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community [65580(e)] … each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.”
Hillsborough Housing Element | General Plan Consistency Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
31 -350-
5 HOUSING
NEEDS
-351-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Introduction
The Town of Hillsborough is located in San Mateo County, California with an area of 6.23 square miles and a current population of ~11,000. Incorporated in 1910, the Town is a general law city governed by a five-member City Council elected at-large, with a council-manager form of government. The Town employs approximately 90 staff who provide essential services including police protection, land use planning, building permitting and inspection, and maintenance of roads, public facilities, water, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructures. The Town also funds fire protection services provided by the Central County Fire Department. The Town is zoned exclusively single-family residential, with permitted non-residential uses including public and private schools, a country club, a racquet club, various public facilities, utility installations, and open space.

The Town of Hillsborough is a charming residential community located on the San Francisco Peninsula, bordering the Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo, in the northeastern part of San Mateo County. The town was founded in 1846 and was incorporated in 1910. Hillsborough sits about 20 miles south of San Francisco and about 38 miles north of San Jose, where its community character contrasts the densely urbanized cities surrounding it.

Directly west of Hillsborough, on the other side of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range, is the City of Half Moon Bay and the Pacific Ocean. To the east is the City of Burlingame, the San Francisco International Airport and the San Francisco Bay. Hillsborough is in close proximity to both the City and the scenic natural features of northern California.

The Town is substantially built out under its current development standards, making site identification for the purposes of net new RHNA units a somewhat challenging exercise. Currently, the Town is mostly built out with its housing stock consisting of single-family housing, some with Accessory Dwelling Units on their lots. The land that is zoned for residential uses in the Town has a maximum density of one single-family unit per half acre. The Town of Hillsborough has recognized the need for additional workforce housing and has permitted multi-family development on school and institutional properties.

Key Takeaways
• Median Age Increase: The 55+ population has experienced the most growth since 2000 • Lack of affordability/housing stock diversity: The average home value in Hillsborough is $4,571,820 according to Zillow, a 256% increase since 2001, with the largest portion of homes costing $2M+. Consistently, the largest portion of rentals cost $3,000 or more per month with the average rent in Hillsborough costing $3,200 per month, according to Zillow. In 2020, about 99% of these units were single-family residential and about 1% were 2–4-unit multi-family residential. • ADU Program: Hillsborough has the opportunity to expand its ADU program. • Inadequate amount of larger rental units compared to large families: Roughly 18% of Hillsborough households are large households of five or more people. In 2017, about 43% of large households paid 30% or more of their income on housing and about 4% of large households were in the very low-income bracket, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Larger households who are cost burdened could benefit from larger rental units with 3 or more bedrooms per unit. While 98% of the housing stock consists of housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, only 6% of these units were occupied by renters. • Large export of workers: Between 2002 and 2018 Hillsborough has seen about a 14% decrease in jobs with a .45 ratio of jobs to resident workers.
• Cost Burdened Households: 100% of extremely low-income homeowners and most low-income homeowners are cost burdened.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
33 -352-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Population Characteristics & Trends
The following describes and analyzes the various population characteristics and trends in Hillsborough that affect housing need.

Population Growth
Since 2000, Hillsborough’s population has increased by 5.5%; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In Hillsborough, roughly 7.1% of its population moved during the past year, a number 6.3 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of

13.4%.

In 2020, the population of Hillsborough was estimated to be 11,418 (Figure 5.1: Population Growth Trends). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 1.5%, while it remained stable in the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 5.5%. The population of Hillsborough makes up 1.5% of San Mateo County. 10,825 10,945 10,825 11,322 11,418
707,163 719,844 718,451 761,748 773,244
6,784,348
7,073,912
7,150,739
7,595,694
7,790,537
6,200,000
6,400,000
6,600,000
6,800,000
7,000,000
7,200,000
7,400,000
7,600,000
7,800,000
8,000,000
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Millions
Thousands
Population Growth Trends
Population Hillsborough Population San Mateo County Population Bay Area Figure 5.1: Population Growth Trends
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
34 -353-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Age Composition
The age structure of a population is also an important factor in evaluating housing and community development needs and determining the direction of future housing development. Typically, each age group has distinct lifestyles, family types and sizes, incomes, and housing preferences. As people move through each stage of life, housing needs and preferences change. For example, young households without children will have different housing preferences than middle-aged households with children or senior households living alone. Consequently, evaluating the age characteristics of a community is important in determining the housing needs of residents.

Age Distribution & Trends
The distribution of ages of Hillsborough’s population has shifted since 2000. The population under the age of 14 has remained relatively stable while the population between 15 and 24 years of age has increased by 51%. The population between 25 and 54 years of age has decreased by 19% while the population 55 years of age and over has increased by 25%.

Median Age
Hillsborough’s population, as measured by the median age of its residents, is older than in neighboring communities and the County as a whole. Hillsborough’s median age in 2000 was 45.4; by 2019, this figure had increased to 47.9. Meanwhile, the median age in San Mateo County in 2000 was 39.2 and in 2019 was 39.7.

Race and Ethnicity
Different racial and ethnic groups often have different household characteristics, income levels, and cultural backgrounds, which may affect their housing needs and preferences. Studies have also suggested that different racial and ethnic groups differ in their attitudes toward and/or tolerance for “housing problems” as defined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including overcrowding and housing cost burden. According to these studies, perceptions regarding housing density and overcrowding tend to vary between racial and ethnic groups. Especially within cultures that prefer to live with extended family members, household size and overcrowding also tend to increase. In general, Hispanic and Asian households exhibit a greater propensity than White households for living with extended families. 551
1691
945
646
1487
1986
1505
1118
734
162
462
1864
1017
455
1145
1938
1729
1161
738
316
547
1735
1428
421
1044
1868
1899
1261
884
360
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Age 0-4
Age 5-14
Age 15-24
Age 25-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-54
Age 55-64
Age 65-74
Age 75-84
Age 85+
Population
Population by Age
2019 2010 2000
Figure 5.2: Population by Age
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
35 -354-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
However, with the housing crisis in California and the recent economic challenges presented by COVID-19, extended family members sharing housing arrangements or adult children moving back with parents have become a trend in many California communities across all groups.

In 2019, the predominant racial group in Hillsborough was White (not including those that identify as Hispanic/Latinx), at almost 57% while the second largest racial group was Asian/Asian Pacific American (not including those that identify as Hispanic/Latinx), at nearly 32%. The least represented racial group in Hillsborough is Black/African American identifying residents (not including those that identify as Hispanic/Latinx) who accounted for approximately 1% of the population in 2019.

Since 2000, the percentage of residents of all races and ethnicities aside from White has increased by 14.6 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 6,502 (see Figure #04). More specifically, the Asian/Asian Pacific American population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most. 25% 28% 32%
71% 64% 57%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2019
Share of Population
Population by Race
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx Figure 5.3: Population by Race
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
36 -355-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Employment Profile
An assessment of the community needs must take into consideration the type of employment offered within that community, as well as held by Hillsborough residents. Incomes associated with different jobs and the number of workers in a household determines the type and size of housing a household can afford.

Occupation and Labor Participation
The American Community Survey (ACS) provides information about employment, specifically the number of City residents by industry type, who are employed by businesses either outside or within their community. The two largest industries for Hillsborough residents are Financial & Professional Services, 44% of the jobs held by employed residents, and Health and Educational Services, 25% of the jobs held by employed residents. The largest sector in which San Mateo County and Bay Area residents work is Health & Educational Services. (Figure 5.4: Employment Profile). These two industries account for 69% of the jobs held by employed residents in Hillsborough. Similarly, these categories accounted for about 57% of jobs held by San Mateo County residents and 56% of jobs held by resident in the Bay Area region. The proportion of City residents in all other occupations was similar to the occupation profile of County and regional residents, with the next highest proportion of Hillsborough residents being employed in Manufacturing, Wholesale and Transportation. Legal and Management occupations were the highest paid occupations in San Mateo County in the first quarter of 2021. Legal occupations had a 17% increase in average yearly salary while management increased by 24%.

Overall, average yearly salaries for all occupations increased by 19.7% over the same period. 5% 6%
44%
27% 26%
25%
30% 30%
3%
5% 4%
14%
16% 17%
8%
9% 9%
4% 8% 8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Employment Profile
Agriculture & Natural Resources Construction
Financial & Professional Services Health & Educational Services Information Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation
Retail Other
Figure 5.4: Employment Profile
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
37 -356-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Worker Import & Export
Employed residents either work in the community where they live or commute to work elsewhere in the region, which has become the more popular trend in most communities as city jobs employ more residents who live outside of city limits. This occurs through worker import or export. For example, in smaller cities, there are typically more employed residents than jobs, so it exports workers to other cities, while larger cities typically have a surplus of jobs and import workers. The efforts of the regional transportation system are to connect a region’s main economic hub to outside communities in order to facilitate the flow of worker imports and exports. Despite these efforts, the cost of living near popular districts or downtown areas is high due to increased housing demand and poses challenges on community members living in surrounding communities due to a lack of transit options and long commutes which may arise from local jobs and worker populations being imbalanced.

Hillsborough is a net exporter of workers, with 4,736 employed residents and 2,135 jobs. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Hillsborough has decreased by 13.7% and the ratio of jobs to resident workers is .45.

Worker Place of Residency by Wage
Understanding the availability of jobs for low-income workers in a community compared to the availability of housing options for low-income workers in the community, or the inverse can help illustrate the need for more affordable housing options.

In Hillsborough, there are more low-wage residents than there are low-wage jobs (jobs paying an annual salary of less than $25,000 a year). Additionally, Hillsborough also has more highwage residents than high wage jobs (jobs paying an annual salary of more than $75,000 a year). This could be an indicator that Hillsborough exports more workers to other cities in the region.
350
376
466
501
3043
194
417
426
230
868
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Less than $9,999
$10,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 or more
Worker Population
Earnings Group
Resident and Worker Earnings
People who work in Hillsborough
People who live in Hillsborough
Figure 5.5: Resident and Worker Earnings
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
38 -357-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Jobs to Households
The presence of jobs in a community will potentially attract new residents, creating a high demand for housing relative to local supply, resulting in exclusion of workers to live where they work and sometimes resulting in displacement. This most commonly affects lower-wage workers, however, also has effects on freeway congestion due to a high volume of commuters traveling long distances to work, affecting all freeway users and accelerating the impacts of climate change.

In Hillsborough, the jobs to household ratio have decreased from 0.62 in 2002 to 0.54 in 2018.

0.62 0.62 0.60 0.57

0.53 0.52 0.54 0.53

0.32 0.35

0.50 0.49 0.51

0.57 0.51 0.52 0.54

1.33 1.27 1.24 1.25 1.24 1.27 1.27

1.21 1.23

1.27 1.32

1.37 1.42

1.49 1.51 1.52

1.59 1.28

1.22 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23

1.17 1.21 1.24 1.26

1.31 1.35

1.40 1.43 1.44 1.47

0.20 0.40

0.60 0.80

1.00 1.20

1.40 1.60

1.80 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Ratio
Jobs to Household Ratio
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Figure 5.6: Jobs to Household Ratio
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
39 -358-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Unemployment
Unemployment trends can provide a need for more affordable housing units in a community. Impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate in 2020. Hillsborough’s unemployment rate trended downward from January of 2010 to January 2019 from 7.9% to 2%. Unemployment jumped to 9.6% in April 2020 due to a loss of jobs as the COVID-19 pandemic magnified. The Town, however, began to recover from the pandemic and unemployment fell to 5.9% in January 2021. Overall, Hillsborough has seen a 2% decrease in its unemployment rate from January 2010 to January 2021.

7.9%

7.0%

6.2%

5.2%

4.1%

3.4%

3.1% 3.3%

2.7%

2.0% 1.8%

5.9%

9.3%

8.3%

7.3%

6.3%

4.8%

4.0%

3.2% 3.2%

2.6% 2.5%

2.2%

5.9%

11.1%

10.3%

9.0%

7.8%

6.1%

5.1%

4.1% 4.0%

3.2% 3.2%

2.8%

6.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Percent of Labor Force that is Unemployed
Unemployment Rate
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Figure 5.7: Unemployment Rate
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
40 -359-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Household Characteristics
The U.S. Census defines a household as all the people who occupy a housing unit. This includes related family members and unrelated people such as lodgers, foster children, wards or employers who share a housing unit. A household is broken up into two categories: “family households,” which are the family householder and all the people who occupy the housing unit who are related to the householder by birth, marriage or adoption. The other category is “nonfamily households,” which are the householder living alone or where the householder shares a home with people they are unrelated to. Data regarding household characteristics are important to understanding housing needs within a community based on household type and size relative to the existing housing stock.

Household Type
Different household types have different housing needs. Seniors or young adults typically comprise most single-person households and tend to reside in apartment units, condominiums, or smaller single-family homes. Families often prefer single-family homes.

According to the ACS, in 2019, there were 3,633 housing units in the Town of Hillsborough. Of these households, 8%, or 299 units, of the total housing stock were single-person households which has decreased by 55 units since the 2010 Census (354 single-person households), while households with seniors (65+) comprised about 35%. Single-person households in Hillsborough contrasted those of San Mateo County, consisting of 22%, and 25% in the Bay Area Region. 43% of households housed children under the age of 18, a higher proportion compared to San Mateo County with 33% and The Bay Area, with 32% of Households which housed children under the age of 18. The majority of Hillsborough’s households are comprised of Married-couple Family Households at 83%. When compared to the 2010 ACS, Hillsborough’s Married-couple Family Households composition is slowly trending upward, from 79% in 2010 to 83% in 2019.
4%
10% 10%
5% 5%
83%
55% 51%
8%
9%
8%
22% 25%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Household Type
Female-Headed Family Households Male-headed Family Households Married-couple Family Households Other Non-Family Households Single-person Households
Figure 5.8: Household Type
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
41 -360-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Household Size
Household size identifies sources of population growth and overcrowding of housing units. In communities where the population is aging, the average household size frequently declines simultaneously because elderly residents often live without children. While Married-couple Family Households in Hillsborough have increased since 2010, 2 person households remained the largest household size in Hillsborough from 2010 to 2019, despite decreasing from 1,523 to 1,407 while 5 or more person households increased from 488 units in 2010 to 644 units in 2019.

While the ACS describes overcrowded households as households with five or more individuals, the level of affluence and household income in Hillsborough paired with an increase in Married-couple Family Households and percentage of households with children may explain the increase in households with 5 or more individuals while having a 0% overcrowding rate. 259
1,369
573
621
567
40 38 36 53 77
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Households
Household Size by Tenure
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.9: Household Size by Tenure
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
42 -361-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Household Income
Household income is an important consideration when evaluating housing and community development needs because lower income typically constrains a household’s ability to secure adequate housing or services. While housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting) and location are very much income-dependent, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing.

According to ACS estimates, 2% of Hillsborough households in 2019 had incomes lower than $15,000, while 5% of households earned incomes between $15,000 and $34,999 (Figure 5.10: Household Income Distribution). Households with incomes that earned less than $15,000 have increased slightly since 2010, while households with incomes that earned between $15,000 and $34,999 have decreased slightly since 2010, however they have stayed relatively the same. In 2019, approximately 6% of households earned incomes between $35,000 and $74,999, while roughly 14% had incomes between $75,000 and $149,999. 73% of Hillsborough households earned $150,000 or more. In contrast, less households in Hillsborough earn incomes between $50,000-$149,999 when compared to households in San Mateo County overall (17.9% in Hillsborough compared to 36% in San Mateo County). The ACS estimates that the median household income in Hillsborough was $250,000+ as of January 2019, while the median income for the County was estimated to be $138,500.
5%
2% 3% 4% 2%
85%
8%
4% 6%
10% 9%
63%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
<$25,000 $25,000 -$34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 ≥$100,000 Household Income 2019
Hillsborough San Mateo County
Figure 5.10: Household Income Distribution
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
43 -362-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Overcrowding
An overcrowded housing unit is defined by the U.S. Census as a unit occupied by more than one person per room (including living and dining rooms but excluding kitchen and bathrooms). Units with more than 1.5 occupants per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding can result when there are not enough adequately sized units within a community, when high housing costs relative to income force too many individuals to share a housing unit than it can adequately accommodate, and/or when families reside in smaller units than they need to devote income to other necessities, such as food and health care.

In Hillsborough, no owner-occupied or renter-occupied households had more than 1.0 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for overcrowding. Additionally, no owner-occupied households and no renter-occupied households had more than 1.5 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for severe overcrowding.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release, 0% of Hillsborough households experienced overcrowded living conditions in 2018 (Table 5.1:

Overcrowding). Of these, 0% were in owner-occupied households, and 0% were renters.

While 98% of occupied housing units in the Town had three or more bedrooms (the minimum size considered large enough to avoid most overcrowding issues for large households), only 6% of these units were occupied by renters. This pattern suggests an inadequate supply of larger rental units.

Additionally, low-income households and communities of color are more likely to experience the impacts of overcrowding. In Hillsborough, 0.0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.0% of households above 100% experience severe overcrowding. Consistently, no communities of Color in Hillsborough experience overcrowding.

Table 5.1: Overcrowding
Geography

1.00 occupant
per room or
less

1.01 to 1.50
occupants
per room

1.50 occupants
per room
or more
Hillsborough 3,633 0 0
San Mateo County 242,599 12,333 8,611
Bay Area 2,543,056 115,696 72,682
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
44 -363-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Cost Burden
State and federal standards for housing cost burden are based on an income-to-housing cost ratio of 30% and above. Households paying more than 30% of their income on housing have limited remaining income for other necessities. Upper income households generally can pay a larger proportion of income for housing; therefore, estimates of housing cost burden generally focus on lowerand moderate-income households.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 33% of Hillsborough households overpaid for housing in 2019 (30% or more of their income) and housing cost burden affected a larger proportion of owners (33%) than renters (16%) (Table 5.2: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Level). Cost burden affected a smaller proportion of households in 2017 than 2010 with 33% of households overpaying for housing in 2017, whereas 43% did so in 2010. Since 2010, the proportion of cost burdened renter-households has increased from 0% to 11%.

By contrast, the proportion of cost burdened owner-households decreased from 44% to 34% in seven years. 20% of households paid over 50% of their income on housing while 13% spent 30-50% of their income on housing.

Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Level
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Income Categories Cost Burden
>30%
Cost Burden
>50%
Cost Burden
>30%
Cost Burden
>50%
Household income <30% AMI 0 0 160 135
Household income >30% and <50% AMI 30 30 110 110
Household income > 50% and <80% AMI 0 0 185 125
Household income >80% to <100% AMI 0 40 80 65
Household Income >100% AMI 0 0 635 245
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
45 -364-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Cost burden affected a majority of lower and moderate-income households in 2017 regardless of tenure; however, the incidence of cost burden was greatest among extremely low-income homeowners (100%) and very low-income renters (88%). With a high prevalence of cost burden amongst lower income households, households may attempt to mitigate cost burden by taking in additional roommates or occupying smaller and presumably cheaper units, leading to overcrowding.

The cost of housing in a community is determined by a range of supply and demand factors. These include the composition of demographics within the community, labor market and economic base, current wages and job outlook. These are combined with land and construction costs, and in the Bay Area, these factors have resulted in the highest housing costs nationwide. With housing costs being high and rising at a steep rate, it is important to look at the home values in a community to determine housing needs that are affordable to other income brackets. Hillsborough’s home values are significantly higher than those in the region with the average home estimated at $4,571,820 by December 2020 according to Zillow, contrasting with average home values in San Mateo County ($1,418,330) and the Bay Area ($1,077,230).
66%
54%
15%
18%
16%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households
Cost Burdened Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
Figure 5.11: Cost Burdened Households
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
46 -365-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special needs, including employment and income, household size, disability status, or number of dependents. These groups, which are termed “special needs groups” herein, often expend a greater proportion of their income on housing costs, live in overcrowded units, or in substandard conditions. Special needs groups include Senior-headed households;Female-headed households;Large households; Persons with disabilities;Agricultural workers;Students; andHomeless individuals.

Senior Headed Households
Senior-headed households are considered special needs groups due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. The senior age range includes individuals over 65 years of age. This group has four main concerns:
limited and often fixed income; poor health and associated high healthcare costs; mobility limitation and transit dependency; and high costs of housing.

According to ACS data collected between 2015-2019, households headed by seniors (age 65+) represented approximately 35% of all Hillsborough households. Of these households, the majority (97%) owned their homes, while the remainder (3%) rented. The largest population of seniors by income group who rent and own a home make greater than 100% of AMI. Table

5.3: Senior-Headed Households by Income and Tenure shows the number of senior households that rent and own by income category. The share of senior-headed households that rent their housing is substantially lower in Hillsborough than San Mateo County (14%).

Table 5.3: Senior-Headed Households
by Income and Tenure
Income Group Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
0%-30% of AMI 110 0
31%-50% of AMI 90 20
51%-80% of AMI 135 0
81%-100% of AMI 35 0
Greater than 100% of AMI 980 35
Totals 1,350 55
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
47 -366-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Many seniors have a disability. Roughly 47% of Hillsborough’s senior population had one or more disabilities according to ACS data collected between 2015 and 2019. The need for housing for senior individuals will likely increase as the Town’s number of seniorheaded households continues to grow. It will therefore be particularly important for the Town to promote housing types that accommodate senior lifestyles and incomes. 100%
82%
100% 100% 97%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI
Percent of Households
Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

11.66%

9.18% 8.94%

6.79%

5.87%

4.59%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%
With a hearing
difficulty
With an
independent living
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
Population with Disabilities
Disability by Type - Seniors
Figure 5.12: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Figure 5.13: Disability by Type
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
48 -367-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for day care, health care, and other facilities. Female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing availability for this group. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 4% of Hillsborough households were female headed households, while the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households, 83% of the total amount of households. Figure 5.14: FemaleHeaded Households shows the number and percentage of female-headed households in the city in 2019 in relation to the total number of households. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 43% of female headed households with children had incomes below the Federal Poverty Line, while 0% of female headed households without children fell below the Federal Poverty Line. Town efforts to expand affordable housing opportunities will help meet the needs of single female headed households. 55 42 41
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 with Children with No Children
Households
Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
Figure 5.14: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
49 -368-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Large Family Households
Large households, defined as those with five or more members, are identified as a group with special housing needs based on the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. Large households are often of lower income, frequently resulting in the overcrowding of smaller dwelling units and, in turn, accelerating unit deterioration.

As Figure 5.15: Small and Large Households shows, about 18% of Hillsborough households were classified as “large households” by the 2015-2019 ACS. Figure 5.16: Household Size by Number of Persons shows that about 88% of large households owned the housing units they occupied and 12% of large households rented their housing unit. In 2017, about 4% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI). 8%
22% 25%
39%
32% 32%
35%
35% 33%
18%
11% 11%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Percent of Households
Household by Household Size
1-Person Household 2-Person Household 3-4-Person Household 5-Person or More Household Figure 5.15: Small and Large Household
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
50 -369-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Additionally, large households have specific housing needs which require more space. Large households often feel the cost burden of paying a higher price for additional bedrooms. In Hillsborough, 15% of large households experience a cost burden of 30-50% and 15% of large households pay more than 50% of their income on housing. 259
1,369
573
621
567
40 38 36 53 77
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Households
Household Size by Tenure
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.16: Household Size by Number of Persons
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
51 -370-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
Housing costs in the Bay Area continue to be the some of the highest in the nation. High housing costs in the area result from supply and demand factors like the composition of demographics, Labor market and economic base, current wages, job outlook and land and construction costs. Due to an expensive housing market, households with extremely low-income housing needs often experience exclusivity from certain communities, displacement, long commutes to school, work or other community amenities. The California department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines Extremely low-income households as earning 15-30% of the area’s median income (AMI). In Hillsborough, 78% percent of households earn more than 100% of AMI and 89% of large-family households with 5+ residents earn more than 100% AMI. In contrast, 6% of households in Hillsborough make less than 30% AMI, which is considered extremely low income.
7%
5%
5%
78%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Families of 5+ Persons
Percent of Households
Household Size by Household Income Level
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI 51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI Greater than 100% of AMI Figure 5.17: Household Size by Household Income Level
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
52 -371-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have one or more physical, mental, or developmental conditions that substantially limit one or more day-to-day activities. These individuals often have difficulty holding employment opportunities, have limited incomes, and have difficulty occupying conventionally designed housing. According to 2015-2019 ACS data, 7% of Hillsborough’s population had a disability. Figure 5.18: Peoples with Disability by Type shows that 309 individuals (3%) of the disabled population, had difficulty hearing, 168 individuals (2%) of the disabled population had vision difficulty, 267 individuals (2%) of the population had cognitive difficulty, 258 individuals (2%) of the disabled population had ambulatory difficulties, 334 individuals (3%) of the disabled population had a disability that made independent living difficult, while 184 individuals (2%) of the disabled population, had self-care difficulty.

It is important to note that persons with a disability can have more than one type of disability and can, therefore, be classified within more than one of the categories listed.

Figure 5.18: Disability by Type

2.92%

2.70%

2.33% 2.25%

1.61% 1.47%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%
With an
independent living
difficulty
With a hearing
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability Type Disability by Type
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
53 -372-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Four factors: affordability, design, location, and discrimination significantly limit the supply of housing available to persons with disabilities. The most pressing need for persons with disabilities is housing that accommodates the nature of their disability. Most single-family homes are inaccessible to people with mobility and sensory limitations. Conventional housing often does not feature widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, and other features necessary for accessibility.

The cost of retrofitting a housing unit often prohibits disabled individuals from buying a home, even among those who could otherwise afford one. Furthermore, some providers of basic homebuying services do not have offices or materials that are accessible to people with mobility, visual, or hearing impairments.The location of housing is also a factor for individuals with mobility-related disabilities, as they often rely upon public transportation. Transportation services for persons with disabilities are typically provided by public and private agencies. State and federal legislation sets accessibility and adaptability standards for new or rehabilitated multifamily apartment complexes to ensure that the housing accommodates individuals with physical mobility constraints.

Disability data also provides valuable context to assess the current and future need for accessible housing units. It is important to note that since some disability types are not recorded for children below a certain age, the disability rate within the population may be an underestimate. Understanding the employment status of people with disabilities may also be an important component in evaluating specialized housing needs. In Hillsborough, 86% of the population with a disability is employed, lower than 97% of the non-disabled population. This data indicates housing units that are universally accessible will also need to be affordable given disabled individuals’ lower employment status and incomes. 97%
86%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Disability With A Disability
Percent of Labor Force
Labor Force Disability Status
Employed Unemployed
Figure 5.19: Labor Force Disability Status
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
54 -373-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Persons with Development Disabilities
A recent change in State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by State law, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age; continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely; and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. Intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism are considered developmental disabilities. The term also includes conditions closely related to intellectual disability and that require similar treatment, but the term does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

Many persons with developmental disabilities can live and work independently within a conventional housing unit. More severely disabled individuals often require a group living environment, however, where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) provides data on developmental disabilities by age and type of residence at the ZIP-code level and the data is show in Figure 5.20: Persons with Development Disabilities. According to the DDS data, there were approximately 43 Hillsborough residents with developmental disabilities being served by CA-DDS in 2020. Of these 43 individuals, 16, or 37%, are under the age of 18 while 62%, or 27, of these individuals are over the age of 18. Most of these individuals (78%) resided in a private home with their parent or guardian. 27 16
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Age 18+ Age Under 18
Population
Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age
Figure 5.20: Persons with Development Disabilities
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
55 -374-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Agricultural Workers
Housing for agricultural workers is a unique concern throughout California. While only a small share of jurisdictions in the ABAG region have agricultural workers living in them, these workers are essential because they support the region’s economy and food supply.

Agricultural workers are defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor.

Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities, generally on a year-round basis. When the workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal labor, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may employ migrant workers, defined as those whose travel distance to work prevents them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Determining the true size of the agricultural labor force is difficult. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define agricultural workers (e.g. field laborers versus workers in processing plants), length of employment (e.g. permanent or seasonal), or place of work (e.g. the location of the business or field).

According to the 2015-2019 ACS data, no Hillsborough residents were employed in Agricultural and natural resources occupations, as Figure 5.21: Agricultural Workers shows, however Countywide, there were 978 permanent farmworkers and 343 seasonal farmworkers in 2017, both showing a decrease since 2002. Hillsborough is a primarily residential community with no land designated as or zoned for agricultural uses. According to the Town’s Open Space and Conservation Element, Hillsborough has no agricultural or lumber production or important farmlands in need of conservation.

According to the Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the Town of Hillsborough is designated mostly “Urban and Built-Up Land” with some areas designated as “Other Land”. Because the Town is primarily a residential community with no agricultural lands or farmlands, there is a limited need for agricultural worker housing in the Town. Promoting affordable housing for extremely low and very low-income households would address the housing needs of agricultural workers in Hillsborough, if any. 2,226
852
1,697
911
1,320
402
978
343
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
Agricultural Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017
Figure 5.21: Agricultural Workers
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
56 -375-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Students
There are no Universities in Hillsborough, however 9 colleges within San Mateo County (Skyline College, San Mateo Adult School, College of San Mateo, Draper University, Samuel Merritt University, Pacific Technical College, Gurnick Academy Notre Dame de Namur University and Canada College).

Approximately 48,940 students were enrolled in the County’s colleges in 2019, which represented about 6% of the County’s population. This number is consistent with the national average number of students in each community (about 6%). Typically, students have lower incomes and, therefore, can be impacted by a lack of affordable housing. Overcrowded housing within special needs groups is also a common concern.

Homeless Population
According to United State Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), the homeless population includes:
• Individuals and families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including individuals who are exiting an institution where they resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter, or a place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution; • Individuals and families who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence; • Unaccompanied youth and families with children and youth who are defined as homeless under other federal statutes who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition; or • Individuals and families who are fleeing, or are attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions that relate to violence against the individual or a family member.

