Agenda — Hillsborough City Council, October 10, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
Alvin L. Royse, Mayor 1600 Floribunda Avenue
Christine Krolik, Vice Mayor Hillsborough, CA 94010
Marie Chuang, Councilmember www.hillsborough.net
Sophie Cole, Councilmember Phone 650-375-7400
Laurence M. May, Councilmember

A G E N D A
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2022
4:30 PM CLOSED SESSION
6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hillsborough Town Hall and Zoom Video Conference
This City Council meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) (and without compliance with section 54953(b)(3)) related to conducting public meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council, staff and members of the public may participate in the meeting virtually via Zoom Video Conference or in person at Town Hall.

Members of the public may provide public comments on a consent calendar item, any other agenda item, or on nonagenda items during the general public comment portions of the meeting. All members of the public will be limited to one comment per item or non-agenda item.

To attend the meeting in person:
1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010
To provide Public Comment in person:

Members of the public wishing to speak are requested to complete a yellow speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk.

To participate in the meeting via Zoom Video Conference:
• Log in to the meeting at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86950698095?pwd=cEFjdnRtSDkwUlFqazlNdlBJL1BRZz09 • Dial-in via phone:
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 720 707 2699 US (Denver)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
Meeting ID: 869 5069 8095
Passcode: 789472
To provide Public Comment via Zoom Video Conference:

Live verbal public comments may be made by requesting to speak using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom or, if calling in by phone, by pressing *9 on the telephone keypad prior to the consent calendar being heard, or prior to the close of the public comment period for agenda items or non-agenda items. In response, the Town will unmute the speaker and allow them to speak up to three minutes.

CLOSED SESSION (4:30 pm)

CALL TO ORDER
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may provide public comments on any item on the Closed Session agenda. Members of the public participating in person are requested to complete a yellow speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk before addressing the City Council. Members of the public participating via the Zoom platform may use the “raise hand” feature or, if calling in by phone, press *9 on the telephone keypad. Speakers are limited to one comment per Closed Session item.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This portion of the agenda is for Councilmembers to disclose any conflict of interest related to any item on the Closed Session agenda.

Any Councilmember who has confirmed a conflict of interest or has reason to believe they have a conflict of interest should disclose the conflict for the record and abide by the disqualification requirements contained in FPPC regulations.

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Town as Plaintiff – One Potential Case
Oral Threat of Litigation Made by Mr. John Lockton at the September 26, 2022 City Council Meeting Regarding the Proposed Water Rates
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Crown Castle NG West LLC v. Town of Hillsborough, et al.

San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 18CIV05650
C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Glenn Berkheimer and Kristin Armbruster Employee Organization: Hillsborough Police Officers Association

ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (6:00 pm)
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
V. MINUTES: September 12, 2022
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT I
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter not on the agenda.

Page 3 ends

or unmute the speaker and allow them to speak on any topic for up to three minutes. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced to no less than 2 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Members of the public are limited to one comment at this time. State law prohibits the Council from discussing or acting on non-agenda items, and generally limits the ability of the Council to respond to any public comments made regarding non-agenda items.

VII. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This portion of the agenda is for Councilmembers to disclose any conflict of interest related to any item on the agenda. Any Councilmember who has confirmed a conflict of interest or has reason to believe they have a conflict of interest should disclose the conflict for the record and abide by the disqualification requirements contained in FPPC regulations.

VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar includes routine items, which do not require discussion. A Councilmember may remove an item for discussion, and any member of the audience may request a Councilmember to remove an item for discussion. The items are approved in one motion.

1. MONTHLY CLAIMS: SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

2. QUARTERLY INTEREST RATE PRODUCTS (SWAP) REPORT

3. QUARTERLY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

4. APPROVE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: "A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND POWER: GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW"

5. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974

6. RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361

7. RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED CM, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION

8. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH FREYER & LAURETA, INC.

FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE HIGHLINE WATER PIPELINE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000.00, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $571,600.00

9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE

CALRECYCLE RUBBERIZED PAVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR WHICH THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH IS ELIGIBLE
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

10. RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH FARALLON CONSTRUCTION TO BUILD AN

ADDITION WITH TWO OFFICES AT THE PUBLIC WORKS CORPORATION YARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,490.00

11. APPROVE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: “THE OTHER WATER WORRY:

IS YOUR WATER PROVIDER PREPARED FOR THE BIG ONE?”
IX. PUBLIC HEARING

12. APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) DESIGN

REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1950 RALSTON AVE. AND CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION

APPROVING TWO STORY HOME
X. OLD BUSINESS

13. REVISIONS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE XI. INFORMATIONAL

14. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE
XII. PUBLIC COMMENT II
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter not on the agenda.

Members of the public participating in person are requested to complete a yellow speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk before addressing the City Council. Members of the public participating via the Zoom platform may use the “raise hand” feature or, if calling in by phone, press *9 on the telephone keypad. In response, the Town will call the speaker to the podium or unmute the speaker and allow them to speak on any topic for up to three minutes. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced to no less than 2 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Members of the public are limited to one comment at this time. State law prohibits the Council from discussing or acting on non-agenda items, and generally limits the ability of the Council to respond to any public comments made regarding non-agenda items.

XIII. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
This section of the agenda provides the City Council an opportunity to ask questions on any project of interest. No action can be taken on any item not on the agenda.

XIV. ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS:

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in the City Council meeting, or if you need an agenda in an alternate form, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 375-7412 at least 24 hours before the scheduled City Council meeting.

ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL:

Members of the public may provide written comments to the City Council regarding any item on the agenda up to two hours before the meeting to [email protected] or by mail/in person at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda prior to the deadline, except as exempt from public disclosure under applicable law, will be available for public inspection on the Town website, and in the City Clerk’s Office at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010, during regular business hours.

Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 5 ends

AUDIO / VISUAL ADVISORY:

Those persons who wish to use PowerPoint or other mediums when presenting to the City Council will be required to submit media items to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Media items can be emailed to [email protected].

AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDINGS:

Please be advised that under the Brown Act, any person has the right to record the City Council meeting, including the audience in attendance, using an audio or video recording device subject to certain exceptions. Please be aware that by attending a City Council meeting, you may be audio or video recorded.

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
4:30 PM CLOSED SESSION
6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND STUDY SESSIONS
Hillsborough Town Hall and Zoom Video Conference
This City Council meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 and Government Code Section 54953(e) (and without compliance with section 54953(b)(3)) related to conducting public meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council, staff and members of the public participated in the meeting virtually via Zoom Video Conference or in person at Town Hall.

CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Royse called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chuang, Cole, May, Krolik, Royse

PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no speakers.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no announcements of conflict of interest.

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Mayor Royse announced the items for Closed Session:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Glenn Berkheimer and Kristin Armbruster Employee Organization: Hillsborough Police Officers Association B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Town as Plaintiff: One Potential Case
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Hillsborough Citizens Alliance v. Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 20CIV04592
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Hillsborough Citizens Alliance v. Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 21CIV04709

ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
The Closed Session adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
-1-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Royse called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Chuang, Cole, May, Krolik, Royse
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Royse led the Pledge of Allegiance.

IV. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Christopher Diaz reported regarding Item B on the Closed Session agenda that the City Council voted unanimously to initiate litigation regarding a code enforcement matter at 1 Fern Court; regarding Item C, the case has been dismissed by the Hillsborough Citizens Alliance; and regarding and Item D, all but one claim has been dismissed by the judge in that matter.

V. MINUTES: August 8, 2022 and August 25, 2022
Mayor Royse opened public comment. There were no speakers. Mayor Royse closed public comment.

On motion by Councilmember May, seconded by Councilmember Chuang and unanimous on roll call vote, the minutes of the August 8, 2022 and August 25, 2022 City Council meetings were approved.

VI. PROCLAMATION
• SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH - SEPTEMBER 2022
Mayor Royse presented a proclamation in recognition of Suicide Prevention Month to County of San Mateo Behavioral Health Commissioner Candice Hawley and provided comments. Commissioner Hawley provided comments.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT I
Larry Friedberg provided comments regarding the order of the study sessions on the agenda and regarding communications from the Town related to the Housing Element, and suggested the Town consider moderating its own Facebook page to ensure important issues are properly communicated.

Kathy Battat announced an upcoming free Green Home Tour organized by Project Green Home and Campaign for Fossil Free Buildings in Silicon Valley and sponsored by Peninsula Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Clean Energy that highlights all-electric, partially electric, and climate-friendly homes, and reported that rebates are available for switching from gas to electric appliances.

VIII. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
City Attorney Diaz stated that Vice Mayor Krolik lives within 1,000 feet of one of the opportunity sites in the draft Housing Element, Strawberry Hill, and if there is any specific discussion regarding the property, she will step out of the room out of an abundance of caution. City Attorney Diaz stated the Town is checking with the Fair Political Practices Commission to confirm whether there is truly a conflict of interest. City Attorney Diaz also stated that if there is any specific discussion of the Burlingame Country Club, Vice Mayor Krolik will step out of the room as her husband is a member of the country club. -2-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 3 ends

IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Chuang provided comments in recognition of the Finance Department related to Item 4.

There were no requests from the public to remove an item from the Consent Calendar.

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Councilmember Cole and unanimous on roll call vote, the Consent Calendar was approved.

1. MONTHLY CLAIMS: AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2022
The monthly claims for August 2022 in the amount of $4,444,819.90 were approved as submitted.

2. RESOLUTION FUNDING A CONTRIBUTION OF UP TO $45,000 TO HILLSBOROUGH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN FY 2022-23 TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARD THE

PROJECTED COST OF THE SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM
The resolution funding a contribution of up to $45,000 to Hillsborough City School District in FY 2022-23 to contribute toward the projected cost of the School Crossing Guard Program was adopted.

3. ACCEPT WATER RATE COST-OF-SERVICE STUDY AND SOLID WASTE RATE

STUDY, DIRECT STAFF TO MAIL THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED INCREASES IN

WATER AND SOLID WASTE RATES, AND SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2022
The City Council accepted the water rate cost-of service study and solid waste rate study, directed staff to mail the Notice of Proposed Increases in Water and Solid Waste Rates, and set the public hearing for November 14, 2022.

4. GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION’S DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 AND CERTIFICATE OF

ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
The Government Finance Officers Association’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for fiscal year 2021-2022 and Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 was received.

5. RESOLUTION ADOPTING TOWN POLICY 222 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, INTERNET AND EMAIL USAGE, AND RETIRING TOWN POLICIES 210 INTERNET POLICY, 211 ELECTRONIC MAIL POLICY AND 213 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION USAGE
The resolution adopting Town Policy 222 Electronic Communication, Internet and Email Usage, and retiring Town Policies 210 Internet Policy, 211 Electronic Mail Policy and 213 Electronic Communication Usage was adopted.

6. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PANEL FOR A PARTIAL TERM SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024
The resolution appointing a member to the Administrative Hearing Panel for a partial term September 13, 2022 through December 31, 2024 was adopted.

7. RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
A motion to reconfirm the findings and determinations made in Resolution No. 21-87 pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, with acknowledgment that the California Department of Public Health has updated the definition of “close contact” in Regulation 3205 from being -3-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 4 ends

within six feet of another person to sharing the same indoor space with another person for 15 minutes or more, which further supports the finding was approved.

8. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AS COMPLETE THE CONTRACT WITH CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE 773 EL CERRITO AVENUE STORM DRAIN REPAIR PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,645.00
The resolution accepting as complete the contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the 773 El Cerrito Avenue Storm Drain Repair Project in the amount of $119,645.00 was adopted.

9. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE EUCALYPTUS PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY

PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

PROGRAM FUNDING
The resolution supporting the Eucalyptus Pedestrian Pathway Project and submitting an application to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Cycle 6 pedestrian and bicycle program funding was adopted.

10. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT

TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH WILSEY HAM ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & PLANNING TO INCLUDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2023-2024 PARROTT DRIVE SEWER BASIN REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROJECT – PHASE II IN THE AMOUNT OF $512,215.00, FOR A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF $674,204.00 The resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing contract with Wilsey Ham Engineering, Surveying & Planning to include design services for the 2023-2024 Parrott Drive Sewer Basin Rehabilitation & Replacement Project – Phase II in the amount of $512,215.00, for a total project budget of $674,204.00 was adopted.

X. STUDY SESSIONS

11. STUDY SESSION: TOWN HALL CAMPUS PROJECT
Mayor Royse provided brief introductory comments.

Senior Management Analyst Mandy Brown and Branden Harrell, Senior Designer, WRNS Studio, provided the staff presentation. City Manager Ann Ritzma provided additional information.

Mayor Royse opened public comment.

Ted Ullyot expressed concern that the three proposed conceptual plans do not include Centennial Park which includes memorials to fallen officers from Hillsborough.

Aaron Zornes spoke regarding COVID relief funds and inquired how this project ties to any Federal funding the Town is getting from any COVID relief programs.

Elizabeth Jeffords stated her property is directly impacted by the project, expressed concern regarding communications about the project, and stated that she objects strongly to all of the plans. Jeffords spoke regarding a 2019 report evaluating the Police Department building for repairs and stated she does not believe the site is worthy of high-density housing.

John Lavrich stated the efficiency of the current use of the Town Hall property in the current layout is not high and expressed concerns regarding the conceptual plans citing parking issues and that tall buildings are out of character with the Town’s design. Lavrich suggested mixed use development with Town services on the first floor and two residential floors for housing and encouraged further study into the ability to include underground parking.
-4-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 5 ends

Kenneth Housely, 705 Hillsborough Blvd., stated the Town Hall site is the only site in the Town that makes sense for low-income housing and spoke regarding the availability of commercial sites in neighboring cities for rezoning. Housely expressed concerns regarding property values and impacts on property tax.

Jeff Ford, Fairway Circle, stated he is supportive of affordable housing in Hillsborough but has serious concerns about the high density proposed at the Town Hall site citing the historical significance of the police station, environmental issues at the site, and potential conflict of interest for staff and the consultants. Ford inquired about the action items in the 2014 Housing Element and why they were not completed and inquired as to why lower density plans are not feasible if the site is to be used at all. Ford expressed concerns regarding environmental toxins at the current police station that may occur at a proposed new site near homes and that high density housing is being proposed only on the Town Hall campus, which is unfair to residents.

Laith Salma expressed concerns regarding high density housing at the Town Hall site, closure of Walnut, noise, and privacy issues.

Gina Haggarty, 420 Darrell Road, expressed concerns regarding high density housing and tall buildings on the Town Hall site and safety concerns regarding the closure of Walnut. Haggarty spoke in opposition to housing at the site and in favor of ADUs in the Housing Element.

John Bruell, 690 Fairway Circle, expressed concerns regarding communications about the project and the short timeline, and the lack of parks, senior housing and parking and the impact on schools.

Dennis Moore expressed concern that there are no options presented without housing and requested that the consultant be asked if they were given direction to including housing in the conceptual plans. Moore stated the Housing Element Advisory Committee suggested considering senior housing and housing for staff, police, firefighters and teachers.

Chris Read, resident on Walnut Avenue, spoke regarding safety and parking on Walnut Avenue and the importance of a traffic study.

Felicia Ferrari, 1635 Floribunda Avenue, expressed concerns regarding communication about the project and spoke in opposition to the project.

Jamie Greene expressed concerns regarding parking citing the Town’s current regulation regarding no overnight parking and urged the City Council to provide additional direction to the consultants regarding what is important to the Town.

Raayan Mohtashemi, resident on Parrott Drive, spoke regarding the need for housing and support for housing on Town-owned land including the Town Hall site and for minimizing the number of vehicles incentivized on the site.

Mayor Royse closed public comment.

City Manager Ritzma responded to City Council questions.

12. STUDY SESSION: RHNA 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - PROJECT BRIEFING ON

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED TO DATE
Liz Ruess, Long-range Planning and Special Projects, provided the staff presentation.

City Manager Ann Ritzma and City Attorney Christopher Diaz provided additional information.

Mayor Royse opened public comment.

Karl Hansen expressed concerns regarding communications related to the draft Housing Element, spoke in opposition to the draft and spoke in support of accommodating the housing requirements without putting multifamily housing in Hillsborough, citing negative -5-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 6 ends

impacts on the Town and lack of analysis of additional resources that will be required including schools, police and fire.

Aaron Zornes, resident on Alberta Way, spoke regarding the City Council’s attention to feedback received and requested the Town read the resident housing surveys submitted and the survey results summary he provided.

Laith Salma expressed concerns regarding the methods of communication about the draft Housing Element and requested that the City Council reject the current draft and redraft the Housing Element using ADUs as the primary source for solving the housing problem rather than any zoning change, and spoke regarding the State audit of the RHNA calculation which found flaws in the methodology. Salma encouraged implementation of an education and outreach plan regarding ADUs to the community, financial incentives to qualified applicants, streamlining the process further, offering preapproval of three prefabricated ADU designs, requiring all new home construction and significant remodels to have an ADU on the property, and the requirement for a junior ADU over a certain square footage.

Raayan Mohtashemi stated that while the proposed plan is a good effort to create a compliant plan to submit to HCD. Mohtashemi expressed concerns regarding the ADU allocation and encouraged the City Council to reduce the number of ADUs predicted in the draft and stated that rezoning will allow the Town to take a multipronged approach to increasing housing. Mohtashemi stated the State audit of the RHNA allocation found that there was an underestimate of the housing allocation.

John Bruell expressed concerns regarding the communication and outreach to residents and stated he learned at the Housing Element Open House that a garage can be converted to a junior ADU. Bruell encouraged personal outreach to residents to provide information regarding building an ADU. Bruell stated that a HEAC member let him know that the Town Hall consultant was directed not to look at any plans that did not include housing.

Guy Longworth stated that the current plan is totally unacceptable and spoke in opposition to the draft. Longworth encouraged the City Council to look at the alternative plan submitted by residents and decide whether it could be submitted as the basis for the Town’s Housing Element.

Tessa Ambus, resident on Marlborough Road, spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and urged the City Council to look at alternative plans that can support the State’s requirements without changing the landscape of the Town. Ambus expressed concerns regarding votes by a new segment of residents living in 600 square foot apartments citing what is important to current residents may not be important to members of the community looking through a different lens.

John Lavrich spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and to rezoning the entire Town to address the housing allocation. Lavrich stated the RHNA process is the first step toward socialized government control of private housing and development and suggested those displeased with the current RHNA process to vote differently. Lavrich suggested the Town see what HCD approves for other jurisdictions and to build our Housing Element based on the best housing elements that are approved. Lavrich stated the consultant said they were specifically asked to ignore Town-owned open space properties when drafting the Housing Element which contradicts remarks made by staff earlier in the meeting. Lavrich spoke in support of an age-restricted high density senior living center on a Town-owned lot and encouraged the City Council to study it.

Ted Ullyot spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and requested the City Council preserve what makes the Town special. Ullyot encouraged the City Council to aim to comply with legal requirements but not be cowed by HCD. Ullyot stated that in the prior RHNA cycle the Town met the allocation and more than doubled it and suggested that no buffer be used in the current Housing Element.
-6-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 7 ends

Anne Paulson, Los Altos, stated she reviews housing elements for the Campaign for Fair Housing and advised the Town not to proceed with all or mostly ADUs in the Housing Element as their use may not overcome patterns of segregation or affirmatively favor fair housing.

Jeff Brady spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element citing concerns with rezoning the Town and the unique needs of the Town that should be treated differently than other cities.

Dennis Moore, resident on Churchill Drive, spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element. Moore expressed concerns regarding communications and outreach and suggested a more modern method of communicating beyond postal mail and newsletters. Moore suggested the trustees of deed-restricted open space areas be contacted to inquire if the restrictions can be relaxed in the Town’s time of need. Moore encouraged housing for police, public school teachers, fire staff permanently assigned to Hillsborough stations, and Town staff.

Elizabeth Jeffords spoke in support of more ADUs and expressed concerns regarding the length of the permitting process in her experience and spoke in support of exploring SB9 as an alternative to rezoning.

Jeff Ford, resident on Fairway Circle, stated he is supportive of affordable housing, spoke in opposition to the current Housing Element and asked the City Council to reject the plan and commission a new plan that reflects resident input. Ford presented input provided by outside counsel regarding possibilities related to development of ADUs.

Ford express concerns regarding the length of the permitting process based on his experience and stated SB9 should be included in the Town’s numbers.

Larry Friedberg, 870 Longview Road, expressed his love for the Town and recommended the City Council not rely too heavily on consultants like Houseal Lavigne, not believe that the Housing Element is just a plan, not rely too heavily on the input from the two open houses or the input of the small group of 17 residents, discouraged submitting a plan that the Town only thinks will satisfy the requirements of HCD, and encouraged the City Council to reset and expand the conversation to include more citizens.

Katie Haggerty spoke in opposition to rezoning, lot-splitting, building on Town land including the Town Hall site, proposing a plan to build on private land like Strawberry Hill being rezoned to high density housing in order to meet the State mandate, and discouraging redevelopment of sites with existing smaller single-family homes. Haggerty inquired as to who would own, control and run the Town Hall property if it were developed to include housing. Haggerty spoke in support of development of ADUs, requested improvements to the permitting process and recommended an increase in staffing in assist with the permitting process. Haggerty reminded the City Council of the values in the Town’s values statement.

Noelle Langmack, resident on Eugenia Way, spoke in support of the proposed draft Housing Element and regarding the Housing Element Advisory Committee process.

Langmack applauded the use of safe harbor ADU projections as specified by the State.

Langmack encouraged the reduction of permitting fees and timelines to expedite housing development. Langmack spoke regarding potential penalties and lawsuits.

Melissa Klaerner spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and urged the City Council to reject it and adopt a new plan that takes into the consideration the ideas, opinions and desires expressed by residents. Klaerner stated that it is acceptable to submit a plan that will be rejected it because it can be revised and resubmitted. Klaerner stated there is no need or benefit to submitting a plan that will be accepted on the first try.

Gene Chan, resident on Hayne Road, expressed concerns regarding the current draft Housing Element and in spoke in support of the ADU option to increase the housing supply and bolster the community.
-7-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 12, 2022

Page 8 ends

Mayor Royse closed public comment.

Councilmembers provided closing comments.

XI. INFORMATIONAL

13. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE
City Manager Ann Ritzma provided an informational update.

XII. PUBLIC COMMENT II
There were no speakers.

XIII. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember May reported an upcoming Peninsula Clean Energy 2023 planning session and suggested Vice Mayor Krolik or another Councilmember attend since he will no longer be on the Board.

Vice Mayor Krolik reported her attendance at a Suicide Prevention Month kickoff event the availability of literature at Town Hall.

Mayor Royse reported that he, Vice Mayor Krolik, Councilmember Chuang and Councilmember Cole attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach and the conference program is available online for review.

Mayor Royse reported his attendance at the Hillsborough City School District back to school event on the first day of school and commended Councilmember May for his recognition as alum of the year and for providing the keynote address.

XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Royse adjourned the meeting at 10:21 p.m. in honor of the memory of the lives lost and impacted on September 11, 2001.
-8-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
1 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: MONTHLY CLAIMS: SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 SUMMARY: The monthly claims for the month of September 2022 in the amount of $9,277,607.27 are submitted for approval.

FISCAL IMPACT: Claims have been expended pursuant to the approved budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment
ATTACHMENTS: Monthly Claims Listing
PREPARED BY: Richard Santiago, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve the monthly claims for September 2022 as submitted. -9-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -10-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE 10/3/2022
10/3/2022
-11-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -12-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -13-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -14-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -15-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -16-
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF824353-8CFF-4610-9F41-7A7AE4E196BE -17-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
2 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: QUARTERLY INTEREST RATE PRODUCTS (SWAP) REPORT SUMMARY: Pursuant to Government Code Section 5922(a) and the Town’s Interest Rate Mitigation Policy, the quarterly report providing the status of all interest rate products is provided to the City Council for the quarter ended September 30, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the reporting function.