Homelessness in Hillsborough and Town Efforts
While there are no reported people experiencing homelessness in the Town of Hillsborough, the Town has contributed multiple efforts towards fighting homelessness in San Mateo County. The Adopted 2021-22 Budget states that 3.6% of the Towns net tax base goes toward homeowners’ property tax relief, veterans, governments, and non-profits. According to the 2014 Draft Housing Element, Hillsborough was one of the first cities in the County to contribute to a trust fund that funds homeless shelters and transitional housing Countywide. Additionally, Hillsborough provided financial support and leadership to Shelter Network, now LifeMoves, HIP Housing, Jobs for Youth, Sustainable San Mateo County and HEART during the fiscal year 2012-13. Hillsborough also includes Program 1-A7 in the 2014 Draft Housing Element to: “Continue Town contributions to San Mateo County homeless and transitional housing programs. Enhance regional and sub-regional housing efforts by exploring partnerships through existing programs.” In response to Goal 1 to: “Increase Housing Opportunities in Hillsborough and Surrounding Communities.” Hillsborough provides a number of housing resources on their website and supports shared housing, a program through the Human Investment Project which matches people in need of housing with residents who have extra space. Hillsborough is also part of the County Consortium jurisdiction, which is covered by the San Mateo County 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan which provides priorities and goals in order to allocate funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Development formula block grant programs. These assist with a range of housing and community development interventions. Although the Town has shown efforts in assisting the homelessness crisis, Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to provide estimates or a Point in Time count on the daily average number of people experiencing homelessness.

According to the County of San Mateo’s 2019 One Day Homeless Count and Survey, along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations 2019 Report, the total homeless count was 1,512 individuals, as counted on the morning of January 30, 2019. While some of the homeless population in San Mateo County are living in emergency shelters or transitional housing, the majority are unsheltered, about 60% of the homeless population, while about 73% of the total homeless population are “persons in households without children”. Of the households without children, about 75% of them are unsheltered. People of color are generally more likely to experience homelessness or poverty due to historic racial discrimination which includes past housing policy, such as redlining, that resulted in exclusion.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
57 -376-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
In the Bay area region, Black residents are most vulnerable to experiencing homelessness, however, in San Mateo County, White residents account for 66% of the homelessness population, representing the largest portion, although white residents make up about 51% of the overall population in San Mateo County. Additionally, the Latinx population makes up about 25% of the general population and about 38% of the homeless population in San Mateo County. As mentioned previously, homelessness can stem from a range of factors, and many suffer from mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence that require aid. In San Mateo County, 305 individuals were reported with a severe mental illness with about 62% of unsheltered.

In 2016, the County published its Strategic Plan to Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County called “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County”, a plan that was developed based on five goals to: “create a system to end homelessness in San Mateo County by 2020, end Veteran homelessness, end family homelessness, end youth homelessness, and ensure that individuals exiting institutions will not discharge into homelessness.” The plan includes 12 strategies to address each of the five goals, which include actions and desired outcomes for each.

Alternative Housing for Homeless People
The County of San Mateo HOPE Interagency Council is predicated on the understanding that homelessness is caused by a complex range of underlying physical, economic, and social needs. Nonetheless, there is still the need for immediate housing. To that end, the County produced a report titled “Ending Homelessness in San Mateo County” which provides a list of the available interventions for people experiencing homelessness:
• Outreach and Engagement. This includes the County, Cities and nonprofits efforts to provide multi-disciplinary outreach Homeless Outreach Teams (HOT). This includes outreach specialist from LifeMoves who provide outreach efforts with unsheltered homeless people across the county, identify individual needs, and develop person centered housing plans. • Emergency Shelters. This includes short-term facilities that provide basic services and, in some cases, assistance in developing a plan for permanent housing
• Transitional Housing. This is a residence that provides a stay of up to two years during which residents are provided case management services that prepare them to obtain and maintain housing and be self-sufficient. However, many of the programs in San Mateo County are designed to be much shorter.
• Rapid Re-Housing. This is a program that provides people experiencing homelessness and families with short term rental subsidies which typically last up to 6 months after which they take over responsibility for paying their own rent. Rapid re-housing provides services to help locate housing opportunities and case management on maintaining housing stability. • Permanent Supportive Housing. This is a residence that provides permanent affordable housing linked with ongoing support services that allow residents to live at the place of residence on an indefinite basis. This housing intervention is specific to people experiencing chronic homelessness or have significant behavioral disabilities. • Homelessness Prevention Programs. This includes a range of homelessness prevention programs which provide financial assistance to households at risk of losing their home.

Table 5.4: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status Variable
People in Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in Households
with Adults and Children
People in Households
without Children Under
18 Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
58 -377-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Stock Characteristics
The term “housing stock” refers to all the housing units located within a community’s boundary. The characteristics of the housing stock, including its growth rate, housing types, age, condition, tenure, vacancy rates, costs, and affordability compared with incomes are important considerations in determining the community’s housing needs. The following details the Town of Hillsborough’s housing stock and identifies how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents.

Hillsborough’s housing stock has grown over the past decade, increasing from 3,912 housing units in 2010 to 4,091 housing units in 2020, an increase of approximately 4%. Between 2000 and 2020, more single-family housing than multi-family housing was constructed in the Town. In that timeframe, 218 single-family residential units were built, both owner and renter occupied, compared with 0 multifamily units.

Historically, housing trends in the Bay area region and across the state of California have responded to land use and zoning regulations and the construction of single-family households has been the primary housing type. Multifamily residential is usually designated in its own zone that permits higher density resulting in multi-family buildings or townhome developments. More recently, many neighborhoods are beginning to accept “missing middle housing” housing typologies within single-family neighborhoods in response to SB 9 and as a way to add density to a community without sacrificing the integrity or charm of a neighborhood. These housing typologies include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, townhouses and live-work units. Additionally, with new ADU enabling laws in California, Accessory Dwelling Units are becoming increasingly more popular. These new housing options provide opportunities for a wider demographic range, income levels and tenure to afford housing. 75 3,825
12 127
3,936
28 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Single-Family Home:

Attached
Single-Family Home:

Detached
Multifamily Housing:

Two to Four Units
Multifamily Housing:

Five-plus Units
Mobile Homes
Units
Housing Stock Trends
2010 2020
Figure 5.22: Housing Stock Trends
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
59 -378-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Hillsborough is a residential community made up of primarily single-family residential housing units. As depicted in Figure 5.22:

Housing Stock Trends, in 2010, 3,825 housing units (98%) of the total housing stock was detached, single-family residential making up the majority of the housing stock in Hillsborough. Consistently, in 2020, 3,936 housing units (96%) of the total housing stock were detached, single-family residential. The rest of the housing stock in 2020 was made up of 3% attached single-family housing,

0.7% multi-family residential with 2–4-units and 0% multi-family residential with 5 or more units. Detached, single-family residential housing experienced the most growth between the years of 2010 to 2020 in Hillsborough. When combined, detached and attached single family residential make up 4,063 single-family units, 99% of Hillsborough’s housing stock, a much larger share than San Mateo County with 172,988 single-family residential units 24% of the total housing stock. Meanwhile, the average household size is 3.43 persons per household.

Housing Age and Condition
Examining the age of the current housing stock is one way to understand how historical development patterns have contributed to the Town’s built form. The slow pace of housing production in the Bay Area has not satisfied housing demand in the last several decades due to strict and outdated land use and zoning regulations. Additionally, jobs in the Bay Area have recently spiked significantly as the region has become a hub for the tech industry, creating a surge in population. Population growth paired with a lack of housing development has created a housing market that cannot equally meet the needs of the population.

The time during which the largest share of Hillsborough’s housing units was built is 1960-1979, where1,455 units built (36%) and approximately 80% of the Town’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1980. This is consistent with trends seen in the County, where more units were built during 1960-1979 than any other period. Since 2010, only 53 units, or 1.3% of the current housing stock, has.

Housing that is 30 years old or older, like most of the housing in Hillsborough, is assumed to require some rehabilitation.

Features such as electrical capacity, kitchen features, and roofs usually need updating if no prior replacement work has occurred.

The Bay Area Region has some of the highest housing costs nationwide, which is responsible for some individuals in the area living in substandard housing conditions and lacking basic amenities so they can afford the cost of Bay Area living. The ACS estimates that about 0% percent of renters and homeowners live in substandard housing conditions or reported lacking a kitchen and plumbing. By the end of this Housing Element planning period in 2029, 93% of the Town’s housing stock, a total of 3,759 units, will exceed 30 years of age and may, therefore, need some degree of rehabilitation at that time; however, the need for rehabilitation does not necessarily make a housing unit substandard.
540
1243
1455
521
219
53 0 500 1,000 1,500
Built 1939 Or Earlier
Built 1940 To 1959
Built 1960 To 1979
Built 1980 To 1999
Built 2000 To 2009
Built 2010 Or Later
Number of Units
Housing Units by Year Built
Figure 5.23: Housing Units by Year Unit
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
60 -379-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Tenure in Hillsborough
The tenure distribution of a community’s housing stock (owner occupied versus renter occupied) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Homeownership can stabilize the housing market by allowing households to reside in the community in the long-term, however, a substantial share of housing available for rent is also advantageous in that it allows new residents to move into the community and enables more households to access housing who might not be able to otherwise. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and age of the householder. As a result, housing cost burden is far more prevalent among renters. Between 2015 and 2019, 3,389 (93%) of Hillsborough’s housing stock was owner-occupied, while 244 units (7%) were renter-occupied and has increased from 3,530 Owner Occupied households and 159 Renter Occupied households in 2000 (Figure 5.24: Housing Tenure). This rate of homeownership is substantially higher than the countywide rate (60% owner-occupied). 3,530
159
3,490
203
3,389
244
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Households
Housing Tenure 2000-2019
2000 2010 2019
Figure 5.24: Housing Tenure (2000-2019)
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
61 -380-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Renter-ocupied households were slightly larger than owner-occupied households in Hillsborough (Figure 5.25: Tenure by Household Size). Among those who rented their homes between 2015 and 2019, 68% lived in homes with 3 or more persons per household, compared to 51% for the owner-households.
259
1,369
573
621
567
40 38 36 53 77
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1 Person Household 2 Person Household 3 Person Household 4 Person Household 5 Or More Person Household
Households
Household Tenure by Household Size
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.25: Household Tenure by Household Size
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
62 -381-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Tenure by Race
Race and ethnicities show large differences in homeownership rates in the Bay Area, and nationwide due to differences in income and wealth and historic federal state and local land use and zoning policies. These policies have traditionally limited access to homeownership for communities of color, while enabling homeownership for white residents. They have also limited access to reside in certain communities. These disparities are still prevalent today as the resulting impacts from these policies are evident in our communities, despite many racially driven land use and zoning policies seizing, such as redlining.

In Hillsborough, 59% of Black households, 95% of Asian households, 79% of Latinx households and 93% of White households own their homes. Additionally, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements
11 1122
24 51
126
2106
2080
0 65
17 14
11 151
137
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
White, Non-Hispanic
Households
Household Tenure by Race
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Figure 5.26: Household Tenure by Race
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
63 -382-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Tenure by Age
Narrowing down the type of home ownership by age groups that occupy them can expose the housing needs of specific age cohorts.

For example, due to the high cost of housing in the Bay Area, younger age groups may struggle with purchasing a home and are more likely to rent. Senior homeowners who are interested in downsizing may also struggle with the competitive and expensive housing market.

In Hillsborough, 72 renter occupied occupants are between the ages of 25 and 44 which makes up 13.4% of the total renter occupied households for that cohort. At the same time, 40 renter occupied occupants are in the 65+ cohort which makes up 3.2 % of the total households in this cohort.
82%
87% 90%
96% 97% 100% 97%
89%
18%
13% 10% 11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Age 15-24 Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-59 Age 60-64 Age 65-74 Age 75-84 Age 85+ Percent of Households
Housing Tenure by Age
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.27: Household Tenure by Age
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
64 -383-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence
As inflation affects the housing market, analyzing the type of home ownership by the year occupants moved to their current residences can help understand housing needs for the next planning cycle.

The number of owner-occupied households has decreased from 925 households for residents who moved into their households before the year of 1989 which is 96% of total households for these years, to 107 owner occupied households for residents who moved into their households during the year of 2017 or later, which is 67% of total households during these years (Figure 5.28: Year Moved to Current Residence).
96% 100% 98%
86% 81%
67%
14% 19%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Moved In 1989 Or
Earlier
Moved In 1990 To
1999
Moved In 2000 To
2009
Moved In 2010 To
2014
Moved In 2015 To
2016
Moved In 2017 Or
Later
Percent of Households
Housing Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.28: Household Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
65 -384-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Household income level by Tenure
There are large income gaps between homeowners and renters in the Bay Area region. The need for affordable housing exceeds the amount of housing available for low-income renters. In Hillsborough, the largest proportion of renters falls within the Greater than 100% of AMI income group with 195 renters. This number of renters reflects 74% of the total number of renters in Hillsborough.

Consistently, the largest proportion of homeowners also falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI group with 2,679 homeowners. This number reflects 78% of the total number of homeowners in Hillsborough (Figure 5.29: Household Income Level by Tenure). 220
135
250
129
2,679
30 40
195
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
Greater than 100% of AMI
Households
Household Income Level by Tenure
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Figure 5.29: Household Income Level by Tenure
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
66 -385-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Single family residential households make up the majority of residential zoning in the Bay Area Region. In general, the cost of living in a detached single-family house is higher than multi-family residential units, and the capacity to house more community members decreases with the lack of density. In Hillsborough, 97% or 3,537 of the total 3,633 total households are detached single family homes. 93% of single-family residential units are owner-occupied while 54% of non-single-family housing units are owner occupied. 94%
54%
100%
6%
100%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Detached Single-Family
Homes
Attached Single-Family
Homes
Multi-Family Housing Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, or Other Percent of Households
Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.30: Household Tenure by Housing Type
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
67 -386-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
As housing prices continue to rise paired with the slow pace of home building in the Bay Area, many low- and middle-income residents experience displacement. Displacement occurs when a community becomes too expensive for current residents to afford due to gentrification and they are forced out of their home neighborhood.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped Bay Area neighborhoods by their vulnerability to gentrification. According to UC Berkeley, 0% of households in Hillsborough are in neighborhoods that are at risk of experiencing displacement or are currently experiencing displacement.

The Urban Displacement Project has mapped gentrification and displacement in the Bay Area and shows that Hillsborough shows no risk of gentrification or displacement and is mapped as stable/advanced exclusive housing.

Some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing affordability that caters to a diverse workforce. According to UC Berkeley, 100% of households live in neighborhoods that are exclusive to low-income households due to exclusive household costs.

In Hillsborough, 0% of owner occupied and renter occupied households are susceptible to or at risk of experiencing displacement, at risk of experiencing gentrification or are stable moderate/mixed income. At the same time, 100% of owner occupied and renter occupied households are at risk of experiencing exclusion (Figure 5.31: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure). 3,388
244
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Susceptible to or
Experiencing
Displacement
At risk of or
Experiencing
Gentrification
Stable
Moderate/Mixed
Income
At risk of or
Experiencing Exclusion
Other
Households
Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 5.31: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
68 -387-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Vacancy
A certain number of vacant units are needed to moderate the cost of housing, allow sufficient choice for residents, and provide an incentive for unit upkeep and repair. Specifically, according to HCD, a vacancy rate of 1.5% for owner-occupied housing and 5% percent for rental housing are considered optimal to balance demand and supply for housing.

Vacancy rates in Hillsborough are higher than what is considered optimal for a healthy housing market. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the overall vacancy rate in Hillsborough was 10%, which equates to 398 total vacant units. Specifically, the vacancy rate for owner-occupied housing was 6%, and for renter-occupied housing, 0%. Most of the vacant units in Hillsborough are homes for sale which makes up 50% of all vacant units. 27% are used as seasonal, recreational or occasional use homes while the remaining 23% are in the other category. The category “other” vacancy refers to vacant housing units that do not fall into one of the other categories, including housing held by a janitor or caretaker, or units held vacant for an owner’s personal reasons. In contrast, the current vacancy rate in the Bay Area region is estimated to be 6%.

When vacancy rates are too low, prices are often forced to go up, making it more difficult for low- and moderate-income households to find housing, increasing the incidence of overcrowding. 31%
24%
50%
7%
6%
27%
23%
22%
23%
28%
36%
6% 6%
6% 7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Percent of Vacant Housing Units
Housing Vacancy
For Rent For Sale
For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use Other Vacant Rented, Not Occupied Sold, Not Occupied
Figure 5.32: Housing Vacancy
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
69 -388-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a correspondingly higher prevalence of housing cost burden and overcrowding.

The following summarizes the cost and affordability of the housing stock for Hillsborough residents (Figure 5.33: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units).
1% 3% 6%
1%
4%
16%
2%
14%
23%
1%
23% 20%
23%
18%
1%
14%
8%
95%
19%
9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Units Valued Less than $250k Units Valued $250k-$500k Units Valued $500k-$750k Units Valued $750k-$1M Units Valued $1M-$1.5M Units Valued $1M-$2M Units Valued $2M+
Figure 5.33: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
70 -389-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Homeownership Market
Hillsborough’s home values are significantly higher than those in the region, with the average home estimated to cost $4,571,825 by December 2020 according to Zillow and 95% of the housing stock valued at 2M+. In Contrast, the average home value in San Mateo County is estimated to be $1,418,334 with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m and the average home value in the Bay Area is estimated to be $1,077,233 with the largest share of units valued $500k-$750k.

Between 2001 and 2020, average home value in Hillsborough increased 265%, a much higher percent increase compared to prices in San Mateo County and the Bay Area region.

The home sale market (Figure 5.34: Home Asking Prices) continues to rise in Hillsborough, as the as home values in the region have steadily increased since 2000, despite a dip during the great recession. The average home value in December of 2020 ($4,571,825) is significantly higher than the average home value in December of 2012 ($1,961,633) according to the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI).
$100,000
$600,000
$1,100,000
$1,600,000
$2,100,000
$2,600,000
$3,100,000
$3,600,000
$4,100,000
$4,600,000
$5,100,000
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Home Asking Prices
Bay Area San Mateo County Hillsborough
Figure 5.34: Home Asking Prices
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
71 -390-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Rental Market
While renter-occupied units comprise only about 6% of the housing stock in Hillsborough, it is still important to understand the rental market. Rental price information was collected for the 4 apartment complexes within the Town with units for rent, as detailed in Zillow data pulled in April 2022. At the time of this research, the median rent was $3,200.

Consistent with recent increasing home values in the Bay Area Region, rent has also shown upward trends in the last couple of decades. This has resulted in displacement, evictions and renters being priced out before they can even move to an area, particularly communities of color. Many community members are subjected to living far from work, schools and community amenities and take long commutes to get there. Some move out of the region or even out of the State. Understanding rent trends in a community is important to determining a need for more affordable rental units to promote inclusivity. Including more housing where more community members can afford to live where they work will also create a more sustainable future as commute times and traffic will decrease significantly.

In Hillsborough, the largest portion of rental units cost $3,000 or more per month, making up 42% of rental units. This is followed by rental units ranging from $2,500-3,000 per month, making up 23% of rental units. San Mateo County also consists of mostly rental units at $3,000 or more per month with 22% of rental units in this category, contrasting with the Bay Area as a whole, consisting of 23% of rental units in the $1,500-2,000 category.
3%
6% 6% 4%
10%
6%
12%
19% 17%
22% 23%
5%
21%
17%
23%
16%
12%
42%
22%
13%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%
Hillsborough San Mateo County Bay Area
Percent of Rental Units
Rental Market
Rent less than $500 Rent $500-$1000 Rent $1000-$1500 Rent $1500-$2000 Rent $2000-$2500 Rent $2500-$3000 Rent $3000 or more
Figure 5.35: Rental Market
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
72 -391-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Rental Market
While renter-occupied units comprise only comprise about 6% of the housing stock in Hillsborough, it is still important to understand the rental market. Rental price information was collected for the 4 apartment complexes within the Town with units for rent, as detailed in Zillow data pulled in April 2022. At the time of this research, the median rent was $3,200.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
73 -392-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Housing Affordability By Household Income
While Figure 5.35: Rental Rates breaks down average rental price and the price range for rental units by size, the ACS also allows for the analysis of Hillsborough’s 244 renter households (for which income data are available) by spending on rent by income bracket (dollar amounts). As one might expect, the general trend is that low-income households spend a higher share of income on housing (e.g. over 50%) while high-income households are more likely to spend under 20% of income on housing.

Housing affordability is dependent upon income and housing costs. Using set income guidelines, current housing affordability can be estimated. According to the HCD income guidelines for 2021, the Area Median Income (AMI) in San Mateo County was $149,600 for a household of four. If the potential homebuyer has sufficient credit and down payment (10%) and spends no greater than 30% of their income on housing expenses (i.e. mortgage, taxes and insurance, the maximum affordable home price can be determined).

Similar assumptions allow us to determine the maximum affordable rental rate for a given income level. Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end. The market-affordability of San Mateo County’s housing stock for each income group is discussed below.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households earn 30% or less of the AMI. The estimated maximum affordable rental payment ranges from $959 per month for a one-person household to $1,590 per month for a 6-person household apartment. The maximum affordable home purchase price for very low-income households ranges from $130,009 for a one-person household to $175,652 for a fiveperson household. Extremely low-income households generally cannot afford housing at market rate.

Very Low-Income Households
Very low-income households are classified as those earning 50% or less of the AMI. The estimated maximum affordable rental payment ranges from $1,598 per month for a one-person household to $2,650 per month for a family of five. The maximum affordable home purchase price for very low-income households ranges from $63,950 for a one-person household to $91,350 for a five-person household. Based on the rental data presented in Table CP-25: Apartment Rental Rates and Table CP-26: Housing Affordability matrix San Mateo County (2020), very low-income households of all sizes would be unlikely to secure adequately sized and affordable rental housing in San Mateo County.

Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn 51% to 80% of the County AMI. The estimated maximum home price a low-income household can afford ranges from $233,862 for a one-person household to $335,821 for a five-person household. Affordable rental rates for low-income households would range from $2,558 for a one-person household to $4,240 for a five-person household.

Low-income households could not afford adequately sized homes listed for-sale in August 2020. Despite a higher income, low-income households do not have a better chance in securing an adequately sized and affordable rental housing unit as rental units range from $1,495-1,755 for one-bedroom units to $2,750 for three-bedroom units and are out of the affordable rent price (Figure

5.35: Rental Rates).

Moderate-Income Households
Moderate income households earn up to 120% of the County AMI. The estimated maximum affordable home price for moderate income households ranges from $290,392 for a one-person household to $422,971 for a family of five. A moderate-income household can afford rental rates of $3,141 to $5,205 per month depending on household size.

Based on the rental and for-sale housing market data presented in Figure 5.34: Home Asking Prices and Figure 5.35: Rental Rates, moderate income households can afford to rent some of the apartments advertised in September 2020 but not purchase adequately sized homes. For example, asking prices for a four-bedroom home (an adequately sized home to avoid overcrowding) range from $525,000 to $1.3 million (Figure 5.34: Home Asking Prices (August 2020)). This far exceeds the affordable purchase price for large households. This table does include some single- family home and condo/townhome listings that meet the affordable price for large families, but do not have adequate rooms to avoid overcrowding.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
74 -393-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Project-Based Rental Housing Assistance
Project-based rental housing assistance includes affordable housing that receives public subsidies in return for long-term affordability controls.

Housing Assisted Housing Inventory
The Town of Hillsborough has no project-based rental housing. However, according to a Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC) meeting on January 25, 2022, Town Staff responded to questions regarding meeting RHNA numbers and existing affordable units in Hillsborough and stated the Town has met all its Cycle 5 very low and low-income units through ADU’s.

Evaluation of Preservation Options
State law requires that the Town identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing affordable multifamily rental units that are eligible to convert to market rate rents due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiring deed restrictions during the 10-year period starting June 15, 2022. Consistent with State law, the following identifies publicly assisted housing units in Hillsborough and analyzes their potential to convert to market rate housing uses.

While 0 Publicly Assisted Affordable Housing units are at risk of conversion within 10 years of the start of the 6th Cycle planning period, from 2021 to 2029, the following analyzes two options to preserve affordable units at risk of conversion to market rents including:
• Monitoring Program to maintain the Town’s affordable housing stock; and • Provide an overview of the State’s no net loss buffer of 20% At-Risk Affordable Units
Existing housing that receives governmental assistance is often a significant source of affordable housing in many communities.

Hillsborough has 0 publicly assisted housing developments.

Affordable Housing Monitoring Program
The first option for preserving affordable units is to replace the HUD rental vouchers given to each tenant or the payment subsidies given to each property owner. The cost of replacing subsidies depends on the fair market rent for the unit and the household income level of the tenant. Typically, the subsidy is the difference between what a household can afford to pay and fair market rent for the unit. Replacing the rental subsidies for senior housing - assuming all the units are occupied by very low-income households - would cost approximately $62.5 million over 25 years. For family housing, the subsidy (assuming all units are occupied by low-income households) would be approximately $24.6 million. Significant variation in these amounts is possible depending on the actual income level of the residents.

This option assumes the property owner accepts a subsidy that guarantees fair market rent. In some cases, property owners may decline. Although this subsidy would guarantee the long-term affordability of the unit, the cost could increase over time as market pressures push rents higher and require the Town to increase the rental subsidies. Generally, this option is a short-term fix to a longterm problem and is not considered a sustainable solution.

No Net Loss Buffer
The second option for preserving affordable units is to replace the affordable units by constructing new affordable units. This option would entail finding suitable sites, purchasing land, negotiating with a developer, and obtaining financing.The final cost depends on whether the builder must purchase land (or whether the Town can transfer the land at a subsidized price), and whether the Town or private developer’s initial financial contribution can be leveraged with other funding sources.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
75 -394-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Program Efforts to Preserve At-Risk Units
While there are currently no at-risk units in Hillsborough, the San Mateo County Housing Authority developed the following programs to address the preservation of assisted units. In 2016, the County created the Affordable Rental Acquisition and Preservation Program (ARAPP), a sub-fund within the Counties Affordable Housing Fund to authorize $10 million from Measure K funding to acquire and preserve the affordability of existing affordable units in the County. However, as of March 30, 2019, there is zero funding available for ARAPP.

Estimates of Housing Needs
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Hillsborough. Based on CHAS, housing problems in Hillsborough include:
• Housing units built in 1979 or earlier;
• Rent and home values exceeding the Bay Area and San Mateo County housing averages; • Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30% of gross income; or • Senior households experiencing housing cost burden, exceeding 30% of gross income.

Disproportionate Needs
The types of problems vary according to household income, type, and tenure. Some highlights include:
• While older homes do not determine poor housing standards, the majority (80%) of housing units are built in 1979 of earlier. • Nearly all (95%) of owner-occupied homes in Hillsborough are valued at $2 million or more, which is 76% more than homes in San Mateo County (19%) worth $2 million or more, and 86% more than homes in the Bay Area (9%) worth $2 million or more. • Almost half (42%) of renter-occupied units in Hillsborough have rents costing $3,000 or more. This is 20% more than the renter-occupied units in San Mateo County with rents costing $3,000 or more (22%), and 29% more than the renter-occupied units in the Bay Area with rents costing $3,000 or more (13%). • Out of the 1,405 seniors in Hillsborough, 295 seniors, or 20%, experience housing cost burden, where residents have 80% or less AMI and 30% or more of income is used for housing.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
76 -395-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Hillsborough encourages its residents to become energy efficient, starting with their own homes.

The Town continues in its efforts to be a more sustainable community and has been a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Cities for Climate Protection for ## years. ICLEI works collaboratively with municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Through this collaboration, the Town completed a greenhouse gas inventory of Hillsborough’s residential, municipal, and solid waste sectors and their GHG emissions. The Council also established a Sustainable Hillsborough Task Force (SHTF, 2007). The SHTF comprises members of the public, building professionals, ADRB and Council Representatives, and staff.

Armed with information from the GHG inventory, the SHTF identified and prioritized programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions, and prepared a comprehensive Sustainable Hillsborough Plan as a roadmap to sustainable programs and policies. The Plan has policies and programs that reduce energy consumption and costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), expand renewable energy, and reduce water consumption and other natural resources.

The Town of Hillsborough enforces current State standards for energy efficiency in new construction. All new construction must conform with the State of California’s residential building standards for energy efficiency (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code). Title 24 Standards were established in 1978 to insure that all new construction meets a minimum level of energy efficiency standards. Title 24 is updated regularly.

Proposals for new houses and major additions in Hillsborough are required to be accompanied by a landscape plan, including a 2:1 replacement schedule for any trees requiring a permit to be removed (with some exceptions, as recommended by a certified arborist). In addition, a tree removal permit is required when trees greater than 36” in diameter are removed. The Town recognizes that homeowners can save up to 25 percent of a household’s energy consumption for heating and cooling with the proper siting of trees to allow sun exposure in the winter and shade in the summer.

The Town has been a leader in sustainability in the Bay Area with its green policies and programs. In 1998, Hillsborough was the first San Mateo County jurisdiction to approve a “C&D policy” and an ordinance requiring the recycling and salvaging of construction and demolition materials. The ordinance, which requires approved Waste Reduction Plans for building and demolition projects prior to permit issuance, reduces the number of materials going to landfills and conserves energy through the reuse and recycling of materials. Town staff monitors and enforces the C&D Recycling Program14 which, since 2002, has annually diverted an estimated 73 percent of C&D materials from construction projects. The program emphasizes “deconstruction” and salvage to find the highestand-best uses for materials removed from Hillsborough building sites.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which supplies all of the electric and gas service to the Town, offers an assortment of programs that provide residents with the opportunity for energy conservation. The State Energy Commission also offers rebate programs and other programs for low income residents. As part of its recent broader sustainability initiatives, the Town of Hillsborough eliminated its $500 solar fee and partnered with SolarCity to offer residents a Community Solar Program. The program—which operated from January 10 to April 10, 2009—was designed to educate the consumer and facilitate the transformation of Hillsborough to clean energy. To do so, the program coupled an outreach campaign with discounts and other techniques to incentivize solar adoption. In addition to exclusive discounts on purchased systems, homeowners had the option of leasing their solar systems for no upfront cost and a monthly lease fee. The results were an immediate reduction in residential energy utility bills and a shift toward a more sustainable community powered by clean energy.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
77 -396-
6 HOUSING

CONSTRAINTS
-397-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Introduction
Statue requires that an update to a jurisdiction’s Housing Element includes an assessment of housing constraints—specifically constraints to the production of housing for persons of all income levels and disabilities—as such an assessment might provide a basis for actions that local governments can take to offset such effects. The Town of Hillsborough is committed to supporting the development of adequate housing at all income levels, and in tandem with this commitment is the reality that various factors exist which constrain the development of such housing in the Bay Area. These factors can include governmental constraints (e.g., zoning and other similar development standards), and non-governmental constraints (e.g., the cost of development and the availability of readily developable land.)
Governmental Constraints
Land Use Constraints
Local ordinances and policies are intended to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents; however, it is necessary to periodically evaluate these ordinances and policies to ensure that they are accomplishing their intended purpose while not imposing a barrier to inclusive housing development.

General Plan
The Town of Hillsborough incorporated in 1910. One of the reasons that the founders of the Town originally decided to incorporate was to preserve the character of the community. This desire to preserve the character continues today. Hillsborough is a community that is proud of its low density and primarily single-family residential character. The Town of Hillsborough updated its General Plan in 2005. Even at that time, the plan indicated that the lack of available land as a constraint to housing development. Most of the town is developed to the density allowed by the General Plan. Development is further constrained due to limited land use categories. The General Plan's four basic land use designations include: Residential (R), Public Facilities and Services (PFS), Private Schools (PS), Open Space and Conservation (OSC), Private Recreational (PR).

Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
79 -398-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Zoning Ordinance
The Town of Hillsborough is unique compared to other cities in California in that it consists mainly of low density single-family residential development, with a minimum lot size of ½ acre, with no commercial or industrial uses. The zoning ordinance is adopted to implement the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and to manage future growth and development in accordance with that plan. Priorities of the zoning ordinance include; conservation of natural resources, natural beauty, and significant environmental amenities of the town; preserving adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling; and retaining the scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods.

The only non-residential uses within the Town are public facilities, parks and open space land, private and public schools, the Burlingame Country Club (BCC) and the Hillsborough Racquet Club. The zoning categories reflect the Town's low-density residential, large lot, single-family character. Commercial and industrial land uses are prohibited.

The development standards require large setbacks, restrictions on impervious/structural lot coverage ratios, and height limitations.

The code requires a minimum net lot area of ½ acre (21,780 square feet) and a minimum continuous street frontage for each lot of 150 feet. This regulation limits the number of lots that qualify for a subdivision. The potential development on vacant lots is limited by the maximum allowed density of one single-family dwelling per ½ acre.

The Town has seen an increase in the development of accessory dwelling and junior accessory dwelling units (ADUs/JADUs) with an average of 64 building permits issued per year in recent years. The Town has established three tiers of review for ADUs; ministerial review, ADU Permit Review, and an ADU Exception Review. The ministerial review is consistent with State Law, for ADUs that are limited to 800 square feet of floor area, 16 feet in height, and setbacks of 4 feet or more. The ADU Permit Review is for ADUs that exceed the limitations of the ministerial review in terms of square footage, height, and/or setbacks, but comply with all of the objective standards outlined in HMC Section 17.52. The ADU Exception Review is for An ADU or JADU that does not comply with every applicable standard in Section 17.52.020. The applicant may opt into the exception review and request a discretionary design review of the ADU or JADU.

Hillside Development Standards
The potential for new units is also limited by the Town’s “Hillside Development Standard.” In order to retain the scenic quality of hillsides and reduce the hazards to persons and property from erosion and landslides, allowable density is reduced on a sliding-scale basis for sites with slopes greater than 10 percent according to the degree of slope. This scale ranges from 2 units per acre on slopes of less than 10 percent to 0.5 units per acre on slopes greater than 40 percent. While technically this is a constraint, given the erosion and landslide hazard on steeply sloped sites no changes to the Zoning ordinance are proposed at this time.

On- and Off-site Improvements
Hillsborough does not require sidewalks; however, for new construction and substantial remodeling (50% of the existing structure or more), the Town requires the installation of a parking strip along the street frontage. All streets within the subdivision and one-half of the width of streets adjacent to the subdivision are the responsibility of the developer. Developers are also required to provide water and sewer connections and storm drainage facilities. Slope stabilization measures are required for new construction on all sites with slope gradients above 10 percent. While technically these requirements may be considered constraints as there are development costs associated with the provision of these required improvements, the improvements are necessary to ensure safe and sanitary housing and are generally required in all other cities in San Mateo County. They are noted here as affecting development, but are not viewed as a local governmental constraint for the purposes of this analysis.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
80 -399-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Permit Processing Times
Housing is developed in Hillsborough through the subdivision of larger parcels, construction of individual houses on existing lots (both replacement of older homes, additions to existing homes, and net-new homes), and construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Planning review for land use entitlement and Building review to ensure that all pertinent life/ health/safety codes are met for the structure(s) can be obtained on average in approximately six to nine months. If an applicant proposes to create new lots via the subdivision process this timeline is extended depending on the scope and complexity of the subdivision. Obtaining approval of a subdivision map requires on average four to six months, and, if required, an Environmental Impact Report often takes up to a year. The Town processes subdivisions and building permits as efficiently as possible and continually reviews processes and procedures to enhance permit streamlining wherever feasible.

The Building & Planning Department of the Town of Hillsborough has implemented permit streamlining processes for ministerial reviews of accessory dwelling units, which do not require discretionary planning review, and SB 9 applications, in an effort to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable units. The Town is in the process of updating its permit applications to ensure consistency with The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), and has entered into contract with a permit tracking software vendor to update its permit application tracking software. This cloud-based update will be complete in early 2023, allowing for 24/7 permit applications and payment of fees for both Planning and Building permit applications. Like all jurisdictions in California, the Town is subject to the Subdivision Map Act and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and as such, must adhere to the statutory timelines outlined in the Act, regardless of impacts to the timeline for review of housing development projects, or additional costs. As such, these impacts are out of the control of the Town. They are noted here as affecting development, but are not viewed as a local governmental constraint for the purposes of this analysis. Requirements under SB 35 are not currently applicable in Hillsborough, as the Town has issued building permits exceeding its RHNA 5 allocation.

Pollutant Discharge
The federal government, under the 1974 Clean Water Act, implemented the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permit system regulating water discharge. Local jurisdictions are responsible for obtaining a permit and for enacting implementation measures to maintain compliance with the permit.

Like all jurisdictions in California, the Town is subject to the Clean Water Act and the related NPDES permit, regardless of impacts to the timeline for review of housing development projects, or additional costs. As such, these impacts are out of the control of the Town. They are noted here as affecting development, but are not viewed as a local governmental constraint for the purposes of this analysis. In an effort to expedite the process as much as possible, the County of San Mateo and all 20 county jurisdictions have joined together to have NPDES permits issued to the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). Permit regulations can significantly limit the developable area of any given parcel and may also increase the costs of residential development.

Codes and Enforcement
Hillsborough regularly adopts the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC) to ensure the health and safety of residents of newly constructed housing, most recently in December 2022. The Town enforces the building code through its Building Division, ensuring that that all new residences, additions, accessory structures, etc., meet current construction and safety standards. Inspections and approvals are completed promptly and do not add unnecessary delays in the construction of new housing.

The Town has a dedicated code enforcement officer, who works closely with the Building Division on any land use or construction enforcement. Additionally, the Town has a construction inspection program to monitor active construction sites and respond to complaints and violations related to noise, construction activity without a Building Permit, and parking of construction vehicles.

The code enforcement program does not pose a constraint to housing development, maintenance or the supply and affordability of housing. Like all jurisdictions in California, the Town is subject to the CBC, regardless of impacts to the timeline for review of housing development projects, or additional costs. As such, these impacts are out of the control of the Town. They are noted here as affecting development, but are not viewed as a local governmental constraint for the purposes of this analysis.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
81 -400-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Fees
Local governments typically assess a variety of different types of residential development fees. These include planning application fees, building permit and related fees, and capital facilities fees. Fees are intended only to recover costs to the Town for the review of development applications, and are not a profit-generating venture.

Residential planning and building fees are broadly required by all jurisdictions in San Mateo County, and most jurisdictions throughout the state. In general, the data suggests that jurisdiction-imposed fees represent a small percentage of the overall cost to develop new housing. The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market factors over which local government has little or no control. They are noted here as affecting development, but are not viewed as a significant governmental constraint.

Table 6.1 (below) compares fees for construction of new single-family homes with fees in other San Mateo County cities for which data was available in 2021. Hillsborough’s fees are in the middle of the range.

Table 6.1: Housing Construction Fees in Surrounding Cities Impact Fees Charged Jurisdictions Number of
Jxs
Traffic/Transportation East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo City, South San Francisco, Unincorporated San Mateo, Woodside 8
Schools Brisbane, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, South San Francisco, Woodside 7
Water/Sewer/Stormwater Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo City, South San Francisco 7
Parks Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo City, South San Francisco 7
Public Facilities/Capital
Improvements Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica 4 In-Lieu/Affordable Housing Burlingame, Redwood City, Unincorporated San Mateo 3 Development Colma, Millbrae, San Bruno 3
Childcare San Mateo City, South San Francisco 2
Public Art San Mateo City 1
Public Safety South San Francisco 1
Library South San Francisco 1
AB Daly City 1
Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
82 -401-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Reasonable Accommodation
Housing that is accessible to people with disabilities has been identified as a special housing need in the town's housing element since 2002. Chapter 17.42 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code entitled “Reasonable Housing Under the Fair Housing Acts” provides reasonable accommodation to people with disabilities, and complies with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act in the application of the Town’s zoning, land use laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, procedures, and practices.

A request for reasonable accommodation may include a request for modification or exception to the application of the town's zoning, regulations, rules, standards, policies, procedures, practices, and other land use rules such as; for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of that person’s choice.

Requests for reasonable accommodation are submitted to the city planner and no fee is required for submitting a letter of request or for filing an appeal. The city planner will review the request and make a written determination within 45 days after receipt. The Town has a clearly defined process outlined in the Hillsborough Municipal Code with an expedited timeline and no fees assessed.

Residential Uses
The Municipal Code defines “residential purposes” as those including the use of the home for food and shelter and as a social institution for the private, religious, educational, cultural, and recreational advantages of the family.

The Town does not limit the number of unrelated individuals who reside in a residence. The Town defines “family” as a single housekeeping unit, which is the use of a dwelling unit by its residents where the use has the following characteristics:

1. The residents have established ties and familiarity and interact with each other.

2. Membership in the single housekeeping unit is fairly stable as opposed to transient or temporary.

3. Residents share meals, household activities, expenses, and responsibilities.

4. All adult residents have chosen to jointly occupy the entire premises of the dwelling unit, and they each have access to all common areas.

5. If the dwelling unit is rented, all adult residents are named on and party to a single written lease that gives them each joint use and responsibility for the premises.

6. Membership of the household is determined by the residents, not by a landlord, property manager, or other third party.

7. The residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis.

8. Residents do not have separate entrances nor do they have separate food-storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators or food-prep areas.

Residential Care Facilities
The Town allows for Residential Care Facilities for the elderly in a single-family dwelling, to the extent mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 1569.85, as well as Transitional and Supportive Housing as defined respectively in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.2(h) and 50675.14(b). Such facilities shall meet all requirements of the Hillsborough Municipal Code, including but not limited to parking, relating to single-family residences.

Short Term Rentals
The Town prohibits short term rentals. "Short-term rental" means the use of any residential building, or of any portion of a residential building, to provide lodging for fewer than thirty days in exchange for compensation. Short term rentals are most commonly offered and rented through online hosting platforms such as Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway. The Town found short term rentals to reduce availability of rental units for local residents and not in keeping with the character of the town, as a short-term rental is a type of transitory lodging.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
83 -402-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can be an important source of affordable housing since they are smaller and do not have direct land acquisition costs. ADU development expands housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. The Town last updated its ADU ordinance in December 2021; and now has an up-to-date ordinance considered compliant with Government Code Section 65852.2. Zoning ordinance updates designed to further encourage development of ADUs are included in the Housing Plan section of the Draft Housing Element.

Non-governmental Constraints
Land Availability and Land Cost
For over 100 years, San Mateo County in general and Hillsborough in particular have been a highly desirable place to live. People from all over the world are drawn to the character of Hillsborough, including its tranquil, rural atmosphere, its award-winning public schools, and its financial stability. The result is a high demand for Hillsborough residences, with land and housing prices pushed beyond what would be generated from local pressures alone. When adding the combination of these factors to the already cost-burdened San Francisco Bay Area, it becomes exceedingly challenging for very-low, low- and moderate-income households to afford housing in Hillsborough, and challenging for the town to provide housing at a variety of income levels.

Land costs include acquisition and the cost of holding land throughout the development process. These costs can account for as much as half of the final sales prices of new homes in small developments or in areas where land is scarce. The median sale price of single family dwellings in Hillsborough is on average approximately $6.42 million or $1,632 per square foot. The cost for a vacant lot in Hillsborough averages approximately $4,330,000, the equivalent of approximately $3,700,000 per acre. These estimated land costs are based upon a review of non-vacant residential and vacant land sales on Zillow.com from 2019-2022. The information obtained shows five vacant lots sold in the past three years, and only two vacant lots currently for sale.

Environmental Constraints
Land use in town is further restricted by the steep terrain. Construction on steep hillsides requires careful siting to ensure safety and prevent soil erosion, limiting the number of dwellings that can be built and increasing their cost. In parts of Hillsborough, storm drainage problems can be a constraint to housing development, as development increases the impervious surface and limits absorption of storm waters, increasing runoff. Some areas of Hillsborough drain into areas served by City of San Mateo, Burlingame, and San Mateo County drainage facilities or unregulated private systems. Development in these areas requires the cooperation of the Town, San Mateo County, adjacent jurisdictions and individual homeowners.

Because of the combination of steep slopes and abundant vegetation in Hillsborough, wildfires may threaten residences. The Central County Fire Department reviews plans for all new buildings and major additions to ensure the construction complies with fire access requirements and make recommendations for modifications to reduce fire hazards. All new homes are required to have Class-A fire resistant roofs and fire sprinklers.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
84 -403-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Construction Costs
Construction costs are one of the major cost factors with residential development. Construction cost is determined primarily by the cost of labor and materials, which are relative to complexity and desired quality of the project. The price paid for material and labor at any one time will reflect short-term considerations of supply and demand and unilaterally impact construction in a region and therefore do not deter housing construction in any specific community. According to data from the California Construction Cost Index, hard construction costs in California grew by 44 percent between 2014 and 2018, or an additional $80 per square foot. The quality of materials, type of amenities, labor costs and the quality of building materials will affect the construction costs for a new home.

The steep terrain in Hillsborough increases the costs of construction, as engineering for hillside development & foundations, construction of retaining walls, and the grading necessary for access roads, all drive up the cost of building in Hillsborough. The increased challenges of building in Hillsborough ensure that, housing in Hillsborough will be very expensive, regardless of any potential governmental constraints.

Financing
Financing is needed at three stages of the housing construction process:

1. Predevelopment. The developer must have financing to purchase the land and pay for planning, architecture, engineering, and holding the land (carrying costs) during the approval process.

2. Construction. The builder needs financing to pay for the costs of labor and materials.

3. Purchase. The homebuyer usually needs mortgage financing to purchase the completed dwelling.

Currently, interest rates for homebuyers are high. Interest rates substantially impact home construction, purchase, and improvement costs. The availability of financing and the rate of interest can greatly affect the ability of developers and builders to produce housing and of consumers to purchase it. The economic fluctuations of recent years have caused caution among lenders and may have lasting effects through this Housing Element planning period. The cost of construction is exacerbated in areas like Hillsborough with difficult building conditions because developers incur substantially higher predevelopment costs.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Constraints on Housing Production Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
85 -404-
7 HOUSING

RESOURCES
-405-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Number of Units and Growth
In 2020, there were 4,091 housing units in Hillsborough, an increase of 179 units from the 3,912 in 2010. Of the 4,091 housing units, 3,633 were occupied and 398 were vacant. Of the 3,633 occupied households, 244 were renters and 3,389 were owners. Table 7.1 below shows housing stock characteristics in Hillsborough by tenure.

Rate of Construction
Table 7.2 summarizes new construction, demolition, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from 2017-2021.

The table above shows that Hillsborough has seen an average of 29.8 net new units per year since 2017. After the adoption of the Housing Element in 2014 and the Town’s ADU ordinance (amended in 2021), the construction of ADUs jumped from an average of

21.25 per year to 64 ADUs built in 2021. From 2021-2022, ADU construction averaged approximately 65 units per year.

Availability of Utility Services
Water and sewer services are available for the number of housing units contemplated by the RHNA; however, developers may be required to fund any needed capacity increases. Land use and development in Hillsborough are restricted by the steep terrain. The terrain separates the town into northern and southern halves, which are served by two different sewer districts. A potential concern, but one which is not a constraint on development, relates to the capacity to handle wet weather flow within the northern half of the town—flow that is treated by the Cities of Burlingame and San Mateo sewage treatment plants. Infrastructure is adequate and is not a problem.

Table 7.1: Owners and Renters
2000 2010 2020
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Owner 3,530 96% 3523 97% 3,389 93%
Renter 159 4% 127 3% 244 7%
Total 3,689 1 3,650 100% 3,633 100%
Table 7.2: Housing Unit Construction
Year
Constructed
Single
Family Units
Teardowns Net New
SFR ADU's Total New Units
2017 14 0 14 4 18
2018 3 0 3 16 19
2019 4 0 4 19 23
2020 3 0 3 22 25
2021 0 0 0 64 64
Total 24 0 24 125 149
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Resources
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
87 -406-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Financial Resources
Without retail sales and transient occupancy taxes, the Town’s budget operates mainly from property tax revenues, and has only limited funds for housing assistance. During the 2015-2022 planning period, the Town’s total contribution over $107,200 to HEART of San Mateo County, HIP Housing, LifeMoves, Innvision Shelter Network, and the Human Investment Project. The Town does not receive direct federal housing assistance (such as CDBG and Emergency Shelter Grants). However, the Town has an administrative agreement with the County, which receives such funds for smaller jurisdictions like Hillsborough. If opportunities are found to create lower cost housing or shelter, the Town could work with the County to access federal financial construction assistance.

There are a variety of potential funding sources available for housing activities in Hillsborough. Due to both the high cost of developing and preserving housing, and limitations on both the amount and uses of funds, a variety of funding sources may be required.

The following list summarizes potential funding sources that are available for housing activities in Hillsborough. They are divided into three categories: federal, state, and local (County and Town resources).

Federal Programs
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
The federal low-income housing tax credit is the principal source of federal funding for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental homes. The tax credits are a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal tax liability. Although the LIHTC is a federal program, it is administered principally through state housing finance agencies.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG Program provides funds for new construction, housing acquisition, housing programs, housing rehabilitation, public services, community facilities, economic development, and public works. CDBG activities are initiated and developed at the local level and are based on a community’s needs.

HOME Investment Partnership Programs (HOME)
The HOME Program provides formula grants to cities, counties, and states for building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people.

Section 811
HUD provides funding towards the development and subsidizing supportive rental housing for very low- and extremely low-income adults with disabilities. This allows persons with disabilities live as independently as possible through affordable housing and the appropriate supportive services.

Section 202
HUD provides grants to non-profit developers of supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons and provides rent subsidies for these housing projects to help make them affordable.

Mortgage Credit Certificate
The Mortgage Credit Certificate program makes federal income tax credits available to low-income first-time homebuyers to purchase housing. The County makes certificates available through participating lenders.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Resources
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
88 -407-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
State Programs
CalHome Program
The CalHome program supports existing low- and very low-income households to become or remain homeowners. The program provides grants and/or loans to fund local public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and federally Recognized and Special Government entities for first-time homebuyer mortgage assistance, owner-occupied rehabilitation assistance, technical assistance for self-help housing projects, technical assistance for shared housing programs, accessory dwelling unit/junior accessory dwelling unit assistance and homeownership development project loans.

Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Program
The IIG Program provides funding for capital improvement projects necessary to facilitate the development of a Qualifying Infill Project or a Qualifying Infill Area.

Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF)
The LHTF program helps finance local and regional housing trust funds dedicated to the creation, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. The program provides matching grants (dollar-for-dollar) to LHTFs that are funded on an ongoing basis from private contributions or public sources that are not otherwise restricted in use for housing programs approved activities include loans for multi-family rental housing projects with units restricted for at least 55 years. No more than 20 percent of each allocation may assist moderate-income households, and at least 30 percent of each allocation must assist extremely low-income households.

Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
The purpose of the MHP is to provide loans to individuals, public agencies, or private entities to for the development, rehabilitation and preservation, or acquisition and rehabilitation of permanent and transitional rental housing, and the conversion of nonresidential structures to rental housing, for lower income households. Projects are not eligible if construction has commenced as of the application date, or if they are receiving 9 percent federal low-income housing tax credits. Eligible applicants (including local public entities, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, limited equity housing cooperatives, individuals, Indian reservations and Rancherias, and limited partnerships) must have successfully developed at least one affordable housing project.

SB 2/LEAP Grants
SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions to increase the supply of affordable housing. For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).

CalHFA Homebuyer’s Down Payment Assistance Program
The CalHFA makes below market loans to first- time homebuyers of up to 3% of sales price. Program operates through participating lenders who originate loans for CalHFA. Funds available upon request to qualified borrowers.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Resources
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
89 -408-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Local Programs
San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund
AHF 9.0 was released in June of 2021, making over $50 million available in Measure K, State HHC, MHSA, and other funds for the construction of new multifamily affordable rental housing projects, multifamily re-syndication-rehabilitation projects for existing deed-restricted multifamily affordable rental housing developments, and new construction affordable homeownership projects.

Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART):

HEART was founded in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the San Mateo County cities, the County, and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities. Through public and private sources, HEART raises funds to create and preserve affordable housing for low-and moderate-income families in San Mateo County. To date, HEART has provided over $19 million to fund over 1,300 affordable homes since.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Resources
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
90 -409-
8 HOUSING

OPPORTUNITIES
-410-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Overview
The Town of Hillsborough’s Cycle 6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 554 net new units distributed over four income categories, as assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The unit count and income assignments are based on the regional assignment methodology developed by ABAG for the 6th RHNA Cycle. The Town’s total allocation and unit count breakout by income level is detailed in Table 8.1.

The Town of Hillsborough is committed to meeting its RHNA 6 obligation. Given the Town’s production in RHNA5, exceeding the allocation by more 100%, the Town is not adding a “no net loss buffer” to the RHNA6 allocation. The Town will utilize a multi-pronged approach to achieve this goal, including:

1. Supporting and further promoting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs),

2. Facilitating the completion of pipeline projects,

3. Planning for and facilitating the development of existing vacant lots, and

4. Accommodating subdivisions of existing large lots.

Table 8.1: Town of Hillsborough
RHNA 6 Allocation
Income Level RHNA 6
Allocation
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) 155
Low Income (51-79% AMI) 89
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) 87
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 223
Total 554
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
92 -411-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Approach 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Background
The Town of Hillsborough has a strong track record of
supporting and encouraging accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. In response, the Town has seen a significant increase in ADU development applications during RHNA
Cycle 5. The Town’s ADU Permits issued by year for the years between 2014-2022 (June) are outlined in Table 8.2.

In an effort to support this trend and facilitate further ADU development, in 2020 the Town established an ADU
Ombudsman program staffed by an ADU Specialist specifically trained to guide people through the Town’s ADU review and approval processes. Since the establishment of this program in June 2020, ADU development has more than doubled.

In early 2022 the Town issued an ADU questionnaire to residents in an effort to better understand what improvements to processes and what additional amendments to development standards could be made to further encourage ADU development. A summary of the results of this questionnaire may be found in the Public Participation section of this document. The Town already has a very successful ADU program and sees significant interest and construction with the existing education and outreach to the community. The Town plans to further expand community outreach efforts and education to realize increased ADU development. Based on these results, the Town has included several ADU related goals and actions in the Housing Plan section of this document.

RHNA 6 Unit Allocation: ADUs
Based on the increase in ADU permitting since the commencement of the ADU Ombudsman program, the Town is estimating how many ADUs are likely to be developed in the RHNA6 cycle, based on a two-year average of the permitting for 2021 and 2022. The Town issued building permits for 64 ADUs in 2021. As of September 15, 2022, the Town has issued 45 building permits for ADUs in 2022. Based on the average ADU’s per month, the Town estimates issuance of at least 66 total building permits for ADUs in 2022.

Using a two-year average of 65 ADUs per year, the Town forecasts the development of 520 new ADUs over the next planning period.

The Town has significant confidence in the feasibility of achieving this number for the following reasons:
• Historic trends in ADU development in the RHNA5 Cycle • Recent ADU trends the last 2 years
• Positive responses to the 2022 ADU Survey
• Proposed modifications to ADU standards early in the RHNA6 Cycle • Large size of Hillsborough properties have adequate land available to build attached and detached ADUs and JADUs Table 8.2: ADU Building Permits
Issued by Year (RHNA Cycle 5)
Year # of ADU Building
Permits Issued
2014 16
2015 39
2016 10
2017 18
2018 16
2019 20
2020 25
2021 64
2022 (Jan-June) 28
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
93 -412-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
The Town intends to take the steps listed below to facilitate new ADU construction and rental to lower income households, increased ADU construction, construction, and conversion. Additional detail on the actions related to these steps are included in Policy 2 of the Housing Plan.
• Continue to support and fund a Town ADU Ombudsman to guide property owners through the Town’s ADU process, • Further streamline and expedite the ADU and JADU permitting process, • Allow one JADU and up to two ADUs on lots one acre and larger, • Create a program to encourage and expedite the conversion of pool houses, guest houses, and other accessory structures to recorded ADUs/JADUs,
• Create a retroactive permitting program for existing, unpermitted ADUs, • Promote partnership with HIP Housing to facilitate the rental of ADU and JADU units, • Encourage landlords to accept Section 8 and Housing Choice Vouchers by providing information on the Town’s Tenant/Landlord website regarding the programs and how to participate,
• Distribute HIP Housing’s monthly, multi-lingual home sharing fliers directly to City Council, Board, and Commission members, and public and private schools.Delta Table 1, below, summarizes the Town’s ADU income level breakdown. The table also demonstrates the remaining delta of the RHNA 6 obligation, after accounting for the ADU projections.

Table 8.3, below, summarizes the Town’s ADU income level breakdown. The table also demonstrates the remaining delta of the RHNA 6 obligation, after accounting for the ADU projections.

Table 8.3: ADU Delta
Income Level RHNA 6
Allocation ADUs RHNA 6 Allocation Less ADUs
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) 155 156 -1
Low Income (51-79% AMI) 89 156 -67
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) 87 156 -69
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 223 52 171
TOTAL: 554 520 34
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
94 -413-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Approach 2: Pipeline Projects
The Town of Hillsborough is in varying stages of the approval process for 11 housing units, as summarized in Table 8.4 below. The Town is committed to facilitating the completion of these pipeline projects and have included several goals and action related to streamlining and enhancing the user-friendliness of the approval process in the Housing Plan.

Table 8.5, below, demonstrates the remaining delta of the RHNA 6 obligation, after accounting for the ADU projections and pipeline projects. Approach 3: Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites
Table 8.5: Pipeline Projects Delta
Income Level RHNA 6 Allocation
Less ADUs
Units Resulting
from Pipeline
Projects
RHNA 6 Allocation
Less ADUs and
Pipeline Projects
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) -1 0 -1
Low Income (51-79% AMI) -67 0 -67
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) -69 0 -69
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 171 12 159
TOTAL: 34 12 22 Remaining Units
Needed
Table 8.4: Pipeline Projects
APN Address Stage in Process Unit Yield Unit Affordability 038110160;
038121160;
038271090
Callan Subdivision Subdivision Entitlement Approved 8 Above Moderate Income 028484050 2895 Churchill Drive ADRB Approval Received 1 Above Moderate Income 028520010 New Place Road Building Permits Issued 1 Above Moderate Income 028061100 Forest View Ave ADRB Approval Received 1 Above Moderate Income TOTAL 11 Above Moderate Income
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
95 -414-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Approach 3: Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites
Background
The Town of Hillsborough is a largely built out, entirely single-family residential community with little vacant land and very few underutilized sites. Opportunities for parcel consolidation and/or redevelopment are few and far between for several reasons, outlined below:
• While in the San Francisco Bay Metro Area, the Town is predominately rural in nature, having no stop lights, streetlights, sidewalks, or businesses within Town limits. • The Town is considered a “mountain route” by the United States Postal Service (USPS) due to the Town’s steep slopes and often narrow, one-lane curvilinear streets
• Approximately 70% of the Town is considered a high fire severity zone (HFSZ) within the wildland urban interface (WUI).

The cost of land in the Bay Area is exceedingly high, and the existing large, single family homes found on large parcels in Hillsborough are in many cases the “highest and best use” of such property, particularly with the Town’s subdivision standards and single zoning district. Under current Town standards, securing sites and assembling land for affordable housing is often financially impractical.

Methodology
The Town completed a thorough analysis of all parcels in the community to identify housing opportunity sites throughout Hillsborough. The Housing Opportunity Sites were identified utilizing an ArcGIS Urban and ArcGIS Pro process that involved the below steps:
1) Identifying Site Suitability Factors
A series of site suitability factors were identified that either support housing development or minimize opportunities for housing development. The following site suitability factors were identified:
• Existing Land Use. The existing land
use of parcels was considered in order
to understand the likelihood of the
use of parcels for housing.
• Year Built. The year that residences
were built was considered in order to
identify sites that would likely redevelop during the 8-year RHNA 6 Cycle. • Lot Acreage. The total area of a
parcel was considered to identify
parcels between 0.5 acres and 10
acres in area, the lot area deemed
most suitable for the development of
affordable housing according to the
California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
• Improvement Ratio. The improvement ratio was calculated by comparing the value of the built
features of the site versus the value of
the land. This was considered to identify sites more likely to redevelop. • Vacancy. Whether a site is currently
vacant or nonvacant was considered
to identify sites available for new
development.
• Residual Lot Coverage. Residual lot
coverage was calculated by comparing
the total lot area with the footprint
of buildings. This was considered to
identify sites with land area available
for subdivision or the development of
ADUs.
• Residual Height. Residual height was
calculated by comparing the height of
existing buildings with the maximum
building height allowed by the new
zoning districts.
• Proximity to Amenities. Distance
from amenities such as schools, retail
areas, job opportunities, and transit
was considered to identify highly
resourced sites.
• Fire Hazard. Much of Hillsborough is
located in a high fire hazard severity
zone. This was considered to identify
sites with minimal fire hazard.
• Slope. Hillsborough has a hilly topography and much of the community has a slope of 30 percent or more.