ATTACHMENTS: Interest Rate Products Report for Quarter Ended September 30, 2022 PREPARED BY: Jan Cooke, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Interest Rate Products Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2022
-19-
Information furnished by: JP Morgan
New York Client Valuations Tel. No. 302-634-1940
Client [email protected]
Maturity Date 6/1/2007 6/3/2030 6/1/2033 6/1/2035
Trade Date 5/10/2000 8/13/2003 8/13/2003 12/27/2005
Deal ID No. 50000438915 85002621 85002622 20008650/2180955 Notional USD 4,900,000 9,700,000 15,000,000 12,000,000
Current Notional USD N/A 4,200,000 7,800,000 7,305,000
Fixed Amounts (Town):

Payment Dates Monthly on Day 1 12/1 and 6/1 12/1 and 6/1 Monthly on Day 1 starting 7/1/00 starting12/1/03 starting12/1/03 starting 5/1/06 Rate 5.262% 3.75% 3.77% 3.507%
Day Count Fraction 30/360 30/360 30/360 Actual/360
Initial Calculation Period 5/31/00-7/1/00
Floating Amounts (Morgan):

Floating Rate Option Actual Rate (see USD-Floating TBMA- USD-Floating TBMA- USD-LIBOR agreement for more BMA Muni Swap BMA Muni Swap
details) Index Index
Knockout Rate for 7% preceding 180-day 7% preceding 180-day Early Termination period (see agreement period (see agreement for details) for details)
Valuation
Date Total Date Moody's S&P Fitch
9/30/2008 (419,484) (722,615) (550,003) (1,692,102) 10/1/2008 P-1/Aa2 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA-/A+ 12/31/2008 (1,183,644) (2,049,897) (2,444,540) (5,678,081) 1/5/2009 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA-/A+ 3/31/2009 (1,149,701) (1,945,955) (2,032,780) (5,128,436) 4/1/2009 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA6/30/2009 (842,134) (1,415,086) (1,104,413) (3,361,633) 7/1/2009 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA9/30/2009 (1,099,229) (1,849,746) (1,346,383) (4,295,358) 10/1/2009 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA12/31/2009 (865,603) (1,451,874) (816,530) (3,134,007) 1/4/2010 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA3/31/2010 (851,408) (1,418,171) (897,357) (3,166,936) 4/1/2010 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA6/30/2010 (1,136,987) (1,922,354) (1,634,350) (4,693,691) 7/1/2010 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA9/30/2010 (1,366,509) (2,331,232) (2,043,047) (5,740,788) 10/4/2010 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA12/31/2010 (974,369) (1,639,800) (1,243,449) (3,857,618) 1/4/2011 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA 3/31/2011 (868,872) (1,468,293) (1,076,946) (3,414,111) 3/4/2011 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA 6/30/2011 (974,847) (1,643,846) (1,285,908) (3,904,602) 7/5/2011 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA 9/30/2011 (1,499,284) (2,636,285) (2,482,117) (6,617,686) 10/4/2011 P-1/Aa1 A-1+/AA- F1+/AA 12/31/2011 (1,533,381) (2,709,039) (2,558,456) (6,800,876) 1/3/2012 P-1/Aa1 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 3/30/2012 (1,401,115) (2,431,019) (2,192,178) (6,024,312) 4/2/2012 P-1/Aa1 A-1/A+ F1+/AA6/29/2012 (1,617,993) (2,847,926) (2,680,723) (7,146,642) 7/2/2012 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1+/A+ 9/28/2012 (1,641,638) (2,875,433) (2,638,688) (7,155,759) 10/1/2012 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/AA12/31/2012 (1,560,712) (2,722,942) (2,485,853) (6,769,507) 1/2/2013 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/AA3/31/2013 (1,441,801) (2,506,027) (2,241,870) (6,189,698) 4/1/2013 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/AA6/28/2013 (1,130,119) (1,943,435) (1,713,673) (4,787,227) 7/1/2013 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 9/30/2013 (1,115,945) (1,920,828) (1,590,210) (4,626,983) 10/1/2013 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 12/31/2013 (998,553) (1,708,818) (1,347,641) (4,055,012) 1/6/2014 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 3/31/2014 (1,038,033) (1,810,668) (1,542,884) (4,391,585) 4/1/2014 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 6/30/2014 (1,088,865) (1,918,485) (1,713,422) (4,720,772) 7/1/2014 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 9/30/2014 (1,055,693) (1,889,773) (1,715,618) (4,661,084) 10/6/2014 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 12/31/2014 (1,192,349) (2,188,502) (2,020,105) (5,400,956) 1/5/2014 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 3/31/2015 (1,293,713) (2,406,256) (2,214,513) (5,914,482) 4/2/2015 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1/A+ 6/30/2015 (1,141,959) (2,082,368) (1,863,238) (5,087,565) 7/1/2015 P-2/A3 A-1/A F1/A+ 9/30/2015 (1,273,319) (2,358,476) (2,118,522) (5,750,317) 10/1/2015 P-2/A3 A-1/A F1/A+ 12/31/2015 (1,186,503) (2,219,563) (1,980,147) (5,386,214) 1/4/2016 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 3/312016 (1,405,646) (2,653,147) (2,341,019) (6,399,812) 4/1/2016 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 6/30/2016 (1,379,543) (2,660,832) (2,487,101) (6,527,477) 7/5/2016 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 9/30/2016 (1,286,228) (2,527,200) (2,410,562) (6,223,990) 10/3/2016 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 12/31/2016 (930,745) (1,806,589) (1,725,426) (4,462,760) 1/3/2017 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 3/31/2017 (865,259) (1,690,939) (1,644,055) (4,200,253) 4/3/2017 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 6/30/2017 (891,617) (1,757,121) (1,671,834) (4,320,571) 7/3/2017 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 9/30/2017 (860,037) (1,809,408) (1,659,192) (4,328,637) 10/2/2017 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 12/31/2017 (778,522) (1,567,891) (1,527,751) (3,874,165) 1/3/2018 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ 3/31/2018 (633,638) (1,286,851) (1,278,149) (3,198,638) 3/30/2018 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1/A+ Present Value (USD)
JPMCB Credit Rating
Town of Hillsborough
Interest Rate Products Report
Quarter Ending September 30, 2022

COUNTERPARTY'S INFORMATION
-20-
Maturity Date 6/1/2007 6/3/2030 6/1/2033 6/1/2035
Trade Date 5/10/2000 8/13/2003 8/13/2003 12/27/2005
Deal ID No. 50000438915 85002621 85002622 20008650/2180955 Notional USD 4,900,000 9,700,000 15,000,000 12,000,000
Current Notional USD N/A 4,200,000 7,800,000 7,305,000
Fixed Amounts (Town):

COUNTERPARTY'S INFORMATION
6/30/2018 (595,088) (1,216,696) (1,163,294) (2,975,078) 7/2/2018 P-2/A3 A-2/A- F1+/AA9/30/2018 (534,733) (1,097,489) (1,043,198) (2,675,421) 12/2/2018 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 12/31/2018 (625,075) (1,288,104) (1,221,955) (3,135,134) 1/2/2019 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 3/31/2019 (677,905) (1,411,321) (1,351,819) (3,441,045) 4/2/2019 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA6/30/2019 (786,325) (1,650,809) (1,572,150) (4,009,284) 6/24/2019 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 9/30/2019 (822,552) (1,771,411) (1,756,193) (4,350,156) 10/1/2019 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 12/31/2019 (736,930) (1,578,670) (1,544,468) (3,860,067) 1/3/2020 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 3/31/2020 (949,787) (2,103,166) (2,137,806) (5,190,759) 4/1/2020 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 6/30/2020 (972,119) (2,149,787) (2,150,373) (5,272,279) 7/1/2020 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 9/30/2020 (927,793) (2,058,093) (2,060,692) (5,046,578) 10/1/2020 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 12/31/2020 (859,895) (1,903,968) (1,897,991) (4,661,854) 1/4/2021 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 3/31/2021 (715,854) (1,549,271) (1,495,600) (3,760,725) 4/2/2021 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 6/30/2021 (714,358) (1,607,392) (1,586,446) (3,908,196) 7/5/2021 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 9/30/2021 (665,758) (1,506,012) (1,516,300) (3,688,070) 10/4/2021 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 12/31/2021 (576,756) (1,339,484) (1,414,612) (3,330,851) 1/3/2022 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 3/31/2022 (345,989) (839,384) (1,005,851) (2,191,225) 4/4/2022 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 6/30/2022 (256,750) (624,581) (734,935) (1,616,266) 7/1/2022 P-1/Aa3 A-1/A+ F1+/AA 9/30/2022 (158,248) (408,921) (424,774) (991,943) 9/30/2022 P-1/Aa2 A-1/A+ F1+/AA Valuations set forth herein are numerically expressed in accordance with the following convention: a positive value indicates that JPMorgan is out-of-the-money, which means that if the relevant transactions were to be terminated at the valuations set forth herein, there would be a payment from JPMorgan to Town; likewise a negative value indicates that Town is out-of-the-money, which means if the relevant transactions were to be terminated, there would be a payment from Town to JPMorgan. -21-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
3 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: QUARTERLY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
SUMMARY: Government Code Section 5364(b) requires that the Quarterly Investment Report be rendered to the City Council during public session within 30 days of the quarter's end.

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

ATTACHMENTS: Quarterly Treasurer's Report
PREPARED BY: Richard Santiago, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2022.
-23-
Purchase Maturity Days to Amortized/Fair/ Coupon Valuation Issuer Type Date Date Maturity Cost Par Value Market Value Rate Yield Source LAIF On demand 66,715,186.04 66,715,186.04 65,856,255.64 0.7500% 1 Sec 115 Benefit Trust Company 5,068,793.39 5,068,793.39 5,068,793.39 1.9000% 3 Cash on Hand 8,300.00 8,300.00 8,300.00
Checking Account On demand 12,294,984.88 12,294,984.88 12,294,984.88 0.0100% 3 US Bank Custodial Account 352,166.71 352,166.71 352,166.71 0.0000% 4 Sub-total 84,439,431.02 84,439,431.02 83,580,500.62
INVESTMENTS: Cost Market Value
United States Treasury TN 10/29/2020 5/15/2023 227 199,937.50 200,000.00 195,492.00 0.1300% 3 United States Treasury TN 10/29/2020 10/15/2023 380 199,812.50 200,000.00 192,664.00 0.1300% 3 United States Treasury TN 6/11/2021 3/15/2024 532 200,250.00 200,000.00 190,360.00 0.2600% 3 United States Treasury TN 10/1/2021 9/30/2025 1096 196,062.50 200,000.00 181,234.00 0.2800% 3 United States Treasury TN 6/11/2021 8/31/2024 701 206,000.00 200,000.00 191,540.00 1.3000% 3 United States Treasury TN 3/18/2022 12/31/2026 1645 192,500.00 200,000.00 182,758.00 1.3700% 3 United States Treasury TN 3/18/2022 1/31/2027 1584 194,625.00 200,000.00 184,546.00 1.6300% 3 United States Treasury TN 3/15/2025 897 193,210.94 200,000.00 191,640.00 1.8300% 3 United States Treasury TN 6/11/2021 7/31/2024 670 211,562.50 200,000.00 195,094.00 2.1800% 3 United States Treasury TN 4/16/2018 3/31/2023 182 413,962.50 415,000.00 413,215.50 2.5100% 3 United States Treasury TN 11/30/2025 1157 198,570.31 200,000.00 196,274.00 2.9300% 3 United States Treasury TN 7/15/2025 1019 199,429.69 200,000.00 197,328.00 3.0400% 3 ALLY BK SANDY UTAH NCD 1/21/2025 844 200,000.00 200,000.00 198,112.00 3.0300% 3 BMW BK NORTH AMER SALT LAKE NCD 6/18/2021 6/18/2024 627 250,000.00 250,000.00 236,800.00 0.3200% 3 ENERBANK USA UT NCD 4/30/2018 4/28/2023 210 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,022.50 2.9400% 3 HORIZON BK NATL ASSN IND NCD 5/4/2018 5/4/2023 216 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,010.00 2.9400% 3 Sub-Total 3,555,923.44 3,565,000.00 3,447,090.00
GRAND TOTALS $ 87,995,354.46 $ 88,004,431.02 $ 87,027,590.62 LEGENDS:

LAIF Local Agency Investment Fund (State of CA) LAIF Quarterly Performance Report 1 SMCP San Mateo County Pool SMCP report 2
MMF Money Market Fund Custodian Bank/Trust statement 3
BA Bankers' Acceptance Broker/Dealer market information 4 CP Commercial Paper Other Sources: Newspaper, other 5
TCD Time Certificate of Deposit Amortized Cost 6
NCD Negotiable Certificate of Deposit
TB Treasury Bill
TN Treasury Note
All funds are invested in accordance with the Town of Hillsborough's Investment Policy as approved by the City Council. Sufficient funds are available to meet the Town's expenditures for a six-month period. This report is prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 53646.

Prepared by: Rich Santiago, Assistant Finance Director
Date
Approved by: Jan Cooke, Finance Director
Date
Town of Hillsborough
Report on Cash and Investments Held As of Quarter Ended September 30, 2022

TYPE OF INVESTMENTS VALUATION SOURCE
DocuSign Envelope ID: B6F82610-C956-456A-AFF2-982020A70CE2 10/3/2022
10/3/2022
-24-
RECAP: Purchase Price % to Total TOH Restriction 1st Quarter* Year To Date LAIF Local Agency Investment Fund $ 66,715,186.04 75.8% None 125,091 125,091 TCD Time Certificate of Deposit - 0.0% None
NCD Negotiable Certificate of Deposit 950,000.00 1.1% None 4,253 4,253 TB Treasury Bills - 0.0% None
TN Treasury Notes 2,605,923.44 3.0% None 7,788 7,788
CP Commercial Paper - 0.0% None
BA Bankers Acceptances - 0.0% None
CA Checking/Sweep Account 12,294,984.88 14.0% None 696 696 CUS Custodian Account 352,166.71 0.4%
COH Cash on Hand 8,300.00 0.0% None
Section 115 Trust 5,068,793.39 5.8% None 24,902 24,902
Sub-total 87,995,354.46 100%
Trustee - Bond Funds
Bond Funds - Investments
Total $ 87,995,354.46 162,730 162,730
Maturity of 2 years and under 68,896,711.04 78.3% 66,715,186.04 Section 115 Trust 5,068,793.39 5.8% -
CA Checking/Sweep Account 12,294,984.88 14.0% -
CUS Custodian Account 352,166.71 -
COH Cash on Hand 8,300.00 0.0% -
Sub-total 86,620,956.02 98.0%
Maturity from 2-5 years 1,374,398.44 1.6%
Sub-total - Town Funds 87,995,354.46 100%
Bond Funds
Trustee - Bond Funds
Total Portfolio $ 87,995,354.46
TOTAL INVESTMENTS $ 75,339,902.87
CASH/CHECKING/MMA 12,655,451.59

TRUSTEE BOND FUNDS -
87,995,354.46
*Estimate -
Investment Income
For Quarter Ending September 30, 2022

INVESTMENT RECAP

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
DocuSign Envelope ID: B6F82610-C956-456A-AFF2-982020A70CE2 -25-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
4 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: "A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND POWER: GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW"
SUMMARY: On August 9, 2022, the San Mateo County Grand Jury released a report titled, “Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know'” which is included as Attachment 1. The purpose of the report is to identify how the 20 cities in San Mateo County respond to Public Records Act (PRA) requests, including policies and procedures for handling requests, the types of records requests they receive, the training of key employees, elected officials, and appointed officials about PRA-related matters, and how legal changes may impact cities with regard to fulfilling PRA requests.

The report developed five findings and five recommendations, with the Town being requested to respond to three findings and four recommendations by November 9, 2022.

The Town’s proposed response to the findings and recommendations is included as Attachment 2.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) provide that ongoing administrative activities and organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment do not constitute a “project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) and are therefore exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Grand Jury Report: "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know"

2. Draft Response Letter
PREPARED BY: Lisa Natusch, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the response letter to the August 9, 2022 San Mateo County Grand Jury Report: "A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know" and authorize the Mayor to sign and send the letter on behalf of the City Council.
-27-

NEAL TANIGUCHI

COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICE R

CLERK & JURY COMMISSION ER
August 9, 2022
Town Council
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda A venue
Hillsborough, CA 940 I 0
Superi oi- Cou rt or C il ifornia, County of San Mateo
I-fal l of'.l usticc and Records
400 County Center
Recilrnod City, CA 94063-1655

RECEIVED
AUG 11 2022

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
(650) 261-5066
www.sanmateocourt.org
Re: Grand Jury Report "A Delica te Ba l<1 nce between Knowleclge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public 's Right to Kn ow'·
Dear Councilmembers:

The 2021-2022 San Mateo Cou nty Civil Gra ncl Ju ry fil ed the above-titled report on August 9, 2022, which contains findin gs ancl reco111 111cncla tions pertaining to yo ur agency. Yo ur agency must respond, within 90 days, to the Hon. Amarra A. l~ee . Your agen.:, ·s response is clue no later than November 9, 2022.

There are several requirements for the contcnl or your res ponse. The response should indicate that it was approved by your governi ng bocly at a publi L' meet ing. In aclcl ition, please be aware that your agency is expected to adhere to the word ing, as i nslructecl belo\\. when responding to the findings and recommendations of the Grand .lury report.

For each Grand Jury findin g. your agency m t,si i Hlicatc one of the fo llowing:

1. The respondent agrees with the fi11ding: or

2. The respondent disagrees wholly or pa rtially with the finding, specifying the portion of the findin g that is dispt1ted and in cl t1cli11g an expla na tion of the reasons therefor.

For each Grand Jury recommendation, your :1~•.cncy 11111st indicate one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action;

2. The reco111111e11dation has no t ~·ct been implemented, but wi ll be implemented in the future, with an estima ted date fo r irnp i ·1m'11tat ion:

3. The recommenclation req ui re~ ~urther ana lysis. with an explanation and the scope and parameters ofan analysis or slu,,_,. :111d ,111 est imated date (no later than six months from the publication date of the report ) l<ll' the matte r to be prepared for discussion by the officer or cl i rector of the age11c~' or ck part 111c11t he i 11g in vest igated or reviewed, including the governing body ol' the publi c ,1gc 11cy whc 11 ,1pplicabl c: or

4. The recom mendat ion wi ll no t l,e implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with a11 expl a11ati on therefo1·.
-28-
ATTACHMENT 1
Kindly submit your responses in ALL the following formats.

1. Responses to be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court by the Court Executive Office:
• Prepare original on your agency's letterhead, indicate the date of the public meeting that your governing body approved the response address, and mail to:

Hon. Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Civil Grand Jury Coordinator
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655.

2. Responses to be placed at the Grand Jury website:
• Scan response and send by e-mail to: [email protected]. (Insert agency name at the top of your response if it is not indicated.)

3. Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency:
• File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to the Court.

The 2021-22 Grand Jury foreperson is available to clarify the recommendations of the Grand Jury report until August 15, 2022. To reach the foreperson, please contact Jenarda Dubois, Civil Grand Jury Coordinator, at (650) 261-5066.

If you have any questions regarding these procedures, please do not hesitate to contact David Silberman, Chief Deputy County Counsel, at (650) 363-4749.

Very truly yours,
fp.,AJ.~'wkJ
Neal Taniguchi
Court Executive Officer
Enclosure
cc: Hon. Amarra A. Lee
David Silberman
-29-
A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power:

Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know
Release Date: August 9, 2022
ISSUE
The California Public Records Act requires that inspection or disclosure of governmental records be available to the public upon request. How do the cities in San Mateo County meet the requirements of this Act?

SUMMARY
The California Public Records Act (PRA) is an essential tool for the public to find out what their government agencies are doing. It's one of the freedom of information laws enacted in every state in the Union to ensure that the public can witness the actions of their governments. The PRA's purpose is to promote government transparency in California.

Fifteen years ago, the 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's report, "Electronic Communication Among City Officials: A Valuable Tool in Need of Careful Guidance," addressed the rise in local governments' use of electronic forms of communication between elected and appointed officials. 1 As it observed, these valuable and efficient tools can quickly disseminate information, and they can constitute public documents subject to public disclosure.

Reviewing that Grand Jury's report alerted the 2021-2022 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury to the potential that cities may be facing increased complexity and potential burdens in the processing of requests for public records.

The Grand Jury sought to understand how San Mateo County's 20 cities respond to PRA requests, including:
• Cities' policies and procedures for handling requests; • The types of records requests they receive;
• The training of key employees, elected officials, and appointed officials about PRArelated matters; and • How legal changes may impact cities with regard to fulfilling PRA requests.

While the PRA does not require cities to adopt a formal policy, the Grand Jury sought to identify the cities that have written policy or procedure documents and the methods cities use to process the public's requests. It also wanted to learn how key staff keep up to date with changes in PRA law. Failing to comply with these laws can subject a city to litigation and, more importantly, lead to erosion of the public's trust.
1 2006-2007 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, Electronic Communication Among City Officials: A Valuable Tool in Need of Careful Guidance
https:/ /sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand j ury/2006/ElectronicCommunicationfinal.pdf, retrieved June 9, 2022. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
-30-
The Grand Jury recommends that city councils of the subject cities should:

1. Consider directing staff to create a written PRA procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff.

2. Consider directing staff to perform a cost/benefit analysis regarding the purchase of commercially available public records request software.

3. Consider directing staff to place information about how to access public records on the home page of their official website.

4. Consider directing staff to create a submittable online PRA request form.

5. Consider directing staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo's "Records Cleanup Day."

BACKGROUND
Two centuries ago, James Madison wrote these words:
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."2
He further asserted, "Knowledge [is] the only Guardian of true liberty."3 John Moss, a California member of the U.S. House of Representatives, used Madison's quote to generate support for a bill he was introducing in Congress. In 1967, after a 12-year struggle, he was finally successful in passing the Federal Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA). It served as the model for California's similar Public Records Act enacted one year later.

The California Public Records Act was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 and acknowledges one simple concept - that secrecy is contrary to a democratic system of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people". Specifically, the PRA declares that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state". 4
2 Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), in The Writings of James Madison (Gaillard Hunt ed.).
3 Letter from James Madison to George Thomson (June 30, 1825) (on file with The James Madison Papers at The Library of Congress).
4 California Government Code, Section 6250 (2021).
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
•
-31-
Every state has some form of freedom of information law that governs public access to state and local government documents. 5 In addition, every state has some form of a "Sunshine Law" or "Open Meetings" law that requires public access to meetings of public legislative bodies.

California's Ralph M. Brown Act is such a Sunshine Law. 6 Passed in 1953, it guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. The PRA and the Brown Act are California's primary laws intended to promote government transparency.

What are Public Records?
The PRA defines the term "public records" as any "writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by a state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics."7 Thus, a "writing" is not simply a handwritten or printed document; writings include an ever-broadening range of communications including audio and video recordings, emails, photos, drawings, computer data, and more. 8 The agencies that hold these public records, and are subject to the PRA, include every county, city, town, school district, special district, police and fire department, commission, and board in California.9 Certain private entities that carry out public functions using funding from a local agency may also be subject to the PRA. The PRA applies to nearly every public agency one can imagine except for the Legislature and the courts. 10
A public record refers to information that has been recorded or maintained by a public agency.

Typical examples of records that the public might request include:
• Property records,
• Building permits,
• Business registrations
• Employee compensation information
• Financial documents
• Code enforcement records
• Public works documents, and
• Police records.

Merely addressing a question to a local agency official or employee is not sufficient to constitute a public records request under the PRA. "What time do the lights go off at the neighborhood park?" Or "Why are there so many potholes on my street?" are not public records requests.

However, a request to see the contract for the vendor who installed the lights or paved the street would be a public records request.
5 FOIA Advocates, State Public Records Laws. http://www.foiadvocates.com/records.html Retrieved May 11 , 2022 6 CA Govt Code § 54950 et seq.
7 CA Govt Code§ 6252(e).
8 CA Govt Code § 6252(g).
9 CA Govt Code § 6252(f). Excluded from the definition of state agency are those agencies provided for in article IV (except section 20(k)) and article VI of the Cal. Constitution. lO The Legislature has its own sunshine law, Gov. Code,§ 1070. Most court records are disclosable under a number of legal decisions and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
-32-
The Form of PRA Request
The PRA ensures that all persons must receive equal access to public records. "Persons" can be corporations, partnerships, homeowners' associations, and the media. 11 Simply put, every person has the right to inspect public records, and no one type of person has a greater right of access to public records than any other person. 12
Because the intent of the law is to enable easy access to public records, it is expansive in the available ways requests may be made. The request can be made in writing or orally, by physical or electronic means, remotely or in person. Persons making a PRA request are not required to explain the reason for the request. 13
Public records are to be open for inspection during office hours at the local agency. To preserve the orderly function of their offices, agencies may establish reasonable policies for the inspection and copying of records. If the request asks for copies of documents, the agency is required to respond within ten days to determine whether they have disclosable records in their possession and to notify the person making the request of that determination. The agency must then make the records "promptly" available. 14
An agency may extend the normal ten-day requirement for responding whether it has any disclosable documents for up to 14 additional days under certain circumstances. 15 For example, if the agency needs to search through and collect a voluminous number ofrecords or to consult with another agency with an interest in the requested records, such an extension is available.

The agency is required to assist the requester who is having difficulty making a focused and effective PRA request. 16 And while the request may be burdensome, that burden alone is not sufficient to justify noncompliance. However, the agency is also not required to perform a "needle in a haystack" search for records. 17 Additionally, a PRA request only applies to records that exist at the time of the request, not for records to be created in the future.

Widespread Use of Electronic Communications
The public's business increasingly relies on electronic communications. Email, social media postings, video and audio recordings, and the use of personal devices have created enormous volumes of public records for cities. In a case with broad consequences related to PRA requests, City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2017), the California Supreme Court 11 CA Govt Code § 6252(c); Connell v. Superior Court (Intersource, Inc.) (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 60 I. 12 CA Govt Code§ 6252.5; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 759; Dixon v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1279.
13 CA Govt Code § 6250; California. Constitution, Article. I, Section 3. 14 CA Govt Code§ 6253(c).
15 CA Govt Code§ 6253(c)(l-4).
16 CA Govt Code§ 6253.1.
17 Cal. First Amend Coalition v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 159, 166. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
•
-33-
ruled that communications carried out using a personal account or device were disclosable if the communication was related to the conduct of public business. 18 For example, such a PRA request might be for all communications between city officials and a vendor that was granted a city-awarded contract. The search for responsive records could include reviewing all the emails, voice mails, and texts between the parties for relevant material, including on officials' personal devices. This can be problematic since this communication, especially if voluminous, could require attorneys to determine what might be non-disclosable for reasons of privacy or privilege. In Getz v County of El Dorado (2021 ), a California appeals court ruled that El Dorado County's unsubstantiated claim that a PRA request was overly broad and burdensome was not a valid reason for denial of records. The court explained that establishing that a request is overly burdensome requires more than the vague prospect of having to review lots of records. The County was ultimately compelled to produce over 40,000 email records. 19 Law Enforcement Records
In recent years the most publicized form of an electronic record has been police body-cam footage. Landmark legislation has broadened PRA access to law enforcement records, including a limited subset of these audio and video recordings. On January 1, 2019, SB 1421 became law.

Called the Peace Officers: Release of Records bill, it requires law enforcement agencies to make records (including body-cam footage) related to certain serious officer use of force incidents, sexual assault, and acts of dishonesty available under the PRA. 20 Police unions have filed multiple challenges to the law asserting concerns about officers' privacy, retroactivity of the law, and the cost of producing records. 21 These challenges have been consistently denied by courts. 22 And in January 2022, SB 16, became effective. This new law now requires additional police disciplinary records, involving allegations of discrimination, unlawful arrest, and cover-ups of excessive force by fellow officers, to be made available under the PRA. 23 18 Latham & Watkins, Client Alert Commentary, https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/california-supreme-courtgovernment-communications-on-private-accounts-are-public, retrieved May 11 , 2022. 19 Getz v. The Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.5th 637, 287 Cal. Rptr. 3d 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) https:/ /law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/202 l/c091337.html, retrieved June 1, 2022. 20 CA Penal Code§ 832.7 and§_ 832.8.
21 Voice of San Diego, A Brief History of Police Challenges. https://voiceofsandiego.org/2019/06/1 0/brief-historyof-police-challenges-and-Iosses-sb-1421 /, retrieved March 18, 2022. 22 JD Supra, Another SB1421 Decision Against Law Enforcement. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/another-sb1421-decision-against-law-45114/, retrieved March 18, 2022. 23 BBK Attorneys at Law, SB 16 Compliance Expanded Public Access. https://www.bbklaw.com/NewsEvents/Insights/2021/Legal-A lerts/ l 2/SB-16-Compliance-Expanded-Pub I ic-Access-to-Law-Enf, retrieved March 18, 2022.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
-34-
Methods of Handling Requests
The PRA does not mandate any specific method for agency handling of records requests. Some local agencies simply monitor the process manually using an internally created document. Many other agencies now use commercially available software that links to information on their public websites. Often marketed to city clerks through professional organizations, such as the City Clerks Association of California, these software applications offer solutions to manage large portions of the PRA request process.

These applications can:
• Manage intake of requests through a public portal;
• Provide an automated response of receipt to the person making a request; • Alert agency staff to deadlines;
• Promote coordination across departments;
• Gather records and track their production to person making a request; • Provide tools to redact information; and
• Display and store responsive records.

The software enables anyone making a PRA request to see the status of their request through a portal. It also enables cities to make both the request and the records responsive to the request visible to the public.

Fees
An agency may charge a fee for costs of complying with the PRA, but only for the direct costs of making copies of responsive records - typically a nominal fee per page of paper copies. Since today most records are produced and delivered to the requester electronically, many responsive records are cost-free to the requesting party.

In National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2019), the California Supreme Court held that an effort by the city to charge $3,000 for labor related to redacting requested bodycam footage was not permissible as a "data extraction" cost. 24 With this decision, the Court reaffirmed that local agencies may not charge for ancillary costs such as the labor required to retrieve documents or the inspection and handling of files. 25
Voter-approved Propositions Affecting the PRA
In 2004, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 59, the "Public Records, Open Meetings Legislative Constitutional Amendment." It essentially adds a "sunshine" amendment to the Declaration of Rights section of the California Constitution (similar to the U.S. Constitution's 24 Reporters Committee, National Lawyers Guild v City of Hayward. https://www.rcfp.org/briefscomments/national-lawyers-guild-v-hayward-califomia-supreme-court, retrieved June 14, 2022. 25 BBK Attorneys at Law, California Public Records Act Update. https:/ /www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2021/legal-alerts/O 1/califomia-pub lie-records-act-update, retrieved March 16, 2022.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
-35-
Bill of Rights) stating, "The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny."26 Proposition 42, the "Public Records. Open Meetings. State Reimbursement to Local Agencies.

Legislative Constitutional Amendment" was approved by voters in 2014. It was the result of a dispute over a controversial bill that would stop local governments from being required to follow key provisions of the PRA. The State legislature had considered the bill to be a budget move, since at that time it was required to reimburse local governments for complying with some aspects of records requests. The backlash over the signing of this bill caused the legislature to rescind it and put the matter before the voters as a constitutional amendment. When it passed, by a 62% yes vote, it required local governments to comply with the PRA without being reimbursed by the State for the cost of public access to records."27 The full financial burden of compliance with the PRA now falls entirely on local governments.

Exemptions
While the PRA states that "the people" have the right to know what their government is doing, clearly circumstances arise where a balance must be achieved between the public interest and individual privacy rights. The PRA contains at least 76 express exemptions, for matters as diverse as library circulation records, copyright protected building plans, and medical and personnel records. 28 In some instances a public document may not be considered exempt but may contain private information such as social security numbers and home addresses. Those specific portions will be redacted before release to the public.

Government Code section 6254 specifies a large number of exemptions under the PRA. Several of the more notable exemptions are listed below:
• Records Not in Existence
The agency is under no obligation to create records where none exist; agencies are not required to provide records that may be produced in the future relevant to the original request. • Disclosure of records exempted by Federal or other State law Records shielded from disclosure by existing state or federal law, such as individual health records, are not accessible using the PRA.
• Public Interest Test and Deliberative Process Privilege Agencies may withhold certain records if they can demonstrate that the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by its disclosure. 26 Cal. Const., Art I, § 3, subd. (b )(1)
27 Cal. Const., Art. I, § 3, subd. (b )(7)
28 CA Govt Code § 6254
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
-36-
• Preliminary Drafts
Preliminary drafts, notes, or memos not normally preserved in the course of business are exempt.
• Attorney Client Communications
Confidential communications between lawyers and clients, and attorney work product, are exempt from disclosure.
• Pending Litigation
Records pertaining to pending litigation or claims to which a public agency is a party until the litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. • Personal Information
This exemption is intended to protect the confidentiality of personnel, medical or other similar files which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. • Trade Secrets
Businesses engaged in public contracts are not required to disclose their trade secrets in response to a PRA request.

Recourse When Responsive Documents Are Not Produced
If a local agency has unlawfully refused to disclose a public record, a person may ask a judge to enforce their rights under the PRA. This enforcement is primarily through a special, expedited civil judicial process. 29 The PRA provides specific relief in the form of court costs and attorneys' fees when an agency unlawfully denies access or copies of public records.

Conversely, a local agency cannot bring an action for relief to determine its obligation to disclose records. 30 That would require the person requesting documents to defend a civil action and discourage them from requesting records in the first place. It would frustrate the central purpose of the act and the constitutional amendments specifically designed to provide access to information.

The PRA is an indispensable tool for the responsible exercise of democracy in California.

Government transparency, accountability and effectiveness depend on how our local agencies handle the information they create and are entrusted with maintaining. A changing legal framework, the ubiquity of electronic records, new communications technologies and the treatment of their related records, and the public's demonstrated desire for "open government" present significant challenges to the efficient handling of PRA requests for the cities in our county.
29 CA Govt Code§ 6258 and 6259.
3° Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 426. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
-37-

DISCUSSION
As stated above, the PRA applies to all of the public agencies in San Mateo County. To narrow the focus of our investigation, the Grand Jury opted to concentrate on the 20 cities, including their police and other departments, and the committees and commissions formed by those cities.

Survey Respondents
The Grand Jury began by sending a survey to the 20 city managers in the County (a copy of the survey appears in Appendix A). It asked six questions related to the processing of public records requests, policies and procedures used, and the PRA training of staff and officials. In most cases (13 of 20) the responses came from city clerks who are responsible for maintaining a city's public records. Some of the clerks perform multiple roles for their cities, reflected in some cases (15%) by an additional job title. The following graphic illustrates the various job titles of survey respondents.

Count of Survey Respondent's Titles
Interim City Clerk

5.0%
Communications Director/City Clerk

10.0%
Town Manager

10.0%
City Clerk/Communications Coordinator

5.0%
City Attorney

10.0%
City Manager

15.0%
City Clerk

40.0%
Deputy Ci Manager/City Clerk

5.0%
In two cities, the city clerk position is determined by public election; in the remainder of the cities, clerks are appointed by the city manager. Our investigation found that the city clerk is typically the official primarily responsible for the acknowledging receipt of a PRA request, tracking it through the city's internal processes, and delivering correspondence and responsive records to the person submitting the request. 31
The Grand Jury conducted follow-up interviews with representatives of all 20 cities, confirming their survey responses and gathering additional information. We asked the cities to provide written documentation of their PRA policies and procedures, if any exist. Fourteen cities replied that they had existing policies or procedures and supplied them to the Grand Jury. We also conducted in-depth interviews with five selected cities. 32 These cities were chosen to give us a cross section sample based on city population, method of tracking, and volume of requests. The 31 In one city, the city attorney assumed most of this role, but even there the city clerk was involved in the process. 32 Belmont, Daly City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
-38-
Grand Jury notes that respondents from all 20 cities were entirely cooperative and knowledgeable about their city's PRA request procedures.

Documentation of PRA Policies and Procedures
The PRA does not require local agencies to create policies or documentation of how they receive, route, track, and fulfill records requests. When the Grand Jury asked respondents and interviewees to provide documentation describing how they handled PRA requests, we learned that six cities had no such documentation. 33 In some cases, the documentation received from the remaining 14 cities was simply a description of the PRA' s requirements (perhaps supplied to staff for training for information). The Grand Jury also received documents such as the city's internal procedures, as well as some that were formal policies signed and dated by the city manager. In interviews, all respondents could describe their processes.

The documentation received and reviewed by the Grand Jury varied widely. Atherton's document is a colorful presentation defining the PRA and describing what is and isn't a public record.

Public Records Requests
Town of Atherton Records Coordinators
What is the California Public Records Act?
The Public Records Act assures the public's right to access information concerning -...~..... 1,-,4.........,11,1,=,,i;.i, Adopted in 1968, the CPRA's legislative findings declare that access to information about the conduct of the public's business is a <n&:O<Jll&:I of every person in the state.

The findings also assert that the Legislature is mindful of the right of individual's privacy, and for the past 40+ years, courts have balanced those competing interests within the CPRA. 33 Grand Jury survey (December 2021) Belmont, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, and Woodside.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
-39-
It generally outlines city staffs role in responding to a request. In contrast, Redwood City's document is an administrative policy detailing the purpose and scope of how they respond to PRA requests. It notes specific types of records such as political reform act records and requests for electronic communications. It also specifies that the document will be reviewed every two years. Copies of the PRA documentation provided by Atherton and Redwood City can be found in Appendix B.

The Grand Jury noted that some cities relied on an individual staff member (city clerk or city attorney) to respond to records requests. In the event of illness, vacation, resignation or other interruption of service, no documentation exists to guide replacement personnel.

Written PRA policies or procedures provided to the Grand Jury typically covered subjects such as:
• The purpose of the PRA;
• Resources for PRA training;
• The steps in processing a request; and
• Specific staff responsibilities.

Website Portals
The Grand Jury found that while cities do receive PRA requests in various ways - submitted inperson at city offices, by telephone, and postal mail - they are most frequently submitted via email. We found that 16 of the 20 city websites included a portal containing a submittable form for the filing of a PRA request and four cities had no such form. 34 Every city website somewhere provides instructions on how to make a PRA request. Some have links to those instructions on the home page, but most require steps to navigate to it. In some cases, the Grand Jury found broken links indicating inconsistencies in the level of maintenance of the PRA related pages. Some city websites simply instruct the public to send a public records request to the city clerk and provide contact information including an email address, a phone number, or a physical address at which to file.
34 Belmont, Brisbane, Hillsborough, and Portola Valley. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
-40-
Example of Easy and Accessible PRA-Information on a City Website The website for the City of South San Francisco provides easily accessible information regarding PRA requests. The home page includes a "Public Records Request" link. t Home ! Online Services j Subscribe to fmall I Soria! Medi iii i Contact Us I Translate .,. CTI y (JI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CAI.IHlR'\ I A
•
Agendas and Minutes
Apply for a Job
Building Inspections
. .

City Meetings
Construction
. ...

Municipal Code
Online Pay and Services
• IW,ntTo ...

Report a Problem
Register for Classes
Start a Business
> NEWS & HELPFUL LINKS
nt ii\
City Council Library Recreation
I#
· Construction Police
I
:~
Agendas &
Minutes
Clicking on the link brings up a page full of useful titles including how to make a request, the city's PRA policy, who can make a request, and tips to expedite requests.

About Us
Boards and Commissions
+ City Council Meetings
City Council Agenda &
Epackets
+ Clerk Forms
+ 2021 Redistricting
District Elections
+ Elections
Fair Po litical Practices
+ Commission (FPPC)
Information
Maddy Act Roster
+ Municipal Code
Notary Services
+ Passport Services
- Public Records Request
Medlcal Records
Requests
Building Permit
Search (Jraklt)

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
Font Size: D ■ D Sha.re & Bootmark .. ~ • f!'.i:l1
Make a Public Records Request
The City Clerk·s Office handles Public Records Requests In compllance with California's Pub lie Records Act. In most cases your request will be fulfil led within 10 days. You can review previous requests and responsive documents, or submit a new request for public documents.

Policy Regarding Access to Public Records
The California Public Records Act declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state because it gives the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government. It is the City of South San Francisco's goal to provide the public with timely access to its public records.

What Is a Public Record
The Callfornia Government Code defines publlc records as, • ... any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used or retalned by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristic." For example, pub lic records can include. but are not limited to, papers. books, maps, charts, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, and information stored on a computer.

Who Can Request Public Records
Anyone may make a request to inspect or obtain a copy of a public record. A requester is not required to provide any personal identification or reason for the request. Completion of the Public Records Request Form makes the process more efficient.

Tips to Expedite a Request
To speed up your request. make your request as specific as possible about the records you are seeking. For example, you may want to provide a date range for your request, the department or 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
-41-
Clicking on "Public Records Request" takes the user to a third-party public records web application where they can search by request reference number, track the status of a previous request, view a public archive, and submit a new request. ( !TY I JF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO < ,\ I I ~ I J ll \;I,\
Public Records Center
Public Records Menu
-ft Home
Q. FAQs
~ Submit a Request
.&. My Request Center
FAQs
SeeAIIFAQsQ
How much does it cost to process my
request?
How long does it take to process my
request?
How can I review responsive records?
How detailed should I be when
explaining what I'm looking for?
Search by Reference Number Sear ch with a sped fic reference number to find your request.
0 Visit My Records Center Track the status of requests, manage account information, an:d download your records by logging into your account.

Submit a Request Submit a Public Records Request to the City.

View Public Archive
View previously released public record requests
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
-42-
Tracking a Public Records Request
Since the PRA mandates specific deadlines for public agencies to respond to a public records request, the ability to track submissions is vital in order to ensure legal compliance.35 All cities informed the Grand Jury that they track PRA requests, utilizing a variety of methods to do so.

Regardless of the specific method used by a city, the workflow is generally as follows. 35 CA Govt Code § 6253(c).

PRA Work.flow

SUBMITTAL
The request for a public record is submitted
through an on-line form, mail, an email, a phone
call, or in person.

TRAC1KING
Begin tracking the request. Acknowledge its
receipt.

VET
Evaluate request for fulfillment by clerk or other
relevant department staff.

GATHER
Search and collect responsive records
REVIEW
Review document(s) for exemptions and
redactions

RESPOND
Deliver responsiv e records to requester
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
-43-
Ten cities, which were generally smaller and field fewer requests, reported that they track PRA requests manually using an Excel spreadsheet or similar internal document. 36 These documents require manual data entry and maintenance by staff. For example, see San Bruno's spreadsheet at Appendix C. While these cities indicated general satisfaction with their current methods of tracking, one city was actively seeking proposals from commercial software vendors and others were considering doing so. Appendix D shows such a vendor's proposal.

The ten other cities, including most of the larger ones, use third-party software that automates the handling of PRA requests. 37 These cities use one of two software applications. 38 In interviews, staff generally expressed satisfaction with both products, citing their effectiveness and efficiency. Pricing of these applications will vary based on the configuration and storage options selected. One city indicated a desire to purchase software but cited the city's budget constraints.

Another city noted that the cost was prohibitive for a city of their size and volume of requests.

Volume of Requests
Thirteen cities reported receiving more than 100 PRA requests in the past year. Two cities reported receiving fewer than 50 requests, while one city indicated that it received more than 1,600 requests for records. Another city noted a 500% increase from the previous year. All cities reported significant increases in the volume of requests received since the outset of the Covid pandemic.

Subjects of Requested Records
All 20 cities reported that the majority of the PRA requests they received were for routine records such as property-related documents, police records, public works documents, and business registrations. For example, in San Mateo, the City Clerk's office recorded 1,695 PRA requests in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. The largest percentage ( 46%) were directed to the Community Development Department and typically asked for property records of some kind, including planning applications, building permits, blueprints, inspections, and code violations.

Requests for police records (3 5%) were the next most frequently requested type of record. The clerk's office noted that the police department directly receives substantially more requests than come to the clerk through their PRA request software.

Time-Consuming Requests
The Grand Jury learned that a relatively small number of records requests are disproportionately time-consuming to fulfill. In particular, requests for communications records may fall into this category. The request may require a broad search of all relevant communications created and 36 Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, San Bruno, and Woodside as of May 16, 2022.
37 Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco as of May 16, 2022.
38 GovQA, If You Have a Public Records Problem. https://www.govqa.com/solutions/public-records-software/ Retrieved May 16, 2022, and NextRequest, The All-In-One Open Records Request Platform. https://www.nextrequest.com/, retrieved May 16, 2022.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
-44-
stored on electronic devices, including employees' cell phones and laptops. Recently, Portola Valley received what was characterized as a "massive" PRA request for "all town communications regarding the housing element since July 1, 2021, including communications among elected officials, staff, consultants or members of the committee, like emails and text messages, including on personal devices."39 The request was the result of a potential change to the town's zoning laws to allow for more dense housing in one residential neighborhood.

Several cities reported to the Grand Jury that on rare occasions a disgruntled citizen or exemployee has intentionally crafted a detailed records request intending to be time-consuming and annoying for the city. One respondent reported that the search and review of electronics communications in response to one request took months to complete, due to the number of responsive records and the broad search of multiple devices.

Training
State law does not mandate training for those implementing its provisions. City clerks often attend training through annual City Clerks Association of California conferences and other professional associations.
39 Angela Swartz, "'Massive' public records request escalates battle over Portola Valley's housing element," Almanac, March 2 1, 2022.
https ://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/03 /21 /massive-pub lic-records-request-escalates-battle-over-portolavalleys-housing-element, retrieved June 9, 2022. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
-45-
Half of the cities interviewed by the Grand Jury mandate formal PRA training for their key employees. Others offer training but do not mandate it, while some cities have no formal arrangements for PRA training at all. 40 Training, if offered, is conducted by the city attorney. In our investigation, respondents agreed that formal training for key city employees would make the handling of records requests more efficient and consistent.

Twelve cities informed the Grand Jury that they provide PRA training for their appointed and elected officials. This training is also typically provided by the city attorney, sometimes with the assistance of the city clerk. Eight cities reported that they do not offer specific PRA training to such officials, but some noted that their training in Brown Act compliance includes PRA training content. 41
While the PRA does not include criminal penalties for noncompliance with its provisions, civil actions, as described earlier, may be filed and cities can be liable for court costs and attorneys' fees.

Increasing Efficiency in Records Request Processing
Some cities have demonstrated how commonly requested records can be made available to the public without formal PRA requests.

Making public records available online is a convenient and efficient mechanism for both the requester and the municipality. Cities generally do this for many common records, such as meeting agendas for public meetings (which are legally required to be posted publicly). 42 At the time of this investigation, some cities, such as San Carlos, also posted many records online. 40 Burlingame, Portola Valley, and Woodside.
41 BBK, Attorneys at Law, Summary of the Major Provisions and Requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. https://www.bbklaw.com/bbk/media/library/pdf/major-provisions-and-requirements-of-the-brown-act.pdf, retrieved June 9, 2022.
42 CA Govt Code§ 54954.2.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
-46-
Using the search term "public records" on the San Carlos city website brings up "Records Available Online for Your Easy Access," which connects to records such as budgets, building permits, and public works documents.

Submit a Public Records Request
If you are unabl'e to locate the records you want on line, please submit a Public Records Request via our NextRequest portal:

Request Records
Our goal is to provide you with timely access to the City's public records. All requests for documents will be reviewed and responded to within ten ( 10) days, in compliance with the California Public Records Act.

Fees are charged according to our fee schedule, however, there is no charge to review records in person at City Hall.
• Master fee schedule
Records Available Online for Your Easy Access
• Accounts Ra')".able cash disbursements journal
• Active business registrations
• Budgets
• Building Permits
• Cirt. Council and Commission agendas, minutes and videos • Cirt. MuniciRal Code
• Citt.wide ReRorts
• Financial Rer;iorts and Documents
• Ordinances and Resolutions
• Various Public Works Documents, including documents 12ertaining to sewers, streets, traffic, etc. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
•
18 -47-
The Half Moon Bay website offered a "Document Center" containing more than 2,000 city documents going back a decade.

Show all descrlpUons
□ ADA / 504 Grievance Forms
1, ■ BID/RFP Center
~ • City Clerk
~ ■ Cannabis Ballot Measures
lrA Manufacturing I ■ Mature Cultivation
■ Rebuttals
■ Retail
■ Starts
■ Tax
o ■ City Council Committee Ag end
■ City Council Photos 2020
■ Commissions/Committee Fo~rr
■ Council Actions
> ■ districting
■ Future Leaders
■ Smoking Ordinances
, ■ City Manager
1> ■ City Projects
■ Communications
1> ■ Community Development
■ COVID Testing
■ Emergency Prepardness
■ Engineering
1, ■ Finance
Homeless
, ■ Human Resources
■ Newsletters
■ Park,let Pfogram
1, ■ Public Works
1> ■ Rec.realion
1> ■ Sheriffs
■ Sidewalk R&R
1 1 Displaying items 1 - 5 of 5
I Display Name I Size (KB)
o ~ IA ManufacturingAdvisory 120
1> ~ Manufacturing~gument against mfg 100
, ~ Manufacturing WEB-argument for mfg 135
1> ~ Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure MM mfg.WEB 148 , ~ Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure MM mfg.WEB 148 Several cities noted that they often receive requests for the same records repeatedly. For example, this can occur when a sought-after property is offered for sale and brokers, architects, attorneys, and potential buyers are doing their due diligence. Cities using commercially provided software applications, or that post public records as do San Carlos and Half Moon Bay, can reduce the number of such duplicative PRA requests.

Records Management
Proper records management policies and practices facilitate effective compliance with the PRA.