This was considered to identify sites
where slope would not be barrier
to the development of affordable
housing due to the costs of grading.
• Landslide / Liquefaction. Hillsborough is impacted by landslide and liquefaction hazard. This was considered to identify sites where landslide / liquefaction would not be barrier
to the development of affordable
housing due to the costs of mitigation.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
96 -415-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
2) Site Suitability Factor Scoring
After the site suitability factors were identified, they were scored on a scale of 1-10, 1 being least suitable for housing and 10 being most suitable for housing. These scores informed the weighted suitability model that was used to evaluate multiple criteria influencing the likelihood of development on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Each property was assigned a total weighted score, where the higher the score the greater the likelihood of development. Table 8.6 below details the scores given to each site suitability factor.

Table 8.6: Suitability Factor
Suitability Factor Score
Existing Land Use
Residential 9
Open Space 0
Public Facilities 2
Private Recreation 3
Private Schools 3
Year Built
Older than 1900 2
1900 - 1970 7
1970 - 1990 9
1990 - 2000 5
2000 - 2020 2
Lot Acreage
Less than 0.5 acres 2

0.5 - 10 acres 9
Greater than 10 acres 3
Improvement Ratio
0 - .5 9

0.5 - 0.9 8

0.9 - 1.1 6

1.1 - 1.5 3

1.5 - 2 2
Greater than 2 1
Table 8.6 Suitability Factor Continued
Suitability Factor Score
Vacancy
Vacant Lot 9
Nonvacant Lot 4
Residual Lot Coverage (Potential for Subdivision and ADUs) Less than 15,000 2
15,000-30,000 4
30,001-43,560 6
43,561-87,120 8
More than 87,120 10
Residual Height
Less than 15 feet 2
15-29 feet 6
30-44 feet 8
45-60 feet 10
Proximity to Amenities
Less than 4 1
5-9 5
10-14 7
15 - 20 9
Fire Hazard
Within Fire Hazard 0
Slope
Less than 30% 9
30% - 50% 5
Greater than 50% 2
Landslide / Liquefaction
Within landslide/liquefaction zone 0
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
97 -416-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW

LAKEVIEW

FOREST VIEW
SHARON

TOURNAMENT

TA R TAN TRAIL

BUTTERNUT

CARMELITA
HAYNE

EL CERRITO

CHURCHILL

SANTA INEZ

ROBINWOO D

TOBIN CLARK

DARRELL

SKYFARM

BL ACK MOUNTAIN

EUCALYPTUS
HAYNE

CHATEAU

CRYSTAL S PRINGS

RALSTON

HOUSING OPPORTUN ITY SITES

TOWN OF H I LLSBOROU GH
280
92 82
Legend
Va ca n t H ou s i n g Oppor tu n i ty S i te
Identified Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites
Utilizing the site suitability methodology detailed above as well as through discussions with town staff, elected and appointed officials, and residents, a total of 23 vacant housing opportunity sites have been identified. The identified sites are shown on the following map.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
98 -417-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Each of the identified vacant sites meet the Town’s zoning and subdivision standards. Each site can accommodate one primary residence which, given the cost of land in Town, would likely be made available at above moderate-income affordability levels.

Table 8.7, below, demonstrates the remaining delta of the RHNA 6 obligation, after accounting for the ADU projections, pipeline projects, and units derived from the development of the identified vacant sites.

Table 8.8: Vacant Opportunity Sites Delta
Income Level
RHNA 6 Allocation
& Less ADUs and
Units Resulting
from Subdivision
Vacant Opportunity
Sites
RHNA 6 Allocation
Less ADUs, Pipeline
Projects, and Vacant
Opportunity Sites
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) -1 0 -1
Low Income (51-79% AMI) -67 0 -67
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) -69 0 -69
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 159 23 136
TOTAL: 22 23 1 Surplus Unit
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
99 -418-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW

LAKEVIEW

FOREST VIEW
SHARON

TOURNAMENT

TA R TAN TRAIL

BUTTERNUT

CARMELITA
HAYNE

EL CERRITO

CHURCHILL

SANTA INEZ

ROBINWOO D

TOBIN CLARK

DARRELL

SKYFARM

BL ACK MOUNTAIN

EUCALYPTUS
HAYNE

CHATEAU

CRYSTAL S PRINGS

RALSTON

HOUSING OPPORTUN ITY SITES

TOWN OF H I LLSBOROU GH
280
92 82
Legend
S u bd i vi s i on Oppor tu n i ty S i tes
Approach 4: Subdivision Opportunity Sites
The Town of Hillsborough has identified three opportunity sites, identified on the accompanying map, that meet the Town’s zoning and subdivision standards. No projects have been submitted or approved at these sites, which is why they are not being included as pipeline projects. These three sites, if subdivided, could result in 12 new parcels and housing units, as summarized in Table 8.9 below. Due to the high cost of land in Hillsborough, all units are considered to meet the Town’s above moderate income RHNA requirement.
50 Brooke Court
2260 Redington Rd
Hayne
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
100
-419-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
The Town is committed to encouraging and facilitating the subdivision of these sites and resulting housing development and have included several goals and actions under Policy 1 related to streamlining and enhancing the user-friendliness of the approval process in the Housing Plan.

Table 8.10 below, demonstrates the remaining delta of the RHNA 6 obligation, after accounting for the ADU projections, pipeline projects, units derived from the development of the identified vacant sites, and units derived from the subdivision of the identified parcels. Conclusion
Table 8.10: Subdivision Opportunity Sites Delta
Income Level
RHNA 6 Allocation
& Less ADUs and
Units Resulting
from Subdivision
Subdivision
Opportunity Sites
RHNA 6 Allocation Less
ADUs, Pipeline Projects,
Vacant Opportunity Sites,
and Subdivision Opportunity Sites
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) -1 0 -1
Low Income (51-79% AMI) -67 0 -67
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) -69 0 -69
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 136 12 124
TOTAL: -1 12 13 Surplus Units
Table 8.9: Subdivision Opportunity Sites
APN Property Address / Name Parcel Size Potential
Subdivision Yield
28040120 2260 Redington Rd, Hillsborough 49.52 5
038281280 50 Brooke Court 11.64 2
30191030 Hayne 10.90 5
TOTAL 12
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
101
-420-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Conclusion
Utilizing the four approaches detailed above and the corresponding actions detailed in the Housing Plan, the Town of Hillsborough is confident that it can meet the housing needs of current and future residents and its RHNA obligation. Table 8.11 below summarizes the yield from all approaches and their impact on the Town of Hillsborough’s RHNA 6 obligation. The Town’s approaches produce a surplus of units in the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income categories which are counted towards the deficit in units in the above moderate income category.

Table 8.11: Conclusion
Approach
Very Low
Income
Units
Low
Income
Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
Total Units
Approach 1: ADUs 156 156 156 52 520
Approach 2: Pipeline Projects 0 0 0 11 11
Approach 3: Vacant Housing Opportunity
Sites 0 0 0 23 23
Approach 4: Subdivision Housing
Opportunity Sites 0 0 0 12 12
TOTAL 556 (12
Surplus Units)
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Needs Assessment Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
102
-421-
9 AFFIRMATIVELY

FURTHERING FAIR

HOUSING
-422-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.

Fair Housing and Civil Rights Findings, Lawsuits,
Enforcement, Settlements or Judgments
Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status— California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).

The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. According to their website, the DFEH’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act”.

DFEH receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. DFEH plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD.

DFEH’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions. Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.

Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County.

As shown in Table 9.1, from 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)— Table 9.2 shows that none of the complaints filed with HUD were from the Town of Hillsborough.

Table 9.1: Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % Total
Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total Cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
Source: HUD
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
104
-423-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Countywide, most complaints cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). Countywide, no cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park. No inquiries were reported in the Town of Hillsborough.

Table 9.1 shows that fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.

Table 9.2: Fair Housing Inquiries by Bias, January 2013-March 2021 Jurisdiction DisabilityRace Familial
Status
National
Origin
Religion Sex Color Total
Atherton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belmont 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Brisbace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burlingame 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Colma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Daly City 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 7
East Palo Alto 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Foster City 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Half Moon Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacifica 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 5
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood City 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 9
San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Carlos 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
San Mateo 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 10
South San Francisco 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Woodside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
105
-424-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.1 summarizes San Mateo County HUD Housing Complaints, by Basis, from 2017 to 2021 and Fair Housing Inquiries and complaints from 2017 to 2021 and Figure 9.2 illustrates all Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) within the region.

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.

NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
• First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators have been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership. • Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
• Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.

Figure 9.1: Fair Housing Complaints and Inquires
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
106
-425-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.2: FHEO Inquiries by City to HUD, San Mateo County (2013-2021) Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
107
-426-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Fair Housing Capacity
Outreach and capacity. The Town of Hillsborough has no fair housing information on their website or resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The town does host a Housing Resources webpage with information about emergency shelters, housing advocacy, housing for persons with disabilities, the Home for All San Mateo County Initiative, the Making Home Affordable program, residential care for the elderly, the San Mateo County Department of Housing, and the Shared Housing program. This could be improved by providing contact information for local fair housing organizations, legal assistance, and general information about the Fair Housing Act and discrimination.

Despite the Town of Hillsborough’s lack of fair housing information on their website, Hillsborough residents can find County-wide resources. Table 9.3 lists Fair Housing Assistance Organizations in San Mateo County that offer fair housing information and resources and each organizations’ contact information. The following fair housing organizations offer services to Hillsborough residents:
• Project Sentinel: Project Sentinel is a non-profit organization that serves Northern Californian cities and has been an HUD-Approved Housing Counseling Agency since 1998. Project Sentinel offers support to cities and counties in developing their “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing” and a wide array of technical assistance to property management professionals/owners.

The organization also publishes a semi-weekly newspaper column, Rent Watch, and operates a Housing Hotline. • Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County: The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County is a non-profit public interest law firm that provides free civil legal advice, counsel, and representation to low-income people living in San Mateo County. The organization has helped people secure safe and affordable housing, access healthcare, obtain economic security, establish immigration status, receive education, and realize freedom from violence and abuse since 1959. • Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto: Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto is a non-profit organization that provides legal services to low-income families within the region. The organization specializes in services that address economic advancement, housing, and immigration. Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto ultimately aims to “provide transformative legal services that enable diverse communities in East Palo Alto and beyond to achieve a secure and thriving future.” Table 9.3: Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County Name Service Area Address Phone Website
Project Sentinel Northern California 1490 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County 330 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite
123, Redwood City, CA 94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.
org/housing-resources
Community Legal
Services of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto, Menlo
Park, Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bar Road, East Palo Alto,
CA 94303
(650) 326-6440 https://clespa.org/
services/#housing
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
108
-427-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Analysis of Federal, State, and
Local Data and Knowledge
Housing specific policies enacted locally. The Town of Hillsborough identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the town.

According to Figure 9.3 and Figure 9.4, the Town of Hillsborough does not have any public housing buildings or any census tracts with residents using housing vouchers. The absence of both physical public housing units and renters using housing vouchers to pay for rent indicates an inadequate supply of rental housing or potential exclusionary behavior from landlords in the town.

Nearby communities of Millbrae, Burlingame, and San Mateo all have multiple (at least three) census tracts containing residents using housing vouchers. The presence of voucher users in surrounding communities indicates that there is demand for rental units that accept vouchers in the area.

Local policies in place to encourage
housing development.
• Graduated Density Bonus (parcel assembly)
• Form‐based codes
• Mixed Use Zoning
• Housing Overlay Zone
• Inclusionary/Below Market Rate Housing Policy
• Condominium Conversion Ordinance
• Just Cause Evictions
• Rent Stabilization
• Acquisition/Rehabilitation/ Conversion Program
• Preservation of Mobile Homes (Rent Stabilization ordinances) • SRO Preservation Ordinances
• Homeowner Rehabilitation program
• Other Anti‐Displacement Strategies
• General Fund Allocation Incl. former RDA “Boomerang”
Funds
• In‐Lieu Fees (Inclusionary Zoning)
• Housing Development Impact Fee
• Commercial Development Impact Fee
• Other taxes or fees dedicated to housing
• Locally Funded Homebuyer Assistance Programs
• Tenant‐Based Assistance
• Public Housing
• Affordable Housing Complexes
Local barriers to affordable
housing development.
• Lack of zoning for a variety of housing types beyond single family detached homes
• Lack of land zoned for multifamily development
• Minimum lot sizes
Local policies in place to mitigate or prevent
displacement of low income households.
• Promoting streamlined processing of ADUs
Local policies that are NOT in place
but would provide the best outcomes
in addressing housing shortages.
• Accommodation for multi-family housing
• Once established, development of a housing trust fund that levies fees on development to support affordable
housing.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
109
-428-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.3: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
110
-429-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.4: Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
111
-430-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
This section was prepared by Root Policy for all communities participating in the 21 Elements program. It discusses integration and segregation of the population by protected classes including race and ethnicity, disability status, familial status, and income status.

The section concludes with an analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence.

Integration and Segregation
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
History of segregation in the region
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as “structural inequities” in society, and “self segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).

Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law:

A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents settled.

Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded low-income neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.

According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment. Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans.

Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.

In the early 1900s, many wealthy families in San Francisco had summer homes in the mid-peninsula area, now known as Hillsborough and Burlingame. When an earthquake hit San Francisco in 1906, refugees flooded the area, primarily taking up residences in two largely small-lot subdivisions east of the El Camino Real. Burlingame incorporated in 1908 and in 1910, Hillsborough residents voted to incorporate, forming the Town of Hillsborough.

This history of segregation in the region is important not only to understand how residential settlement patterns
came about—but, more importantly, to explain differences in housing opportunity among residents today. In sum,
not all residents had the ability to build housing wealth or achieve economic opportunity. This historically unequal playing field in part determines why residents have
different housing needs today.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
112
-431-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.

The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears below in Figure 9.5. As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory, and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multifamily apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.

The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities.

This coincided with a shift away from federal control over low-income housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.

Overall integration and segregation patterns within Hillsborough are summarized below by highlighting population by protected class. Each protected class will be explained in further detail in later sections.

Figure 9.5: Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
113
-432-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.6. Segregation and Integration, Population by Protected Class, Hillsborough v. San Mateo County Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
114
-433-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Race and Ethnicity
The population distribution in the Town of Hillsborough by race and ethnicity is less diverse than San Mateo County. Population by race and ethnicity is broken down in Figure 9.7 for the Bay Area, San Mateo County, and Hillsborough. In Hillsborough, 57% of the population is non-Hispanic White followed by 32% Asian, 6% other or multiple races, 4% Hispanic, and 1% Black. In comparison, the San Mateo County population is 39% non-Hispanic White, 30% Asian, 24% Hispanic, 4% other or multiple races, and 2% Black.

Racial and ethnic minorities are growing as share of the population in the Town of Hillsborough. In 2000, 71% of the population was non-Hispanic White compared to 57% in 2019. Figure 9.8 illustrates the population breakdown by race and ethnicity from 2000 to 2019. As seen in 2000, 2010, and 2019, Hillsborough lacks diversity when compared to the broader San Mateo County area. 0%
0%
0%
27%
30%
32%
6%
2%
1%
39%
39%
57%
5%
4%
6%
24%
24%
4%
Bay Area
San Mateo County
Hillsborough
Population by Race/Ethnicity - Town of Hillsborough, San Mateo County and Bay Area Region
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian/API, NH Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH) Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx 0%
0%
0%
25%
28%
32%
1%
0%
1%
71%
64%
57%
0%
4%
6%
3%
3%
4%
2000
2010
2019
Population by Race/Ethnicity, Town of Hillsborough
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian/API, NH Black or African American, NH White, Non-Hispanic (NH) Other Race or Multiple Races, NH Hispanic or Latinx Figure 9.7. Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Figure 9.8. Population by Race and Ethnicity, Town of Hillsborough, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
115
-434-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Racial and ethnic minority populations generally have higher rates of poverty and lower household incomes compared to the non-Hispanic White population in the Town of Hillsborough.

Hillsborough’s two census tracts population are a slim majority White—which means the gap between White and the next most populous racial and ethnic group is less than 10%.1
Dissimilarity and Isolation Indices
The Dissimilarity Index, or DI, is a common tool that measures segregation in a community. The DI is an index that measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area. The DI represents the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to have the same percentage of that group as the county overall.

DI values range from 0 to 100—where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

The isolation index is interpreted as the probability that a randomly drawn minority resident shares an area with a member of the same minority, it ranges from 0 to 100 and higher values of isolation tend to indicate higher levels of segregation.

Table 9.5 above shows the dissimilarity index for racial and ethnic groups in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hawyard Region, which includes the town of Hillsborough. The table shows segregation for the region’s Black population, which has a dissimilarity index of

63.49. The dissimilarity value for the region’s Hispanic population is 51.24. Finally, the Region’s Non-White population (45.89) and Asian population (48.21) were closer to perfect integration by scoring below 50 on the dissimilarity index. 1 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.

Table 9.5: Racial Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Region
Racial/Ethnicity Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current Non-White/White 44.67 44.68 43.10 45.89
Black/White 66.72 63.71 59.29 63.49
Hispanic/White 43.56 49.67 49.59 51.24
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 45.55 44.94 44.33 48.21 Source: HUD AFFH, https://egis.hud.gov/affht/
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
116
-435-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Disability Status
Figure 9.9 shows that the share of the population living with at least one disability is 6% in the Town of Hillsborough compared to 8% in San Mateo County. There are no census tracts with a concentration greater than 10% of the population with a disability in the town. Lower proportions of residents living with a disability may indicate a lack of services, suitable housing options, or transportation for this population. Figure 9.10 provides a map which illustrates the percentage of population with a disability by census tract. •
90%
92%
94%
10%
8%
6%
84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100% 102%
Bay Area
San Mateo County
Hillsborough
Share of Population with a Disability
No Disability With a Disability
Figure 9.9. Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
117
-436-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.10: Percent of Population with Disability by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
118
-437-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Familial Status
The Town of Hillsborough has a small share of single person households (8% of households) compared to the county (22%) and a larger share of two person and large family households—five or more is considered a large family. Nearly one in five (18%) of all households are five or more person households in Hillsborough compared to 11% in San Mateo County. Hillsborough also has a higher share of married-couple households which make up 83% of households in the town compared to 55% in the county.

Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of married families and larger households indicates a need for three to four bedroom units, both for the rental and for sale market. There are very few renter occupied units in the town (7% of housing units), and most owner occupied units are three to four bedrooms.

Compared to the county, the Town of Hillsborough has a greater proportion of family households and smaller proportion of single person households—which is reflected in the number of bedrooms and tenure of the housing stock in the town.

Household income
The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in the Town of Hillsborough shows a significant majority of households have high incomes. More than 3 in 4 households in the town fall into the highest income category (greater than 100% AMI) compared to 1 in 2 in San Mateo County.

Half of the census block groups in Hillsborough have no household income data, and the remaining block groups show median household incomes greater than $125,000—well above the statewide median of $87,100. Similarly, low and moderate income households make up less than 25% of all households in all census block groups in Hillsborough. Surrounding jurisdictions Millbrae, Burlingame, and San Mateo all have census block groups with more than 50% low and moderate income population. Hillsborough is also largely free of poverty with census tract poverty rates less than 5% town wide.

Geographically, the Town of Hillsborough is an economically exclusive community—largely due to a very low supply of rental housing and affordable ownership opportunities.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
119
-438-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Hate Crimes
According to the Office of the Attorney General at the California Department of Justice, a hate crime is a “crime against a person, group, or property motivated by the victim's real or perceived protected social group.” A victim of a hate crime is targeted by one or more of the following: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes are “serious crimes that may result in imprisonment or jail time.”
The Hate Crime statistics Act of 1990 requires that the Attorney General collect data involving all hate crimes committed within the state. Figure 9.11 shows hate crime trends within San Mateo county from 2016 to 2020. In 2020, 19 hate crimes were committed compared to 17 hate crimes from 2019.

Figure 9.12 displays hate crimes that occurred in San Mateo County in 2020 based on type of bias. 79% of the hate crimes that took place in San Mateo County were based on Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry, while Sexual Orientation-related hate crimes made up 16%. 16 14
13 17
19 0
5 10
15 20
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Offenses
Hate Crime Offenses in Mateo County,
2016-2020
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Race/Ethnicity/Ancenstry
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Hate Crimes Offenses by Type of Bias (2020), San Mateo County Race/Ethnicity/Ancenstry
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Figure 9.11: hate Crime Offenses in San Mateo County
Figure 9.13: Hate Crime Offenses by Type in San Mateo County Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
120
-439-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.

It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market.

Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.

For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as a R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the HUD threshold, this study includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which hit two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty— emerging R/ECAPs in San Mateo County have two times the average tract poverty rate for the county (12.8%).

In 2010 there were three census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in the Town of Hillsborough in 2010.

In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were
located in the Town of Hillsborough in 2019.

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
In 2019, Hillsborough qualified as an RCAA and is shown in Figure 9.14. The percent population of White residents and median income is shown in Table 9.6.

R/ECAP
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
• A census tract that has a non-White population of 50
percent or more (majority-minority) or, for non-urban
areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or
more; OR
• A census tract that has a non-white population of 50
percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty
rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for
the County, whichever is lower.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment Guidance, 2021 R/ECAA
HCD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
• A census tract that has a percentage of total white
population that is 1.25 times higher than the average
percentage of total white population in the given COG
region, and a median income that was 2 times higher
than the COG AMI.

Table 9.6: Median Household Income by Race,
Hillsborough
Census Tract Percent
Population
Median
Income
Census Tract 6056.00 55.3% $250,001
Census Tract 6057.00 58.6% $250,001
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
121
-440-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Figure 9.14: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence "RCAA", 2015-2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
122
-441-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.

The Town of Hillsborough is entirely designated as high or highest resource areas. It is important to note that the Town of Hillsborough does not include any census tracts that are designated as moderate or low resource areas. While the town is high opportunity, it is also exclusive. The proportion of the population with limited English proficiency (LEP) is half that of the county as a whole (3% in the town compared to 7% in the county).

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Again, the entire Town of Hillsborough shows low vulnerability.

The Town of Hillsborough does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.” 2
2 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
Access to Opportunity
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate placebased characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the
quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment,
economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental
hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment Guidance, 2021, page 34.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
123
-442-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Disparities specific to the population living with a disability 6% of the population in the Town of Hillsborough are living with at least one disability, compared to 8% in the county. The most common disabilities in the town are independent living (2.9%), hearing difficulty (2.7%), and cognitive (2.3%).

For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases. As mentioned under Access to Transit, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore, this population with a disability is likely to increase.

Unemployment is disproportionately high among residents living with a disability with an unemployment rate of 14%, compared with 3% for residents without a disability in the Town of Hillsborough—particularly when compared to the county where the disparity is not as high. Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%, compared to 3% for residents without a disability. High unemployment rates among this population points to a need for increased services and resources to connect this population with employment opportunities.

Access to opportunity in the Town of Hillsborough is summarized in Figure 9.15.

Disability
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment Guidance, 2021, page 36.

Figure 9-15. Access to Opportunity
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
124
-443-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Regional Opportunity Index (ROI)
This section discusses the Regional Opportunity Index and its relation to the Town of Hillsborough. Figures 9.16 shows that the Town of Hillsborough was in a high opportunity area for both “place” and “people” in 2014.

California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC/HCD)
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low-income residents—particularly children.

Opportunity Area Data
The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty—this is illustrated in Figure 9.18. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.

Regional Opportunity Index (ROI)
The Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) is “an index of
community and regional opportunity for understanding
social and economic opportunity in California’s communities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need, to foster thriving communities of opportunity for all Californians. It does this by incorporating both a ‘people’ component and a ‘place’ component, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators in to a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.” Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, Regional Opportunity Index
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
125
-444-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
https://interact.regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/roi/
The Regional Opportunity Index (ROI): People is a
relative measure of people's assets in education,
the economy, housing, mobility/transportation,
health/environment, and civic life.

Regional Opportunity Index: People, 2014
¯
Legend
Regional Opportunity Index: People
Some data not available
Lowest Opportunity
Highest Opportunity
Date: 7/20/2022
Description
0 3 6 12
mi
https://interact.regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/roi/
The Regional Opportunity Index (ROI): Place is a
relative measure of an area's assets in education,
the economy, housing, mobility/transportation,
health/environment, and civic life.

Regional Opportunity Index: Place, 2014
¯
Legend
Regional Opportunity Index: Place
Some data not available
Lowest Opportunity
Highest Opportunity
Date: 7/20/2022
Description
0 3 6 12
mi
Figure 9.17: Regional Opportunity Index: People, 2014
Figure 9.16: Regional Opportunity Index: Place, 2014
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
126
-445-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
(R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Composite Score - Tract County of San Mateo, California, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA
Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
City/Town Boundaries
(R) TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) - Composite Score - Tract Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
Missing/Insufficient Data
7/27/2022, 2:22:46 PM
0 0.5 1 2 mi
0 1 2 4 km
1:72,224
CA HCD
Figure 9.18: TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
127
-446-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
TCAC/HCD Data – Educational Opportunities
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate.

According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, all of the census tracts in Hillsborough score above 0.75—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes. This score indicates the town has positive educational outcomes.

The Town of Hillsborough is served by the San Mateo Union High School District and the Hillsborough City Elementary School District. San Mateo Union increased enrollment by 16% from 2010 to 2020 and the elementary district enrollment increased by 22% over the same time. However, both districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.

San Mateo Union enrollment by race and ethnicity is similar to the countywide distribution. However, there is a higher proportion of Asian students in San Mateo Union (23% compared to 17% countywide), a smaller proportion of Filipino students (5% compared to 8% countywide) and Hispanic students (32% compared to 38% countywide).

The Hillsborough City Elementary District has a large proportion of both White (48%) and Asian (32%) students. The elementary district has a very low proportion of students with extenuating circumstances compared to the county overall. In the Hillsborough City district 1% of students are English learners compared to 20% countywide. Overall, the elementary district is less diverse than the countywide average.

Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students in the San Mateo Union district were less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 29%, 46%, and 46% respectively.

Although San Mateo Union High School has relatively low drop out rates—4% of students—compared to other districts in the county, drop out rates among Hispanic (7%), Black (6%), and Pacific Islander students are higher.

TCAC/HCD Data – Economic Opportunities
Employment. The top three industries by number of jobs in the Town of Hillsborough include health and educational services, arts and recreation services, and professional and managerial services The town is a bedroom community with a low job to household ratio of 0.5 compared to 1.5 in the county—which means there are fewer employment opportunities per household in the Town of Hillsborough. The town has the same unemployment rate as the broader county (5.9%).

TCAC’s economic opportunity score is comprised of poverty, adult educational attainment, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The Town of Hillsborough scores more than 0.75 for economic opportunity town wide. Neighboring Burlingame also scores high on the economic opportunity index, but other communities in the area—Millbrae and San Mateo—have some census tracts that score lower for economic opportunity.

HUD’s job proximity index shows the Town of Hillsborough is in relatively close proximity to jobs. On a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs, the majority of the town scores above between 60 and 80.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
128
-447-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
HUD Opportunity Indicators
Table 9.8 displays the data for Opportunity Indicators in the Town of Hillsborough compared to the state of California. These
Opportunity Indicators include statistics that relate to education, economic, housing, mobility, healthcare/environmental, and civic life. The data shown below reveals the following findings:
• The Town of Hillsborough has higher
rates of college educated adults,
math and English proficiency, High
School graduation, and UC/CSU
eligibility. The Town of Hillsborough
also has lower rates of elementary
truancy.
• From an economic standpoint,
employment rates, minimum basic
income rates, job quality, and job
growth rates are all higher than the
state of California.
• Home ownership and housing
adequacy states are higher than
the state of California. However, the
Town of Hillsborough has a higher
housing cost burden rate than the
California.
• Although car ownership is higher
in Hillsborough, commute times
are moderate in Hillsborough and
California.
• Aside from prenatal care and years
of life lost, health and environmental
indicators in California and Hillsborough are comparable. • The Town of Hillsborough has
noticeably higher voting rates and
US citizenship rates than California.

Neighborhood stability and English
speakers are similar in both areas.

Table 9.8: Opportunity Indicators
Education
People
College Educated Adults 80.95%

38.01%
Math Proficiency 90.95% 70.05%
English Proficiency 92.82% 64.69%
Elementary Truancy 2.98% 24.28%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 93.14% 83.08%
UC/CSU Eligibility 58.86% 41.04%
Teacher Experience 36.84% 36.28%
High School Discipline Rate 6.71% 6.4%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 94.86% 89.43%
Minimum Basic Income 95.31% 32.52%
Place
Job Availability 1029.83 701.75
Job Quality 56.68% 40.39%
Job Growth 5.66% 2.86%
Bank Accessibility 0.42 0.24
Housing
People
Home Ownership 93.88% 54.71%
Housing Cost Burden 64.76% 51.61%
Place
Housing Adequacy 99.58% 90.64%
Housing Affordability 0.25 0.19
Mobility
People
Vehicle Availability 98.64% 86.35%
Commute Time 56.34 59.91
Internet Access 5 4
Healthcare/
Environmental
Place
Infant Health 96.31% 94.92%
Birth of Teens 0% 6.6%
Years of Life Lost 9.22 29.84
Place
Air Quality 7.77 10.01
Prenatal Care 91.24% 83.12%
Access to Supermarket 4.4% 53.28%
Health Care Availability 2.29 1.76
Neighborhood StabilityPeople
People Voting Rates 47.79% 30.60%
English Speakers 97.96% 88.11%
Place
US Citizenship 95.37% 82.55%
Neighborhood Stability 88.48% 84.94%
Source: UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index Source: UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
129
-448-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Access to Transit
Transportation. This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the Town of Hillsborough and the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the town. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail.

SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.

In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in Hillsborough and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County. No comments were received from the Town of Hillsborough.
“San Mateo’s [Paratransit Coordinating Council] PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.

While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”3 A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco bay, served by MTC.”4 As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit.

One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.” The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.5 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18 month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.6 Alltransit has collected data from transit stops, routes, and agencies across the country to reveal the impact of transit on jobs, the economy, equity, transit quality, and mobility networks. According to Figure 9.19, the Town of Hillsborough scored 2.1 out of a possible 10 points. This score is a result of “very low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling negligible number of people who take transit to work.” Table 9.9 shows that San Mateo County has a higher Alltransit Performance Score (6.1) than Hillsborough.
3 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 4 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
5 https://www.samtrans.com/Planning/Planning_and_Research/Mobility_Plan_for_Older_Adults_and_People_with_Disabilities.html 6 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm Table 9.9: AllTransit Performance Score, Hillsborough v. San Mateo County, 2022 Jurisdiction AllTransit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips Per
Week within ½
Mile
Jobs Accessible
in 30-min trip
Commuters
Who Use Transit
Transit Routes
within ½ Mile
Hillsborough 2.1 362 68,400 6.21% 4
San Mateo County 6.1 1,411 183,088 10.97% 8
Source: AllTransit Scores, Accessed July 18, 2022
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
130
-449-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
AllTransit
TM Performance Score: < 1 1-2 2-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-9 9 +
Ve
we
ena
On Averag
362 Tra
4 Transi
68,400

6.21% C
AllTransitTM Fact Sheet
Town: Hillsborough, CA
Map data ©2022 Google Report a map error
JOBS
Jobs Near Transit: Percent of jobs that are located
within ½ mile of transit.

33.8%
699 jobs are near transit

ECONOMY
Transit Access to Customers: Customer
households accessible to a business within a 30
minute transit commute.
30,754
Households within a 30 minute transit commute.

Healthy
walking
1 AllTransit Fact Sheet
< 1 1-2 2-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-9 9 +
AllTransit TM Performance Score

2.1 Very low combination of trips per
week and number of jobs accessible
enabling negligible number of people
to take transit to work
On Average Households have:
362 Transit Trips per Week within ½ Mile
4 Transit Routes within ½ Mile
68,400 Jobs Accessible in 30-minute trip

6.21% Commuters Who Use Transit
t Sheet
Town: Hillsborough, CA
Map data ©2022 Google Report a map error
BS
t of jobs that are located
8%
near transit

ECONOMY
Transit Access to Customers: Customer
households accessible to a business within a 30
minute transit commute.
30,754
Households within a 30 minute transit commute.

HEALTH
Healthy Commuters: Workers who commute by
walking or biking and live within ½ mile of transit.

1.85%
Walk

0.01%
Bike
ITY
Near Transit: Percent of
$50,000 within a ½ mile
transit.

TRANSIT QUALITY
High Frequency Transit: Households within ½
mile of high frequency transit.

MOBILITY
Transit Routes: Transit routes available within ½
mile of a block group on average.

Figure 9-19. AllTransit Performance Score, Hillsborough Source: AllTransit Score, Hillsborough
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
131
-450-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Calenviroscreen – Environmental Justice
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.

Generally, census tracts within Hillsborough score moderately on environmental outcomes with scores between 0.25 and 0.75.

However, the town scores high compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC). The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.

Population growth in the Town of Hillsborough has not kept up with the pace of growth countywide. Hillsborough experienced a great loss of population from 1999 to 2000, and the population has not recovered to pre-2000 levels despite high growth in the region and neighboring communities.

Since 2015, 40% of housing permitted has been for very
low income households. However, overall unit counts in the town during this time are low with a total of 83 housing units permitted over the four year period. The Housing Needs Data Report for the Town of Hillsborough indicates new construction has not kept pace with demand throughout the Bay Area, “resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness.”8 The variety of housing types available in the town in 2020 are predominately single family (96%). From 2010 to 2020, the single family inventory increased more than multifamily, and the town has a greater share of single family housing compared to other communities in the region. 9
7 https://healthyplacesindex.org/about/ 8 Housing Needs Data Report: Hillsborough, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021. 9 Disproportionate Housing Needs
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a
condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding,
homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Develop- ment Guidance, 2021, page 39.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
132
-451-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
The majority of the housing inventory in the Town of Hillsborough was constructed from 1940 to 1980. As such, the town’s units are older, lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.

Almost all of the owner occupied housing units in the Town of Hillsborough are valued at more than $2 million. In San Mateo County 19% of units are valued at more than $2 million, and in Hillsborough 95% of units are valued at more than $2 million. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the town compared to the county and larger region. Prior to the Great Recession, homes in Hillsborough were valued moderately higher than the region, but in 2020 Hillsborough’s home value index is more than triple the region and county.

Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for sale market—however, median rents dampened from 2018 to 2019 in the town. Compared to the county, the Town of Hillsborough has more luxury rental units—42% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the town compared to 22% in the county.

Figure 9.20. Disproportionate Housing Needs, 2019-2020
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
133
-452-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Cost Burden
A smaller proportion of households in the Town of Hillsborough (33%) compared to the county (37%) experience cost burden— spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.

Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. All households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—cost burdened or severely cost burdened, compared to only 22% of households earning more than 100% of AMI.

There are disparities in housing cost burden in the Town of Hillsborough by race and ethnicity and family size. Black or African American (71%) and households that identify as some other or more than one race (66%) experience the highest rates of cost burden in the town. Asian households (39%), and non-Hispanic White households (29%) experience the lowest cost burden.

Large family households—considered households with five or more persons—experience cost burden less than all other households in the town. Cost burden is geographically concentrated in the northwest census tract in Hillsborough (20% to 40% of households are cost burdened in this tract).

Overcrowding
Overcrowding. No households in Hillsborough are experiencing overcrowding—indicated by more than one occupant per room.

Substandard Housing
Substandard housing. Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in Census surveys. No housing units in the Town of Hillsborough have substandard conditions.

Tenure
Typically, renters are more likely to be cost burdened than homeowners. As shown in figure 9.21 below, only seven percent of homes in Hillsborough are renter occupied. Single parent households may also experience disproportional housing needs, and female headed households typically have lower incomes, creating a greater housing need for this group. In Hillsborough, seven percent of households are comprised of single parent households, and 20 percent of these households are renter occupied, while four percent of households are female headed households, comprised of 18 percent renter occupied units.

Large households, or households with five or more members, are subjected to special housing needs because of limited availability of housing with an adequate number of bedrooms. Large households are typically lower income and are more likely to experience overcrowding within smaller units to avoid being cost burdened. 18 percent of households in Hillsborough are large-family households, and in 2017, 43 percent of these households were cost burdened, while simultaneously, about 4 percent of these households were in the very low-income bracket, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI). Lower income and cost burdened large households could benefit from larger rental units with three or more bedrooms per unit. Additionally, 98 percent of occupied households in Hillsborough had three or more bedrooms, however only six percent were occupied by renters, suggesting an inadequate size supply of larger rental units.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
134
-453-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
10 43
2,378
958
0 17
188
39 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Households
Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Town of Hillsborough, 2019 Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2845
259
113 76 96 156
40 25 23 0
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Married-Couple Family
Households
Householders Living
Alone
Female-Headed Family
Households
Male-Headed Family
Households
Other Non-Family
Households
Households
Housing Type by Tenure, Town of Hillsborough, 2019
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Figure 9.21: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, 2019 Figure 9.22: Housing Type by Tenure, 2019
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
135
-454-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Displacement
There are no assisted units in the Town of Hillsborough to displace. According to the Urban Displacement Project, no census tract in the town are vulnerable to displacement.

Displacement Sensitive Communities
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
• They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
• Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017 and the tract meets two of the following criteria:
• Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
• Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
• Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
• They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures. Displacement pressure is defined as the percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017 OR
• Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017”
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/
Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
136
-455-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
AB 686 requires an analysis of sites identified to meet RHNA obligations for their ability to affirmatively further fair housing.

Once sites are identified, the analysis will be placed here and will consist of:
• Map of identified sites by lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income units; • Identification of sites within or proximity to R/ECAPs and edge R/ECAPs and/or low income/poverty concentrations; • Proportion of low and very low income units located in that area, as well as concentrations of Housing Choice Vouchers, • How the distribution of lower, moderate, and above moderate income units—and the share located in low, moderate, and high resourced areas—will change with proposed site inventory development; • Proximity to:
• High proficiency K-12 education institutions;
• High-resourced areas/positive economic outcome areas; • Low social vulnerability;
• Good jobs proximity;
• Access to transportation;
• Healthy places; and
• Flood hazards.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Affiramtively Furthering Fair Housing Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
137
-456-
10 HOUSING
PLAN
-457-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Policies, Goals, & Actions
Purpose and Content
The policies, goals, and actions provide the Town of Hillsborough with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing throughout the community.

The Town of Hillsborough’s Housing Element includes policies to promote the maintenance of existing housing and increase capacity for additional housing options. The Housing Element ensures that current and future housing needs of people living and working in the Town of Hillsborough are met.

The Town’s Housing Element includes policies and related goals and actions that will assist in meeting the housing needs of residents. A separate action plan includes the specific actions the Town will take to implement each policy and achieve each goal.

Policy 1: Reduce Barriers to Housing Development
Goal 1.1: Allow for increased subdivision opportunities throughout the community. • Action 1.1 (a): Implement Senate Bill 9 (SB9), as appropriate. SB 9 allows all properties within a “single-family residential zone” to be subdivided into two parcels and developed with two primary dwelling units per lot, irrespective of local standards. • Action 1.1 (b): Conduct a study to analyze the feasibility of updating chapter 16 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code (Subdivisions) to modify existing subdivision standards pertaining to average slope and minimum lot size but in no instance allow lots smaller than one half-acre.

Goal 1.2: Streamline the project review process for housing-related applications. • Action 1.2 (a): Improve transparency in permitting time and workflow by updating the Town’s ageing permit tracking software to a streamlined, user-friendly web-based platform with online payments accessible to applicants 24-hours/day, 365 days/year. • Action 1.2 (b): Update all housing development-related application forms to ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance with all state statutes, including the California Housing Accountability Act and Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330). • Action 1.2 (c): Continue to evaluate and improve the streamlined processing system to facilitate residential development. • Action 1.2 (d): Utilize CEQA exemptions for infill development sites to shorten entitlement review time.

Goal 1.3: Assist Town residents in the resolution of land use conflicts to promote successful housing development projects. • Action 1.3 (a): Maintain the Town’s contract supporting Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) and refer conflicted parties to PCRC’s no-fee mediation services.

Goal 1.4: Amend the Town’s zoning regulations to comply with all recently adopted state legislation. • Action 1.4 (a): Assess the Town’s definition of group home in the zoning ordinance to ensure compliance with the Lanterman Disabilities Services Act.
• Action 1.4 (b): Amend the Density Bonus section of the zoning ordinance to comply with AB 1763, SB 1227, and AB 2345. • Action 1.4 (c): Amend the zoning ordinance to comply with the Employee Housing Act. • Action 1.4 (d): Assess the Town’s definition of transitional and supportive housing in the zoning ordinance to ensure compliance with State law and allow them in accordance with AB 2162. • Action 1.4 (e): Assess the Town’s regulations pertaining to Emergency Shelters to ensure compliance with SB 2 and AB 139.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
139
-458-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Policy 2: Promote the Construction and Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Goal 2.1: Continue to support and fund a Town ADU Ombudsman to guide property owners through the Town’s ADU process.
• Action 2.1 (a): Assess the feasibility of extending the current ADU Ombudsman hours to ensure sufficient capacity for timely review and approval of ADU permits, and budget accordingly for implementation. • Action 2.1 (b): Annually review ADU application and approval processes, making improvements where needed to make it easier for property owners to develop ADUs and JADUs.
• Action 2.1 (c): Conduct an analysis of the general fund impacts of continuing the ADU Ombudsman program while reducing/ waiving ADU development review fees.
• Action 2.1 (d): Actively promote Accessory Dwelling Unit production by encouraging homeowners and developers to include attached or detached Accessory Dwelling Units in existing or new homes.

Goal 2.2: Further streamline and expedite the ADU and JADU permitting process. • Action 2.2 (a): Assess the feasibility of waiving all fees associated with ADU permitting when the property owner deed restricts their ADU to be rented at rates affordable to very-low income households. • Action 2.2 (b): Establish an ADU Review Team comprised of representatives from the Town’s various departments including planning, fire, police, and public works and conduct regular weekly meetings to ensure efficient review of ADU applications. • Action 2.2 (c): Incentivize ADUs and JADUs to be constructed along with new single-family detached housing by allowing concurrent permit review and approval and no-cost deed recording with Town notary. • Action 2.2 (d): Consider allowing objective, administrative exceptions for specified zoning standards, such as maximum lot coverage and minimum landscape coverage, to accommodate ADUs and JADUs. • Action 2.2 (e): In coordination with the Central County Fire Department and CalFire, establish pre-approved fire parameters for ADUs to streamline fire related review.
• Action 2.2 (f): Establish an ADU/JADU guidebook to help walk residents through the ADU/JADU permitting process. • Action 2.2 (g): Assess the feasibility of developing 80 percent complete construction drawings for ADUs to lower costs associated with engineering and architecture. • Action 2.2 (h): Enhance awareness of the Town’s partnership with the County of San Mateo’s Home For All initiative and the Second Unit Resource Center which provides information and tools to make it easier for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units.
• Action 2.2 (i): Enhance the Town’s ADU/JADU Information and Resources webpage on the Town’s website.

Goal 2.3: Allow one JADU and up to two ADUs on lots one acre and larger. • Action 2.3 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar multiple attached or detached ADU programs in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state. • Action 2.3 (b): Based on the findings of Action 2.3(a), draft potential ordinance language facilitating allowing a maximum of two ADUs (attached or detached) and one JADU on lots one acre and larger and conduct community outreach for feedback. • Action 2.3 (c): Present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language allowing a maximum of two ADUs (attached or detached) and one JADU on lots one acre and larger.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
140
-459-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Goal 2.4: Create a program to encourage and expedite the conversion of pool houses, guest houses, and other accessory structures to recorded ADUs/JADUs.
• Action 2.4 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar accessory structure conversion programs in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state. • Action 2.4 (b): Based on the findings of Action 2.4 (a), draft potential ordinance language facilitating and providing development standard flexibility for such conversions and conduct community outreach for feedback. • Action 2.4 (c): Present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language amending chapter 17.52 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Hillsborough Municipal Code expediting the conversion of pool house, guest house, and similar accessory structures into recorded ADUs. • Action 2.4 (d): Conduct a study of the general fund impacts of potentially reducing/waiving Planning and Building fees for such conversions and present findings to City Council for consideration. • Action 2.4 (e): Based on the findings of Action 2.4 (a) and Action 2.4 (c), develop an expedited conversion program and related educational and outreach campaign to make residents aware of the benefits of conversion and present to Council for consideration and ordinance adoption.

Goal 2.5: Require all future pool house, guest house, and similar development to be constructed to the standards of an ADU to accommodate future conversion. • Action 2.5 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar accessory structure requirements in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region throughout the state. • Action 2.5 (b): Based on the findings of Action 2.5(a), draft potential ordinance language requiring pool house, guest house, and similar accessory structures to be constructed for use as and recorded as an ADU and conduct community outreach for feedback.
• Action 2.5 (c): Present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language amending chapter 17.52 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Hillsborough Municipal Code to requiring pool house, guest house, and similar accessory structures to be constructed for use as and recorded as an ADU.

Goal 2.6: Create a retroactive permitting program for existing, unpermitted ADUs. • Action 2.6 (a): Establish an ADU Amnesty Program to allow eligible properties to legalize existing ADUs that were constructed without a permit.

Goal 2.7: Analyze the feasibility of requiring secondary ADUs (with the exception of JADUs) to be deed restricted at affordable rental rates. • Action 2.7 (a): Conduct a study of neighboring jurisdictions to evaluate the feasibility of deed restrictions for ADUs. Based on this study, consider modifying requirements to implement these changes as appropriate.

Goal 2.8: Via 21 Elements, coordinate with San Mateo County jurisdictions on facilitating ADU Development • Action 2.8 (a): Assess opportunities for property tax relief when ADU/JADUs are constructed and offered at rates affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.
• Action 2.8 (b): Support the creation of a county wide nonprofit to increase ADU production.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
141
-460-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Policy 3: Facilitate Housing Development on Public, Recreational, and Institutional Sites Goal 3.1: Monitor the disposition of all publicly owned land for potential future use for housing development. • Action 3.1 (a): Fund and conduct a Town-owned property study to identify those properties which may be suitable for future redevelopment for housing.
• Action 3.1 (b): Using the findings of the study referenced in Action 3.1 (a), develop a comprehensive program to support reuse of identified sites for housing purposes.

Goal 3.2: Encourage and support use of private recreational and private school land for housing development. • Action 3.2 (a): Contribute funding for and project management services in support of a study analyzing the feasibility of incorporating affordable housing units at the two private school sites and country club property. • Action 3.2 (b): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar programs in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state.
• Action 3.2 (c): In partnership with the private schools and country club, draft potential revised ordinance language and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Policy 4: Ensure Responsible Development in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Areas Goal 4.1: Continue to support the Central County Fire District (CCFD) WUI Home Inspection Program. • Action 4.1 (a): Enhance communications to residents regarding their required participation in the WUI Inspection Program. • Action 4.1 (b): Require all new proposed landscape plans on properties in designated WUI area to submit a vegetation management plan and receive approval by CCFD.

Goal 4.2: Continue to support community participation in the National Firewise USA® Recognition Program of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
• Action 4.2 (a): Maintain the Town’s “Firewise Hillsborough” webpage to provide residents with valuable information about how to stay wildfire ready.
• Action 4.2 (b): Provide a link on the Town’s Firewise Hillsborough webpage to access information on which residential property insurance companies may be currently offering discounts for fire hardened homes. • Action 4.2 (c): Support Hillsborough Firewise in the maintenance of status as a Firewise USA Community, as recognized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Goal 4.3: Establish and enforce safety standards for structures and landscaping in WUI areas. • Action 4.3 (a): The Central County Fire Department will review proposed plans for all new buildings and major additions to ensure the construction complies with fire access requirements and make recommendations for modifications to reduce fire hazards.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
142
-461-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Policy 5: Establish and Strengthen Opportunities for Rental Tenancies Goal 5.1: Add a tenant/landlord information page to the Town website. • Action 5.1 (a): Promote partnership with HIP Housing to facilitate the rental of ADU and JADU units. • Action 5.1 (b): Provide a link on the Town’s Tenant/Landlord webpage to HIP Housing’s monthly, multi-lingual, home sharing fliers.
• Action 5.1 (c): Encourage landlords to accept Section 8 and Housing Choice Vouchers by providing information on the Town’s Tenant/Landlord website regarding the programs and how to participate. • Action 5.1 (d): Establish a relationship with the California Apartment Association (CAA) and work with their education team to participate in and promote fair housing training for Landlords via the Town’s Tenant/Landlord website.

Goal 5.2: Support the Human Investment Project (HIP Housing) Home Sharing, Self-Sufficiency, and Property programs.
• Action 5.2 (a): Continue annual grant award to the Human Investment Project (HIP housing), HEART of San Mateo County, LifeMoves, and the County of San Mateo Human Services (see action 6.2(a)) • Action 5.2 (b): Distribute HIP Housing’s monthly, multi-lingual home sharing fliers directly to City Council, Board, and Commission members, and public and private schools, and post fliers at Town Hall. • Action 5.2 (c): Host Annual Hillsborough-HIP Housing home sharing workshop; confidential match-making with background checks, draft rental agreements, and support services for tenant/landlord. • Action 5.2 (d): Provide a link on the Town’s Housing Resources webpage to HIP Housing’s monthly, multi-lingual home sharing fliers.

Goal 5.3: Establish and continue partnerships with local nonprofits for tenant outreach and counseling. • Action 5.3 (a): Maintain the Town’s relationship with Project Sentinel and refer tenants to their no-fee services. • Action 5.3 (b): Ensure access to the Town’s housing-related communication materials through translation of materials into multiple languages including Spanish and Chinese, making materials accessible to those with disabilities, and sharing information with community organizations, such as legal service or public health providers. All communication plans would include strategies to reach groups with disproportionate housing needs.

Goal 5.4: Adopt an anti-harassment ordinance and a right-to-counsel policy. • Action 5.4 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for anti-harassment ordinances and right-to-counsel policies in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state. • Action 5.4 (b): Draft potential ordinance language and conduct outreach to tenants, landlords, community members and tenant/landlord organizations for feedback.
• Action 5.4 (c): Based on the outcomes of Actions 6.4 (a) through 6.4 (c), present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language establishing an anti-harassment ordinance and right-to-counsel policy.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
143
-462-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Policy 6: Actively Participate in Meeting the Housing Needs of the Community Goal 6.1: Continue participation in and support for the 21 Elements project. • Action 6.1 (a): Via 21 Elements, participate in a multi-city nexus and feasibility study to adopt housing impact fees and inclusionary requirements. • Action 6.1 (b): Partner with the 21 Elements Jurisdictions to assess the viability of sharing housing staff to support inclusionary zoning, affordable housing, and other related projects.

Goal 6.2: Provide financial support to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs. • Action 6.2 (a): Continue annual grant award to the Human Investment Project (HIP housing). • Action 6.2 (b): Continue financial support for the 21 Elements project. • Action 6.2 (c): Develop and adopt a Town philanthropy policy which establishes consistency in giving to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs whose organizational missions align with the Town’s value statement. • Action 6.2 (d): During the annual Town budget development process, assess the availability of funds for contribution to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs whose organizational missions align with the Town’s value statement.

Goal 6.3: Report annually to City Council on the Town’s progress in meeting the RHNA Cycle 6 housing allocation. • Action 6.3 (a): Planning staff generate the Town’s Annual Progress Report (APR) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) outlining details of housing development occurring in Town during the previous calendar year and progress towards achieving housing goals.
• Action 6.3 (b): Present the Annual APR to the City Council.

Goal 6.4: Monitor the residential sites inventory and the Town’s progress in meeting RHNA. • Action 6.4 (a): Monitor unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels included in the sites inventory. • Action 6.4 (b): Monitor actual units constructed and income/affordability when parcels are developed. • Action 6.4 (c): Monitor net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity in meeting remaining RHNA. • Action 6.4 (d): Establish an ADU monitoring program to assess which tools are effective and which should be reconsidered.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
144
-463-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Policy 7: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Opportunities Goal 7.1: Eliminate discrimination in housing based on age, race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or occupation.
• Action 7.1 (a): Support fair access to housing for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. Assemble and promote the distribution of information to landlords regarding fair housing. • Action 7.1 (b): Assemble and promote the distribution of information to landlords regarding fair housing. • Action 7.1 (c): Involve Project Sentinel to aid in housing-related problem resolution. • Action 7.1 (d): Designate the City Attorney as the appropriate City official to receive and administer complaints related to housing discrimination.
• Action 7.1 (e): Implement Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation) to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• Action 7.1 (g): Provide maximum flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities. • Action 7.1 (h): Ensure that information related to fair housing laws is easily available on the Town’s website and at key Town facilities, including the Town Hall Campus and Police Station .

Goal 7.2: Proactively increase access to affordable housing options for historically marginalized and underrepresented groups. • Action 7.2 (a): Work with HIP Housing and other self-sufficiency programs to market ADUs to the disability community and non-English speakers, including new-immigrant and refugee communities. • Action 7.2 (b): Work with HIP Housing and other self-sufficiency programs to make available paper and digital versions of multi-lingual applications and to make all websites containing application information accessible.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
145
-464-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action Matrix
The Action Matrix Table below identifies the lead Town department that will implement each action, along with the time frame for completion and key milestones and metrics for each action detailed above.

Housing Element Action Matrix
Town Lead Completion
Timeframe
Milestone
Policy 1: Reduce Barriers to Housing Development
Goal 1.1: Allow for increased subdivision opportunities throughout the community.

Action 1.1 (a): Implement Senate Bill 9 (SB9), as appropriate. SB 9 allows all properties within a “single-family residential zone” to be subdivided into two parcels and developed with two primary dwelling units per lot, irrespective of local standards.

City Council and Building
& Planning Department
Project-by-project
basis
Submittal, approval,
and completion of an
SB9 project.

Action 1.1 (b): Conduct a study to analyze the feasibility of updating chapter 16 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code
(Subdivisions) to modify existing subdivision standards pertaining to average slope and minimum lot size, but in no instance allow lots smaller than one half-acre.

City Manager's Office
and Building & Planning
Department
January 2024 Completion of
feasibility analysis
of modifications to
hillside subdivision
standards.

Goal 1.2: Streamline the project review process for housing-related applications.

Action 1.2 (a): Improve transparency in permitting time and workflow by updating the Town’s ageing permit tracking software to a streamlined, user-friendly web-based platform with online payments accessible to applicants 24-hours/day, 365 days/year.

City Manager's Office
and Building & Planning
Department
March 2023 Fully updated
and implemented
permitting software.

Action 1.2 (b): Update all housing development-related application forms to ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance with all state statutes, including the California Housing Accountability Act and Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).

Building & Planning
Department
January 2024 All housing
development-related
application forms
updated and in
compliance with all
state statutes.

Action 1.2 (c): Continue to evaluate and improve the streamlined processing system to facilitate residential development.

Building & Planning
Department
Annually Evaluate to identify
potential efficiencies
on an annual basis
Action 1.2 (d): Utilize CEQA exemptions for infill development sites to shorten entitlement review time.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
Project-by-project
basis
Utilize and promote
CEQA exemptions on
qualifying projects
Goal 1.3: Assist Town residents in the resolution of land use conflicts to promote successful housing development projects.

Action 1.3 (a): Maintain the Town’s contract supporting Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) and refer conflicted parties to PCRC’s no-fee mediation services.

City Manager's Office
and Building & Planning
Department
Annually Contract with PCRC
updated annually.

Goal 1.4: Amend the Town’s zoning regulations to comply with all recently adopted state legislation.

Action 1.4 (a): Assess the Town’s definition of group home in the zoning ordinance to ensure compliance with the Lanterman Disabilities Services Act.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2026 Town zoning ordinance
is in compliance
with the Lanterman
Disabilities Services
Act.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
146
-465-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 1.4 (b): Amend the Density Bonus section of the zoning ordinance to comply with AB 1763, SB 1227, and AB 2345.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2026 Town Density Bonus
section of the
zoning ordinance in
compliance with AB
1763, SB 1227, and AB
2345.

Action 1.4 (c): Amend the zoning ordinance to comply with the Employee Housing Act.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2026 Town zoning ordinance
is in compliance with
the Employee Housing
Act.

Action 1.4 (d): Assess the Town’s definition of transitional and supportive housing in the zoning ordinance to ensure compliance with State law and allow them in accordance with AB 2162.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2026 Town zoning ordinance
is in compliance with
AB 2162
Action 1.4 (e): Assess the Town’s regulations pertaining to Emergency Shelters to ensure compliance with SB 2 and AB 139.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2026 Town zoning ordinance
is in compliance with
SB 2 and AB 139.

Policy 2: Promote the Construction and Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Goal 2.1: Continue to support and fund a Town ADU Ombudsman to guide property owners through the Town’s ADU process.

Action 2.1 (a): Assess the feasibility of extending the current ADU Ombudsman hours to ensure sufficient capacity for timely review and approval of ADU permits and budget accordingly for implementation.

City Council, City
Manager's Office, and
Building & Planning
Department
July 2023 Feasibility assessment
completed to
determine need/
resources for the
ADU Ombudsman
position(s).

Action 2.1 (b): Annually review ADU application and approval processes, making improvements where needed to make it easier for property owners to develop ADUs and JADUs.

Building & Planning
Department
Annually Improved, updated
ADU application
process
Action 2.1 (c): Conduct an analysis of the general fund impacts of continuing the ADU Ombudsman program while reducing/waiving ADU development review fees.

Finance Department
and Building & Planning
Department
Annually Completed analysis of
financial implications,
budget modifications
as necessary.

Action 2.1 (d): Actively promote Accessory Dwelling Unit production by encouraging homeowners and developers to
include attached or detached Accessory Dwelling Units in existing or new homes.

Building & Planning
Department
Ongoing, projectby-project basisIncreased ADU
production.

Goal 2.2: Further streamline and expedite the ADU and JADU permitting process.

Action 2.2 (a): Assess the feasibility of waiving all fees associated with ADU permitting when the property owner deed restricts their ADU to be rented at rates affordable to very-low income households.

Finance Department
and Building & Planning
Department
January 2024 -
2025
Completed assessment
incentives for deedrestriction of ADUs to
be rented at very-low
income rates
Action 2.2 (b): Establish an ADU Review Team comprised of representatives from the Town’s various departments including planning, fire, police, and public works and conduct regular weekly meetings to ensure efficient review of ADU applications.

Building & Planning
Department, CCFD,
Police Dept., Public
Works Dept.

January 2024 -
2025
Creation of ADU
Review Team and
commencement
of regular review
meetings
Action 2.2 (c): Incentivize ADUs and JADUs to be constructed along with new single-family detached housing by allowing concurrent permit review and approval and no-cost deed recording with Town notary.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Council
January 2024 -
2025
Increased ADU
production.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
147
-466-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 2.2 (d): Consider allowing objective, administrative exceptions for specified zoning standards, such as maximum lot coverage and minimum landscape coverage, to accommodate ADUs and JADUs.

Building & Planning
Department, CCFD,
Police Dept., Public
Works Dept.

January 2026 Internal evaluation of
pros/cons of objective,
administrative
exceptions for
specified zoning
standards.

Action 2.2 (e): In coordination with the Central County Fire Department and CalFire, establish pre-approved fire parameters for ADUs to streamline fire related review.

CCFD and Building &
Planning Department
January 2024 -
2025
Final document
including pre-approved
fire parameters for
ADUs
Action 2.2 (f): Establish an ADU/JADU guidebook to help walk residents through the ADU/JADU permitting process.

Building & Planning
Department
January 2024 -
2025
Final document ADU/
JADU guidebook
Action 2.2 (g): Assess the feasibility of developing 80 percent complete construction drawings for ADUs to lower costs
associated with engineering and architecture.

Building & Planning
Department
January 2024 -
2025
Internal evaluation
of pros/cons
and feasibility of
developing 80 percent
complete construction
drawings for ADUs.

Action 2.2 (h): Enhance awareness of the Town’s partnership with the County of San Mateo’s Home For All initiative and the Second Unit Resource Center which provides information and tools to make it easier for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Council
January 2023 Town's website
updated to provide
easy access to San
Mateo’s Home For
All initiative and the
Second Unit Resource
Center
Action 2.2 (i): Enhance the Town’s ADU/JADU Information and Resources webpage on the Town’s website.

Building & Planning
Department
January 2023 Town’s ADU/JADU
Information and
Resources webpage
updated and current.

Goal 2.3: Allow one JADU and up to two ADUs on lots one acre and larger.

Action 2.3 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar multiple attached or detached ADU programs in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state.

Building & Planning
Department
January 2025 Completed assessment
of pros/cons of
multiple attached
or detached ADU
programs in similar
jurisdictions in the
ABAG region and CA.

Action 2.3 (b): Based on the findings of Action 2.3(a), draft potential ordinance language facilitating allowing a maximum of two ADUs (attached or detached) and one JADU on lots one acre and larger and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Building & Planning
Department
June 2025 Conduct robust
community outreach
and education to
gain feedback. Draft
potential ordinance
language, if applicable.

Action 2.3 (c): Present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language allowing a maximum of two ADUs (attached or detached) and one JADU on lots one acre and larger.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Council
January 2026 Adoption of ordinance
update.

Goal 2.4: Create a program to encourage and expedite the conversion of pool houses, guest houses, and other accessory structures to recorded ADUs/JADUs.

Action 2.4 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar accessory structure conversion programs in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state.

Building & Planning
Department
January 2025 Completed assessment
of pros/cons of
accessory structure
conversion programs
in similar jurisdictions
in the ABAG region
and CA.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
148
-467-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 2.4 (b): Based on the findings of Action 2.4 (a), draft potential ordinance language facilitating and providing development standard flexibility for such conversions and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Building & Planning
Department
June 2025 Draft potential
ordinance language
and robust community
outreach.

Action 2.4 (c): Present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language amending chapter 17.52 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Hillsborough Municipal Code expediting the conversion of pool house, guest house, and similar accessory structures into recorded ADUs.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Council
January 2026 Adoption of ordinance
update.

Action 2.4 (d): Conduct a study of the general fund impacts of potentially reducing/waiving Planning and Building fees for such conversions and present findings to City Council for consideration.

Building & Planning
Department, Finance
Department, and City
Council
January 2026 Completed analysis of
financial implications,
budget modifications
as necessary.

Action 2.4 (e): Based on the findings of Action 2.4 (a) and Action 2.4 (c), develop an expedited conversion program and related educational and outreach campaign to make residents aware of the benefits of conversion and present to Council for consideration and ordinance adoption.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Council
January 2026 Adoption of ordinance
update.

Goal 2.5: Require all future pool house, guest house, and similar development to be constructed to the standards of an ADU to accommodate future conversion.

Action 2.5 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar accessory structure requirements in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region throughout the state.

City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2025 Completed assessment
of pros/cons of
accessory structure
requirements in similar
jurisdictions in the
ABAG region and CA.

Action 2.5 (b): Based on the findings of Action 2.5(a), draft potential ordinance language requiring pool house, guest house, and similar accessory structures to be constructed for use as and recorded as an ADU and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
June 2025 Conduct robust
community outreach
and education to
gain feedback. Draft
potential ordinance
language, if applicable.

Action 2.5 (c): Present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language amending chapter 17.52 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Hillsborough Municipal Code to requiring pool house, guest house, and similar accessory structures to be constructed for use as and recorded as an ADU.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Council
January 2026 Adoption of ordinance
update, if applicable
Goal 2.6: Create a retroactive permitting program for existing, unpermitted ADUs.

Action 2.6 (a): Establish an ADU Amnesty Program to allow eligible properties to legalize existing ADUs that were constructed without a permit
City Attorney and
Building & Planning
Department
January 2023 -
2024
ADU Amnesty
Program in place and
community education.

Goal 2.7: Analyze the feasibility of requiring secondary ADUs (with the exception of JADUs) to be deed restricted at affordable rental rates.

Action 2.7 (a): Conduct a study of neighboring jurisdictions to evaluate the feasibility of deed restrictions for ADUs . Based on this study, consider modifying requirements to implement these changes as appropriate.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
January 2026 Completed assessment
incentives for
deed-restriction of
secondary ADUs to
be rented at lower
and moderate-income
rates
Goal 2.8: Via 21 Elements, coordinate with San Mateo
County jurisdictions on facilitating ADU Development
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
149
-468-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 2.8 (a): Advocate for property tax relief opportunities when ADU/JADUs are constructed and offered at rates affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.

Building & Planning
Department, City
Attorney, Finance
Department, and City
Manager's Office
January 2027 Form an ADU working
group through 21
Elements and San
Mateo County that
focuses on facilitating
ADU development
through expedited
processing and tax
relief.

Action 2.8 (b): Support the creation of a county wide nonprofit to increase ADU production.

Building & Planning
Department, City
Attorney, City Manager's
Office, and San Mateo
County
January 2027 Form an ADU working
group through 21
Elements and San
Mateo County that
focuses on facilitating
ADU development
through expedited
processing and tax
relief.

Policy 3: Facilitate Housing Development on Public, Recreational, and Institutionally Owned Sites Goal 3.1: Monitor the disposition of all publicly owned land for potential future use for housing development.

Action 3.1 (a): Fund and conduct a Town-owned property study to identify those properties which may be suitable for future redevelopment for housing.

Building & Planning
Department, City
Manager's Office, and
City Council
January 2026 Completed feasibility
assessment.

Action 3.1 (b): Using the findings of the study referenced in Action

3.1 (a), develop a comprehensive program to support reuse of identified sites for housing purposes.

Building & Planning
Department, City
Manager's Office, and
City Council
January 2027 Completed community
engagement process
and creation of
program with
conceptual plans.

Goal 3.2: Encourage and support use of private recreational and private school land for housing development.

Action 3.2 (a): Contribute funding for and project management services in support of a study analyzing the feasibility of incorporating affordable housing units at the two private school sites and country club property.

City Manager's Office,
Finance Departmetn,
and City Council
January 2026 Completed feasibility
assessments.

Action 3.2 (b): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar programs in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Jun-26 Completed review
of best practices and
sample ordinance
updates.

Action 3.2 (c): In partnership with the private schools and country club, draft potential revised ordinance language and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
January 2027 Conduct robust
community outreach
and education to
gain feedback. Draft
potential ordinance
language, if applicable.

Policy 4: Ensure Responsible Development in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Areas Goal 4.1: Continue to support the Central County Fire District (CCFD) WUI Home Inspection Program.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
150
-469-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 4.1 (a): Enhance communications to residents regarding their required participation in the WUI Inspection Program.

CCFD and City Manager's
Office
Annually Host annual resident
workshops. Continue
to promote WUI Home
Inspection Program
through education
and outreach
materials distributed
through the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 4.1 (b): Require all new proposed landscape plans on properties in designated WUI area to submit a vegetation management plan and receive approval by CCFD.

Building & Planning
Department and CCFD
Project-by-project
basis
Continue to facilitate
expedited review and
approval by CCFD of
landscape plans in WUI
areas.

Goal 4.2: Continue to support community participation in the National Firewise USA® Recognition Program of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Action 4.2 (a): Maintain the Town’s “Firewise Hillsborough” webpage to provide residents with valuable information about how to stay wildfire ready.

CCFD and City Manager's
Office
Ongoing, asneededProvide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 4.2 (b): Provide a link on the Town’s Firewise Hillsborough webpage to access information on which residential property insurance companies may be currently offering discounts for fire hardened homes.

CCFD and City Manager's
Office
Ongoing, asneededProvide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 4.2 (c): Support Hillsborough Firewise in the maintainence of status as a Firewise USA Community, as recognized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

CCFD and City Manager's
Office
Annually Hillsborough Firewise
recognized by
the National Fire
Protection Association
(NFPA).

Goal 4.3: Establish and enforce safety standards for structures and landscaping in WUI areas.

Action 4.3 (a): The Central County Fire Department will review proposed plans for all new buildings and major additions to ensure the construction complies with fire access requirements and make recommendations for modifications to reduce fire hazards.

Building & Planning
Department and CCFD
Ongoing, projectby-project basisAll new buildings
and major additions
receive approval for
compliance with fire
access requirements
Policy 5: Establish and Strengthen Opportunities for Rental Tenancies Goal 5.1: Add a tenant/landlord information page to the Town website.

Action 5.1 (a): Promote partnership with HIP Housing to facilitate the rental of ADU and JADU units.

City Manager's Office January 2023 Provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 5.1 (b): Provide a link on the Town’s Tenant/Landlord webpage to HIP Housing’s monthly, multi-lingual, home sharing fliers.

City Manager's Office January 2023 Provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
151
-470-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 5.1 (c): Encourage landlords to accept Section 8 and Housing Choice Vouchers by providing information on the Town’s Tenant/Landlord website regarding the programs and how to participate.

City Manager's Office,
Building & Planning
Department, and
Finance Department
January 2023 Provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 5.1 (d): Establish a relationship with the California Apartment Association (CAA) and work with their education team to participate in and promote fair housing training for Landlords via the Town’s Tenant/Landlord website.

City Manager's Office January 2027 Partner with HIP
Housing and CAA to
provide coordinated
education and
resources for landlords
with the Town's
Tenant/Landlord
website.

Goal 5.2: Support the Human Investment Project (HIP Housing) Home Sharing, Self-Sufficiency, and Property programs.

Action 5.2 (a): Continue annual grant award to the Human Investment Project (HIP housing), HEART of San Mateo County, LifeMoves, and the County of San Mateo Human Services (see action 6.2(a))
City Manager's Office Annually Annual Budget line
item.

Action 5.2 (b): Distribute HIP Housing’s monthly, multilingual home sharing fliers directly to City Council, Board, and Commission members, and public and private schools, and post fliers at Town Hall.

City Manager's Office Monthly Provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 5.2 (c): Host Annual Hillsborough-HIP Housing home sharing workshop; confidential match-making with background checks, draft rental agreements, and support services for tenant/ landlord.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Annually Host hyrbid workshop
for Hillsborough
residents and
employees to provide
education and
outreach about the
HIP Housing home
sharing program.

Action 5.2 (d): Provide a link on the Town’s Housing Resources webpage to HIP Housing’s monthly, multi-lingual home sharing fliers.

City Manager's Office Monthly Provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Goal 5.3: Establish and continue partnerships with local nonprofits for tenant outreach and counseling.

Action 5.3 (a): Maintain the Town’s relationship with Project Sentinel and refer tenants to their no-fee services.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Case-by-case
basis
Provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
152
-471-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 5.3 (b): Ensure access to the Town’s housing-related communication materials through translation of materials into multiple languages including Spanish and Chinese, making materials accessible to those with disabilities, and sharing information with community organizations, such as legal service or public health providers. All communication plans would include strategies to reach groups with disproportionate housing needs.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Ongoing, asneededPartner with 21
Elements and San
Mateo County to
provide information
about available
translation and
accessibility resources
and tools. Provide
information on the
Town's website,
Quarterly newsletter,
and weekly
e-announcements.

Goal 5.4: Adopt an anti-harassment ordinance and a right-to-counsel policy.

Action 5.4 (a): Review best practices and sample ordinance language for anti-harassment ordinances and right-to-counsel policies in jurisdictions of similar size and make up in the ABAG region and throughout the state.

City Attorney and City
Manager's Office
January 2025 Develop a best
practices framework
for anti-harassment
ordinances and rightto-counsel policies
Action 5.4 (b): Draft potential ordinance language and conduct outreach to tenants, landlords, community members and tenant/ landlord organizations for feedback.

City Attorney and City
Manager's Office
June 2025 Conduct robust
community outreach
and education to
gain feedback. Draft
potential ordinance
language, if applicable.

Action 5.4 (c): Based on the outcomes of Actions 5.4 (a) through

5.4 (c), present to City Council for consideration and adoption, language establishing an anti-harassment ordinance and right-tocounsel policy.

City Attorney, City
Manager's Office, and
City Council
January 2026 Adoption of ordinance
update, if applicable
Policy 6: Actively Participate in Meeting the Housing Needs of the Community Goal 6.1: Continue participation in and support for the 21 Elements project.

Action 6.1 (a): Via 21 Elements, participate in a multi-city nexus and feasibility study to adopt housing impact fees and inclusionary requirements.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Annually Form a working group
through 21 Elements
and San Mateo County
that evaluates impact
fees and inclusionary
requirements.

Action 6.1 (b): Partner with the 21 Elements Jurisdictions to assess the viability of sharing housing staff to support inclusionary zoning, affordable housing, and other related projects.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Quarterly Form a working group
through 21 Elements
and San Mateo County
that evaluates sharing
housing staff.

Goal 6.2: Provide financial support to local housing,
homelessness, and mental health support programs.

Action 6.2 (a): Continue annual grant award to the Human Investment Project (HIP housing).

City Manager's Office
and City Council
Anually Annual Budget line
item
Action 6.2 (b): Continue financial support for the 21 Elements project.

City Manager's Office
and City Council
Anually Annual Budget line
item
Action 6.2 (c): Develop and adopt a Town philanthropy policy which establishes consistency in giving to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs whose
organizational missions align with the Town’s value statement.

City Manager's Office
and City Council
January 2026 Adopted Town
philanthropy policy
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
153
-472-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 6.2 (d): During the annual Town budget development process, assess the availability of funds for contribution to local housing, homelessness, and mental health support programs whose organizational missions align with the Town’s value statement.

City Manager's Office
and City Council
Annually Annual Budget
adopted.

Goal 6.3: Report annually to City Council on the
Town’s progress in meeting the RHNA Cycle 6 housing
allocation.

Action 6.3 (a): Planning staff generate the Town’s Annual Progress Report (APR) to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) outlining details of housing development occurring in Town during the previous calendar year and progress towards achieving housing goals.

Building & Planning
Department
Annually Annual Progress
Report (APR) prepared
for submittal to HCD
Action 6.3 (b): Present the Annual APR to the City Council. Building & Planning Department
Annually Annual Progress
Report (APR) accepted
by City Council for
submittal to HCD
Goal 6.4: Monitor the residential sites inventory and the Town’s progress in meeting RHNA.

Action 6.4 (a): Monitor unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels included in the sites inventory.

Building & Planning
Department
Annually Annual Progress
Report (APR) to HCD
Action 6.4 (b): Monitor actual units constructed and income/ affordability when parcels are developed.

Building & Planning
Department
Annually Annual Progress
Report (APR) to HCD
Action 6.4 (c): Monitor net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity in meeting remaining RHNA.

Building & Planning
Department
Annually Annual Progress
Report (APR) to HCD
Action 6.4 (d): Establish an ADU monitoring program to assess which tools are effective and which should be reconsidered.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Monthly Develop ADU
monitoring program to
evaluate effectiveness
and identify
opportunites for
improvement.

Policy 7: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Opportunities Goal 7.1: Eliminate discrimination in housing based on age, race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or occupation.

Action 7.1 (a): Support fair access to housing for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Annually Annually contract
with a fair housing
service provider to
promote open housing
practices for residents,
and to facilitate
communication
between tenants and
landlords.

Action 7.1 (b): Assemble and promote the distribution of information to landlords regarding fair housing.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Annually Continue to provide
resources for bi-lingual
fair housing brochures
in a variety of public
locations, including
Town Hall
Action 7.1 (c): Involve Project Sentinel to aid in housing-related problem resolution.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Manager's Office
Project-by-project
basis
Develop a housingrelated referral
protocal with Project
Sentinel
Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
154
-473-

DRAFT FOR HCD REVIEW
Action 7.1 (d): Designate the City Attorney as the appropriate City official to receive and administer complaints related to housing discrimination.

City Attorney and City
Manager's Office
Annually Annually designate
City Attorney as the
City official to manage
housing discrimination
complaints.

Action 7.1 (e): Implement Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance (Requests for Reasonable Accommodation) to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Building & Planning
Department and City
Attorney
Case-by-case
basis
Provide information
about Requests
for Reasonable
Accommodation on
the Town's website
and Quarterly
newsletter.

Action 7.1 (f): Provide maximum flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Building & Planning
Department and City
Attorney
Case-by-case
basis
Consult with City
Attorney to ensure
implementation of
flexibility and best
practices.

Action 7.1 (g): Ensure that information related to fair housing laws is easily available on the Town’s website and at key Town facilities, including the Town Hall Campus and Police Station .

Building & Planning
Department, Police
Department, and City
Attorney
Quarterly Provide information
about fair housing
laws on the Town's
website and Quarterly
newsletter.

Goal 7.2: Proactively increase access to affordable housing options for historically marginalized and underrepresented groups.

Action 7.2 (a): Work with HIP Housing and other self-sufficiency programs to market ADUs to the disability community and non-English speakers, including new-immigrant and refugee communities.

City Manager's Office
and Building & Planning
Department
Monthly Partner with programs
to provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Action 7.2 (b): Work with HIP Housing and other self-sufficiency programs to make available paper and digital versions of multi-lingual applications and to make all websites containing application information accessible.

City Manager's Office
and Building & Planning
Department
Monthly Partner with programs
to provide information
on the Town's
website, Quarterly
newsletter, and weekly
e-announcements.

Hillsborough Housing Element | Housing Plan
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
155
-474-
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 2, the September 26, 2022 Staff Report (Item 2) – First Draft of the RHNA 6 Housing Element Update – Consider and Provide Direction on Policy Alternatives, is available at https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09262022- 1206.
-475-
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3, the September 12, 2022 Staff Report (Item 12) – Study Session: RHNA 6 Housing Element Update – Project Briefing on Public Comment Received to Date, is available at https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09122022- 1203#page=279
-476-
From: Tracy Wan
To: General Plan
Cc: Tracy Wan
Subject: Draft Plan Comments Period is Too Short - Leading to inadequate input from the community Date: Thursday, October 6, 2022 12:39:59 AM
The comments period of 6 weeks is Too Short for proper review and understanding of this very important draft plan of housing element.

This plan will have serious consequences for our town and its residents.

Please make sure you have done proper communication with the residents, not rush to submit this plan.

It's coming across that the task force and the Town officials are Rushing this through without proper analysis and input from the community.

Would you consider having an additional meeting before the Dec. 2022 meeting to give more information, and allow for more live comments?
Thank you.

Tracy Wan
, Hillsborough, CA 94010
ATTACHMENT 4
-477-
1 Lisa Natusch
Subject: FW: Hillsborough Affordable Housing
From: Chris Read
Date: October 3, 2022 at 11:29:32 AM PDT
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>, Christine Krolik <[email protected]>, Marie Chuang <[email protected]>, Sophie Cole <[email protected]>, Larry May <[email protected]>
Subject: Hillsborough Affordable Housing
We are Burlingame residents living at and we would like to be included in notification and information updates concerning the adoption of housing elements as well as Council Meeting dates and agendas. The decisions made by Hillsborough will have large impacts on our Burlingame neighborhood as well.

We are in support of the numerous Hillsborough residents who have opposed rezoning the town campus to include a housing element. These residents believe ADU unit numbers will satisfy State requirements and should be more carefully considered. More outreach to other "like" communities who are restricted in their affordable housing options is also a beneficial strategy. We are hoping for a thoughtful decision after there has been a more thorough outreach to the Hillsborough community and surrounding affected Burlingame residents. It is apparent previous well intended attempts were inadequate. At the Sept 26th meeting, concern was shared for the impact of such a project on Hillsborough schools. How will the city meet the infrastructure requirements of a concentrated residential population?
We are respectful of the necessity of meeting timelines, but hope more careful consideration can occur before such an important decision can be made that will permanently affect the communities of both Hillsborough and Burlingame.

Respectfully,
Chris and Michael Read
-478-
From: Elizabeth Roepke
To: General Plan
Subject: Need Clarity on Draft Housing Element
Date: Sunday, October 2, 2022 2:09:47 PM
I have been reading the draft housing element (August 4, 2022), and noted that Section 10, Policy 4.5 appears to disallow demolishment of smaller homes in Hillsborough if the aim is to construct a larger, single family residence.

My interpretation of the reading seems to agree with staff report of August 8: “Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing smaller, single-family homes.”
We have lived in one of these smaller homes for many years, and have considered selling at various times. If this policy is included in the final submission and is enacted, our property value would plummet. We have never had the site surveyed, but realtors have told us it is a little under 1/2 acre. So subdividing it into two 1/4-acre parcels would not be possible per the proposed Hillsborough standards, and building a small home with an ADU would not be cost-effective for a prospective buyer.

Please provide clarification or verify that my take on the proposal is correct.

On another note: I have been unable to find any information regarding a requirement for parking on-site for ADUs.

Is there any such requirement?
Thank you,
Elizabeth Roepke
-479-
From: robert b mack
To: General Plan
Subject: land use element
Date: Friday, September 30, 2022 5:00:11 PM
This proposal is better off being filed in the nearest shredder. Hillsborough doesn’t have enough space to accommodate the increased number of houses and would substantially increase traffic on town streets. Add to that the fact that lot sizes are likely to be reduced to accommodate the number of houses.

The town of Hillsborough would have to enlarge its borders to accommodate the increased number of houses.

Neighboring cities, therough their representatives, are likely to be howling mad at the suggestion of Hillsborough wanting to increase its borders. It is better fot Hillsboorugh to remain at its current size.

Traffic is likely to significantly increase with the increased number of houses and the increased population. I don’t want Hillsborough to have the same amount of traffic as Los Angeles and New York. The gridlock and traffic congestion would be unbearable and difficult to deal with.

I dn not want my lot size to be reduced in size to accomodate another house. I want some space to enjoy without being cramped and without feeling I’m in Los Angeles - a city with a very high population.

Please file this nasty dreadful proposal in the nearest shredder and let Hillsborough’s residents enjoy their property without the traffic congestion, the noise, the pollution, and the feeling of being cramped.

Robert B. Mack
-480-
From: AJ Batt
To: Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; [email protected]; Stanley Lo ([email protected]) Cc: Lisa Natusch; Sophie Cole; General Plan; [email protected]; Christopher Diaz; Ann Ritzma Subject: Hillsborough Draft Housing Law
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 3:34:20 PM
I strongly oppose the Hillsborough Draft Housing Law !
I also endorse the 4 points that Stanley Lo lists in his High Density Housing notice mailed out 40 days ago.

I strongly believe that there will be more crimes with this new element of people coming to the area. I ALSO WOULD EXPECT

HILLSBOROUGH WILL NEED TO INSTALL MORE GATES, LIKE IN AFRICA, WITH GUARDS AT THE ENTRY OF MOST THEIR PROPERTIES.

I also would demand much lower taxes to be paid, since the elected officials are ‘not protecting ‘ the people they promised to serve.

This new element will lower Hillsborough property values and I know the ‘city fathers’ / elected officials will not wish to lower the current property tax base.

Especially, since they approved major ADUs to be built and had the owners execute documents that their property taxes would be
increased then they “vote in” this HIGH DENSITY LAW. A Very astute move to slap onto the Hillsborough home owners.

What these elected officials are requesting is so UNNECESSARY AND UNWANTED, THEY NEED TO BE

ASHAMED OF HOW THEY ARE DISTROYING
THE VALUES OF OTHER PEOPLES’ PROPERTIES. DESTROYING THE DESIRES AND DREAMS OF WHAT

PEOPLE IN THE AREA WORKED HARD FOR, PAID THEIR
TAXES, AND IMPROVED THEIR PROPERTIES.

Hillsborough should be classified as an Historical Site or area. There is lot of History which needs to be saved, but no, you wish to bring in an element
that is not wanted or desired. You are destroying the values of our ancestors, our leaders, and the people that gave you the opportunities to be successful.

IT IS A DISGRACE WHAT THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE PUSHED AND WHAT THEY EXPECT THE HILLSBOROUGH PEOPLE TO ACCEPT.

A.J. Batt
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-481-
From: Melissa K
To: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Marie Chuang; Lisa Natusch; Christopher Diaz; General Plan Subject: Re: Housing Element Concerns
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 2:37:43 PM
Dear Mayor Royse and Members of the Council,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for hearing and acting on the comments from your fellow residents on this important issue.

Sincerely,
Gerrit and Melissa Klaerner
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 11, 2022, at 9:20 PM, Melissa Klaerner
wrote:

Dear Mayor Royse and Members of the Council,
Thank you for your response to my email regarding the draft housing element. I was able to attend one council meeting, and have followed the issue since.

As further comment on the Town's draft plan, our primary points of opposition to the draft plan as presented by the Town are:
1) Reduction in lot sizes and other changes to the current "RD" zoning. Denser housing throughout our neighborhoods will increase fire risk, destroy property values, and eliminate what makes Hillsborough special and why we chose to make it our home. Please do not change our zoning.
2) Making so little use of ADUs to reach the numbers required in the plan. ADU construction does not entail the same deleterious effect on the character of the Town as would rezoning, and should be the primary means by which we accomplish the state's mandate.
3) Assuming that the area near Golf Course Drive/Hayne Rd is a suitable location for higher density housing. While this area is near Highway 280, this intersection is a bottleneck already, with traffic backing up in all directions during prime commute times. In addition, it is not an area where residents can realistically be expected to rely on anything other than automobile traffic. It is too far to be walking distance to the businesses on El Camino/Burlingame Avenue and the hill is too steep for the return journey to be practical by bicycle. Concentrating additional housing here will simply entail more cars on the road more often, and the current traffic load in this area is already problematic. To the extent that any high density development is to be permitted, it should be located only in those -482-
portions of the Town already in walking/bicycling distance to the markets, restaurants, and other services in Burlingame and San Mateo, to minimize the increase in automobile traffic on quiet rural streets. It is not the additional housing itself that should be equitably distributed throughout the town, but its impact; additional population and traffic is much more disruptive to the quieter parts of our Town than to those parts that already enjoy proximity to the vibrant downtowns of our neighbor cities.

We urge you and the council to adopt in large part the alternative proposal drafted principally by Dennis Moore, which preferentially relies on ADUs rather than duplexes and high-density housing to meet the required increase in permitted housing within our Town, with the exception of the portion that identifies areas near Golf Course Drive / Hayne Rd as suitable for more density. Those areas are not suitable locations for significant housing increases for the reasons expressed above in point 3.

Best regards,
Melissa and Gerrit Klaerner
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 1:11 AM Al Royse <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Klaerner,
I just wanted to acknowledge receipt of your email (attached) and thank you for sending.

As you are probably aware, every town’s Housing Element must be updated every eight years to reflect our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers (as determined for our town by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)) , AND demonstrate how the town has adequately planned to ensure that there will be enough capacity to meet the projected need.

A first draft of the Town’s RHNA 6 Housing Element Update - prepared by staff with assistance from a citizens' committee- was just released and will be discussed (no formal action proposed but for council feedback) at our Monday’s (August 8) council meeting. I urge you to attend and share your thoughts, ideas, and concerns at that meeting. I do note the concerns and thoughts you express in your email - they are certainly valid - and I would welcome any ideas you may have on addressing them and yet submit a plan in compliance with the state requirements. I would also note that the state has some fairly rigid time requirements on submitting a final plan and failure to meet those deadlines, or to submit a plan not in compliance with the state requirements, could subject the town to some significant penalties, all of which I am sure will be discussed at Monday’s council meeting.

We have also planned a number of additional public meetings designed to both provide information to our residents and provide venues for their feedback, prior to the Draft Housing Element being send to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review and comments.

Those meeting dates and venues will also be discussed at Monday’s council meeting or can be found on the town’s website.
-483-
I would reiterate that his plan is still only in draft form. Accordingly resident input is very important and very welcomed .

I thank you for your interest and hope to see you at our Monday council meeting (will be conducted in a hybrid format, so you can attend live or virtually).

Sincerely,
Al Royse
Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
Cell 650 477-0541/ 415 269 0971
Email [email protected]
Unless otherwise noted, the opinions or viewpoints expressed in this email are solely those of the sender and do not represent the official position of the Town of Hillsborough or of its City Council. Please do not share these opinions or viewpoints with other members of the City Council in order to avoid any potentia violation under California'sl Brown Act.

Drought is Here: Is Your Yard Drought
Ready? Visit www.hillsborough.net/Drought for more information.

Dear Hillsborough Town Council,
We write to express concerns regarding the proposed
modifications to the Housing Element of the General Plan and to request that the Town "pause" this process to allow full consideration of the available options, the effects of various options on Town residents, and the concerns of the residents who came to Hillsborough for its current character and will be adversely affected by drastic changes thereto.

First, we ask the Town to hold a town referendum on these proposed drastic and permanent changes to ensure that the taxpaying residents who will be affected are able to be heard.

Second, we ask the Town to actively advocate for the safety of everyone in this high and very high fire risk area by pursuing reduction of the mandated number of new housing units (and strategic location thereof), or exemption from the requirement all together as was accomplished by Marin County.
-484-
Third, we ask the Town to carefully consider the viability of accommodating any required increase in housing units on townowned properties (many of which are empty spaces) rather than by modifying the zoning regulations on existing parcels (such as lot sizes and setbacks) that make our town unique. Further, the proposed plan to concentrate these additional units on certain Hillsborough neighborhoods near transit corridors unfairly burdens those neighborhoods and thoughtlessly exacerbates existing problems (such as water pressure in upper West Hillsborough and traffic congestion at transit interchanges such as the US-280/Black Mountain Rd intersection).