Having better control of these records makes their timely and appropriate production more accurate and efficient. All cities in the County reported having records retention schedules that determine what documents must be retained and for how long. For example, in South San Francisco, leases for city owned properties must be kept in hard copy for the current year plus two-years. Board and commission resolutions must be kept permanently (a copy of the records retention schedule for South San Francisco is at Appendix E). 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
-48-
The City of San Mateo reported a unique method for encouraging city staff in one element of the effective management of public records. There, the city clerk held a "Records Clean Up Day" (related materials are contained in Appendix F). During this event employees are tasked with:
• Reducing the number of duplicate records;
• Preparing records for off-site storage;
• Imaging and indexing electronic records; and
• Identifying electronic records eligible for destruction.

The retention life cycle of various records determined how different categories of documents are handled. The program was designed to create an enjoyable environment around these tedious tasks by employing a food truck, encouraging casual dress, creating contests with prizes, and printing T-shirts commemorating the day. The program included an on-site shred truck, and the city attorney was available for consultation.

In an email to the Grand Jury, a city staffer wrote, "In addition to elevating the employee understanding that these public records are an asset of the city Gust like the vac truck, fleet, and streets) ... we have a duty to manage and maintain them well; reinforce the policy and procedures we have adopted; and let's face it, maintaining records can become back burner in the flurry of day-to-day needs and requests. Setting aside time to honor the need, accomplish an objective and then celebrate it- keeps it more in the forefront of the mind and honors the importance of the public's records." 43
43 Grand Jury correspondence April 26, 2022.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
•
-49-
Law Enforcement Records
Some cities reported receiving significant numbers of requests for police records. All such requests were forwarded directly to city police departments or the County Sheriffs Office (for those cities contracting for police services).44 Law enforcement agencies typically employ a records manager tasked with responding to public records requests. In some cities the disposition of these requests was reported back to the city clerk for inclusion in their tracking systems; in others, the city clerk had no knowledge of the status of a police records request. The Grand Jury did not investigate how these requests for law enforcement records were handled in compliance with the PRA. It is of note that most law enforcement records are exempted from the Public Records Act pursuant to Government Code Section 6254(£).

FINDINGS
Fl. The city has no written documentation of its PRA policy and internal procedures, making it more likely that requests could be handled inconsistently.

F2. The city uses a commercially available software application that includes a web portal enabling the public to easily request records and track their disposition.

F3. Information about how to access public records requires multiple clicks to find on the city's website, which hinders the public's access to public records.

F4. The City of San Mateo implements a Records Cleanup Day with the purpose of increasing employee understanding of the need to effectively maintain public records, thereby improving PRA request responsiveness.

F5. The city has no PRA request form online, making public access to public records less efficient.

RECOMMENDATIONS
RI. The city council should direct city staff to consider and report back by June 30, 2023, on the creation of a written PRA policy or procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff.

R2. The city council should direct city staff to consider performing a cost/benefit analysis and report back by September 1, 2023, on the purchase of commercially available public records request software.

R3 . By June 30, 2023, the city council should consider directing city staff to place information about how to access public records on the home page of the city's official website.

R4. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo's "Records Cleanup Day."
RS. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to create, on the city clerk's page of its website, a submittable PRA request form.
44 Contracting cities are Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, San Carlos, Woodside, and Portola Valley. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21
-50-

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses from the selected city and town councils as follows (x):

City Fl F2 F3 F4 F5 Rl R2 R3 R4 R5
Atherton X X X X X
Belmont X X X X X X X X
Brisbane X X X X X X
Burlingame X X
Colma X X
Daly City X X X X
East Palo Alto X X
Foster City X X
Half Moon Bay X X X X X
Hillsborough X X X X X X X
Menlo Park X X X X X
Millbrae X X
Pacifica X X
Portola Valley X X X X X X
Redwood City X X X
San Bruno X X X X X
San Carlos X X
San Mateo X X
South San Francisco X X
Woodside X X X X X
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
-51-

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05, provides (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

METHODOLOGY
Through examination of surveys, interviews, the documentation provided by the cities, a demonstration of third-party software, and a site visit, the Grand Jury studied how cities respond to public records requests, and how they keep up with changes in the law.

Survey
• The Grand Jury developed an online survey consisting of six questions and a request for copies of their PRA policies and procedures.
• The survey was sent to all 20 city managers in the County and various respondents completed the survey.
• We then followed up with a brief phone interview to confirm the responses received from those completing the survey, and to request written policy and procedures documents and records retention policies.
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
-52-
Documents
The Grand Jury reviewed:
• Policy and procedure documents from all cities that indicated having them. • Records retention policies from several cities.
• Proposals and contracts for third-party software received from various vendors • Marketing material of third-party software vendors
• Research on best practices in records management
Site Tour
• GJ conducted a site visit to the San Bruno City Attorney's office. • San Mateo conducted a virtual demonstration of their third-party software.

Interviews
• The Grand Jury conducted further interviews with city attorneys, city clerks and city managers based on those with written policies or procedures documents, training of key employees and elected and appointed officials ( advisory bodies), number of public records requests received per year, and those with an elected city clerk.

Web Sites
• The official websites of the 20 cities in the County were reviewed to assess the ease in locating information relating to public records, the methods of submission of a public records request, as well as users' direct access to commonly requested public records.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• League of California Cities (Revised April 2017). The People's Business: A Guide to the California Records Act. Sacramento, CA.
• League of California Cities. "Open and Public V: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act." Accessed May 24, 2022. https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/cityattorneys/open-public-v-revised-2016.pdf?sfvrsn=995414c9 3. • Best Best & Krieger. "The Engineering of Public Records Processing." December 2021 Accessed May 24, 2022. https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/city-clerks-newlaw-and-elections-seminar---session-materials/the-engineering-of-public-recordsprocessing. pdf. • Californians Aware (2004). Top 10 Points to Remember about Exemptions from the California Public Records Act. Carmichael, CA.
• GovQA. "Best Practices for Fulfilling Public Records Requests." Accessed May 11, 2022. www.GovOA.com-best-practices-fulfilling-public-records-reguests. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
-53-
• NextRequest. "Current Issues Affecting Public Records Request Management." https://www.nextrequest.com/blog/current-issues-affecting-public-records-requestmanagement, accessed May 11, 2022. • Stephan A. Barber. "The California Public Records Act: The Public's Right of Access to governmental Information." 7 Pac.L.J. (1976). Accessed May 24, 2022. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2423&context=mlr • California Government Code - GOV Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5, Sections 6250 - 6276.50 Inspection of Public Records.
• Ballotpedia. "Transparency Checklist". https://ballotpedia.org/Transparency _ checklist.

Accessed June 7, 2022
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
-54-

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - The Grand Jury Survey Results
Appendix B - PRA Policies and Procedures: Atherton and Redwood City Appendix C - San Bruno PRA Request Log
Appendix D - GovQA Proposal for Services
Appendix E - South San Francisco Retention Schedule
Appendix F - City of San Mateo's Clean-Up Day Staff Plan and Flyer 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
-55-
What is your job title?
20 responses
8 6
4 2
0 City Attorney

APPENDIX A
The Grand Jury Survey Results
City Clerk City Manager Communications Dir... Executive Assistant.. .

City Clerk City Clerk/Communi... Communications Dir... Deputy City Manage... Town Ma ...

2. Have you established internal written procedures, or policies, for handling Public Records Act requests? If YES, please provide documentation to: [email protected]. 20 responses
e vEs
. NO
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
-56-

3. Please indicate if you use any of the following to track the status of each Public Records Act request.
- YES - NO
15 10
5 0
Manually Track Third-party Software

4. How many requests do you receive per year?
20 responses
Internally Developed Software
• 1-25
• 26-50
• 51-100
e More than 100
e Not Sure
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
•
28 -57-

5. Does your city mandate formal Public Records Act training for key employees? 20 responses
e vEs
e NO

6. Does your city offer Public Records Act training for elected and appointed officials (i.e. advisory boards, commissions, committees)?
- YES - NO
10 5
0 Elected Officials

7. Have you adopted a written document retention policy? 20 responses
e vEs
. NO
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Appointed Officials
29 -58-

APPENDIXB
PRA Policies and Procedures: Atherton and Redwood City
Atherton: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand jury/2021/ Appendix B - PRA PAP Atherton.pdf
Redwood City: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand jury/2021/Appendix B - PRA PAP Redwood City.pdf
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
-59-
1±1
• PRA ~ Date of -· 1 X 07/01121
2 X 07/01121
3 X 07/07121
4 X 07108/21
5 X 07/13121
6 X 07/13/21
7 X
8 X 07114121
9 X 07115/21
10 X 07/17121
11 X 07/20121
12 X 07/19121
13 X 07/22121
14 X 07/09121

APPENDIXC
San Bruno PRA Request Log
(sample page with requester names removed)
Date Requester Name 2,8,:,cription of Dept(s) Rel,F-llse -
07/01/21 ~une 2021 Building pennits CD 07/12121
07/01/21 Docs re CPUC approval of PW 07/12/21 ourchase of streetliahts from Records involving code CD/CE/FD/ 07119/21 07/07/21 "nforcement, utility shut offs, Finance 08/18/21 ~nd fire damaged properties 07/08/21 µune 2021 Business licenses Finance 07/19/21
7/13/2021 Wun e 2021 Building pennits CD 07123/21
Records involving code CD/CE/FD/ 7/23/2021 07/13121 enforcement, utility shut offs, Finance 08/23/21 and fire damaged properties Subpoena for records :involving CE/CD/ 07/19/21 692 Green Ave PW 07/15121 Oldest current standing houses CO?? 07/26121 in SB 07/15121
Private tows from 04/01/21 thru PD 07/26121 06/30/21
Etectronic copy of all payment
07/19/21 transactions for fiscal year Finance 07/29/21
2020
07/20121 2020 Pension BenefiUPayout
Reoort
Finance omo121
07/20/21 Uncashed checks Finance 07 /30121
07/22/21 Building & FD ~ for 787 E
SB Ave
CD/FD 08/02121
07/09/21 Firearm & Ammunition arrests PD 7/19/2021
~ mlalell demographic 08/18121
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
l4cknowledgment Records ~ .. .... ...
!Emailed ~ on 07/08121 07108/21
Emailed ~ on 07/08/21 718 /2021
eq ~ m-now due 08/18/21 .

Emailed ~ on 08/18121 08/1 8/21
emailed report on 07/19/21 07/19/21
mailed ~ on 07/13/21 7113/2021
07/23/21 req ~ m -nowdue
08/23/21. Emailed ~ on 08/18121. 08118/21
):mailed ~ on 07123/21 07/23/21
mailed ~ on 07/23121 X
Emailed report on 07/26/21 07/26/21
~ ailed link to agenda packets on 7/29/2021 ~7/29/21
j<equest was meant for Ctty of Concord - Withdrawn
withdrawn on 07/31/21
Em.ailo.eJl.link to website on 07/29/21 7/29/2021
Emailed ~ on 08/02/21 812/2021
eq ~ m-now due 08/18/21. 8/18/2021 Emailed ~ on 08/18/21 31 -60-

PRICING SUMMARY

APPENDIXD
GovQA Proposal for Services
The pricing and terms within this Proposal are specific to the products. and volumes contained within lhiis Proposal.

FreqNncy
FOIA Pla1form Onboarding Up Fronl 1 Ea·ch
Onlrne Training - Adm in~strator Up Fron · I Ea.ch
Online Training - Users Up Fronl 1 Each
Essentials Package 3
An nual 1 Each
PST Email Extractor Annual 1 Each
Payments Mod:ule
Annual 1 Each
l-lo$fed Data1 Storage (TS) Annual 1 Each
l'n.voicing Mod'ule
Annual I Each
FOIA Modufe for Enterprise Sales Annual I Ea.ch
Redacti'.on License (per named user} Annual 3Eoch
ADFS/Single Sign•on Module
Annual I Each
Advanced! Em ail Tracking Annual 1 Each
SUITOTAL:
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Order Form
$0.00
$0.00
32 -61-
Order Form
G"RA N ICUS

FUTUR YEAR PRICING
I --
I
Essentials Package 3 $ 11,235.00 $12,02 1.45
PST Email Extractor $ 1.605.00 $ 1.717.35
Payments Module $0.00 $0.0C
Ho.sted Data Storage !TB) $0,00 $0.0C
Invoicing Module $0100 $0.0C
FOIA Module for Enterprise Sales $0.00 $0.0C
Redaction License (per named user) $0.00 $0.0C
ADFS/Single Sign-on Module $0.00 $0.0C
Advanced Email Tracking $0.00 $0.00
SUBTOTAL: $12,840.0CI $13,731.ICl
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
-62-

APPENDIXE
South San Francisco Records Retention Schedule 2016
https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand jury/2021/ Appendix E - SSF Retention Schedule 2016.pdf
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
-63-

APPENDIXF
City of San Mateo's Clean-Up Day Staff Plan and Flyer
San Mateo Records Clean-Up Day Staff Plan
Department/Location/Division: ________________ _
Your Name: ________________ _
Goal(s) for clean-up day (select all that apply)
D Prepare paper records for destruction
D Dispose of duplicate records
D Prepare records for off-site storage
D Sort through off-site storage records
D File paper files
D Develop file inventory
Date of Clean-Up: May OS. 2022 Cinco De Mayo
This Form Due To Your Dept. Record Coordinator 4/28/22
Demail clean-up {delete unnecessary emails. Move attachments that are records to the correct records repository e.g., One Drive, SharePoint, Laserfiche)
identify electronic records that are eligible for destruction Focus on imaging, indexing electronic records
□ Ensure website content is accurate and up-to-date (Remove old/outdated documents and/ or pages from website)
Oother: ______________ _
Key Activities and Strategies: What will you do to accomplish these goals? Be as specific as possible. 2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
-64-
,
, 1re __ ,__ 13~ s~ 'flttiWf
, ANNUAL C CO D MAYO
, RECORDS CLEAN UP DAY PICNIC
,
, L t's Ce/ M te being tog 1her in p rson again
,
,
,
with a picnic of speci lty taco,s in our /Jacky rd' with your coll gu s! How to join the fun (and y,es, records clean-up is fun!) 1 .. Ask your Department's Records Coordinator for a records clean-up commitment form.

2. Choose from a list o.f clean-up activities or create your own

3. Sign the form and provide it to your Re·cords Coordinator by April 28, 2022 - this is your RSVP for the luncheon. Sorry: No form - no tacos.

4. On or before 5/5/22 clean-up, purge, & organize those records!.

Qu stions? Talk to your Records Coordinator
or Alesha Boyd in the City Clerk's Office
Join us for Tacos in City Hall B ckyard
11:00 am - 12:30 pm
C ourte:sy of the Clerks for anyone who committed to
Records Clea up
• Salad
• acos - Grilled Chicken, Steak, Carnitas
• Veggie Spanish Rice a nd Veggie Beans
• Grilled Veggies 1...___ _ _ _
• Guacamole, sour cream and cheese fixins -
• Com tortillas
• Chips and Salsa
• Churros fur dessert! Yum!
2021-22 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
36 -65-
October 11, 2022
Honorable Amara A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Re: Grand Jury Report - “A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know”
Honorable Judge Lee:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced Grand Jury Report released on August 9, 2022. The Town of Hillsborough’s response to both the findings and recommendations are listed below.

FINDINGS:

F1. The city has no written documentation of its PRA policy and internal procedures, making it more likely that requests could be handled inconsistently.

Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the Finding. While the Town has no formal written documentation of its PRA policy and internal procedures, the Town is a small agency and staff are aware and routinely reminded of the process through training and communications from the City Clerk. The City Clerk logs and tracks all records requests and works closely with the City Attorney to review records and respond to all requests per the timelines specified in the Public Records Act.

F3. Information about how to access public records requires multiple clicks to find on the city's website, which hinders the public's access to public records.

Response: The respondent disagrees with this Finding. Using the search term “records” yields the Town’s “Public Records Center” page as the first result. In addition, from the Town’s home page, after clicking on “City Clerk” from the Departments list, “Public Records Center” is a link in the left menu of the page. In response to this finding, the term “Records” have been added to the list of options under the “I Want To” menu on the Town’s home page.

F5. The city has no PRA request form online, making public access to public records less efficient.

Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the Finding. While the Town had no Public Records Act request form at the time that the report was issued, a form is not required per the Public Records Act and the current process of emailing, mailing or providing verbal requests to the City Clerk has been efficient. However, to respond to this finding, the City Clerk created a form and posted it on the Town website on September 14, 2022.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

ATTACHMENT 2
-66-
October 11, 2022

Page 2 ends

R1. The city council should direct city staff to consider and report back by June 30, 2023, on the creation of a written PRA policy or procedures document for circulation to all relevant staff.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented operationally by staff by January 31, 2023.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted at this time. The Town acknowledges that software could be beneficial but is currently implementing other software to provide the public with easier access to Council meeting documents and agenda items. Staff will continue to review the volume and complexity of records requests and will evaluate the need for a commercially available public records request software in the future, including performance of a cost/benefit analysis for presentation to the City Council at that time.

R4. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to review and consider adopting a records management practice analogous to the City of San Mateo's "Records Cleanup Day." Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future and by June 30, 2023, following Council adoption of the Town’s updated records retention schedule.

R5. By June 30, 2023, the city council should direct city staff to create, on the city clerk's page of its website, a submittable PRA request form.

Response: The recommendation has been implemented operationally by staff. The City Clerk created a form and posted it on the Town website on September 14, 2022.

This response to the Grand Jury was approved by the Town of Hillsborough City Council at a public meeting on October 10, 2022.

Respectfully,
Alvin L. Royse
Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
-67-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
5 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974 SUMMARY: The State of California enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000, et seq. (the "Act"), which contains provisions relating to conflicts of interest which potentially affect all officers, employees and consultants of the Town of Hillsborough (the “Town”), and which requires all public agencies to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code.

The City Council adopted an amended Conflict of Interest Code on September 14, 2020 by Resolution No. 20-75. Subsequent changed circumstances within the Town have made it advisable and necessary pursuant to Sections 87306 and 87307 of the Act to amend and update the Code. The amendments include listing new positions that must be designated, revises titles of existing positions and delete titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions..

Notices of these amendments were provided to the public and all affected designated positions as required under the Political Reform Act and FPPC Regulations.

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Notice of Intention of Amend

3. Conflict of Interest Code (redline version)

4. Conflict of Interest Code (clean version)
PREPARED BY: Christopher J. Diaz
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving and adopting the amended Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974. -69-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough, County of San Mateo, State of California, that
WHEREAS, the State of California enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000, et seq. (the "Act"), which contains provisions relating to conflicts of interest governing officers, employees and consultants of the Town of Hillsborough (the “Town”), and which requires all public agencies to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Conflict of Interest Code (the "Code") which was amended on September 14, 2020, in compliance with the Act; and WHEREAS, subsequent changed circumstances within the Town have made it advisable and necessary pursuant to Sections 87306 and 87307 of the Act to amend and update the Town’s Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of a public meeting on, and of consideration by the City Council of, the proposed amended Code was provided to each affected designated employee and was publicly posted for review; and WHEREAS, a public meeting was held upon the proposed amended Code at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 10, 2022, at which all present were given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed amended Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, determined and ordered by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough, California, that:

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby approve and adopt the proposed amended Conflict of Interest Code, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and shall be on file with the City Clerk and available to the public for inspection and copying during regular business hours.

SECTION 2. The amended Conflict of Interest Code shall become effective on the date of its adoption and approval.

SECTION 3. All previously adopted conflict of interest codes and amendments are rescinded upon approval and adoption of the attached amended and updated Conflict of Interest Code.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
-70-
ATTACHMENT 1
2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2022. ______________________________
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
____________________________
Attest: City Clerk
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-71-
61236.01000\40717277.1

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE CONFLICT OF

INTEREST CODE OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough intends to amend the Town’s Conflict of Interest Code (the “Code”) pursuant to Government Code Section 87306.

The Code designates those employees, members, officers, and consultants who are subject to the disclosure and disqualification requirements of the Town’s Code. The proposed amendments include new positions that must be designated, revisions to titles of existing positions and deletion of titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions.

The proposed amended Code will be considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on October 10, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. at Town Hall, 1600 Floribunda Avenue, California and online via Zoom Video Conference at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86950698095?pwd=cEFjdnRtSDkwUlFqazlNdlBJL1BRZz09.

Any interested person may be present and comment at the public meeting or may submit written comments concerning the proposed amended Code. Any comments or inquiries should be directed to the attention of Lisa Natusch, City Clerk, Town of Hillsborough, 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough CA 94010; [email protected]; or (650) 375-7421. Written comments must be submitted no later than October 10, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.

The proposed amended Code may be reviewed at, and copies obtained from, the office of the City Clerk.
-72-
ATTACHMENT 2
61236.01000\40717011.1

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
BBK – August 2020 September 2022

LEGISLATIVE VERSION
(SHOWS CHANGES MADE)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
-73-
ATTACHMENT 3
61236.01000\40717011.1

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
1 BBK – August 2020 September 2022

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
(Amended September 14, 2020 October 10, 2022)
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, (tit. 2 Cal. Code of Regs, § 18730), that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, Regulation 18730 may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This incorporation page, Regulation 18730 and the attached Appendix designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Town of Hillsborough (”Town").

The Mayor, Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Treasurer and Finance Director, shall electronically file their annual statements of economic interests directly with the Fair Political Practices Commission. All other officials and designated positions required to submit a statement of economic interests shall file their statements with the City Clerk as the City’s Town’s Filing Officer. All officials and designated positions required to submit a statement of economic Interests shall file their statements with the City Clerk as the Town’s Filing Officer. The City Clerk shall make and retain a copy of all statements filed by the Mayor, members of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Treasurer, and forward the originals of these statements to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

The City Clerk shall retain the original statements filed by all other officials and designated positions and will make all retained statements available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours. (Gov. Code § 81008) -74-
61236.01000\40717011.1

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. A-1 BBK – August 2020 September 2022

APPENDIX

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
(Amended September 14, 2020 October 10, 2022)
PART “A”
The Mayor, members of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer, and all other Town Officials who manage public investments, as defined by Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18700.3(b), are NOT subject to the Town’s Conflict of Interest Code but must file disclosure statements under Government Code section 87200, et seq. [Regs. § 18730(b)(3).]

OFFICIALS WHO MANAGE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
It has been determined that the positions listed below are other Town officials who manage public investments1. These positions are listed here for informational purposes only.

Finance Director
Financial Advisory Committee
Investment Consultant
1 Individuals holding one of the above-listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe that their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination whether a position is covered by § 87200. -75-
61236.01000\40717011.1

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. A-2 BBK – August 2020 September 2022

DESIGNATED POSITIONS

GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED
City Attorney’s Office
Assistant City Attorney 1, 2
City Manager’s Office
Assistant City Manager 1, 2
Human Resources Manager 5
Human Resources Specialist 5
City Clerk 5
Management Analyst I/II 5
Senior Management Analyst 5
Building & Planning Department
Assistant Director of Building & Planning 2, 3, 5, 6
Assistant Planner 2, 3, 6
Associate Planner 2, 3, 6
Building Inspector (All) 6
Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6
Chief Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6
Consulting Planner 1, 2
Director of Building and Planning 1, 2
Planning Manager 2, 3, 5, 6
Senior Planner 2, 3, 6
Finance Department
Assistant Finance Director 4
Budget Analyst 4
Police Department
Communications Manager 5
Management Analyst I/II 5
Police Captain (2) 5
Police Chief 5
Police Lieutenant 5
Records Supervisor 5
-76-
61236.01000\40717011.1

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. A-3 BBK – August 2020 September 2022
Public Works Department
Associate Civil Engineer 2, 3, 5
City Engineer 1, 2
Deputy Director of Public Works 1, 2
Director of Public Works 1, 2
GIS Coordinator 5
Senior Civil Engineer 2, 3, 5
Management Analyst I/II 2, 5, 7
Public Works Assistant Superintendent 5
Public Works Inspector 6
Public Works Superintendent 5
Public Works Supervisor (All) 5
Members of Boards, Committees
& Commissions
Architecture and Design Review Board 1, 2
Code Enforcement Hearing Panel 2, 3, 5
Consultants & New Positions 2
2 Individuals serving as a consultant as defined in FPPC Reg 18700.3(a) or in a new position that makes or participates in making decisions must file under the broadest disclosure set forth in this Code subject to the following limitation:

The City Manager may determine that, due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. A clear explanation of the duties and a statement of the extent of the disclosure requirements must be in a written document. (Gov. Code Sec. 82019; FPPC Regulations 18219 and 18734.). The City Manger’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Gov.

Code Sec. 81008.)
-77-
61236.01000\40717011.1

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. B-1 BBK – August 2020 September 2022
PART “B"

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
The disclosure categories listed below identify the types of economic interests that the designated position must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she the designated is assigned.3 “Investment” means financial interest in any business entity (including a consulting business or other independent contracting business) and are reportable if they are either located in, doing business in, planning to do business in, or have done business during the previous two years in the jurisdiction of the Town.

Category 1: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments.