Regards,
Gerrit and Melissa Klaerner
Hillsborough, CA
** The opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the sender and are not an official position of the Town of Hillsborough, of the respective body, or of the board I serve on at the Town.
-485-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: Fw: OPPOSING HILLSBOROUGH DRAFT HOUSING PLAN
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:13:31 PM
From: AJ Batt
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:49 AM
To: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSING HILLSBOROUGH DRAFT HOUSING PLAN
I strongly oppose the Hillsborough Draft Housing Law !
I also endorse the 4 points that Stanley Lo lists in his High Density Housing notice mailed out.

I strongly believe that there will be more crimes with this new element of people coming to the area. I ALSO WOULD EXPECT

HILLSBOROUGH MAY HAVE TO INSTALL MORE GATES, LIKE IN AFRICA, WITH GUARDS AT THE ENTRY OF MOST PROPERTIES.

I also would demand much lower taxes to be paid, since the elected officials are ‘not protecting ‘ the people they promised to serve.

This new element will lower property values and I total understand that real estate values will drop, so I WOULD demand an immediate lower tax base.

What these elected officials are requesting is so UNNECESSARY AND UNWANTED, THEY NEED TO BE

ASHAMED OF HOW THEY ARE DISTROYING
THE VALUES OF OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTIES. DESTROYING THE DESIRES AND DREAMS OF WHAT

PEOPLE IN THE AREA WORKED HARD FOR, PAID THEIR
TAXES, AND IMPROVED THEIR PROPERTIES.

IT IS A DISGRACE WHAT THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE PUSHED AND WHAT THEY EXPECT THE HILLSBOROUGH PEOPLE TO ACCEPT.

A.J. Batt
Hillsborough, CA
94010
-486-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: Re: More Residents Opposing the Hillsborough Housing Draft Element Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:53:57 AM
Attachments: Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Signatures of Residents Opposing the Housing Plan 5.pdf Signatures of Residents Opposing the Housing Plan 4.pdf ____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $300 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

From: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 2:53 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: More Residents Opposing the Hillsborough Housing Draft Element Hi All,
See attached comments from Hillsborough residents Opposing the Hillsborough Housing Draft Element.

Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $288 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
-487-
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

From: Stanley Lo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 2:51 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: WE OPPOSE THE HOUSING DRAFT ELEMENT (Resident Responses) Hi All,
Attached are more signatures of Hillsborough residents opposing the Housing Draft Element. Please take this and their comments into consideration.

Best Regards,
Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $285 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. -488-
-489-
-490-
-491-
From: John Sheehan
To: General Plan; Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Larry May Subject: General plan
Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 2:51:50 PM
Attachments: Ullyot Objections to Draft HE Plan.pdf
I am a Hillsborough resident and I agree with this letter.

John Sheehan
Sent from my iPad
-492-
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.
-493-
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. -494-
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.
-495-
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. -496-
5 Respectfully submitted,
Theodore W. Ullyot
-497-
From: Patrick Shannon
To: General Plan; Marie Chuang; Christine Krolik; Sophie Cole; Al Royse; Larry May Cc: Lisa Natusch; Ann Ritzma
Subject: Patrick Shannon comment for 9/26/22 housing element agenda item Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:59:46 AM
Dear Councilmembers:

Please enter into the record my comments below pertaining to the Housing Element plan as drafted by Houseal Lavigne to date.

By all indications, Hillsborough is thankfully considering substantial revisions to the current draft housing element plan, and in particular is coming around to the view that the ADU unit production has been significantly under-estimated in the draft plan.

This is a favorable development indeed.

To get it right, the Town should slow down its plan development process to afford more time to hear HCD’s feedback to other jurisdictions like Atherton (and other predominantly single family residence cities such as Portola Valley and Belvedere) on the feasibility of similar ADU-concentrated plans and to substantiate the full amount of ADUs that could be generated in Hillsborough. Atherton’s plan as submitted relies on ADUs for 80% of its RHNA allotment whereas Hillsborough’s draft plan in its current form undercounts ADUs at 50% of its allotment.

We can take more time to get the right number of ADUs. As a practical matter, our statutory deadline is May 31, 2023, not January 31, 2023!
Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i)gives a 120-day grace period AFTER January 31for cities to get HCD certification AND to adopt the housing element plan by ordinance.

Hillsborough has at least two-months of slack in its current proposed timeline. The Town has pegged HCD certification by January 31 and allotted an additional four months just for the Council to adopt a plan AFTER HCD approval. But adoption could easily be accomplished in two months – one month for staff preparation and one month (with two special meetings, if necessary) for the formal action to adopt the plan.

That means Hillsborough could bide its time until November 30th to submit is draft plan to HCD instead of October 4th. Following that timeline would allow for final HCD certification by March 31 and would provide ample time to meet the ultimate deadline of May 31st for adoption.

Submitting our draft plan two months later affords at least two compelling advantages.

First, we could prepare our plan with full insight into HCD’s comments on the Atherton proposal in particular. The Almanac newspaper reported on September 7 that Atherton expects verbal comments from HCD by October 3 and a formal letter by November -498-

2. https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/09/07/atherton-town-shies-away-from-creatingplan-b-in-case-housing-element-is-rejected By Hillsborough’s own standards, this estimated timeline for feedback is realistic.Hillsborough has estimated it will take 45-days for HCD to offer “preliminary” feedback on a draft plan. Atherton submitted its plan August 2nd so that feedback is due any day. Atherton also has posted on its website that it expects HCD feedback “soon.”
Moreover, Hillsborough should be coordinating and sharing best practices with Atherton and other predominantly single family residence cities to develop best practices and to bolster our applications.

Second, Hillsborough should do more work to substantiate the feasibility of generating additional ADU units. According to HCD,Government Code Section 65583.1(a) allows a city or county to identify sites for ADUs based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior housing element planning period, whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department.

The first thing the Town should do is reject the ultra-conservative “safe harbor” methodology for calculating ADU production in Town over the next eight years and instead employ a more realistic methodology. The safe harbor method inappropriately calls for calculating future ADU production based on an average of the last three years’ production. But that approach includes data from 2020 which was anomalously low due to the severe lockdown that year and the fact that our ADU ombudsman program was not fully operational, having been newly created that year. Basing our ADU production on the average of the last two years (65 units per year) instead would appropriately generate 520 units over the eight-year period.

The second thing the Town should do is develop policies to amplify ADU production in Town. This could lead to a projection of more than 520 units. The current draft plan contains only one reference to policies to stimulate ADU development, citing the Town’s intent to enact “proposed modifications to ADU standards early in the RHNA Cycle 6 term,” but providing no detail whatsoever for any proposals.

The Town should spend time to flesh out the details. Atherton has cited a policy to include “preapproved ADU plans” and an ADU rental program. Santa Cruz offers residents technical and financial assistance including an ADU manual detailing the development process, relevant zoning, design standards, building codes and showcases of ADU prototype designs. Marin waives building and planning fees up to $1,500 for junior ADUs with a condition that for one year the owner would be prohibited from renting the junior unit as a short-term rental (30 days or fewer).

HCD advises that local governments can encourage ADU development through advertising/marketing and by offering incentives such as reduced parking requirements near transit nodes, tandem parking requirements, pre-approved building plans or design prototypes, prioritized processing, fee waivers, fee deferrals, reduced impact fees, reduced water and sewer connection -499-
fees, and streamlined architectural review.

HCD explains that “the housing element must describe and analyze factors that could affect ADU and JADU development within the planning period. At a minimum, the element should analyze development standards (i.e., heights, setbacks, minimum and maximum unit sizes, lot coverage, parking standards, etc.), zones allowing ADUs (by right), architectural review standards, fees and exactions, and any other potential constraints impacting the development of ADUs and JADUs. The housing element should also include an analysis of the anticipated affordability of these units. As an example, a community could survey existing ADUs and JADUs for their rents and include other factors such as square footage, number of bedrooms, amenities, age of the structure and general location, including proximity to public transportation. Another method could examine market rates for reasonably comparable rental properties to determine an average price per square foot in the community. This price can be applied to anticipated sizes of these units to estimate the anticipated affordability of ADUs and JADUs.”
Hillsborough needs to provide this level of analysis in its plan or risk having HCD reject our plan.

What Hillsborough does not need to do is include a “buffer” for its projection of units. There is no legal requirement to include a buffer. If the Town takes the time to build a compelling case for its individual plan, a buffer is superfluous. The buffer concept is not applicable to ADUs, anyway, as opportunity sites are not required. Also, a buffer can be counterproductive. Recall that Hillsborough exceeded its production allotment in the last cycle and received no credit for the overage in this new cycle, making it all the more difficult to hit this cycle’s goal.

Let’s build in two more months to get this plan right before we submit a draft plan to HCD.

Sincerely,
Patrick Shannon
-500-
From: Aaron Zornes
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: Lisa-- 4 charts for my PUBLIC COMMENT tonight
Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:46:08 AM
Attachments: Aaron Zornes, Hillsborough City Council Meeting, 20220926.pdf <<...>>
Lisa—
Attached are 4 slides in PDF format that I would like to use as part of my PUBLIC COMMENT tonight.

Please enter these into the Public Record and display these 4 slides during my comments on agenda item 2 (Housing Element).

Thank you.

Aaron Zornes
-501-

6.53 “HILLSBOROUGH IS UNITED”
Comments by Aaron Zornes
on draft Housing Element
September 26, 2022
-502-

SURVEY OVERVIEW/METHODOLOGY
2 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
• Using publicly available databases, we created a pool of 6,000+ validated email addresses 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 which 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 contact info for the public record, & the 300+ other anonymous responses were confirmed via IP (Internet) 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 & town staff attention -503-
SURVEY SUMMARY: HILLSBOROUGH RESIDENTS ARE UNITED
ON KEY ITEMS IN OUR DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT**
• By more than 18:1, our town residents oppose this Housing Element plan as drafted • By about 15:1, town residents oppose re-zoning
• By more than 10:1, town residents reject reduced minimum lot size & street frontages • By almost 15:1, town residents are concerned about excluding town-owned open spaces • By more than 10:1, town residents want our proposal to be based on ADUs/JADUs • By margin of almost 24:1, residents want the Town of Hillsborough to understand what other towns like us are doing & to engage with them to fight for our common interests • A significant majority opposes considering taller building heights at Town Hall campus • There is overwhelming consensus on these items, & the Housing Element must reflect this feedback
3 **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
-504-
ADDITIONAL “RESIDENT-DRIVEN” LEARNINGS
• More than half of survey respondents were *not* aware of the Housing Element until past 3 months, including almost 3 out of 10 who just learned in 2 weeks before survey • 59% of survey respondents learned about Housing Element via social media, word of mouth, or email; *only* 25% learned from Town of Hillsborough (ToH) communications • Such low awareness implies issues with how ToH engages our residents & homeowners • We need to rethink how ToH communicates overall, especially on critical issues like this • ToH needs bolster its online marketing methods/channels • Better outbound communications via social networking sites including Hillsborough Together & Nextdoor Hillsborough
• Strengthen email & SMS channels, including current/valid contact information for all residents • ToH newsletter may be good for community relations, but doesn’t engage sufficiently • ToH must grab attention with improved key messaging for topics such as this plan, elections, etc. • Well-constructed surveys like this one both educate & assess residents’ positions– with high response rate
4 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
-505-
From: Hillsborough Citizens Alliance
To: Lisa Natusch
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Ann Ritzma; Christopher Diaz Subject: Public Comment + Slide for this evening
Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 10:34:42 AM
Attachments: Larry Friedberg Council comments 09.26.2022(pdf).pdf Hi Lisa -
Enclosed is a slide I'd like to include along with my public comment this evening, all to be included in the Public Record. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Kindest Regards,
Larry
=======================
Dear Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik and Council Members, I first wish to express thanks to you, HEAC members and staff for working so hard on the Housing Element issue.

HCA has conducted its own research, including dozens and dozens of conversations with fellow residents on social media, email, over email, Zoom, in-person, at the two townsponsored Open Houses in August and September.

The overwhelming consensus was that Hillsborough citizens reject the current plan.

In an effort to separate anecdote from data, a citizen team led by Aaron Zornes created a survey. Their survey was conducted between September 1 -18, 2022. They sent invitations to over 6,000 verified email addresses of Hillsborough residents. The survey was publicized on Hillsborough Together and Nextdoor Hillsborough to widen the reach and diversity of respondents. In addition to their own questions, they included the HEAC group survey questions as well as questions HCA proposed.

Aaron’s group received an impressive 520 survey results, equating to 12% of Hillsborough households. The results are statistically significant. They warrant strong consideration in Council’s deliberations.

Within the survey, there were three items for which there was no consensus:

1. There is no consensus about allowing multiple detached ADU's (question 1B in the survey). 41% support multiple ADU's for larger parcels, and 39% oppose, with 20% -506-
undecided.

2. There is a small plurality (not a majority) opposed to exploring denser housing at the Town Hall Campus site (question 2B in the survey). 40% oppose, 35% support, and 26% are undecided.

3. Residents generally agree that the residential area within a quarter mile of El Camino Real is a key location where higher density housing is appropriate, but as we can see from the Town Hall Campus topic, there is no guarantee the residents would support any particular plan.

Because there is no consensus about these important issues, we urge Council to achieve a consensus among residents before deciding to include any of these proposals proposal in the Town’s housing element
HCA has commented already about the Town’s unsatisfactory communication strategy and execution for the Housing Element, the single most important issue facing Hillsborough in 50 years, according to Mayor Royse. In the citizen-led survey, we clearly see that most respondents were unaware about the Housing Element issue until the past three months, including 3 out of 10 who just learned of it in the two weeks prior to receiving the survey.

Not nearly enough time to get up to speed on so complex a topic.

Furthermore, 59% of survey respondents learned about the Housing Element from social media, word of mouth, or email, while only 25% learned about this from Town communications
Such low awareness implies issues with how the Town engages our residents and homeowners. HCA urges Council to rethink how the Town communicates overall, especially on critical issues like this. The Town needs to embrace Social Media, including a dedicated moderated Facebook page, regular updates on Nextdoor. Potentially advertising on these channels as well. Local newspaper circulations have given way – for better and for worse – to Social Media. We’d also recommend the Town look into SMS texting for key topics. Lastly, let’s make sure the message always matches the seriousness of the topic. If an issue is the most important to confront the Town in 50 years, write the headline messages and supporting points with the appropriate tenor and make them stand out.

The most frequent message the Town used for months was “Participate in the Future of the Planning for Your Town!” This vague and saccharin message completely misses the mark.

A far better headline would have been more urgent, weighty and – justifiably – attentiongrabbing. “Possible Big Changes to Hillsborough Housing Density - Join Us” or “A Plan for Major Housing Changes - Your Feedback Needed” would have been far better. -507-
The newsletter may be good for community relations, but doesn’t engage sufficiently. The Town needs to grab attention with improved & visible key messaging for topics such as this plan, elections, etc. Well-constructed surveys like the Zornes team created both educate and assess residents’ positions – with a high and statistically valide response rate Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, and to contribute to a successful Housing Element process.

Respectfully Submitted,
Larry Friedberg
Co-Founder, Hillsborough Citizens Alliance
-508-

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THESE ITEMS
1 RESIDENT FEEDBACK on “HOUSING ELEMENT” PLAN
41%
39%
20%
Allow Multiple ADUs on
large parcels
Support
Oppose
Undecided
35%
39%
26%
Exploring denser housing
at Town Hall campus
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Focusing on El Camino
Real for higher denisty
housing
Support Oppose
Because there is no consensus about these important issues, we urge Council to achieve a consensus among residents before deciding to include any of these proposals proposal in the Town’s Housing Element -509- From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:28:20 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Griffith
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:28 AM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Cc: Mary Griffith
Subject: Re: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting Dear Town Counsel,
I am very much opposed to the rezoning of Hillsborough in order to meet the housing element requirements.

My preference would be to use ADU’s
To meet the requirement.

Sent from my iPhone
Richard Griffith
> On Sep 26, 2022, at 6:25 AM, Mary Griffith wrote:
>
> Good morning. Thank you for your work on the Housing Element project. I wish to STRONGLY OPPOSE any rezoning of our town in order to comply with the states requirements. Please work on meeting the goals using ADUs. That is our only viable option.
>
> Thank you
>
> Sent from my iPhone please excuse any typos Mary Griffith -510-
From: Chris McKay
To: General Plan
Subject: Writing in Objection to the Draft Plan
Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 8:14:20 AM
To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing in objection to the draft plan and will attend the meeting tonight to express my displeasure with many of its components.

I refer to Ted Ullyot’s letter as a common sense approach to address the state mandate and echo his thought on the duty of the Town council to represent us as best possible vs referring to some outside counsel.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best
Chris
-511-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:23:40 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Griffith
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 6:25 AM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Cc: Richard Griffith
Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting Good morning. Thank you for your work on the Housing Element project. I wish to STRONGLY OPPOSE any rezoning of our town in order to comply with the states requirements. Please work on meeting the goals using ADUs. That is our only viable option.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone please excuse any typos Mary Griffith -512-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:22:53 AM
From: Monique Go
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 9:59 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting Dear Council members,
We strongly oppose the staff created Housing Element Plan. The Housing Element Plan will essentially destroy what makes Hillsborough a unique town and the main reason why a lot of us homeowners have purchased property in Hillsborough and raise our families here. The Housing Element Plan does not take into account the amount of infrastructure and funding that needs to be created in order to make their plan viable. This Hosing Element Plan is not in the best interest of current or future Hillsborough property owners. The council members should consider other more reasonable and viable alternatives such as the Smart Housing for Hillsborough Plan, The Smart Housing for Hillsborough Plan ("SHHP") proposes alternatives to meet the housing requirements while retaining the essential characteristics that makes Hillsborough special. The SHHP takes into account the desires of property owners to preserve property values, the characteristics of Hillsborough and the community, whereas the Housing Element Plan is a destructive plan that does not consider the best interest of the property owners whose interest the town council are supposed to represent.

Sincerely,
Clarence Co & Monique Go
-513-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:21:00 AM
Attachments: An Alternative that HCD may accept.pdf
An Alternative that HCD may accept.pptx
From: Mehran Farid
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 9:46 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting Dear Hillsborough Housing Committee, Mayor Al Royse, Vice Mayor Christine Krolik, and Council Members,
We would like to express strong opposition to the current Housing element draft plan.

We strongly disagree with building apartment or condos on the current Town Hall Campus site.

This will concentrate 20% of RHNA6 units in one area. There will be many parked cars on Walnut ana Floribunda in addition to other insufficiencies of infrastructure.

We would like to encourage the housing committee to utilize ADU units to meet RHNA6 requirements by making ADU's mandatory for new construction and major remodeling projects.

Thank you for considering the above.

Tara and Mehran Farid
-514-
An Alternative that HCD may accept
• We oppose apartments on the Town Hall campus
• This will concentrate 20% of the RHNA6 units in one area of Hillsborough • Congestion on Floribunda and Walnut
• North school will need to accommodate at least 20% of the RHNA6 units • Not fair to residents of Burlingame residing on Walnut, as they are not able to voice their opinion.
• We support building ADUs as an alternate plan:
• Assurance to be provided to HCD that enough ADUs will be built by 2031 • Mandating ADU for each new construction or major remodeling plans may provide such guarantee.
• ADUs distribute the new population more evenly in Hillsborough. -515-
-516-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:20:40 AM
From: Christine Corsetti
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 8:30 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting I've been a resident of Hillsborough for nearly half a century now, and for good reason. When we first moved here, this town offered many of the things that were most important to us as a young, growing family: spacious lots with beautiful homes, safe and quiet living, no commercial businesses, easy street parking, and quality schools (of which our children attended North, West, and Crocker). Not only were those things trademarks of this town when we first moved here, but they've continued to be at the heart of our community over all these years.

In reviewing the proposed Housing Element, I'm shocked that the Town Council is even considering adopting any of the current options on the table. From smaller lot sizes, to reducing the size of easements from the street to homes, to erecting town houses and/or apartments at Town Hall, to inadequate parking, to building lowincome housing on large, private estates, to ultimately having a negative effect on our thriving education due to the increased population and overcrowding of our schools, these proposals all represent the antithesis of why my family and so many others chose to come here in the first place, and why we've elected to stay in the generations since.

Accordingly, I am totally opposed to the current Housing Element draft plan that the Town Council has proposed, and believe the answer to California's low cost housing mandate can be achieved via the building of ADUs, as has been proposed by many of our town residents.

Christine Corsetti
-517-
From: Sher Amos-Grosser
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: Slides for Monday"s HEAC Meeting
Date: Sunday, September 25, 2022 7:52:15 PM
Attachments: Sher Amos-Grosser^J Council Meeting^J 22.09.26.pdf Sher Amos-Grosser, Council Meeting, 22.09.26.pptx
Hi Lisa,
I'd like these three slides included in the public record and displayed during the comment section on Agenda item 2 (Housing Element) for tomorrow's meeting.

Thank you,
Sher
-518-
Hillsborough
City Council
Meeting
Comments
9/26/2022
Sher Amos-Grosser
HEAC member
-519-
Town Staff
Summary of
Written
Feedback
Council Meeting,
9/12/2022
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 2
A great deal of additional, consistent feedback was received after September 8, as can be seen in the 2600+ page agenda pack – I hope no one printed that whole document out! -520-
Smart
Housing for
Hillsborough:

Plan Details
https://smarthousingforhillsborough.org
• Reduce the buffer units to a reasonable number (no buffer if one is not required to obtain approval from the state).
• Identify all privately owned vacant sites, contact the owners, and work to get their buy-in for planned development (21-50 units). • Recognize that some owners will do subdivisions of their properties as allowed under California law (SB-9). Incorporate estimates for those SB-9 units into the plan (15-20 units).
• Accelerate the development of ADU’s/JADU’s (512-520 units or more).
• Base our ADU/JADU estimate on 2021 and 2022 permits, during which time we had policies in place which will continue to accelerate ADU/JADU construction.
• Create incentives and lower costs for additional ADU/JADU creation, including with new construction and major remodels. • Allow additional ADU’s on larger (0.75+ acre) lots.
• Develop some of the large and vacant town-owned sites if needed to meet our RNHA allocation (53+ units).
• Do not develop housing on the Town Hall Campus if not absolutely required.
• Plan a contingency to produce additional housing on town-owned land if absolutely needed (85+ units).
• Ensure construction does not increase fire danger.
• Result: achieve our RHNA obligations without the downsides of the initial draft plan.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 3
-521-
From: Dennis Moore
To: General Plan; Lisa Natusch
Subject: Public comment from Dennis Moore
Date: Sunday, September 25, 2022 6:47:00 PM
Attachments: Hillsborough 2023-2031 Housing Element - A Better Plan.pdf Lisa, General Plan -
As a member of HEAC, I have invested my time in understanding the issues around the Housing Element for 2023-2031. Working with dozens of HIllsborough residents, including HEAC members, developers, realtors, attorneys, and so many other neighbors, I put together a plan that I believe will serve our town's citizens and homeowners better than the draft Housing Element we've seen and heard so much about over the past six weeks or so. Please include this material (see attached PDF) in the public comment notes for the Council Meeting on Monday, 9/26, and generally include these comments (attached) as comments on the Housing Element draft. A current version of this plan can be found at https://www.smarthousingforhillsborough.org/ .

Thanks!
-----
Dennis Moore
-522-
Hillsborough
2023-2031
Housing
Element
A Better Plan:

Smart Housing for
Hillsborough
-523-
Who Are We?
• The SmartHousingForHillsborough.org site is brought to you by a grassroots group of your Hillsborough neighbors. We are calling ourselves “Smart Housing for Hillsborough.”
• This plan was created incorporating feedback from concerned citizens and compiled by Dennis Moore, longtime Hillsborough resident and member of the Housing Element Advisory
Committee (HEAC) – a group formed by the Town Council to provide feedback into the Housing Element (more info follows). • While this plan is not created by the Hillsborough Citizens Alliance (HCA), that organization has assisted in providing feedback, surveying town residents, and logistics. To keep informed on this and other critical issues for Hillsborough homeowners and residents, please sign up for HCA mailings at
https://mailchi.mp/ccf38db898cf/mailing-list-sign-up.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 2
-524-
Introduction:

Why Is
Hillsborough
Doing this?
• California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has determined that California’s housing crisis is the result of too few units of housing in the state
• HCD created a “Regional Housing Needs Allocation” (RHNA, pronounced “REE-na”) assigned throughout the state, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has allocated housing unit numbers to each Bay Area community
• Hillsborough needs to submit a plan late this year to HCD to add 554 new units of housing to our town during this 8-year period • Hillsborough City Council retained a consulting firm, Houseal Lavigne to provide professional guidance and appointed a 17- member citizen advisory group to serve as advisors to give feedback as the plan was developed.
• Staff has created a draft plan, called the Housing Element (a component of our town’s General Plan) to meet our RHNA
obligations
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 3
-525-
Key
Elements of
the Town’s
Initial Draft
Plan
• “Up-zones” the entire town in order to allow denser
development.
• Has a stated goal to “protect” (ban renovations of)
older, smaller homes (meaning no upgrades to larger
homes).
• Accelerates development by speeding up ADRB
approvals, streamlining processes, and eliminating fees and reviews.
• Transforms the Town Hall site into a large apartment
building-style multi-unit development.
• Encourages subdivision of three large estates into town house-style multi-units.
• Expands development of housing affordable to
residents of all income levels.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 4
-526-
Key Elements
of the Town’s
Initial Draft
Plan:

By the
Numbers
• Shrink lot size by 33% (from 1/2 acre to 1/3 acre).
• Reduce street frontage by 33% (from 150 to 100 feet). • Reduce landscape coverage from 50% to 30%
(structures and hardscaping can be 70% of your
neighbors’ lots!).
• Reduce minimum dwelling size by 70% (from 2500 sq ft
to 800 sq ft) to encourage subdivisions of larger parcels for additional single family as well as duplex units.
• Assumes ADU construction at the average level of
2019-2021 (35 / year * 8 years = 280 units).
• Provide a buffer of 20% (111 extra units) in case some sites are not developed.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 5
-527-
Entire Town Will be Up-Zoned
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 6
61 SB-9 sub-divisions possible with current zoning (amber lots) 293 (additional 232) possible with proposed RD-1 zoning changes (red lots) • Your neighbors could sub-divide their
lots, packing more houses closer to
yours on smaller lots
• Fire hazard, loss of privacy, traffic congestion,
construction nuisances
• Slippery slope – more up-zoning in the
future
• There is no infrastructure (physical and
social) to support this increase in
housing.
-528-
13 (“RD-2”) Parcels Can Have “High Density”
Housing Up to 250 Units
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 7
Can be sub-divided into parcels 1/4 to 1/16 acre
Side setbacks reduced from 20 to 10 feet
Building heights doubled from 22 to 45 feet
All of these parcels can be made into Affordable Housing These parcels can have up to 250 units of housing
Side setbacks reduced from 20 to 10 feet
Building heights tripled from 22 to 60 feet
No minimum parking requirements
No maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR, currently 25%)
-529-
Town Hall Site (“RD-3”) Up-zoning with Large
Apartment Building
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 8
• Plan is not yet confirmed
• Town’s plan is 3 buildings to meet Town need for offices for staff and police, along with high-density housing
• Current Town Hall and Police buildings would be demolished • New Town Hall building (2 to 3 stories)
• New Hillsborough Police Department building (2 to 3 stories) • New housing building
• Likely to be a 5 story “apartment building”
• Less than one space per housing unit
• On the current site of Centennial Park
• Some small park-like areas
• No recreation center or other uses there
• Unclear the status of Walnut St
• Possible permanent closure
-530-
The Town’s
Initial Draft is
not
Acceptable
to the
Majority of
Homeowners
We spoke to dozens of neighbors, and received detailed
survey responses from over 500 Hillsborough residents
(12% of households in Hillsborough). By an overwhelming majority, our fellow residents objected to the Initial Draft Housing Element Plan for the following major reasons:

1. Dramatic change to landscape and resulting
overcrowding in our schools will destroy top reasons
people want to live here.

2. Opens a slippery slope making future “up-zoning”
easy. Every homeowner we spoke with opposes this.

3. Erodes our property rights, including a goal to
prevent owners of smaller homes from upgrading
their properties in the future.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 9
-531-
Additional
Concerns
About and
Flaws in The
Town’s
Initial Draft

1. Increases risk to citizens by weakening our fire safety, water pressure, water supply, traffic management,
and evacuation in case of emergencies (e.g., fire,
flood, earthquake, power outage).

2. The plan places unnecessary burdens on us all –
underestimates ADU’s, overestimates the needed
“buffer,” and omits large town-owned parcels.

3. No buy-in by the owners of the three large estates
designated for development in the initial draft plan.

One owner actively opposes the initial draft plan.

4. We bear the high costs for new roads, sewers,
utilities, additional police, fire, teachers, social
services, and on and on. And some of these
developments may pay no property taxes, so the
burden of infrastructure for new development may
fall entirely on existing homeowners.

What changes will be forced on us if the large estates don’t develop townhomes? Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 10 -532-
Some
Results
From The
Survey
• By more than 18:1, our town opposes this Housing
Element plan as drafted
• By about 15:1, our town opposes re-zoning
• By more than 10:1, our town rejects reduced minimum
lot size and street frontages in our Housing Element
• By more than 15:1, our town is concerned about
excluding town-owned open space
• By more than 10:1, our town wants our proposal to be
based on ADU/JADUs
• By about 24:1, residents really want our Council and
staff to understand what other towns like Hillsborough
are doing, & to engage with them to fight for our
common interests
• This feedback is consistent with the written feedback sent into the Town by residents, and with the comments
made at the September 12, 2022 Council meeting
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 11
Over 500 town residents responded to a survey we sent via email to over 6,000 verified Hillsborough Residents
-533-
Town Staff
Summary of
Written
Feedback
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 12
A great deal of additional, consistent feedback was received after September 8, as the announced deadline for feedback for the Council meeting was September 12, 2:30 PM -534-
A Plan That Better Meets Our Needs Today and Tomorrow
and meets our RHNA obligations
and is consistent with residents’ overwhelming feedback Smart Housing for Hillsborough
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 13
-535-
Smart
Housing for
Hillsborough:

Goal and
Principles
• Goal: meet all requirements of our RHNA allocation while preserving the Town’s special character.
• Principles
• Prevent unnecessary “up-zoning” – Only apply zoning
changes if absolutely necessary, and then only for affected parcels (not town-wide).
• Accelerate the creation rate for ADU’s/JADU’s and use them in the plan.
• Employ vacant lots in our plan, including town-owned
properties.
• Protect owners of older and smaller homes.
• Add housing in a safer way that avoids creating hazards for all.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 14
-536-
Smart
Housing for
Hillsborough:

Plan Details
• Reduce the buffer units to a reasonable number (no buffer if one is not required to obtain approval from the state).
• Identify all privately owned vacant sites, contact the owners, and work to get their buy-in for planned development (21-50 units). • Recognize that some owners will do subdivisions of their properties as allowed under California law (SB-9). Incorporate estimates for those SB-9 units into the plan (15-20 units).
• Accelerate the development of ADU’s/JADU’s (512-520 units or more).
• Base our ADU/JADU estimate on 2021 and 2022 permits, during which time we had policies in place which will continue to accelerate ADU/JADU construction.
• Create incentives and lower costs for additional ADU/JADU creation, including with new construction and major remodels. • Allow additional ADU’s on larger (0.75+ acre) lots.
• Develop some of the large and vacant town-owned sites if needed to meet our RNHA allocation (53+ units).
• Do not develop housing on the Town Hall Campus if not absolutely required.
• Plan a contingency to produce additional housing on town-owned land if absolutely needed (85+ units).
• Ensure construction does not increase fire danger.
• Result: achieve our RHNA obligations without the downsides of the initial draft plan.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 15
-537-
No Up-Zoning (Except in Contingency
Situation)
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 16
61 SB-9 sub-divisions are possible with current zoning (amber lots).

Assume 25-30% will subdivide during this eight year period with Hillsborough-style (Above Moderate Income – “AMI”) housing on 0.5 acre or larger sites (15-20 units).

Additional 232 (red lots) not required for SHFH plan
-538-
Small, PrivatelyOwned Vacant
Parcels
• There are 51 vacant parcels in Hillsborough from 0.5 to

7.5 acres. Work with the owners of these smaller,
vacant parcels to get some developed. These parcels
can produce at least 84 units of Above Moderate
Income (AMI) housing. Assume 25-50% get developed
over the next eight years. 21-50 or more units.
• Why AMI housing? Increasing the number of ADU’s
leaves us with a gap in the Above Moderate Income
(AMI) segment of our RHNA allocation, and this is one
way to begin to close that gap.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 17
-539-
Accelerate ADU
construction with
Ordinances and
Incentives (1/2)
Continue – and extend – the
policies that got us this far
• Incentives for homeowners to construct ADU’s
• Reduce hurdles and waive all Town fees for ADU's
that comply with current setbacks and FAR (i.e., 20
feet from fenceline), including larger detached ADU’s
(1200 sq ft).
• Raise our fees for all construction, except in cases
where the homeowner builds ADU's according to our
town guidelines.
• Encourage JADU's or even full ADU's in second
story additions by waiving some fees and
streamlining processes, assisting owners in finding
renters, and educational programs.
• Pre-approve some ADU designs, including some
pre-fab detached options to reduce construction
(and inspection!) costs, while encouraging a
structure style that could fit well in our town's style. • Encourage solar roof panels for ADU's along
with batteries to reduce load on the town's grid.
• Work with PG&E to streamline how utilities are
connected.
• Seek out grant programs that would subsidize
the construction of ADU's.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 18
-540-
Accelerate ADU
construction with
Ordinances and
Incentives (2/2)
Continue – and extend – the
policies that got us this far
• Continue and expand the ADU survey program,
asking residents about their plans for ADU
construction or conversion, openness to renting the
ADU (and at what price, and to our local
police/fire/EMT/teacher/staff community),
openness to listing the ADU in a town directory of
available rentals, and openness to list the ADU in
other directories.
• Seek out rental assistance programs to help
lower income tenants to match with available
ADU's.
• Promote available ADU's to our police,
fire/EMT, public school educator, and town
staff.
• Continue the ombudsman program and get
some town volunteers to help make this program
even more widespread.
• Seek out help from volunteer Hillsborough residents to supplement Town efforts to craft these approaches and
promote the opportunity.
• Continue the "amnesty" policy to allow pool and
guest houses to be rented as ADU’s.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 19
-541-
Large Parcels (10+ Acres) Can Have “AMI”
Housing on Lots at Least 1/2 Acre in Size
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 20
1 2
3 4
Three 10+ acre parcels included (53-85 or more units)

1. Hayne/Robinwood/Denise

2. 50 Brooke Court

3. 1551 Crystal Springs Rd

4. If any of those sites are disallowed, include large
town-owned vacant parcels in Tobin Clark, near the
De Guigne estate, or near Strawberry Hill.

By “AMI” Housing, we mean housing that meets Hillsborough’s current ordinances for lot size, minimum dwelling size, setbacks, FAR, and our ADRB review -542-
Contingency: Only If Elements of This “Smart
Housing for Hillsborough” Plan Is Rejected by HCD
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 21
Contingency: Additional properties can be developed (85 units).

1. Consider other Town-owned parcels for AMI housing – approach trustees to lift the deed restrictions. One such parcel is APN 038- 181-310: west side of Crystal Springs Rd (#4 on previous slide), south of the De Guigne Estate).

2. Approach and include De Guigne and Strawberry Hill estates, and the Callan property on Tartan Trail/Crystal Springs for AMI housing.

3. Incent more small vacant parcels and subdivisions for AMI housing.

4. Consider Town Hall site if there is a necessity, including for a small number of AMI units. Will require up-zoning just for this one site (the rest of the town remains with current zoning restrictions). -543-
Comparing the Initial Draft and SHFH Plans:

By The Numbers
Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 22
Initial Draft Plan
Income Level Buffer ADU's RD-1 Upzoning RD-2 Upzoning RD-3 Upzoning Total Required Total in Plan Extra/(Gap) Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) 33 84 0 66 40 188 190 2
Low Income (51-79% AMI) 17 84 0 0 20 106 104 -2
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) 17 84 0 0 20 104 104 0
Above Moderate Income (120%+ AMI) 44 28 15 204 20 267 267 0 Total 111 280 15 270 100 665 665 0
Smart Housing for Hillsborough Plan
Income Level Buffer ADU's Subdivisions Small Vacant Parcels Large Vacant Parcels Town Hall Site Contingency Total Required Total in Plan Extra/(Gap) Including Contingency Extra/(Gap) Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 155 154 -1 154 -1 Low Income (51-79% AMI) 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 89 154 65 154 65 Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 87 154 67 154 67 Above Moderate Income (120%+ AMI) 0 50 15 21 53 0 85 223 139 -84 224 1 Total 0 512 15 21 53 0 85 554 601 47 686 132
Private Large Parcels: Hayne/Robinwood/Denise (030191030), 50 Brooke Ct (038281280), 1551 Crystal Springs Rd (038131110) Contingency: Town-Owned property west of Crystal Springs and South of De Guigne Estate (038181310), plus De Guigne and Strawberry Hill. Incent more small vacant parcels and subdivisions. Can also develop other Town-Owned parcels including Town Hall.
-544-
Additional
Recommendations
• Lease Town-owned sites to developers for ~40
years – this will allow us to retain approvals for
projects, ensuring they achieve our RHNA goals,
and will allow the Town to recover the property in
the future if necessary.
• If higher density housing is required, focus on
senior housing and housing for Hillsboroughstationed public employees • Immediately begin planning our General Plan,
as there are long lead-times for infrastructure and
we need to know the costs for this Housing
Element.
• Develop and adopt policies and methods to speed
construction required to achieve this Housing
Element, to minimize neighborhood disruption,
ensure safety and environmental compliance,
ensure fire-resistant housing, and to ensure we
achieve our RHNA allocation on schedule.
• Improve Town communications and surveybased “pulse checking,” as very few of our residents learned about this crucial issue from
Town communications.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 23
-545-
Frequently
Asked
Questions
• Don’t “ADU-heavy” RHNA submissions get rejected by
HCD?
• No. Only one ADU-heavy plan we’re aware of was rejected, and that is because their accounting for historical ADU unit creation was inaccurate and had other violations. Atherton has submitted their plan with a similar proportion of ADU’s to the SHFH plan, and has high confidence it will be
accepted.
• Are ADU’s/JADU’s really used for housing, or are they just yoga studios, pool houses, guest houses, and home
offices?
• Constructing an ADU is a lot more expensive that
constructing a home gym or office, so most homeowners will opt not to construct an ADU for those purposes. The recent state legislation that is creating this explosion in housing allocations to Hillsborough – more than 5 times our
allocation for the previous 8 year cycle – is designed to produce housing, and all ADU’s/JADU’s meet that mandate.

Our Smart Housing for Hillsborough recommendations
include incentives for renting out our ADU’s/JADU’s.
• Do we need to have a 20% “no net loss buffer?”
• No. HCD suggests a 15% to 30% buffer as a rough guideline, but HCD guidelines are very specific – for many portions of our Housing Element, we need no buffer at all.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 24
-546-
Frequently
Asked
Questions
• Why does the Smart Housing for Hillsborough plan
include more units than our RHNA allocation, if you
don’t think we need a “no net loss” buffer?
• Our RHNA allocation is not just for a total number of housing units – it also requires a minimum number in each income level. Unfortunately, the way the state requires us to account for ADU/JADU units, we can only include 10% of those units in the Above Moderate Income (AMI) tally, leaving us with a large gap there, but fully meeting our Very Low Income (VLI), Low Income (LI), and Moderate Income (MI) allocations. As a result, to make our AMI allocation, we end up going over our total requirement – but with no high or moderate
density housing.
• Will California HCD take over our government if we
don’t achieve our RHNA obligations?
• That seems highly unlikely. Hundreds of jurisdictions failed, in some cases epically (e.g., SF), to achieve their RHNA 5 obligations, and California has taken over none of them. • Are there other penalties we could face with the SHFH plan?
• No, because this is a reasonable plan that we can achieve. If HCD accepts our plan, we can execute it and avoid any
potential penalties – and not destroy what makes
Hillsborough special.

Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 25
-547-
Frequently
Asked
Questions
• How can I keep informed about this process as it
progresses?
• Sign up for emails on the Housing Element (and other
important town topics) at
https://mailchi.mp/ccf38db898cf/mailing-list-sign-up.
• Download and share the results of the detailed survey answered by more than 12% of the town from
https://app.box.com/s/7h0lzdlhjrjajodgkaiahs95b0yyvsdw. • Join Hillsborough Together
(https://www.hillsboroughtogether.com/) and NextDoor
(https://nextdoor.com/neighborhood/hillsborough--
Hillsborough--CA?source=neighborhood_name).
• How can I learn more about the Town’s Housing
Element process, draft, plans, and other related
information?
• Visit the Town’s website or second site set up by the Town Smart Housing for Hillsborough - 26
-548-
Hillsborough
2023-2031
Housing
Element
A Better Plan:

Smart Housing for
Hillsborough
-549-
From: Pat Meyer
To: General Plan
Subject: Feedback about draft Housing Element Plan
Date: Sunday, September 25, 2022 4:20:09 PM
I am submitting feedback about the Housing Element Plan. I have been a resident in Hillsborough for 58 years. I absolutely disagree with plans to construct multi family housing, to construct any multi story apartment buildings, and disagree with the need to re-zone Hillsborough. There are alternative options and ideas the city should consider before moving forward with the draft Housing Element Plan, which would meaningfully and irreversibly change the character of our town.

I recently read several ideas and facts surrounding the mandate for 554 additional housing units that was written and submitted by Theodore Ullyot. These are good ideas, well thought out, and are a good balance of maintaining our history while meeting the 554 unit mandate. You have been elected to represent us, the community, and with the widespread feedback you have received from the community about the objectionable draft Housing Element Plan, accordingly, the Council should reject it. A much more reasonable plan should be constructed.

Patricia Meyer,
Sent from my iPad
-550-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:15:35 AM
From:

Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting NO on the requirement for an additional housing units.

Alternatives: 1.) build the units somewhere else, 2.) annex property at the Burlingame Club, 3.) put apartments on the town lot at Floribunda and El Camino.

Jim Burke
-551-
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: Sunday, September 25, 2022 12:45:39 PM
Dear: Mayor Royse, Vice Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May, and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz
I appreciate all the efforts you make to serve the public in Hillsborough, keeping this town such a special place for us all. I want to register my 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
-552-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: Opposition to RD-2 re-zoning of the de Guigne estate; request to present slides during 3-minute comment period at the Sep 26, 2022, City Council Meeting
Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:15:06 AM
Attachments: 20220926 City Council Meeting PowerPoint Presentation.pdf From: Daniel Capon
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>
Cc: Staci Adams
Subject: Opposition to RD-2 re-zoning of the de Guigne estate; request to present slides during 3- minute comment period at the Sep 26, 2022, City Council Meeting Sep 25, 2022
Honorable Mayor Royse, Vice-Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:

We are writing urgently, asking you to eliminate the de Guigne estate from any further consideration for RD-2 re-zoning and development at the Sep 26, 2022 City Council Meeting. In advance of the meeting, we submit here the detailed comments we wish to make in the form of the attached PowerPoint presentation. We request a total of six minutes of time, three minutes per person.

We have been in shock and disbelief since learning that the most dangerous location in Hillsborough, namely, the de Guigne estate, is being considered as a leading contender for RD-2 re-zoning, with a plan for its high-density urban housing development already under consideration. Judging from the comments you’ve received from other residents we are not alone in having grave concerns. We nevertheless proceeded in trying to understand what could possibly constitute the objective basis for the misguided selection of de Guigne.

The only subject matter we could identify in the many hundreds of pages presented at the Aug 8, 2022 City Council meeting with any semblance of objectivity was the “Site Suitability Factor Scoring” mentioned in the Aug 4, 2022 Housing Element Draft for Public Review. However, the actual “Scores” were conspicuously absent in the materials made available to the public. We -553-
made four requests for this critical information beginning with our comments at the Aug 8, 2022 City Council meeting. We are grateful to Ms. Natusch for helping us finally obtain the “Scores” on Sep 22, 2022.

Our analysis of the “Scores” had led us to the primary conclusion that the “Site Suitability Factor Scoring” is fraught with error and omission, and completely misrepresents the suitability of the de Guigne estate for RD-2 re-zoning and high-density urban housing. Our analysis also indicates that despite the City Clerk’s sincere efforts to provide all of the materials we requested, there is still a great deal of information relating to the “Scores” that remains undisclosed and hidden from view, perhaps even from the City Council itself. Given the very real dangers posed to public safety we describe here, eliminating de Guigne as a candidate for RD-2 re-zoning is a matter of the utmost priority.

Sincerely,
Dan Capon and Staci Adams
Please confirm receipt of this email and attachment.

Note: due to file size, we have attached a PDF version of the slides we wish to present
-554-
Sep 25, 2022
Honorable Mayor Royse, Vice-Mayor Krolik, Council Members Cole, May and Chuang, City Clerk Natusch, and City Attorney Diaz:

Judging from the comments you’ve received from other residents we are not alone in having grave concerns. We nevertheless proceeded in trying to understand what could possibly constitute the objective basis for the misguided selection of de Guigne. The only subject matter we could identify in the many hundreds of pages presented at the Aug 8, 2022 City Council meeting with any semblance of objectivity was the “Site Suitability Factor Scoring” mentioned in the Aug 4, 2022 Housing Element Draft for Public Review. However, the actual “Scores” were conspicuously absent in the materials made available to the public. We made four requests for this critical information beginning with our comments at the Aug 8, 2022 City Council meeting. We are grateful to Ms. Natusch for helping us finally obtain the “Scores” on Sep 22, 2022.

Sincerely,
Dan Capon and Staci Adams
Formal request that the City Council exclude de Guigne from RD-2 re-zoning based on “Site Suitability Factor Score” misrepresentations and the failure to disclose public safety factors of the highest importance that disqualify de Guigne -555-
• Aug 4, 2022:
• Posting of the “Hillsborough Housing Element_PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT (2)” dated 08-04-2022 • Posting of the City Council Meeting Agenda Packet dated 08-08-2022, including Staff Report “Draft Town of Hillsborough RHNA 6 Housing Element Update” • Neither document discloses the “Site Suitability Factor Scores” used to select deGuigne, Strawberry Hill, and 50 Brooke Court for RD-2 re-zoning • The Housing Element Draft for Public Review nevertheless presents detailed development plans for deGuigne, Strawberry Hill, and 50 Brooke Court • Aug 8, 2022: Comments at City Council Meeting
• First request for the “Site Suitability Factor Scores” and the formal evaluation of the public safety issues concerning the de Guigne Estate • As summarized in the City Council Meeting Agenda Packet dated 09-12-2022, page 13” “Dan Capon provided comments regarding lack of transparency in the presentation related to details about the identified properties and requested detailed scoring results of each property and the scientific nature of the analysis that was performed including additional factors related to fire danger and slope. Regarding the De Guigne property, Capon expressed concerns regarding egress and ongoing sewer issues in the area.” • Aug 18, 2022: Comments at Housing Element Open House focus group • Second Request for the “Site Suitability Factor Scores” and the formal evaluation of the public safety issues concerning the de Guigne Estate • Sep 18, 2022: Email to City Council
• Third Request for the “Site Suitability Factor Scores” and the formal evaluation of the public safety issues concerning the de Guigne Estate • Sep 21, 2022: Phone call to City Clerk
• Fourth Request for the “Site Suitability Factor Scores” and the formal evaluation of the public safety issues concerning the de Guigne Estate • Sep 22, 2022: Receipt of “Site Suitability Factor Scores” • Sep 25, 2022: Email to City Council based on our analysis of the “Site Suitability Factor Scores” • Formal request that the City Council exclude the de Guigne Estate from RD-2 re-zoning at at the upcoming City Council Meeting Sep 26, 2022, during the agenda item: “Discuss and Provide Final Direction on Inclusion or Exclusion of Various Properties including but not limited to Strawberry Hill and Callan” Timeline: Formal request that City Council exclude de Guigne from RD-2 re-zoning based on “Site Suitability Factor Score” misrepresentations and failure to disclose public safety factors of the highest importance that disqualify de Guigne -556-
Representations made about the “Site Suitability Factor Scoring” on page 98 of the Hillsborough Housing Element_PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT (2) dated 08-04-2022 -557-
“Site Suitability Factor Scores” for the thirteen (13) candidate RD-2 parcels received on Sept 22, 2022
Total
Suitability
Score
APN Location Area In
Proximity
Average
Slope %
Existing Lot
Coverage
Residual Lot
Coverage
Transit
Access
Maximum
Improvement
Ratio
Vacant
City
Identified
Sites
Improvement
Ratio
Lot
Acreage
Existing
Land Use
Existing
Building
Height
Transit
Proximity
Score
Park
Proximity
Score
School
Proximity
Score
WUI
Total
Proximity
Score
Proposed
Zoming
Overlay
- 028180030 Crocker Middle School
(2600 Ralston Avenue) Chateau; Ralston 12.35 142,874.42 696,489.35 No 19.27 Private School 44.92 0 5 1 Yes 6 ADO

6.29 028040120 Regan Estate/Strawberry Hill
(2260 Redington Rd) Rest of Town 29.88 20,346.57 2,136,669.29 0.29 No Yes 0.29 49.52 Residential 40.33 0 5 0 Yes 5 ADO

6.17 038281280 50 Brooke Court 0.25, Burlingame,
San Mateo 45.45 0.00 474,812.52 0.25 0.00 Yes 0.00 10.90 Residential 5 5 1 Yes 11 ADO

6.05 028190010 Burlingame County Club
(Northeast Spur)

0.50, Burlingame,
San Mateo 10.78 0.00 684,814.27 0.50 0.00 Yes 0.00 15.72 Private Recreational 1.17 3 5 3 Yes 11 ADO

5.94 038200020 de Guigne Estate
(891 Crystal Springs Rd)

0.05, Burlingame,
San Mateo 36.37 10,400.84 2,041,644.99 0.50 0.06 No Yes 0.06 47.11 Residential 54.28 3 5 0 Yes 8 ADO

5.58 028180220 Burlingame County Club
(South Spur) Chateau; Ralston 14.90 0.00 444,679.72 0.00 Yes 0.00 10.21 Private Recreational 0 5 1 Yes 6 ADO

5.58 038281350 Tobin Clark Estate 0.50, Burlingame,
San Mateo 62.78 0.00 670,255.51 0.50 0.00 Yes 0.00 15.39 Residential 3 5 0 Yes 8 ADO

5.47 028220010 Burlingame County Club
(Southeast Spur)

0.50, Burlingame,
San Mateo 9.50 4,698.63 666,390.80 0.50 0.27 No 0.27 15.41 Private Recreational 22.08 3 5 3 Yes 11 ADO

5.35 038121160 Lands of Callan (Tartan Trail
& Crystal Springs Rd}
Skyfarm,
Crystal Springs 56.31 0.00 514,788.82 0.00 Yes 0 11.82 Residential 0 5 0 Yes 5 ADO

4.86 030191030 Robinwood Rd, Denise Rd,
Hayne Rd

0.25-mile from
Schools 51.51 0.00 507,084.43 Yes 11.64 Residential 0 1 1 Yes 2 ADO

4.76 028180250 Burlingame County Club
(Central)

0.25-mile from
Schools 13.03 46,832.65 3,096,552.47 2.96 No 2.96 72.16 Private Recreational 54.57 3 5 0 Yes 8 ADO

4.76 032460040 Crystal Springs Uplands School
(400 Uplands Dr)

0.25, Burlingame,
San Mateo 10.85 71,715.85 372,334.19 0.25 32.44 No 32.44 10.19 Private School 72.54 3 0 5 Yes 8 ADO

3.95 028320180 Nueva School
(6565 Skyline Blvd) HWY 280 32.58 57,662.92 1,406,135.41 38.62 No Yes 38.62 33.60 Private School 54.98 0 5 0 Yes 5 ADO -558-
Misrepresentations arising from the “Site Suitability Factor Scoring” that become apparent upon analysis of the actual “Scores” received on Sep 22, 2022 • Misrepresentation #1
The de Guigne estate is misrepresented as one of three winners of the “Site Suitability Analysis” in the Housing Element PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Aug 4, 2022 (pages 99-102). In reality, the “Scores” we received show that Strawberry Hill (score=6.29), 50 Brooke Court (score=6.17), and the Burlingame Country Club (score=6.05) are ranked #1, #2, and #3, followed by the lower-scoring de Guigne estate (score=5.94) . • Misrepresentation #2
The “Site Suitability Factor Scoring” table presented on page 98, misrepresents that numerical scores were assigned to each of twelve distinct “Suitability Factors”. In reality, the “Scores” we received make no mention whatsoever of “Fire Hazard” or “Landslide/Liquefaction” as claimed on page 98. Conversely, several categories actually isted in the “Scores” do not correspond to any of “Suitability Factors” on page 98. • Misrepresentation #3
The “Scores” we received include a gratuitous category named “WUI” that assigns all of the thirteen candidate RD-2 parcels with an identical non-numerical score of “Yes”. The absolute failure to distinguish between parcels for in the WUI artificially inflates the “Score” for de Guigne.

This amounts to a grotesque and cynical misrepresentation that all of the parcels are equivalent with respect to fire and other public safety considerations. The term WUI is used in Hillsborough to refer to Ordinance No. 755 for annual vegetation inspections, which includes most of the Town. The State of California, through CAL FIRE, provides a far more quantitative assessment of fire risk. We include a CAL FIRE map showing that the de Guigne Estate is situated in a “Very High Fire Severity Zone”, whereas Strawberry Hill and the Burlingame Country Club are not. • Misrepresentation #4
By failing to score public safety concerns, the de Guigne Estate is misrepresented as being suitable for high-density urban-like development.

These concerns include not only Fire Hazard and “Landslide/Liquefaction”, but also “Flood Hazard” associated with the Crystal Springs Creek, “Earthquake Hazard”, “Inundation Hazard” of lower de Guigne in the event of damage to the Crystal Springs Dam, as well as “Pathogen Risk” (e.g., cholera) and “Inadequate Sewage Capacity” as evidenced by ongoing sewage odor at the proposed site. Of particular concern is the likelihood of greatly exacerbated traffic congestion blocking the Crystal Springs Road evacuation corridor. This will threaten the lives of the thousand or more Hillsborough residents and first responders that depend upon Crystal Springs Rd in the event of such emergencies. Have we not learned anything from the disastrous loss of life in the Camp Fire in Paradise, CA resulting from congestion blocking the evacuation corridor? • Misrepresentation #5
Other errors and omissions further artificially inflate the de Guigne “Score”. For example, de Guigne and the Burlingame Country Club receive an identical “Score” of 5 for “Park Proximity”. This is absurd. The Burlingame Country Club is next to Crocker Middle School, the epicenter for sports and recreation in Hillsborough. In contrast, De Guigne is one mile away along a steep and heavily trafficked road from tiny Vista Park. -559-
The proposed de Guigne Estate “Affordable Housing Area” (purple) lies at Ground Zero of the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Severity Zone (shown in red) de Guigne
Estate
Burlingame
Country Club
-560-
The proposed de Guigne Estate “Affordable Housing Area” (purple) lies directly over the path of San Mateo Creek
San Mateo Creek
-561-
The proposed de Guigne Estate “Affordable Housing Area” (purple) lies directly in FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AE (26% chance in 30 years) -562-
The proposed de Guigne Estate “Affordable Housing Area” (purple) lies directly over the path of the Crystal Springs Dam Failure Inundation Zone -563-
The proposed de Guigne Estate “Affordable Housing Area” (purple) will have a population density (46,880/sq mile) that is 25 times greater than Hillsborough (1,467/sq mile) De Guigne Estate
46,880/square mile
San Francisco
18,635/square mile
New York City
29,302/square mile
-564-
The proposed de Guigne Estate “Affordable Housing Area” (purple) will exacerbate the traffic choke point at the Crystal Springs Rd evacuation corridor -565-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:13:32 AM
From:

Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 9:58 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting We strongly oppose the proposed Housing Element Rezoning plan. We feel this would negatively impact our community in many ways. We are already experiencing a water shortage. Our infrastructure would not support this. This would cause our schools to be over crowded. Our property values would go down impacting many families extremely negatively financially. Traffic on our streets would become unbearable. With so many under occupied multi family units being built in San Mateo this is unnecessary.

Rick and Gale Winningham
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
-566-
From: Lisa Natusch
To: General Plan
Subject: FW: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening"s meeting Date: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:11:23 AM
From: Denise Laugesen
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 2:42 PM
To: Al Royse <[email protected]>; Christine Krolik <[email protected]>; Marie Chuang <[email protected]>; Sophie Cole <[email protected]>; Larry May <[email protected]>; Ann Ritzma <[email protected]>; Christopher Diaz <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Subject: My thoughts to consider about the Housing Element for Monday evening's meeting Dear City Counsel
I strongly oppose this project and I feel this will negatively affect my property values. You need to find other ways to solve this problem.

Sincerely,
Denise Laugesen
Denise Laugesen
Luxury Real Estate Consultant
CEO & Founder of #3 Nationally Recognized Laugesen Team DRE# 01011089
Keller Williams Peninsula Estates
www.thelaugesenteam.com
1430 Howard Ave, Burlingame, CA 94010
"oh, by the way.....we are never too busy for your referrals" Performance driven, insightful with a proven ability to achieve and exceed goals in high pressure environments!!!
-567-
From: Teresa Chang
To: General Plan
Subject: State Mandated Draft Housing Plan
Date: Friday, September 23, 2022 9:28:30 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". You need to plan more affordable housing in SF downtown, not Hillsborough.

Hillsborough is not convenient for a lot of people if you don’t want to own a car. Plus you should keep Hillsborough public school teacher and students ratio as now. If you just add more kids to one teacher, it will be a disaster for our school system. Please understand why we choose to love this city. Best regards “Teresa Chang" “ " -568-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: WE OPPOSE THE HOUSING DRAFT ELEMENT (Resident Responses) Date: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:36:05 PM
Attachments: Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
J. Gilmartin.pdf
Sandra Papenhouse.pdf
Vivian Salama.pdf
Alice Wong and Rodney Chin
Hi All,
Attached are more signatures of Hillsborough residents opposing the Housing Draft Element. Please take this and their comments into consideration.

Best Regards,
Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $285 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. -569-
-570-
-571-
-572-
-573-
From: Stanley Lo
To: General Plan
Cc: Al Royse; Christine Krolik; Marie Chuang; Sophie Cole; Larry May; Liz Ruess Subject: More Residents Opposing the Hillsborough Housing Draft Element Date: Thursday, September 22, 2022 2:53:55 PM
Attachments: Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Outlook-8A4EE613.png
Outlook-B2061C99.png
Outlook-B8E1430F.png
Outlook-5300EF5.png
Signatures of Residents Opposing the Housing Plan 3
Hi All,
See attached comments from Hillsborough residents Opposing the Hillsborough Housing Draft Element.

Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $288 MILLION* Total Sales Volume Ranked #1 Individual Agent in Northern California for 11 years in a row OFFICE650.373.0007 | WEBSITE www.GreenBanker.com
Royal Service, Always Available & Complex Real Estate Problem Solver *The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

Best Regards,
Stanley Lo
____________________________________________________
Since Jan 2022 - NEARLY $285 MILLION* Total Sales Volume -574-
-575-
-576-
-577-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
14 INFORMATIONAL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE
SUMMARY: The City Manager will provide an informational update related to Town projects, events and activities of interest to the community.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: This informational item is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS: None
PREPARED BY: Ann Ritzma, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: For information only; no action required. -579-

Hillsborough City CouncilOctober 10, 2022

Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022