Category 2: All interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside, the boundaries of the Town, including any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or option to acquire property.

Category 3: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that are engaged in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the Town.

Category 4: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the Town.

Category 5: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the designated position’s department, unit or division.

Category 6: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the designated employee's department, unit or division.

Category 7: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, or income from a nonprofit organization, if the source is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the Town or its subdivisions.
3 This Conflict of Interest Code does not require the reporting of gifts from outside this agency’s jurisdiction if the source does not have some connection with or bearing upon the functions or duties of the position. (Reg. 18730.1)
-78-
61236.01000\40717011.2

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
BBK – September 2022

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
-79-
ATTACHMENT 4
61236.01000\40717011.2

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
1 BBK – September 2022

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
(Amended October 10, 2022)
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, (tit. 2 Cal. Code of Regs, § 18730), that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, Regulation 18730 may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This incorporation page, Regulation 18730 and the attached Appendix designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Town of Hillsborough (”Town").

The Mayor, Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer and Finance Director, shall electronically file their annual statements of economic interests directly with the Fair Political Practices Commission. All other officials and designated positions required to submit a statement of economic interests shall file their statements with the City Clerk as the Town’s Filing Officer. All officials and designated positions required to submit a statement of economic Interests shall file their statements with the City Clerk as the Town’s Filing Officer. The City Clerk shall make and retain a copy of all statements filed by the Mayor, members of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Treasurer, and forward the originals of these statements to the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City Clerk shall retain the original statements filed by all other officials and designated positions and will make all retained statements available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours. (Gov. Code § 81008) -80-
61236.01000\40717011.2

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. A-1 BBK – September 2022

APPENDIX

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
(Amended October 10, 2022)
PART “A”
The Mayor, members of the City Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer, and all other Town Officials who manage public investments, as defined by Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18700.3(b), are NOT subject to the Town’s Conflict of Interest Code but must file disclosure statements under Government Code section 87200, et seq. [Regs. § 18730(b)(3).]

OFFICIALS WHO MANAGE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
It has been determined that the positions listed below are other Town officials who manage public investments1
. These positions are listed here for informational purposes only.

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. A-2 BBK – September 2022

DESIGNATED POSITIONS

GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED
City Attorney’s Office
Assistant City Attorney 1, 2
City Manager’s Office
Assistant City Manager 1, 2
Human Resources Manager 5
City Clerk 5
Management Analyst I/II 5
Senior Management Analyst 5
Building & Planning Department
Assistant Director of Building & Planning 2, 3, 5, 6
Assistant Planner 2, 3, 6
Associate Planner 2, 3, 6
Building Inspector (All) 6
Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6
Chief Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6
Consulting Planner 1, 2
Director of Building and Planning 1, 2
Planning Manager 2, 3, 5, 6
Senior Planner 2, 3, 6
Finance Department
Assistant Finance Director 4
Budget Analyst 4
Police Department
Communications Manager 5
Management Analyst I/II 5
Police Captain (2) 5
Police Chief 5
Police Lieutenant 5
Records Supervisor 5
-82-
61236.01000\40717011.2

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. A-3 BBK – September 2022
Public Works Department
Associate Civil Engineer 2, 3, 5
City Engineer 1, 2
Deputy Director of Public Works 1, 2
Director of Public Works 1, 2
GIS Coordinator 5
Senior Civil Engineer 2, 3, 5
Management Analyst I/II 2, 5, 7
Public Works Assistant Superintendent 5
Public Works Inspector 6
Public Works Superintendent 5
Public Works Supervisor (All) 5
Members of Boards, Committees
& Commissions
Architecture and Design Review Board 1, 2
Code Enforcement Hearing Panel 2, 3, 5
Consultants & New Positions 2
2 Individuals serving as a consultant as defined in FPPC Reg 18700.3(a) or in a new position that makes or participates in making decisions must file under the broadest disclosure set forth in this Code subject to the following limitation:

Code Sec. 81008.)
-83-
61236.01000\40717011.2

LAW OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
App. B-1 BBK – September 2022
PART “B"

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
The disclosure categories listed below identify the types of economic interests that the designated position must disclose for each disclosure category to which the designated is assigned.3 “Investment” means financial interest in any business entity (including a consulting business or other independent contracting business) and are reportable if they are either located in, doing business in, planning to do business in, or have done business during the previous two years in the jurisdiction of the Town.

Category 1: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments.

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
6 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
SUMMARY: On March 17, 2020, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings completely telephonically or by other electronic means.

The provisions in the Brown Act that were suspended by the Governor’s Executive Order are contained at Government Code Section 54953(b)(3) and require that when teleconferencing is used, outside of a statewide emergency, that the following occur:
• An agenda is required to be posted at all locations, including any teleconference locations • Each teleconference location must be identified on the actual agenda • Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public • A quorum of the legislative body must be in the jurisdiction With the Governor’s Executive Order, the four above requirements were suspended allowing Councilmembers to not have to post an agenda at their teleconference location, not have to identify their location on the meeting agenda, not have to ensure public accessibility at the teleconference location, and the legislative body did not need a quorum in the jurisdiction. This has allowed the City Council, Administrative Hearing Panel, Architecture and Design Review Board, Citizens Communication Advisory Committee and Financial Advisory Committee meetings to be conducted by Zoom with Councilmembers, board/committee members and staff joining from remote virtual locations.

The suspension of certain provisions of the Brown Act was further extended by the Governor on June 11, 2021 by the issuance of Executive Order N-08-21 which continued to allow for complete virtual meetings until September 30, 2021.

With the expiration of the Governor’s Executive Order along with the uncertainty that surrounded the Governor’s potential recall, the State Legislature also took the remote meeting issue into its own hands through the adoption of Assembly Bill 361, which is explained in more depth in the Analysis section below.

On October 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-87, making findings that state or local officials continue to recommend social distancing measures to prevent the spread of COVID19 and including reference in particular to Cal-OSHA regulation 3205 which recommends physical -85-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

distancing in the workplace. The adoption of this resolution was consistent with enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 361.

The City Council reconfirmed the findings of Resolution No. 21-87 on November 8, 2021, November 22, 2021, December 13, 2021, January 10, 2022, February 14, 2022, March 14, 2022, April 11, 2022, May 9, 2022, June 13, 2022, July 11, 2022, August 8, 2022, August 25, 2022 and September 12, 2022 as required by AB 361.

On March 14, 2022, the City Council also provided direction to staff on a planned hybrid meeting approach beginning with the April 11, 2022 City Council meeting.

ANALYSIS
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, which allows legislative bodies to meet virtually provided there is a state of emergency declared by the Governor, and either (1) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (2) the legislative body determines by majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees.

At this time, staff is recommending a reconfirmation of the findings contained in Resolution No. 21- 87 to ensure that there is no gap in the ability of the City Council, boards and committees to attend virtually as necessary.

FISCAL IMPACT: The City Council’s approval of a motion to continue with virtual meetings will maintain the status quo and no financial impact is anticipated by approval of the motion. The move to hybrid meetings required additional technical equipment which has been purchased and installed.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The City Council’s reconfirmation of the findings is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b)(5) as it constitutes an organizational or administrative activity of the government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 21-87
PREPARED BY: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a motion to reconfirm the findings and determinations made in Resolution No. 21-87 pursuant to Assembly Bill 361, with acknowledgment that the California Department of Public Health has updated the definition of “close contact” in Regulation 3205 from being within six feet of another person to sharing the same indoor space with another person for 15 minutes or more, which further supports the findings. -86-
RESOLUTION NO. 21-87

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER AB 361 FOR

THE CONTINUATION OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS FOR ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code§ 54950 et seq.) generally requires local agencies meeting via teleconference, including through other virtual or electronic means, to, among other things, provide public access at each location in which members of the legislative body are teleconferencing; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature recently enacted Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361 ), which amended Government Code section 54953 to allow local agencies to meet fully virtually, without fully adhering to the rules otherwise applicable to teleconferencing, during a proclaimed state of emergency if state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency on March 4, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act, and this proclaimed state of emergency currently remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in particular, Cal-OSHA regulation 3205 recommends physical distancing in the workplace generally and regulates a "close contact" defined as being within 6 feet of another under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, in order to continue to impose social distancing while holding in-person meetings there is a high likelihood that members of the public would not all be able to be present in the meetings spaces; and
WHEREAS, the continuation of virtual meetings will allow for full participation by members of the public until social distancing recommendations are no longer necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough desires that all Town legislative bodies continue to hold virtual meetings pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code section 54953(e).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
-87-

1. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The City Council and all other legislative bodies of the Town of Hillsborough who are required to hold open and public meetings, shall continue to meet virtually in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and without compliance with section 54953(b)(3) based upon the findings and determinations hereby made by the City Council.

3. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 11th day of October 2021, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers Royse, Kralik, Chuang, Cole
NOES: Councilmembers None
-------------------
ABSENT: Councilmembers Ma
-~-----------------
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers None
-------------------
-88-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
7 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED CM, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION

The goal of the project is to construct, test, and commission a new two million-gallon (MG) aboveground circular prestressed concrete water tank constructed in accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) D-110. The new 2 MG Darrell Tank is replacing the older and smaller Darrell Tanks #1 and #2 within their footprints. The tanks have reached the end of their useful life and have seriously degraded coatings. The new prestressed concrete tank includes new on-site yard piping comprising inlet pipes from the Marlborough, Skyfarm and Crocker pump stations, tank outlet pipes, an inlet control valve station, tank drain, storm drain piping and appurtenances.

The Town is in need a full time construction manager and inspector to support the Public Works Department throughout construction of the new tank. Staff will not be able to provide this management in house due to staff planned leave. A special inspector is required for the concrete, structural, and concrete work. Staff developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services.

The RFP was advertised through the Town website, and staff also directly contacted three firms specializing in this type of work. After a detailed review of all proposals received, staff invited two firms for an interview based on criteria identified in the RFP, proposal detail and quality, and demonstrated ability to provide construction management and inspection services for other comparable water tank projects. Staff interviewed both firms and after careful evaluation, staff identified Consolidated CM, Inc. as the preferred consultant to provide the requested services based on their past project experience, technical methodology and approach, familiarity with the Town, and client-oriented approach.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is currently insufficient funding in the Darrell Tank Improvement (Capital Improvement Plan #704.19) Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 to award the scope of these services.

Due to temporary staffing needs, construction management and inspection services are needed to support the Public Works Department and additional budget is needed. To meet budget compliance in FY 2022-23, it is recommended that the City Council approve a budget amendment in the Water Fund CIP #704.19 in the amount of $499,728.00, which is the additional amount needed to provide sufficient funding for this project.
-89-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

It is recommended that funding for construction management and inspection services for the Darrell Water Tank Replacement Project be allocated from the amended budget for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Darrell Tank Improvement (Capital Improvement Plan #704.19) Budget in the amount of $498,728.00. The adopted budget has adequate reserves in the Water Fund to support the budget amendment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Town of Hillsborough prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Darrell Tank Replacement Project. The Initial Study concluded that potential significant environmental effects could occur from project implementation in the following issue areas: aesthetics, biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, noise, cultural resources, land use/planning, transportation, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation measures were identified that would reduce these potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. The City Council adopted the Final IS/MND at the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting and none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent, supplemental, or addendum to the MND (as specified in CEQA Guidelines 15162, 15163, and 15164) are present. This has been determined as there is no evidence in the record that (1) substantial changes are proposed for Project that will require major revisions of the MND, (2) substantial changes will occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions in the MND, or (3) new information, which was not known and could not have been known when the MND was adopted, has become available. Based on the foregoing, the Town hereby finds that none of the circumstances requiring preparation of a subsequent, supplemental or addendum to the MND are triggered.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution awarding to and authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement with Consolidated CM, Inc. for construction management and inspection services for the Darrell Water Tank Replacement Project in a not-to-exceed amount of $ 498,728.00; and approving a Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget amendment in the water fund capital improvement project (CIP) #704.19 in the amount of $ 498,728.00. -90-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED CM, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE DARRELL WATER TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $ 499,728.00; AND APPROVING A FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE WATER FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) #704.19 IN THE AMOUNT OF $499,728.00
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) maintains the Town’s public water system; and
WHEREAS, the Town desires to replace the existing Darrell tanks No. 1 and 2 of half Million Gallon (0.5 MG) capacity each with a larger two Million Gallon (2 MG) pre-stressed concrete tank as part of the Darrel Water Tank Replacement Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Town is in need a full time construction manager and inspector to support the Public Works Department throughout construction of the new tank; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services was publicly advertised; and
WHEREAS, staff analyzed five proposals received and interviewed two firms, and determined that Consolidated CM, Inc. presented the most qualified individuals to manage and inspect the Project; and
WHEREAS, funding will require approval of a budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 to the Water Fund (CIP #704.19) in the amount of $499,728.00; and WHEREAS, the adopted budget has adequate reserves in the Water Fund to support the budget amendment; and
WHEREAS, funding for these services will be allocated from the amended Fiscal Year 2022-23 Darrell Tank Improvement (Capital Improvement Plan #704.19) in the amount of $499,728.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby awards to and authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Consolidated CM, Inc. for construction management and inspection services for the Darrell Water Tank Replacement Project in a not-to-exceed amount of $499,728.00; and approving a FY 2022-23 budget amendment in the Water Fund Capital Improvement Project (CIP) #704.19 in the amount of $499,728.00. -91-
2 Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 10th day of October 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-92-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
8 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH FREYER & LAURETA, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE HIGHLINE WATER PIPELINE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000.00, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $571,600.00
SUMMARY: On September 14, 2020, the City Council awarded a contract for professional design services to Freyer & Laureta, Inc. (“F&L”) for the Highline Water Pipeline Project (“Project”) in the amount of $421,600.00.

As part of this scope, F&L successfully:
-Completed project background and document review.
-Evaluated pipeline alignment alternatives to determine the best alignment based on constructability, environmental impact, and seismic conditions. -Coordinated with partner agencies including City of Burlingame and City of Millbrae and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to analyze the Project benefits.

Staff has waited to amend the contract with F&L until we reach a point of understanding our partners needs, and the level of coordination efforts each agencies needs to participate in the project. Additional budget are needed for continued technical support for these coordination efforts.

The continued technical support includes:
-Coordination with potential project partners, City of Burlingame and City of Millbrae, including but not limited to confirm potential water demands to be met by the project, complete a Memorandum of Understanding for Project participation, and provide updates to city staff. -Coordination with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to advance final review and approval of the Project
-Prepare required forms and applications to support potential funding applications for the Project’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), design, and construction phases -Provide on-going support to Town staff for the Project.

FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the proposed additional services is $150,000.00, which would be added to the previously authorized contract sum of $421,600.00, for a total cost of $571,600.00. It is recommended that funding for this project be allocated from the Highline Water Connection Project (Capital Improvement Plan #170.47) in the amount of $150,000.00. -93-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. It is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15306 as information collection as the design work will provide further information which may lead to a future project that is not yet approved or adopted. The Town anticipates conducting CEQA review based off any design that is developed as part of this contract. Once the design is complete, the Town will undertake CEQA review to analyze the environmental effects of the overall project including construction and operation and that information will be provided for review and consideration prior to any discretionary approval of the project.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with Freyer & Laureta, Inc. for engineering services for the conceptual design of the Highline Water Pipeline Project in the amount of $150,000.00, for a total contract amount of $571,600.00
-94-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH FREYER & LAURETA, INC.

FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE HIGHLINE WATER PIPELINE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000.00, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $571,600.00
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”)maintains the Town’s public water system; and
WHEREAS, the water system is complex and includes 17 active storage tanks and one reservoir located at 10 sites throughout the Town with a total storage of over 8 million gallons; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020, the City Council approved a contract for professional design services with Freyer and Laureta, Inc. (“F&L”) for the new Highline Water Pipeline that would link the Town’s water system to the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, due to the unanticipated level of coordination efforts with partner agencies, additional budget is needed for continued technical support; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the original agreement for these additional support services in the amount of $150,00.00; and
WHEREAS, the adopted budget has adequate reserves in the Highline Water Connection Project (Capital Improvement Plan #170.47) budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with Freyer & Laureta, Inc. for engineering services for the conceptual design of the Highline Water Pipeline Project in the amount of $150,000.00, for a total contract amount of $571,600.00 Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 10th day of October 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
-95-
2 AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-96-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
9 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE

CALRECYCLE RUBBERIZED PAVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR WHICH THE TOWN OF

HILLSBOROUGH IS ELIGIBLE
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) is distributing $4,200,000 through the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program in fiscal year 2022-23 to eligible cities and counties.

CalRecycle administers this program to provide opportunities to divert tire waste away from landfills, prevent illegal tire dumping, and promote the market for recycled-content tire products.

The program utilizes California-generated tire waste and aims to encourage the use of rubberized pavement treatments throughout California.

The Town of Hillsborough seeks to receive $250,000 in funding from CalRecycle for Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) paving material. If received, the funding will be used on a future street resurfacing projects to take place prior to April 1, 2025. RAC has greater longevity and provides a smoother, quieter roadway surface, with a more desirable and longer lasting aesthetic. Rubberized pavement has been most recently used in Town on Eucalyptus Avenue (2019) and Chateau Drive (2021), in addition to other streets in the past, yielding positive results.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Town is seeking to receive $250,000 from CalRecycle for Rubberized Asphalt Concrete product and related project costs. There is no other fiscal impact to the Town.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution directing staff to submit an application to CalRecycle for the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program; authorizing and empowering the City Manager, or her designee, to execute all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project.
-97-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE CALRECYCLE

RUBBERIZED PAVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR WHICH THE TOWN OF

HILLSBOROUGH IS ELIGIBLE
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorizes the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs (grants) in furtherance of the State of California’s (state) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safety and the environment; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and
WHEREAS, CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the submittal of application(s) to CalRecycle for the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the Town of Hillsborough all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these authorizations are effective for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 10th day of October 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
-98-
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-99-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
10 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH FARALLON CONSTRUCTION TO BUILD AN ADDITION WITH

TWO OFFICES AT THE PUBLIC WORKS CORPORATION YARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,490.00
SUMMARY: The Public Works Administration building has offices for the Public Works Director, Public Works Superintendent, Public Works Supervisors, Engineering, and Administration. The current office spaces are crowded, and staff are working in close proximately to each other.

Upgrades to this facility were anticipated and approved as part of the FY 2022-23 Capital Budget.

Improvements were delayed due to the pandemic, and staff fully returned to the office and customer service needs were evaluated. The scope of work includes foundation work, framing, and a new roof.

Staff solicited eight construction companies including Farallon Construction, to obtain competitive prices. Most of the companies were busy with larger construction projects and did not provide bids.

Staff received two responses, with Farallon Construction being the lowest responsible bidder.

Farallon Construction has successfully worked on several projects for the Town of Hillsborough in the past.

NAME BID
Farallon Construction $154,490.00
Wesley Construction, Inc. $165,500.00
FISCAL IMPACT: The Public Works Administration building addition is budgeted in the FY 2022- 23 budget under Public Works Capital Improvements in the amount of $200,000.00.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: California Environmental Quality Act according to Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Mark Harris, Public Works Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution awarding to and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract with Farallon Construction to build an addition with two offices at the Public Works Administration building in the amount of $154.490.00 with a contingency of 15% if needed for a total of $177,163.00.
-101-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONTRACT WITH FARALLON CONSTRUCTION TO BUILD AN ADDITION WITH

TWO OFFICES AT THE PUBLIC WORKS CORPORATION YARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,490.00
WHEREAS, the Public Works Administration building at the Corporation Yard has offices for the Public Works Director, Public Works Superintendent, Public Works Supervisors, Engineering, and Administration; and WHEREAS, some of the office spaces are crowded and staff are working in close proximately to each other; and
WHEREAS, adding two offices would assist with providing more space between staff and more area to facilitate a more private and sustainable office area; and WHEREAS staff engaged in informal bidding per Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act to obtain competitive prices; and
WHEREAS, staff received two bids, with Farallon Construction being the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid; and
WHEREAS, funding will be allocated from the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Budget under Public Works Corporation Yard in the amount of 200.000.00.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby awards to and authorizes the City Manager to execute a contract with Farallon Construction to build an addition with two offices at the Public Works Administration Building in the amount of $154,490.00 with a 15% Town controlled contingency if needed for a total of $177,163.00.
.

Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 10 day of October 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
-102-
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-103-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
11 CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: “THE OTHER WATER WORRY: IS YOUR WATER PROVIDER PREPARED FOR THE BIG ONE?” SUMMARY: On August 5, 2022, the San Mateo County Grand Jury released a report titled, “The Other Water Worry: Is Your Water Provider Prepared for the Big One?" which is included as Attachment 1. The purpose of the report is to identify to what extent water providers in San Mateo County are prepared to supply water to customer in the event of a major seismic catastrophe.

The report developed five findings and five recommendations, with the Town being requested to respond to four findings and four recommendations by November 4, 2022.

The Town’s proposed response to the findings and recommendations is included as Attachment 2.

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Grand Jury Report: “The Other Water Worry: Is Your Water Provider Prepared for the Big One?"

2. Draft Response Letter
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the response letter to the August 5, 2022 San Mateo County Grand Jury Report:“The Other Water Worry: Is Your Water Provider Prepared for the Big One?" and authorize the Mayor to sign and send the letter on behalf of the City Council. -105-

NEAL TANIGUCH I

COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CLERK & JURY COMM ISSIONER
August 5, 2022
City Council
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda A venue
Hillsborough, CA 940 I 0
Superior Court of Ca lifornia , County of San Mateo
Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063- 1655
(650) 261-5066
www.sanmateocourt.org

RECEIVED
AUG - 8 2022

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Re: Grand Jury Report: "The Other Water Worry: Is Your Water Provider Prepared for the Big One?" Dear Council Members:

The 2021-2022 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury filed the above-titled repo1t on August 5, 2022, which contains findings and recommendations pertaining to your agency. Your agency must respond, within 90 days, to the Hon. Amarra A. Lee. Your agency's response is due no later than November 4, 2022.

There are several requirements fo r the content of your response. The response should indicate that it was approved by your governing body at a public meeting. In addition, please be aware that your agency is expected to adhere to the wording, as instructed below, when responding to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury report.

For each Grand Jury finding, your agency must indicate one of the following:

1. The respondent agrees with the finding; or

2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, specifying the po1tion of the finding that is disputed and including an explanation of the reasons therefor.

For each Grand Jury recommendation, your agency must indicate one of the following actions:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action;

2. The recommendati on has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with an estimated date for implementation;

3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an anal ysis or study, and an estimated date (no later than six months from the publication date of the report) for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the publi c agency when app licable; or

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
-106-
ATTACHMENT 1
-107-
-108-
-109-
-110-
-111-
-112-
-113-
-114-
-115-
-116-
-117-
-118-
-119-
-120-
-121-
-122-
-123-
-124-
-125-
-126-
-127-
-128-
-129-
-130-
-131-
-132-
-133-
-134-
-135-
-136-
October 11, 2022
Hon. Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Civil Grand Jury Coordinator
Hall of justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Re: Grand Jury Report: “The Other Water Worry: Is Your Water Provider Prepared for the Big One?” Honorable Judge Lee:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced Grand Jury Report released on August 5, 2022. The Town of Hillsborough’s response to both the findings and recommendations are listed below.

FINDINGS
Fl. The water provider was unable to demonstrate that it conducts the emergency exercises specified by its ERP, which may compromise its ability to supply water following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution service.

Response: The Town Partially disagrees with this finding. Specifically, the Town disagrees that its ability to supply water following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution service may be compromised. The Town has an ERP, which was finalized on December 27, 2021. Current and new water staff will engage in emergency training to understand critical duties following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution services.

F2. The water provider was not able to produce documentation analyzing past exercises to test readiness and improve their performance, which may compromise its ability to supply water following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution service.

Response: The Town agrees with this finding. During the Town’s upcoming exercises, staff will document the Town’s readiness and keep a log of performance goals and objectives for each staff member involved to better prepare for a water distribution catastrophe.

F3. The water provider does not have three days of emergency water storage, which may compromise its ability to supply water following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution service.

Response: The Town agrees with this finding. While the Town does not currently have 3 days of emergency water storage, a project recently awarded, the Darrel Tank project, will replace two smaller ageing steel tanks with a single large concrete tank built to the latest earthquake seismic standards. This larger tank will add additional water storage, which will achieve the Town’s goal of 3 days of emergency storage.

F4. The water provider does not have three days of emergency fuel storage, which may compromise its ability to supply water following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution service. -137-
ATTACHMENT 2
October 11, 2022

Page 2 ends

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. Specifically, the Town disagrees that not having three days of emergency fuel storage may compromise the Town’s ability to supply water following a catastrophic interruption in water distribution service.

The Town has large emergency portable generators on hand at the most critical pumping locations to fill its tanks. When the previous Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events lasted for more than 3 days, those events revealed the Town’s vulnerabilities, and corrections have been made to improve the reliability of those pumps, improve fuel storage, and prepare staff to stage backup generators at key locations in the distribution system.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that, by March 31, 2023, the water provider perform emergency preparedness exercises consistent with its emergency response plan.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Town will perform emergency preparedness exercises consistent with its ERP before March 31, 2023.

R2. The Grand Jury recommends that, by March 31, 2023, the water provider perform an analysis and document an After-Action Report consistent with its emergency response plan.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Town will perform an analysis and document an After-Action Report consistent with its ERP before March 31, 2023.

R3. The Grand Jury recommends that, by March 31, 2023, the water provider develop plans to increase emergency water storage sufficient to provide emergency water for a period of at least three days.

Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Town opened bids and the City Council awarded a new larger replacement water tank at the Darrel tank site on September 26, 2022. This new tank will increase the Town’s system storage, and achieve 3 days of emergency water storage.

R4. The Grand Jury recommends that, by March 31, 2023, the water provider develop plans to increase emergency fuel storage sufficient to provide emergency fuel for a period of at least three days.

Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. By March 31, 2023, the Town will develop and implement plans to increase emergency fuel storage sufficient to provide emergency fuel for a period of at least 3 days.

This response to the Grand Jury was approved by the Town of Hillsborough City Council at a public meeting on October 10, 2022.

Respectfully,
Alvin L. Royse
Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
-138-

TOWN OF

HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
12 PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 10, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1950 RALSTON AVE. AND CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING

TWO STORY HOME
SUMMARY: At its regular meeting on August 1, 2022, the Town of Hillsborough Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB, ‘the Board’) reviewed and approved an application for Design Review permit for 1950 Ralston Ave. based on consistency with the Town’s General Plan, Hillsborough Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance, and the Town of Hillsborough Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed application included a request for design review of a new, 5,478 SF (24.36% Floor Area Ratio) two-story Craftsman style residence to replace an existing Ranch style home approximately 3,161 square feet on a 22,486 square foot lot (14.05% Floor Area Ratio). As required for new dwellings, associated landscape improvements are included in this application.

Hillsborough’s Municipal Code defines new dwellings as “type A” or a major project, and this project was therefore subject to ADRB review and approval.

Outline of Staff Review Process:

On December 8, 2021, staff conducted a pre-application review of the proposed design with designer/applicant Tim Raduenz owner of Form One Design and authorized agent for the property owners, 1950 Ralston Ave. LLC. The meeting outlined the ADRB review process based on the proposed scope of work, provided an estimate of review fees, detailed plan comments, outreach requirements and any additional studies and reviews as required. It was also determined that, based on the proposed scope of work, the project would require both Preliminary and Formal review by the ADRB.

On January 24, 2022, the Board reviewed the item at its regular meeting and provided comments on the design application. The applicant received the Board comments and successfully incorporated the feedback into their Formal design review application which was deemed complete on July 15, 2022. The updated plan set included public feedback as well as comments from various departmental reviews including the Central County Fire Department, the Town Consulting Landscape Architect and Planning and Building staff. Please see attachments for review comments.

The applicant presented their Formal design to the ADRB on August 1, 2022, where the Board heard the item, provided discussion, recognized public comments and ultimately, approved the application with a 2-1 vote (yes – Foster, Gill; no – Filer; absent – Hardy, Egan). The plan and materials submitted to the Board are included as Attachment 4. -139-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

Appeal:

Per Chapter 2.12.080 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code (HMC), determinations of the ADRB may be appealed to the City Council. Appellants must file a written notice to appeal within 15 days of the Board’s determination and pay an appeal fee to cover the costs of administering and conducting the appeal process. Staff received from the appellant a letter of appeal and payment of required processing fees on August 15, 2022.

Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 2.12.080(F) states:
“F. Hearing. The city council shall hear the appeal de novo at the next city council meeting that allows sufficient time for the necessary staff reports and recommendations to be prepared and for the required public notice to occur. The council shall consider and act upon (as described in subsection G. of this section) the grounds raised in the appeal and any additional grounds or issues raised in compliance with subsection D. of this section. “1, Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 2.12.080(G) further states with regard to the City Council’s decision as follows:
“G. City council decision. The city council may accept or reject, wholly or in part, or may modify, the determination of the board. The city council may also remand the application to the architecture and design review board or the director of building and planning for further consideration with such instructions as the city council deems appropriate.” In making its decision, the City Council, similar to the ADRB, shall apply the Town’s laws to the project to determine consistency. Per HMC 2.12.070(E), this shall include making a determination “whether the application is consistent with the Town’s Design Guidelines, the Zoning Ordinance, and the General Plan.”
Details of staff review findings:

Per Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 2.12.070 the City Council must consider whether a project is consistent with the Town's Design Guidelines, the Zoning Ordinance, and the General Plan.

General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the Town’s General Plan Land Use Element as the proposed development is a single-family (R1) residential dwelling and the General Plan Land Use Map for this site is Residential which allows for a single-family home.

Zoning Ordinance
The project is consistent with the Town’s Zoning Ordinance as outlined in the table below:
1 HMC 02.12.080 (D): Additional grounds for appeal. Prior to the hearing, any person may submit in writing additional grounds or issues for consideration and action by the architecture and design review board or city council at the hearing on the appeal; provided, however, that any such submission shall, within ten days after the date of the public notice described in subsection C. of this section, be delivered to the town and to each person to whom the public notice was sent. -140-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

Objective
Standard
Allowed
Maximum/Minimum Existing Proposed Conforms (Y/N)
*Height Max. 22’-32’ 28’-6.5” Yes
Floor Area Ratio Max. 25% 3,161 SF (14.05%) 5,478 SF (24.36%) Yes Lot Coverage Maximum 50% 49.88 % Yes
Structure Size 2,500 SF Minimum 3,161 SF 5,624 SF Yes
Streetside Open
Space 60% Minimum 83.28% Yes
Streetside
Setback
50’ ROW = 25’
Minimum setback 30’-2” 38’-4.25” Yes
Side Yard
Setbacks
20’ Minimum (L)30’-0” (R)45’-0” (L)36’-8.5” (R)51’-1.5” Yes Rear Setback 20’ Minimum 33’-11” 30’-8” Yes
Parking Two enclosed + one 2 Enclosed 3 Enclosed + 2
surface spaces
Yes
* Height: The Building Envelope begins at the setback line, rises to 22’ then angles inward at 45 degrees to meet a 32’ maximum measured from a warped plane parallel to the existing grade. The proposed plan does not exceed or protrude the building envelope and therefore meets the objective height standard.

The proposed project is consistent with the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines Community Vision and Goals as outlined below:

1. Reinforce Hillsborough’s Image

2. Facilitate Contemporary Life

3. Encourage Town-wide Diversity

4. Foster Creativity
The Town’s Residential Design Guidelines adopted August 9, 2004, provide further design guidance on design principles, styles, site planning, massing, materials and finishes, facades, roofs, windows and doors, accessories, and landscape design.

Chapter 5 of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines includes a section on neighborhood context. It is important to note that there are no existing restrictions limiting homes in this area or on this site to a single story. Instead, the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines acknowledge that a two-story home in a one-story neighborhood is allowed as follows:

A. Neighborhood Context
Building massing should generally conform to the buildings in the surrounding vicinity.

1. Neighborhood Edges
The edges of neighborhoods or transitional areas between neighborhoods are more conducive to new construction that proposes a change in the generally established -141-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

massing of buildings in the neighborhood.

2. One-Story Neighborhoods
Second story additions and new homes higher than one story in neighborhoods that are predominantly comprised of one-story homes shall receive greater scrutiny during Design Review. These projects require a heightened sensitivity to their neighborhood context. Design strategies that should be considered include:
• Modulating building mass to minimize boxiness
• Partial second story addition
• Setbacks for second story volumes
Staff determined the proposed site is that of a neighborhood edge and not a one-story neighborhood. Further, the project design itself is consistent with the design strategies that support a one-story neighborhood, such as modulating the building mass, partial second story addition, and mitigating the volume of a second story.

Public Comments Received
Public comments are available in Attachment 6.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Categorically exempt. The proposal is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, which includes an exemption for the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and hear from the appellant first, then take general public comment, and allow for rebuttal if necessary;

2. Close the public hearing;

3. Consider adoption of resolution.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Letter of Appeal and Exhibits

3. List of Neighbors in Support of Appeal Provided by Appellant

4. August 1, 2022 ADRB Meeting Agenda Materials for 1950 Ralston Ave.

5. Preliminary review comments and responses from ADRB members, CCFD staff, and TCLA

6. Public Comment

7. Tract Map and Existing CC&Rs for Summerholme subdivision

8. General Plan Land Use Map Figure LU-1

9. Public Comment from Applicant

PREPARED BY: Linda Roberson, Associate Planner
-142-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING A NEW, 5,478 SQUARE FOOT (24.36%

FLOOR AREA RATIO) TWO-STORY CRAFTSMAN STYLE
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1950 RALSTON WAY (APN: 028-234-130) WHEREAS, the proposal consisting of replacing an existing single-story Ranch style home approximately 3,161 square feet with a new 5,478 square foot twostory Craftsman style residence (the “Project”) received pre-application staff review on December 8, 2021 and, at that time, staff outlined the ADRB review process based on the proposed scope of work which required both Preliminary and Formal review by the ADRB; and WHEREAS, the proposal received Preliminary Review by the Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB) on January 24, 2022 where the ADRB provided comments related to the character of the neighborhood, concerns of the residents, on-going outreach and consistency with the Town’s Design Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, after the application was submitted for Formal Design Review, the applicant successfully incorporated staff and Board comments into the revised design and held additional community outreach events, and thereafter, the project was deemed complete on July 15, 2022; WHEREAS, the ADRB considered the formal design review item at the August 1, 2022, ADRB meeting where several residents expressed concerns about the second story addition;
WHEREAS, after conducting a public hearing, and as per HMC 2.12.070, the ADRB considered whether the project is consistent with the Town's Design Guidelines, the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board expressed support for the design of the house adding the condition to allow a flat roof over the proposed garage, and voting 2-1 to conditionally approve the project; and
WHEREAS, the ADRB approval is subject to the Town’s standard conditions of approval and nine additional conditions of approval listed in the Staff Memorandum; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022 a timely appeal was filed by the property owner at 30 Country Club Drive, and as such, the appellant requests Council review of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined that the proposed Project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline 15303 as the project is a single-family -143-
ATTACHMENT 1
residence in a residential zone and that use is specifically authorized per CEQA Guideline 15303; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the City Council conducted an appeal hearing de novo per HMC 2.12.080(F), at which time, the City Council heard from the appellant, the public, and considered all information presented by staff, the public, and contained in the staff report; and
WHEREAS, in making its decision, as required by HMC, the City Council considered whether the project is consistent with the Town’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Town’s Design Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough, based on the evidence presented, both written and oral, including the application, appeal, and supporting documentation, and written and oral testimony given at City Council hearings, hereby denies the appeal and approves a new, 5,478 square foot (24.36% floor area ratio) two-story Craftsman style Residence located at 1950 Ralston Way (APN: 028-234-130), subject to all the Town’s standard conditions of approval and the condition that the proposed pitched roof over the garage be redesigned to a flat roof, to reduce the height at the rear of the structure, based on the following findings:
1) The City Council finds that the new 2-story Craftsman style residence is consistent with the Town's General Plan, the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines, as follows:
a. The Town’s General Plan Land Use element addresses the physical development of Hillsborough, the future use and reuse of land and standards of density and building intensity. The City Council hereby finds that the General Plan does not contain any limitation restricting homes to a single story, and there is no existing restriction on this property for the home to be single story. In addition to consistency with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan, the project is found to be consistent with the Land Use element based on the following:
• The project is consistent with the single-family residential land use designation per Figure LU-1 of the 2005 General Plan as the proposed development is a single-family (R1) residential dwelling and the General Plan Land Use Map for this site is Residential which allows for a single family home.
b. The Town’s Zoning Code contains objective standards that each development must meet as outlined in Title 17-Zoning of the Hillsborough Municipal Code. The City Council hereby finds that the Zoning Code does not contain any limitation restricting homes to a single story, and there is no existing restriction on this property for the home to be single story.

The project has demonstrated consistency with objective standards outlined in Title 17 – Zoning of the Hillsborough Code of Ordinances as follows:
 Height: The maximum allowable height is 32’ where 28’ 6-1/2” is proposed.
-144-
 Floor Area: The maximum allowable floor area is 25% where

24.36% is proposed.
 Lot Coverage: The maximum allowable lot coverage is 50% where

49.88% is proposed.
 Structure Size: The minimum required is 2,500 SF where 5,624 is proposed.
 Streetside Open Space: The minimum required is 60% where 83.28 is proposed.
 Side Yard Setbacks: The minimum required is 20’ where 36’ 8-1/2” and 51’ 1-1/2” is proposed.
 Rear Yard Setback: The minimum required is 20’ where 30’ 8” is proposed.
 Parking: The minimum required parking is two enclosed spaces with one additional surface or enclosed space where three enclosed spaces and two surface spaces are proposed.
 Zoning Map: The site is zoned Residence District (RD) and per HMC 17.16.010, a single-family home such as the proposed Project is permitted in the RD Zone.
c. The Town’s Design Guidelines state that the design should:
• Reinforce Hillsborough’s Image – the proposed design “contributes to a somewhat rural but stately sense of community” by using a sophisticated, modernized Craftsman architectural style. • Generally Conform to the Buildings in the Surrounding Vicinity - the Town does not believe this parcel to be part of a one-story neighborhood, rather, it is considered an ‘edge’ or ‘transitional’ area and therefore conducive to proposed changes in the generally established massing of buildings in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed design strategies maintain consistency with those outlined in the Town Design Guidelines for one-story neighborhoods.

The proposed design modulates the building mass to minimize ‘boxiness’ by adding an elongated front porch. The porch further minimizes the mass by creating the appearance of a stepped or setback second floor with the use of materials. By blending a standing seam metal roof with asphalt shingled roofing and adding a slight pitch to the porch overhang, the architect accentuates a tapering effect that breaks down façade and provides depth to both the front and rear elevations. The rear elevation uses the same technique to moderate the mass. As an added condition of approval, the ADRB included that the proposed pitched roof over the garage be redesigned to a flat roof, to reduce the height at the rear of the structure. The area over the garage is not a second story. • Encourage Town-wide diversity – in mixing a traditional style with modern materials, the proposed design serves to connect the established housing stock with more contemporary renovations and new construction. The architect has clearly demonstrated the -145-
Craftsman style using eaves, low-pitched gables, columns, windows and covered front porch, blending into the neighborhood aesthetic while articulating a unique design perspective.
• Foster creativity –while the proposed design successfully illustrates a transition from the previous Ranch style to a more distinct Craftsman style, the proposed massing and citing are below the required maximums. The proposed design responds to neighbor concerns by locating the second floor at the center, front of the structure to allow for more generous setbacks on all sides. By elongating the front porch, the design accentuates several defining features of the Craftsman style such as the low, over hanging eave, window details and simple ridgeline of the upper floor. This also helps to break up the massing along the front of the structure and further highlights the triangular roofline and use of more modern materials.

Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 10th day of October 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-146-
-147-
ATTACHMENT 2
-148-
-149-
-150-
-151-
-152-
-153-
-154-
-155-
-156-
-157-
-158-
-159-
-160-
-161-
-162-
-163-
-164-
-165-
-166-
-167-
-168-
-169-
-170-
-171-
-172-
-173-
-174-
-175-
ATTACHMENT 3

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Architecture and Design Review Board
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
#5

FORMAL REVIEW
AUGUST 1, 2022

STAFF MEMORANDUM
PROJECT: 1950 Ralston Way (APN: 028-234-130)
1950 Ralston Ave., LLC (Form One Design and Michael Callan Landscape Architect) Received Preliminary ADRB review on January 24, 2022
DESCRIPTION:

Request for design review of a new, 5,339 square foot (23.74% Floor Area Ratio) two-story Craftsman style residence. The proposed structure will replace an existing Ranch style home approximately 3,161 square feet on a 22,486 square foot lot (14.05% Floor Area Ratio). As required for new dwellings, associated landscape improvements are included in this application. Hillsborough’s Municipal Code defines new dwellings as “type A” or a major project, and this project is therefore subject to ADRB review and approval.

BACKGROUND:

This property is in the Country Club Manor neighborhood of Hillsborough on Ralston Ave. between Hillsborough Boulevard and Pepper Ave. Country Club Manor is centrally located in the Town of Hillsborough and is accessible from El Camino Real to the east and interstate 280 to the west. The structure is in the relative center of a flat parcel and there are no views of significant landforms from this site. The parcel is within 0.10 mile of the Burlingame Country Club.

DISCUSSION:

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
-176-proposing projects happening, we considered this
ATTACHMENT 4
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 corridorsinto the heart
of Hillsborough you understand which road is
(articulated correctly and which one needs help
with having that feeling) Santa Inezisthe 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
-177-
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.
-178-
Agenda Staff Report—Architecture & Design Review Board
August 1, 2022

Page 4 ends

Proposed Colors and Materials
• Windsor-one lap board, trim, accents, and siding
• Chadsworth square column
• Restoration Hardware ‘Lombard Lamp’ exterior lighting • Copper gutters, half round
• Estate Grey asphalt shingles
• Standing seam metal roofing
• Brick veneer with stone cap
• Windows TBD and will include satin window (privacy treatment) • Sherwin Williams paint colors: Pure White, Passive, and Tricorn Black • Garage and doors, TBD
Landscaping
Under section 2.12.070 Design Review Process of the Hillsborough Municipal Code, the project is defined as a new dwelling and therefore required to include landscaping. A proposed landscape plan has been submitted and upon staff review, meets the requirements for a complete preliminary application. The proposed design is under current review by the Town Consulting Landscape Architect. Features included in the landscape plan include a new swimming pool, lawn area stone patio, concrete play area, new concrete unit paver driveway, synthetic turf play area, new 6’ ht. front stucco wall with columns and steel pedestrian gate, various ground covers, shrub and tree plantings, wood fencing and evergreen privacy hedge and screen plantings. Arborist report is required and pending review.

Central County Fire Department (CCFD)
A Fire Access plan is required for this application. The current proposal has been submitted to CCFD for review and is pending final approval.

Public Works (PW)
There is a Public Utilities Easement on site the location of which will be confirmed by Hillsborough Public Works. Their review is pending. Any proposed work within the public right of way will require review and approval of the Public Works department prior to issuing building permits.

Public Comments Received
Staff is in receipt of neighbor feedback from various adjacent neighbors and residents. All comments provided as of July 26, 2022, at 5:00 PM are included as attachments. Additional outreach was prepared and conducted by the applicant per feedback by the Board at the Preliminary design review meeting. Staff has provided a public meeting notice to neighbors within a 500-foot radius of the proposed site in accordance with state requirements.

Should the Board be inclined to approve the proposal, based on consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines as discussed, the following conditions have been provided for consideration.

1) The proposal shall be subject to the Town’s adopted Standard Conditions of Approval; 2) The landscape plan shall be revised to respond to the recommendations outlined in the TCLA report, subject to all administrative design review procedures, inclusive of an additional TCLA review and associated fees; -179-
Agenda Staff Report—Architecture & Design Review Board
August 1, 2022

Page 5 ends

3) The applicant shall be responsible for providing fire sprinkler system throughout, installed under a separate fire sprinkler permit issued by the Central County Fire Department. Applicant must note this on the drawings prior to the issuance of any Building permit.
4) The applicant shall be responsible for providing approved fire access plan showing the Knox key switch connection to the locked driveway and pedestrian gates operation. This detail must be provided by the applicant prior to the issuance of any Building permit. 5) The exterior materials, colors, roof, windows and doors, and architectural detailing of the project shall match what is noted on the plans and approved colors and materials board. Any changes shall first be reviewed by the Planning Department. Revisions that are substantial in nature are subject to review and approval by the ADRB, in a public hearing; minor revisions will be subject to review and approval via Administrative Review by staff;
6) The landscape project is classified as a Tier II landscape project and is subject to the requirements of the Town’s amended water efficiency in landscape ordinance (WELO) HMC 15.29. All requirements of the WELO shall be submitted as a part of the Building Permit submittal to the Town; 7) Any new exterior lighting shall not be directed toward the street, the sky or neighboring properties and shall be a maximum of 60 watts;
8) Submit construction drawings, permit application, and fees to the Building Department for necessary review and permits, before initiating this project. You may contact them at 650.375.7411, if you have any questions; 9) Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to address construction staging, construction equipment, employee parking and truck routing to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The plan shall also address issues regarding noise, dust, vehicular and pedestrian safety, storage of construction materials, clean-up areas, placement & screening of sanitary and construction facilities, and if required shall maximize on-site construction vehicle parking, as per HMC Chapter 15.26.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. ADRB Formal Review Plan Set

2. Color and Materials Board

3. Arborist Report

4. Public Comment Letters
PREPARED BY: Linda Roberson, Associate Planner
-180-

TITLE PAGE
See Details
T1.0
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.

SITE

APPLICABLE CODES

REFERENCE SYMBOLS BUILDING DATA

CONSULTANTS

DESIGNER
FORM + ONE DESIGN
CONTACT: TIM RADUENZ
4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE
PARK CITY, UT 84098
PHONE: 415-819-0304
[email protected]
OWNERS

GREG GAMBRIOLI
1950 RALSTON AVE.

HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010

GAMBRIOLI RESIDENCE
1950 RALSTON AVE.

HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010
T1.0
GN
CG
SW
FAR
1 OF 1
A1.0
AR
AR2
PH
A2.0
A2.1
A2.2
A3.0
A3.1
A4.0
A4.1
A4.2
A5.0
HC
A9.0

TITLE PAGE

GENERAL NOTES

CAL GREEN

BMP'S & POLLUTION PREVENTION

FLOOR AREA CALC

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

SITE PLAN

ARBORIST REPORT
ARBORIST REPORT (CONT.)

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS

ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN

PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

PROPOSED ELEVATIONS

PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

HARDSCAPE CALC (SITE PLAN)

FINISH SCHEDULE

FIXTURE OR EQUIPMENT SYMBOL
T.W. 12.0
T.P 15.6
T.C 14.0
78 92
203
BED RM.

C
D
A
B
Sheet number

MATCH LINE, SHADED SIDE IS

CONSIDERED
Number indicates color and / or material

EXISTING CONTOURS

NEW OR FINISHED CONTOURS

TOP OF PAVEMENT

TOP OF WALL

TOP OF CURB

SETBACK LINE

PROPERTY LINE

REVISION SYMBOLS
Cloud around revision

WORK, CONTROL, OR DATUM POINT

COLOR / MATERIAL SYMBOL

ROOM REFERENCE
EXT. DOOR & WINDOW SYMBOL
Indicates door & window number

INTERIOR DOOR SYMBOL
Indicates door number
Room name
Room number
Number indicated elevation, wall section
or detail

BLDG & WALL SECTION REFERENCE
Arrow indicates direction of view
Letter indicates building section
Sheet number

INTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE
Arrow indicates direction of view
Letter indicates building elevation
Sheet number

DETAIL REFERENCE
Number indicates wall section

EXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE
Arrow indicates direction of view
Sheet number

TITLE SYMBOLS
Sheet number

GRID LINE REFERENCE
Particle Bd.

Prefabricate(d)
Plate (line)
Plaster
Plywood
Panel(ing)
Paint(ed)
Pair
Pre Cast
Pressure Treated
Quarry Tile
Riser
Radius
Reinforce
Relocate
Remove
Required
Resilent
Rough Opeing
Redwood
See Struct. Dwg.

Shelf
Sheathing
Similar
Sealer
Specification
Square
Standard
Stainless Steel
Suspended
Symmetrical
Tread
Towel Bar
Tempered
Tougue & Groove
Through
Top of Surface
Toilet Paper
Dispenser
Typical
Unless Otherwise
Noted
Unfinished
Vertical
Vert. Grain
White Brothers
Wood
Window
Wrought Iron
With (out)
Waterproof
Water Resistant
Wainscot
PBD
PFB
PL
PLAS
PLYWD
PNL
PNT
PR
PRCST
PT
QT
R
RAD
REINF
RELO
REMO
REQD
RESIL
RO
RWD
SSD
SH
SHR
SIM
SLR
SPEC
SQ
SLD
S. STL
SUSP
SYM
T
TB
TEMP
T&G
THRU
TOS
TPD
TYP
UON
MECH
UNF
VERT
VG
WB
WD
WDW
WI
W/O
WP
WR
WSCT
&
d
@
C
O
#
AB
ABV
AC
ACOUS
ADH
ADJ
AGG
AL
AP
APX
BD
BEL
BLK
BM
BOT
BRK
BS
BTWN
CAB
CEM
CER
CI
CLG
CLKG
CLR
CMU
CNTR
COL
COMPO
CONC
CONN
CONST
CONT
CPT
DBL
DEMO
DF
DIA
DIAG
DN
DR
DS
DRA
EA
EL
ELEC
ENCL
EQ
EQPT
EW
(EX)
And
Penny
Angle
At
Center line
Dia. or round
Perpendicular
Pound or No.

Anchor Bolt
Above
Asphalt Conc.

Acoustical
Adhesive
Adjustable
Aggregrate
Aluminum
Access Panel
Approximate
Board
Below
Block(ing)
Beam
Bottom
Brick
Both Sides
Between
Cabinet
Cement
Ceramic
Cast Iron
Ceiling
Caulking
Clear
Conc. Mas. Unit
Counter
Column
Composition
Concrete
Connect(ion)
Construction
Continuous
Carpet
Double
Demolish
Douglas Fir
Diameter
Diagonal
Down
Door
Down Spout
Drawer
Each
Elevation
Electrical
Enclosure
Equal
Equipment
Each Way
Existing
EXH
EXP
EXPO
EXT
FBO
FDN
FIN
FL
FLASH
FLOUR
FLX
FOC
FOF
FOX
FO
FPL
FTG
FURR
FUT
GA
GALV
GB
GI
GL
GR
GYP
HBD
HD
HDR
HWD
HOR
INT
INSUL
JST
JT
LAM
LT
LVR
MAS
MC
MECH
MEMB
MFR
MIR
MNT
MTL
NIC
NTS
O/
OC
OPNG
OPP
P
PAR
Exhaust
Expansion
Exposed
Exterior
Furinshed by
Owner
Foundation
Finish
Floor (line)
Flashing
Fluorescent
Flexiable
Face of Conc.

Face of Fin.

Face of Stud
Finished Opening
Fireplace
Footing
Furring
Future
Gauge
Galvanized
Grab Bar
Grab Iron
Glass/Glazing
Grade (Ground)
Gypsum
Hard Board
Heavy Duty
Header
Hardware
Horizontal
Interior
Insulation
Joist
Joint
Laminate
Light
Louver
Masonry
Medicine Cabinet
Mechanical
Membrane
Manufacturer
Mirror
Mount(ed)
Metal
Not in
Contract
Not to Scale
Over
On Center
Opening
Opposite
Plastic
Parallel

SHEET INDEX

ABBREVIATIONS ELECT/MECH SYMBOLS

SCOPE OF WORK

VICINITY MAP

MATERIAL SYMBOLS
Duplex convenience outlet & plate
Floor convenience outlet
GFI duplex convenience outlet
Fourplex outlet
Duplex conv. outlet, 1/2 hot, 1/2 switched
220V amerage as per equipment
GFI/W.P. weatherproof outlet
Flush mounted floor & ceiling outlet
Junction box
Television outlet
Telephone outlet & plate
Flood light
Ceiling fixture
Wall light
Porclein recepticle w/ pull chain
Indirect cove lighting
Recessed ceiling can lights
4" recessed low voltage w/ directional trim
Recessed ceiling light
Waterproof ceiling fan/light & plate
Recessed waterproof exterior up light
Single pole switch
3 way switch
Switch w/ dimmer
Door activated switch
Motion detector
Timer (switch)
Vacancy sensor w/ dimmer "manual on"
Vacancy sensor "manual on"
Weatherproof switch
Countertop air switch
Doorbell pushbutton
Chime
Smoke detector
Thermostat
Special outlet
Instant start florescent light
Landscape light
Electrical panel board
Existing
Delete existing
Replace existing
Gas outlet
Hose bib
Ceiling/floor supply register
Ceiling/floor return register
Wall diffuser
T.V./Computer Outlet
Central vacuum inlet
Automatic garage door switch
Alarm control keypad
RE
DE
E
36" ETC
CH
T
SD
C
S
M
S D 3 S
S FAN
S
J
S
S
T SV/D
S
V
SWP
GFI
220v WP
G
HB
4 x 12 CD
FD
4 x 12 CD
FD C
v
G
A
TITLE 24

RICK ROCKLEWITZ
NRG COMPLIANCE INC.

PO BOX 3777
SANTA ROSA, CA 95402
PHONE:707-237-6957
028-234-130

CAL GREEN BUILDING MEASURE

1. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER FOR LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER AND INSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 2019 CGC §4.304.1

2. A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON- HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION WASTER GENERATED AT THE SITE WILL BE DIVERTED TO AN OFFSITE RECYCLE, DIVERSION, OR SALVAGE FACILITY PER TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORDINANCE + 2019 CGC §4.408

3. AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT OR OWNER. 2019 CGC §4.410.1

4. UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS,

SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2019 CODE REQUIREMENT.2019 CGC §703.1

5. AT TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THE

HEATING,

COOLING & VENTILATING EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS OPENINGS WILL BE

COVERED W/ TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM. (CGC 4.504.1).

Gravel / Rock fill
Precast concrete
Bituminous paving
Plywood
Rigid insulation
Earth
Wood
Steel
Stone Veneer
Concrete Block
Gypsum board
Concrete
Brick Veneer
Batt insulation Metal Lath
Marble / tile Existing construction
Wood frame construction
Metal Sand/ Mortar/ Plaster
Existing const. removed

CONSTRUCTION HOURS
CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE CHECKLIST: Single Family to be attached to jobsite building set 2019 California Plumbing Code
2019 California Mechanical Code
2019 California Electric Code
2019 California Energy Code

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE
2019 California Fire Code
2019 California Green Building Standards Code
2019 California Residential Code
2019 California Building Code

HIDDEN CONDITION NOTES

1. Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning commission.

1. DEMOLITION OF (E) HOUSE & POOL

2. NEW HOME (2-STORY) W/ ATTACHED 3 STALL GARAGE, & POOL (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) APN #:

MECHANICAL + ELECTRIC DRAWINGS
MECH. + ELECT PLANS
MECH. + ELECT. CUTSHEETS
TITLE-24
TITLE-24 CONT.

ME2.0
ME3.0
ME4.0
ME4.1
FIRST FLOOR = 2,685 SQ.FT.

FAR -
TOTAL : = 5,478 SQ.FT.

SECOND FLOOR = 1,906 SQ.FT.

GARGE = 887 SQ.FT.

1. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM ARE REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MAIN HOUSE, UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.

2. APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST W/ THEIR BACKGROUND.

3. PROVIDE A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE-USC APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY FOR FIRE LINE. GENERAL

CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE DOUBLE VALVE ASSEMBLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE TESTED AND APPROVED BY A SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVED CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING WATER DEPARTMENT FINAL.

4. A SCHEMATIC OF THE DOMESTIC/FIRE PROTECTION WATER LINE SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN/CIVIL DRAWINGS PAGE OF THE BUILDING PLANS. THIS SCHEMATIC SHALL DETAIL THE LINE FROM THE WATER METER TO STRUCTURE AND INDICIATE THE

LOCATION OF THE DOUBLE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE ON THE FIRE PROTECTION LINE AFTER THE SPLIT BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND FIRE PROTECTION LINES.

5. FIRE FLOW SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE APPENDIX IIIA. FIRE FLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS LESS THAN 3,600 SQ. FT. SHALL BE PROVIDED AT 1,000 GPM UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, THEN IT MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%

6. MIN. 1" WATER METER REQUIRED.

FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

1. DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NATURE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL BE RESCINDED ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL BE ISSUED AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FINAL. NO OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING IS TO OCCUR UNTIL A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.

DEFERRED SUBMITALS

1. FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN

2. PRE-MANUFACTURED ROOF TRUSSES (CBC 1603.1)

3. PV SYSTEM, PER CODE MIN. TBD KW SEE TITLE-24

4. POOL PLAN W/ AUTO COVER
ZONING : R1
USE OF BUILDING: RESIDENTIAL
OCCUPANCY: R2
TYPE OF CONST.: V-B
NUMBER OF (N) STORIES: 2-STORY
NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 1
PARKING: (N) 3- STALL
SPRINKLERED: YES SPRINKLERS
SOIL

DANIEL DYCKMAN

GEO FORENSICS
561-D PILGRIM DR.

FOSTER CITY, CA. 94044
PHONE:650-349-3369
SURVEY
SAVIOR P. MICALLEF

LAND SURVEYING
421 WILDWOOD DRIVE

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CA, 94080
(805) 709-2423
- CIVIL DRAWINGS
-
- STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS
-

1. NO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTER

OR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE HOURS LISTED BELOW.

CONSTRUCTION HOURS
WEEKDAYS:

SATURDAYS:

SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS:
8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
10:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.

NO WORK ALLOWED

CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.
(SEE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 15.30 FOR DETAILS)

1. STORM WATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT (PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE)
(INITIAL FIELD IS REQUIRED BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION)

2. SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE
(FINISHED BEFORE ISSUANCE)

3. RECYCLING & WASTE REDUCTION FORM (FINISHED BEFORE

ISSUANCE)

4. SEWER LATERAL TEST ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
(FINISHED BEFORE ISSUANCE)

5. BAAQMD J-NUMBER (FINISHED BEFORE ISSUANCE)

6. PREMANUFACTURED ROOF TRUSSES (CBC 1603.1)

7. AT TIME OF BUILDING SUBMITTAL: AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND

STIPULATE ON DRAWINGS THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF
SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, SEWER LATERAL, + WATER LINE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPART.

8. SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION (IF REQUIRED) WILL BE SUBMITTED AT TIME OF BUILDING SUBMITTAL, NOTE: THE

DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR PROJECT.

DUE BEFORE ISSUANCE
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
L1.0
L1.5
L6.0
L0.0

LANSCAPE DRAWINGS

LANDSCAPE PLAN
FENCE + GATE (FRONTSCAPE DTLS)

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT/TREE REMOVAL

AREA CALCULATIONS
(*)
(*)
LOT SIZE: 22,486 SQ. FT.

FIRST FLOOR = 2,685 SQ.FT.

LOT COVERAGE -
TOTAL : = 4,771 SQ.FT.

GARGE = 887 SQ.FT.

COVERED PORCHES = 1,199 SQ.FT.

ARBORIST

KIELTY ARBORIST
PO BOX 6187
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
P: 650.525.1464

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

MICHAEL CALLAN
63 BOVET ROAD #314
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
PHONE: 650.372.9220
(*) -181-
-182-
UP
UP LSM 45
A
4"OAK
33"PINE
6"LOQUAT
4"OAK
(3)4"EUGENIA
5"OAK
6"EUGENIA
29"CEDAR
41"PINE
8"OAK
(3)8"OAK
18"MAG
9"CAMPHON
15"CAMPHER
4 1
3 12
6 7
8 9
10 13
14 15
16 11
17 18
19 21
20 2
22"CAMPHOR
18"OAK
(3)2"BIRCH
18"CAMPHER
14"OAK
25"CAMPHER
5 12"OAK
10"YUCCA
6"OAK
6"ARBUSTUS
S 31°02'17" E
135.37'
S 70°18'40" W
138.97'
S 17°47'37" E
149.33'

64.30 65.58

66.09 65.85

67.80 65.43

65.05 63.91

64.53 65.91

65.44 65.74

64.14 64.30

64.91 64.96

64.82 65.34

65.36 64.09

64.42 64.78

64.79 64.12

65.84 65.63

66.19 65.59

65.84 65.67

65.28 65.79

65.95 66.34

66.66 66.33
-32.56

65.20 65.31

65.66 65.78
-31.97
-30.95
-30.63

66.11 65.25

65.53 66.08

66.44 66.96

67.27 67.42

67.72 67.78

67.86 67.60

67.31 66.99

66.65 66.21

65.80 65.54

65.35 67.16

67.09 67.00

66.38 66.24

66.54 65.51

65.35 65.71

65.96 65.85

65.63 65.53

65.51 65.38

65.24 65.00

64.69 64.91

64.68 64.85

64.21 64.36

63.95 63.84

63.83 64.02

64.12 64.29

64.52 67.80

65.99 65.48

64.94 64.56

64.31 64.29

64.64 64.77

64.91 65.32 65.15

66.09 64.90

64.97 64.66

64.59 64.19

65.32 64.90

64.95 64.77

CONCRETE ROLL CURB

ASPHALT SEWER

MANHOLE
WATER
VALVES

UTILITY
POLE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE

LOT AREA
22,486 SQ. FT.

WATER
METER
WATER
VALVE

R A L S T O N A V E N U E
( 5 0 ' R / W )
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1"=10'
5'-0"
25' FRONT SET BACK
20' SIDE SET BACK
20' SIDE SET BACK
20' REAR SET BACK
(N) LANDSCAPE
(N) LAWN
(N) GAS METER
(N) 400 AMP.

ELECT.

METER
(N)

AUTOMATIC
GATE
(WOOD)
(N) 7' WOOD

PRIVACY FENCE
(N) WATER METER,
(E) WATER

METER REMOVED

ALL CURB, GUTTER ,

DRIVEWAY APPROACH AND

SIDEWALKS FRONTING

PROPERTY TO BE REVIEWED

BY PUBLIC WORKS BEFORE

REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
(E) OVERHEAD
ELECT.

SERVICE (400
AMP)

UPGRADED
SER.
(N) WATER LINE + METER

INSTALLED PER CITY

STANDARDS, (E) WATER

METER REMOVED
(N) 4" SEWER LINE +

CLEAN OUT
15'-0"
(N) LANDSCAPE
(N) 2 STORY RESIDENCE
(N) 3 STALL
GARAGE
(N) SPA 44'-2" 36'-9" 33'-11"
27'-4" 30'-2"
(E) WOOD
FENCE
(PROTECT)
(E) WOOD
FENCE
(PROTECT)
(N) 7' WOOD

PRIVACY
FENCE
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)

FIRE HYDRANT
P.U.E.

P.U.E.
(N) STONE PATIO
(N) STONE PATIO
(N) CONC.

PAVERS
(N)
MAILBOX 14'-0"

DRIVEWAY SLOPE
@ 16% MAX
25'-0"
20'-0"
19'-11"
ADU
OPTION #1
ADU
OPTION #2
30'-0" 5'-0"
32'-5"
45'-0"
24'-11"
5'-0"

FIRE ACCESS
A: (149.8')

FIRE ACCESS
B: (149.7')
(N) POOL

U/ SEPARATE
PERMIT
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. Site Plan
See Details
A1.0
Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0" A1.0
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1

GENERAL NOTES & SCOPE

1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED.

2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE

MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT.

3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCE LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS.

4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.3

5. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS

CAL GREEN SITE DEVELOPMENT

1. PROJECTS THAT DISTURB LESS THAN 1 ACRE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN TO MANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE (DURING CONSTRUCTION). A BMP PAGE IS SUFFICIENT. 2019 CGC 4.106.2

2. PLANS SHALL INDICIATE HOW GRADING + PAVING WILL PREVENT SURFACE WATER FLOWS FROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. EXCEPTION: PROJECTS THAT DO NOT ALTER THE DRAINAGE PATH. 2019 CGC 4.106.3

3. ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (EV( CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY W/ RELEVANT SECTIONS 2019 CGC 4.106.4

PUBLIC WORKS NOTES

1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE

CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER =CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF WAY.

2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE

PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER.

ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES

1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATER FOR IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE.

2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS.

3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS.

4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES.

5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASED DETENTION.

6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND MINIMIZE CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.

7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OR EQUIVALENT.

8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSE SPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/OR DISEASE-RESISTANT, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS. (C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDES AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS.

9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE OR SANITARY SEWER.

10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED.

11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS,

SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TO BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES.

12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THE FOLLOWING: (A)

CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS AND SCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION,

FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , AND STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR

CLEARED MATERIAL, (C) SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDE

METHODS AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR

TEMPORARY AND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION

13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER

14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEWATERING AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.

15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G.

BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS)

16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS, EARTHEN

DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS OR JUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC.

17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFF AROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES)

18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTION

IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.

19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS.

20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED AREA WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED.

21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES PROPERLY TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER.

22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALL EMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S.

23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING

PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUM

PRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES.

FIRE NOTES (FIRE ACCESS)

1.THE MAIN HOUSE IS EQUIPPED WITH FIRE SPRINKLERS.

2.IF AN ELECTRONIC GATE CROSSES THE DRIVEWAY, PROVIDE A KNOX KEY SWITCH CONNECTED TO THE GATE TO ALLOW FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY ACCESS.

3. (E) )I5E H<D5$17 IS LOCATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN AND EXISTING SURVEY, SO ITS WITHIN THE 250'. RESPONSE TO BUILDING & PLANNING DEPT. COMMENTS 04.13.2022 NOTE: SITE IS GENERALLY FLAT. NO CONTOURS SHOWN.

4.PROVIDE A FIRE ACCESS PLAN (A1.0) THAT SHOWS FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS DISTANCE, VIA PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATHS, FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (HMC 15.21.080). TO THE FURTHEST POINT OF THE ADU, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAL FIRE CODE 503.1. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MUST BE A MIN. 150' TRAVEL DISTANCE. MEASUREMENTS MAY NOT BE TAKEN OVER FENCES, RETAINING WALLS, POOLS OR THROUGH LANDSCAPING.
-183-
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.

Arborist Report See Details AR
-184-
Sheet Scale:

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.

Arborist Report (Continued) See Details AR2
-185-
Sheet Scale:

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.

Street Photos See Details PH
BUILDING COMMENTS/REVIEW 02-10-21 02-10-21 Scale: NA PH PARCEL MAP 1 SITE Scale: NA PH STREET VIEWS 2 3. SITE Scale: NA PH STREET VIEWS
3 1. 2. 3. 4./5. 6./7. 8. 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
-186-
NOTES:

1. (EXISTING) (OGEE) G.S.M. GUTTERS, & (3" GSM)

DOWNSPOUTS (MATCH EXISTING AS REQUIRED),
LINE ALL VALLEYS WITH GSM, AT LEAST 20" WIDE
WITH WITH 1/4" EDGE TURNED OVER AND
FASTENED WITH CLEATS. LAP JOINTS AT LEAST 4",
BUT DO NOT SOLDER.

2. N/A

3. WHEN INSULATION IS INSTALLED IN ENCLOSED

RAFTER SPACES WHERE CEILINGS ARE APPLIED

DIRECT TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, A
MINIMUM AIR SPACE OF 1 INCH MUST BE PROVIDED,
INSULATION BAFFLE NEEDED.

4. FLASHINGS AND COUNTER FLASHINGS SHALL
NOT BE LESS THAN 0.016-INCH (28-GAGE)

CORROSION RESISTANT METAL, AND VALLEY

FLASHING

5. AT THE JUNCTURE OF THE ROOF & VERTICAL

SURFACES, FLASHING & COUNTERFLASHINGS
SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (26 GAUGE)

6. NA

7. TERMINATION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AIR
DUCTS SHALL BE A MIN. OF 3'-0" FROM PROPERTY
LINES OR ANY OPENING INTO THE BUILDING (I.E.

DRYERS, BATH& UTILITY FANS, ETC., MUST BE 3'-0"

AWAY FROM DOORS, WINDOWS, OPENING

SKYLIGHTS OR ATTIC VENTS, PER CODE

8. N/A

9. N/A

10. ATTIC VENTILATION AT CALIFORNIA FRAMING TO

RECEIVE LOW PROFILE VENTS OR OPENING IN THE

ROOF SHEATHING BELOW

11. (AS REQUIRED) ALL TRUSS/RAFTER BLOCKING
TO RECEIVE 2" DIA HOLES IN EVERY BLOCK
TYPICAL FOR EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF AIR FLOW.

12. ATTIC IS GETTING NEW INSULATION,VERIFY (E)

FANS/VENTS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED ER CURRENT
CODE.

PLUMBING & HVAC NOTE:

1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHER

WHEN POSSIBLE & LOCATE ON ROOFS
SLOPING TO THE REAR OF HOUSE TYP. VERIFY
LOCATION W/ DESIGNER.

SLOPE
12 8
SLOPE
12 8 SLOPE 2.5 12
SLOPE
12 12
SLOPE
12 12
SLOPE
12 12
SLOPE
12 12 SLOPE 4 12
SLOPE
12 12
SLOPE
12 12 SLOPE 3 12 SLOPE
3 12 SLOPE 4 12
SLOPE
4 12
SLOPE
4 12 SLOPE
3 12 SLOPE 3 12 SLOPE 12 12

ASPHALT ROOF
CLASS A: FIRE RATED
DECK

ASPHALT ROOF
CLASS A: FIRE RATED RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE SLOPE 12 12

RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

VALLEY VALLEY
D.S. D.S.

D.S.

D.S. D.S.

D.S.

METAL ROOF

STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF 18" O.C.

VALLEY

METAL ROOF

STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF 18" O.C. Proposed Roof Plan
See Details
A2.2
Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" A2.2
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1
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.

MAIN HOUSE
Scale: N.A. A2.2
OGEE GUTTER 4
Scale: N.A. A2.2
SHINGLE CUT SHEET 2
Scale: N.A. A2.2
LP INSTALL GUIDE 3
Scale: N.A. A2.2
HALF ROUND GUTTER 5 -187-
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.

UPPER LEVEL CLG. HT.
32' HEIGHT LIMIT
12 12
12 4 32'-0" 9'-1 1/4" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0"
4 BRICK VENEER W/ 2 1/4" STONE

CAP - MCNEAR BRICK & BLOCK
(CA COMPANY)
5/4X4 ON 5/4X8 FASCIA (TYP.)
WINDSOR ONE T+G SOFFIT

WINDSOR ONE

LAP SIDING
(8" EXPOSURE)

MITERED CORNERS
14" SQ. COLUMN -
(CHADS WORTH)
40 YR. ASPHALT SHINGLES

ROOFING GRACE
UNDERLAYMENT, TYP.

TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"
GRADE (E) LOT LINE (E) LOT LINE 20' SIDE SETBACK
45° 22'-0"
20'-0" 20' SIDE SETBACK
45° 22'-0"
16'-8 1/2" 31'-1 1/2" 20'-0"
7' GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE

SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
(N) DRIVEWAY (N) SIDE YARD 3'-5 1/2"

65.50'

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'

STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF 18" O.C. 9 1/2"
12 4
12 12

WINDSOR ONE
BOARD + BATTEN W/
5X5 BRACKETS @ END
PROUD OF SIDING 5" +
40 YR. ASPHALT SHINGLES

SIERRA PACIFIC WOOD
WINDOWS W/ S.D.L. (PUTTY).

TYP.

PART GAS/ELECT BEVELO

COPPER LIGHTS (MADE IN US)

BRICK VENEER MATCHES THE

FOUNDATION BRICK VENEER

MCNEAR BRICK & BLOCK (CA

COMPANY)
12 8
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1" 1'-3" 10'-0" 1'-0"
TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"

SATIN WINDOW TREATMENT

FOR NEIGHBOR PRIVACY
GRADE (E) LOT LINE (E) LOT LINE 20' SIDE SETBACK
45° 22'-0" 20' SIDE SETBACK
45° 22'-0"
(N) SIDE YARD (N) SIDE YARD
20'-0" 19'-7" 10'-2" 20'-0" 3'-5 1/2"

65.50'

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'

SATIN WINDOW TREATMENT

FOR NEIGHBOR PRIVACY
12 12 9 1/2"
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.

UPPER LEVEL CLG. HT.

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. Proposed Elevations
See Details
A3.0
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" A3.0
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION 1
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0" A3.0
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 2 RESPONSE TO BUILDING & PLANNING DEPT. COMMENTS 04.13.2022 -188- 12 4
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1" 1'-3" 10'-0" 1'-0"
TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"
GRADE (E) LOT LINE 25' FRONT SETBACK (E) LOT LINE
45° 22'-0" 20' REAR SETBACK
45° 22'-0"
(N) REAR YARD
(N) FRONT YARD
20'-0" 13'-10" 13'-4 1/4" 25'-0" 3'-5 1/2"

SATIN WINDOW TREATMENT

FOR NEIGHBOR PRIVACY

65.50'

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.

UPPER LEVEL CLG. HT.

GRADE 65.50'
12 4 12

2.5 32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1 1/4" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0" TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2" (E) LOT LINE 20' SIDE SETBACK (E) LOT LINE 45° 22'-0" 25' FRONT SETBACK 22'-0"
25'-0" 9'-7 1/2" 10'-8" 20'-0"
45° 3'-5 1/2"

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'
(N) FRONT YARD
(N) REAR YARD
AWNING WDWS. FOR

NEIGHBOR PRIVACY
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.

UPPER LEVEL CLG. HT.

DESIGN PLANNING
form LOT SIZE: 22,486 SQ. FT. Proposed Elevations
See Details
A3.1
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0" A3.1
PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION 1
Scale: 3/16 = 1'-0" A3.1
PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION 2 RESPONSE TO BUILDING & PLANNING DEPT. COMMENTS 04.13.2022 -189- 12 4
CONC. RAT PROOFING PAD
MIN. THICKNESS 2" W/ MIN.
6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1 1/4" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0" TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"
GRADE

FRONT PORCH ENTRY HALL GREAT RM BACK PORCH

DEN/MUSIC
R-19 @ 2x6
WALLS, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
R-19 @ FLOOR
FRAMING, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
5 8
" GYP. BD, TYP.
14" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)
11-7/8" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)

PRE-FAB TRUSSES
@ 24" O.C.

ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT
SHINGLES GRACE UNDERLAYMENT TYP., TYP.
12 10
12" SQ. COLUMN -
(CHADSWORTH)
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 18" O.C. 3'-5 1/2"

65.50'

66.50'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.

UPPER LEVEL CLG. HT.

76.52'

77.75'
12" SQ. COLUMN -
(CHADSWORTH)

2.5 12
12 4
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1 1/4" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0" TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"
GRADE
CONC. RAT PROOFING PAD
MIN. THICKNESS 2" W/ MIN.
6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER
R-19 @ 2x6
WALLS, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
R-19 @ FLOOR
FRAMING, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
5 8
" GYP. BD, TYP.
14" TJI SERIES
230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"

T & G PLYWOOD
(S.S.D.)
11-7/8" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)

PRE-FAB TRUSSES
@ 24" O.C.

ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT
SHINGLES GRACE UNDERLAYMENT TYP., TYP.

STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF 16" O.C.

LIVING
M. BATH CLT
FRONT PORCH REAR PORCH 3'-5 1/2"

65.50'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.

UPPER LEVEL CLG. HT.

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

REAR YARD
12 2.5
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. Proposed Building Sections See Details
A4.0
Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" A4.0
PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 1
Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" A4.0
PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 2 -190-
12 4
12 12
12 4

MAIN LEVEL SUBFLOOR

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HEIGHT

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLOOR

UPPER LEVEL CEILING HEIGHT
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1 1/4" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0" TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"
GRADE
DINING

FRONT PORCH LIVING
BED-4 CLT M. BATH
CONC. RAT PROOFING PAD
MIN. THICKNESS 2" W/ MIN.
6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER
R-19 @ 2x6
WALLS, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
R-19 @ FLOOR
FRAMING, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
5 8
" GYP. BD, TYP.
14" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)
11-7/8" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)

PRE-FAB TRUSSES
@ 24" O.C.

ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT
SHINGLES GRACE UNDERLAYMENT TYP., TYP.

STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF 16"
O.C. 3'-5 1/2"

65.50'

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-1 1/4" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0" TOP RIDGE 7'-2 1/2" 28'-6 1/2"
GRADE
CONC. RAT PROOFING PAD
MIN. THICKNESS 2" W/ MIN.
6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER
M. BATH
R-19 @ 2x6
WALLS, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
R-19 @ FLOOR
FRAMING, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
5 8
" GYP. BD, TYP.
14" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)
11-7/8" TJI SERIES 230 @ 16"
O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"
T & G PLYWOOD (S.S.D.)

PRE-FAB TRUSSES
@ 24" O.C.

ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT
SHINGLES GRACE UNDERLAYMENT TYP., TYP.

M. CLT
BED-3 3'-5 1/2"

65.50'

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

86.85'

94.06'

97.50'
FRONT YARD REAR YARD 9 1/2"
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. Proposed Building Sections See Details
A4.1
Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" A4.1
PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 2
Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" A4.1
PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 1 -191-
MAIN LEVEL SUBFLR.

MAIN LEVEL PLATE HT.

UPPER LEVEL SUBFLR.
32' HEIGHT LIMIT 32'-0" 9'-6 1/2" 1'-2 3/4" 10'-0 1/4" 1'-0" TOP RIDGE 21'-9 1/2"
GRADE
GARAGE
ATTIC
R-19 @ 2x6
WALLS, TYP.

SEE TITLE-24
5 8
" GYP. BD, TYP.

PRE-FAB ATTIC
TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.

ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT
SHINGLES GRACE UNDERLAYMENT TYP., TYP.

65.50'

66.50'

76.52'

77.75'

87.29'

97.50'
12 8
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. Proposed Building Section See Details
A4.2
Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0" A4.2
PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 1
(GARAGE)
-192-
5/8" 3 1/2" 4 3/4" 2 x4
MIN. R-13 (SOUND BATT) @

ALL BATHROOMS/LAUNDRY
5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BD.

TYPCIAL THROUGHOUT HOUSE

SMOOTH FINISH OR MATCH EXISTING CONDITION
2x4 STUD WALL @
16" O.C. S.S.D.

STAGGER JOINTS EACH SIDE
(LOAD BEARING ONLY)
NOTES:

SEE WWW.GPGYPSUM.COM FOR

TECHNICAL SPEC'S
5/8" 1/2" 3/4" 5 1/2"
7 3/8"
2 x 6
R-21 FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATION
FOR 2x6 WALLS, TYPICAL. IF TITLE-24 SHOWS

LOWER MINIMUMS,
FOLLOW MORE STRINGENT VALUES.

APA RATED SHEATHING EXPOSURE 1
1 2
" PLYWOOD OR OSB

WINDSOR ONE SIDING (PAINTED OR STAINED)
MIN. 2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.
5 8
" DENSARMOR PLUS FIREGUARD, OR
TOUGHROCK FIREGUARD GYPSUM BD.

APPLIED VERTICALLY OR HORIZONTALLY
TO STUDS W/ 1-7/8" 6D COATED NAILS 7"
O.C. STAGGER JOINTS EACH SIDE

BENJAMIN OBDYKE (HYDRO-GAP)
ICC - ES REPORT ESR-3394 WALL SIDING

UNDERLAYMENT, OR APPROVED EQUAL
NOTES:

A. VISIT GRACECONSTRUCTION.COM FOR THE MOST CURRENT DETAILS, INSTALLATION VIDEO AND PRODUCT DATA SHEETS B. REMOVE RIPCORD® FROM GRACE VYCOR PLUS FOR EASE OF INSTALLATION C. IF APPLICABLE, LEAVE RELEASE PAPER ON LOWER HALF OF SILL FLASHING UNTIL FUTURE TIE-IN WITH WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER D. FOR CONCRETE, MASONRY OR WHERE ADHESION IS MARGINAL, USE PERM-A-BARRIER® WB PRIMER TO PROMOTE VYCOR ADHESION E. CHECK LOCAL BUILDING CODES FOR WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS AND INSTALL GRACE VYCOR PLUS WITH WEATHER

RESISTIVE BARRIER TO FORM WATER-SHEDDING LAPS
F. INSTALL WINDOW PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION AND USE APPROPRIATE SEALANT FOR WINDOW AND WOOD BUCK G. DETAIL ALSO RELEVANT FOR GRACE VYCOR V40 AND VYCOR BUTYL

EXTERIOR WALL

SILL PLATE
(SEE VCRDET106 FOR OPTIONS)
GRACE 1 VYCOR PLUS
2 3

MECHANICALLY FASTEN AS NECESSARY IN CORNERS

THROUGH GRACE VYCOR PLUS

WINDOW WITH NAILING FLANGE
(SET IN SEALANT EXCEPT ALONG

SILL FLANGE)
GRACE

VYCOR PLUS
GRACE VYCORNER™ OR

CORNER PATCH RECOMMENDED
(SEE VCRDET-507 OR VCRDET-504 FOR OPTIONS)

GRADE LINE

STANDARD BRICK
MOULD, TYP.

STANDARD
BRICK
MOULD, TYP.

SIDING
AS PER

ELEVATIONS

REGGIO STANDARD

VENT W/ INSECT
SCREEN BEHIND (BLK.

ALUM. SCREEN &
VENT)

REGGIO STANDARD

VENT W/ INSECT
SCREEN BEHIND (BLK.

ALUM. SCREEN &
VENT)
1'-4"

VERIFY W/ REGGIO

CUT SECTION

ELEVATION

SIDING FINISH

WINDSOR ONE (PAINTED)

TRIM BOARDS
5 1/2"

SIERRA PACIFIC WOOD

WINDOWS (PUTTY)
3 4
" S.D.L
G.S.M. WINDOW FLASHING
(PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM)
2 x 6
5/4 x 4
LARGE WD. SILL
(PAINT) WINDSOR ONE
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.

See Details
A5.0 Building Details
Scale: 3" = 1'-0" A5.0
INTERIOR WALL DTLS. 1
A5.0
EXT. WALL DTLS. 2
Scale: N.A. A5.0
WINDOW FLASHING DTLS. 3
Scale: 3" = 1'-0" A5.0
TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL 5
Sierra Pacific or Equal
Scale: 3" = 1'-0" A5.0
(N) EXT. WALL VENT DTLS. 4 -193-
B. 1,095 SQ. FT.

UP
UP LSM 45
A
4"OAK
33"PINE
6"LOQUAT
4"OAK
(3)4"EUGENIA
5"OAK
6"EUGENIA
29"CEDAR
41"PINE
8"OAK
(3)8"OAK
18"MAG
9"CAMPHON
15"CAMPHER
4 1
3 12
6 7
8 9
10 13
14 15
16 11
17 18
19 21
20 2
22"CAMPHOR
18"OAK
(3)2"BIRCH
18"CAMPHER
14"OAK
25"CAMPHER
5 12"OAK
10"YUCCA
6"OAK
6"ARBUSTUS
S 31°02'17" E
135.37'
S 70°18'40" W
138.97'
S 17°47'37" E
149.33'

64.30 65.58

66.09 65.85

67.80 65.43

65.05 63.91

64.53 65.91

65.44 65.74

64.14 64.30

64.91 64.96

64.82 65.34

65.36 64.09

64.42 64.78

64.79 64.12

65.84 65.63

66.19 65.59

65.84 65.67

65.28 65.79

65.95 66.34

66.66 66.33
-32.56

65.20 65.31

65.66 65.78
-31.97
-30.95
-30.63

66.11 65.25

65.53 66.08

66.44 66.96

67.27 67.42

67.72 67.78

67.86 67.60

67.31 66.99

66.65 66.21

65.80 65.54

65.35 67.16

67.09 67.00

66.38 66.24

66.54 65.51

65.35 65.71

65.96 65.85

65.63 65.53

65.51 65.38

65.24 65.00

64.69 64.91

64.68 64.85

64.21 64.36

63.95 63.84

63.83 63.59

63.45 64.02

64.12 64.29

64.52 67.80

65.99 65.48

64.94 64.56

64.31 64.29

64.64 64.77

64.91 65.32 65.15

66.09 64.90

64.97 64.66

64.59 64.19

65.32 64.90

64.95 64.77

CONCRETE ROLL CURB

ASPHALT

UTILITY
POLE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE

LOT AREA
22,486 SQ. FT.

WATER
METER
WATER
VALVE

R A L S T O N A V E N U E
( 5 0 ' R / W )
SS
SS
SS SS
SS
SS
1"=10'
5'-0"
(N) LANDSCAPE
(N) LAWN
(N) LANDSCAPE 44'-2" 36'-9"
27'-4" 30'-2"
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
(REMOVE)
P.U.E.

P.U.E.
(N) STONE PATIO
(N) STONE PATIO
(N) CONC.

PAVERS
14'-0"
25'-0"
32'-5"
A. 3,138
SQ. FT.

C. 532
SQ. FT.

D. 2,544 SQ. FT.

SC. 3,572 SQ.FT.

E. 336 SQ. FT.

FRONT YARD
SETBACK 25'

DRIVEWAY
X1. 432 SQ. FT. 25'-0"

FRONT YARD
SETBACK 25'

DRIVEWAY
X2. 191 SQ. FT.

FRONT YARD
SETBACK 25'

DRIVEWAY
X3. 84 SQ. FT.

DESIGN PLANNING
form LOT SIZE: 22,486 SQ. FT. Hardscape Calc. Site Plan See Details
HC
Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0" HC
HARDSCAPE CALC. PLAN 1 RESPONSE TO BUILDING & PLANNING DEPT. COMMENTS 04.13.2022 NOTE: SITE IS GENERALLY FLAT. NO CONTOURS SHOWN.

HARDSCAPE COVERAGE
A
B
C
D
E
3,138 SQ.FT.
1,095 SQ. FT.
532 SQ.FT.
2,544 SQ. FT.
366 SQ. FT.
7,645 SQ.FT.

LOT SIZE: 22,486 SQ. FT.

LOT INFO.

APN = 028-234-130
7,645 SQ.FT. / 22,486 SQ.FT. (LOT SIZE) = 33.99%

STRUCTURAL COVERAGE
SC
TOTAL
3,572 SQ.FT.
3,572 SQ.FT.
3,572 SQ.FT. / 22,486 SQ.FT. (LOT SIZE) = 15.89%
= STRUCTURAL COVERAGE
= STRUCTURAL COVERAGE

SOFTSCAPE COVERAGE

HARDSCAPE COVERAGE (HS)

STRUCTURAL COVERAGE (SC)
7,645 SQ.FT
3,572 SQ.FT.
11,217 SQ.FT.
11,269 SQ.FT. / 22,486 SQ.FT. (LOT SIZE) = 50.12%

LOT AREA
HS /SC
22,486 SQ.FT
11,217 SQ.FT.
11,269 SQ.FT.

HS/SC
+
+
- SOFTSCAPE COVERAGE

LOT COVERAGE

HARDSCAPE COVERAGE (HS)

STRUCTURAL COVERAGE (SC)
7,645 SQ.FT.
3,572 SQ.FT.
11,217 SQ.FT.
11,217 SQ.FT. / 22,486 SQ.FT. (LOT SIZE) = 49.88%
HS/SC
+
MAX LOT COVERAGE = LOT SIZE X 50% = MAX COV.
22,486 X 50% = 11,243 SQ.FT.

FRONTYARD HARDSCAPE CALC.

X1
X2
X3
432 SQ.FT.
191 SQ. FT.
84 SQ.FT.
707 SQ.FT.
707 SQ.FT. / 4,228 SQ.FT. (1ST25' LOT SIZE) = 16.72%
= STRUCTURAL COVERAGE
+ -194-
135.37' S 31°02'17" E
S 70°18'40" W
138.97'
S 17°47'37" E 149.33' 4"OAK 33"PINE 6"LOQUAT 4"OAK(3)4"EUGENIA 5"OAK 6"EUGENIA 29"CEDAR 41"PINE 9"OAK (3)8"OAK 19"MAG 9"CAMPHON 15"CAMPHER 4 1
3 12
6 7
8 9 10 1314 1516 11 17 18 19 21 20
2 22"CAMPHOR 18"OAK (3)2"BIRCH 18"CAMPHER 14"OAK 25"CAMPHER 5 12"OAK 10"YUCCA 6"OAK 6"ARBUSTUS
C
2 V
2 V
1 V
1 V
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
G G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2
A
A
V 1 V 1 G1 G1 G1G1 G1
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B 10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010 7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 6 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
8 8
8 111
1 1
1 1 8
6 6
8 6
6 8 1010101010
8 81616 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1010101010101010101010 10101010 7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
1 1
111
111
111
1 1
1 1
1 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
1 17 17 17 17 17
1 1 17 17 17 17 17
1 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
1 1 17 17
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 1 1 10 10
9 9
9 9
9 9 18 18 18 18 18 18
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 9
9 9 18
1 1
1 1
1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1616 1616 1616 1616 13 13 13 13 13 13 5555
5555
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
7 7
7 4
4 4
4 4
4 4 44
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 14 14 10"MAGNOLIA RESIDENCE (N) GARAGE (N) R A L S T O N A V E N U E 50' R.O.W. 20'-0" SETBACK
20'-0" SETBACK
20'-0" SETBACK
30'-0" SETBACK 25'-0" BACKUP
5' PUE
5' PUE
5' PUE (E) OAK TREE TO BE REMOVED (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY TREES *INCLUDE ROOT BARRIERS (E) SOLID WOOD FENCE

FENCING FENCING
(E) (N) (N) 7'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCE (E) FENCE TO BE REMOVED (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY HEDGE (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) SWIMMING POOL 18'x40' (N) LAWN (N) LAWN (N) STONE PATH (N) STEPPING STONES W/ GRAVEL JOINTS (N) STEPPING STONES W/ GRAVEL JOINTS (N) STEPPING STONES 15'-0" 18'-0"
6' (E) CONCRETE
2' DRIVEWAY APRON *REPAIR / REPLACE AS NEEDED PER TOWN SPECS / STDS (N) SPA 12'-7" 12'-7" (N) 3' TALL BBQ / COUNTERTOP W/ STORAGE BELOW *FLUSH W/ LAWN (E) CAMPHER TREE TO BE REMOVED (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCE / GATE STORAGE AREA (N) STONE STEPS / LANDING (N) STONE STEPS / LANDING OUTLINE OF (E) CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED (N) 4' MAILBOX W/ 4" ADDRESS #'S (N) 7'-0" TALL STEEL DOUBLE SWING VEHICULAR GATES (N) 7'-6" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ LIGHTS FIXTURES *MATCH HOUSE (N) STUCCO FENCE / WALL *6'-6" TALL MAX (N) DECORATIVE (N) 7'-0" TALL STEEL PEDESTRIAN GATE *MATCH HOUSE *MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-6" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ LIGHTS FIXTURES *MATCH HOUSE (N) 6' CONCRETE PAVER PARKING STRIP *INSTALL PER TOWN STD / SPECS (N) 6' CONCRETE PAVER PARKING STRIP *INSTALL PER TOWN STD / SPECS (E) WATER VALVES (E) UTILITY POLE (E) FIRE HYDRANT (E) 2' CONCRETE CURB / GUTTER *REPAIR / REPLACE AS NEEDED PER TOWN SPECS / STDS (E) WATER METER (N) EVERGREEN TREES (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY HEDGE

FENCING FENCING
(N) 6'-0" (E) 7'-0" (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING *MATCH (E) (E) OAK TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) PARKING STRIP *ADJACENT PROPERTY OUTLINE OF (E) POOL / TO BE REMOVED OUTLINE OF (E) SPORT COURT TO BE REMOVED (E) CEDAR TREE TO BE REMOVED (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY TREES *INCLUDE ROOT BARRIERS (N) NATIVE REPLACEMENT TREE (E) PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (N) CONCRETE PLAY AREA 23'x35' (N) STONE STEPS / LANDING (N) 7'-0" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ LIGHTS FIXTURES *MATCH HOUSE (N) GUEST PARKING (2) 9'x18' (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCE / GATE STORAGE AREA (N) DECORATIVE PLANTING POTS W/ DRIP IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE (N) STEPPING STONES W/ GRAVEL JOINTS (N) GROUNDCOVER (N) GINKGO TREES (N) GRAVEL SEATING AREA (N) GROUNDCOVER 6' 2' (N) SYNTHETIC TURF PLAY AREA (E) FENCE (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY SCREENING HEDGE (E) FENCE (E) PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING *MATCH (E) (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING *MATCH (E) (N) 18" TALL DRYSTACK STONE PLANTER WALL *REQUIRES PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL (N) STREET TREES *INCLUDE ROOT BARRIER INSTALLATION (N) STUCCO FENCE / WALL *6'-6" TALL MAX. (N) 18" TALL DRYSTACK STONE PLANTER WALL *REQUIRES PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL GRAVEL (N) DECORATIVE GRAVEL (N) 7'-0" SOLID WOOD GATE (N) DECORATIVE GRAVEL (N) 7'-0" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ (N) 7'-0" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ (N) LAWN L1.0 DATE: JUNE 13, 2022 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" LANDSCAPE PLAN TITLE: SHEET NO: PLAN LANDSCAPE REVISIONS

NEW RESIDENCE
1950 RALSTON AVENUE HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA 70 60 315 305 50 1850 20 35 65

GENEVRA RD

CLUB DR
RALSTON AVE. 88035 55 2001 2051 2095 165 40 151 30 ASTER AVE 5 15 30 20 10
4 1900 2000 2050 900915 905 VICINITY MAP SITE

COUNTRY
7/31/2023
-195-
L1.5 DATE: TITLE: SHEET NO: DETAILS NOTES / REVISIONS

NEW RESIDENCE
1950 RALSTON AVE HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA
GATE COLUMN / SPREAD FOOTING SCALE: NTS PAVING 3/4" ELECTRICAL CONDUIT (115V) (4) #4 REBAR HORIZONTAL GATE SWING HINGE (4) #4 REBAR VERTICAL #3 BAR TIES @ 16" O.C. 8" CMU W/ MORTAR FILL 18" SQ. CONCRETE BOND BEAM ACROSS DRIVEWAY 3/4" DIA. STEEL DOWEL SET 3' DEEP MIN. WEIGHT OF GATE DEPENDING ON SIZE AND VERIFY HINGE SYSTEM IRON FABRICATOR SHALL NOTE: 12" DIA. CONCRETE PIER W/ (3) #4 REBAR - ARRANGE IN TRIANGLE VERTICAL & #3 COMPACTED SUBGRADE TIES *16' O.C. HORIZONTAL DFINISHED GRADE *VERIFY W/ GATE FABRICATOR
18"
6 1/4"
4'-0" 12" L1.5 DATE: TITLE: SHEET NO: DETAILS NOTES / REVISIONS

NEW RESIDENCE
1950 RALSTON AVE HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA GENERAL NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE PROPOSED WORK PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ON SITE ALL GRADES, PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WATERPROOFING AND UNDERGROUND PIPING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PLANS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. ALL DISCREPANCIES OR PROBLEMATIC SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS WORK MAY INCLUDE LANDSCAPING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NEW CURB DRAINS, AND PARKING STRIP. 4. FINISHED GRADES SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED TO PREVENT ANY STANDING WATER. ALL HARDSCAPE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM GRADE OF 2% UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. JUTE MESH EROSION CONTROL NETTING SHALL BE USED ON ALL 3:1 OR GREATER SLOPES & STAKED APPROPRIATELY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR EXISTING TREES BY INSTALLING TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE TREES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE DRIPLINE. IN THE EVENT THAT TREE ROOTS OVER 6" ARE DISCOVERED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE CONTACTED. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, & OTHER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS / DOCUMENTS FOR WORK IN RELEVANT AREAS. 7. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY MAKE SITE OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION BUT SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED TO SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION ONSITE. 8. THIS PLAN IS NOT A SURVEY OR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. IT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SHOULD BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. CONTRACTOR NOTES 1. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE PIPE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE TOWN. WORK PERFORMED SHALL BE PER THE LATEST EDITION OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH STANDARD DETAILS. 2. ANY DAMAGED OR OTHERWISE DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER AND PARKING STRIP SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ALONG THE ENTIRE STREET FRONTAGE PER TOWN STANDARDS/ SPECIFICATIONS. COORDINATE INSPECTION WITH STREET DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR, GARY FRANCIS - 650.375.7444. INSPECTION OF CURB & GUTTER SHALL OCCUR BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PARKING STRIP. 3. THE INSTALLATION OF THIS PROJECT REQUIRES AN INSPECTION AND SIGN-OFF BY THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE CALLING THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL INSPECTION. CALL 650.375.7411 TO ARRANGE FOR THIS INSPECTION WHEN THE PROJECT HAS BEEN INSTALLED. 4. AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER DURING PERMITTING, THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO TOWN REQUIREMENTS FOR ONSITE COLLECTION AND / OR DETENTION OF WATER RUN-OFF FOR PROJECTS WHICH INCREASE ONSITE IMPERVIOUS AREA (STRUCTURAL & HARDSCAPE) BY MORE THAN OR EQUAL TO 1,000 SQ. FT. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EXISTING EUCALYPTUS AND ACACIA TREES FROM SITE PER TOWN REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO TREES OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ANY PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS. 7. TREE ROOT BARRIER SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ALL NEW TREE PLANTINGS WITHIN 2'-0" OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS / RIGHT OF WAY'S. 8. THE HOMEOWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PERVIOUS CONCRETE / PAVEMENT AREAS. THE SURFACE OF THE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT SHALL BE VACUUM CLEANED USING COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SWEEPING MACHINES, AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT INFILTRATION RATES. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS CLEANING BE PERFORMED AT A MINIMUM OF AT THE END OF WINTER, MID-SUMMER, AND AFTER AUTUMN LEAF-FALL. PLANTING NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND SOD QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED AS DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER. 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES, WITH A CHIP SIZE OF NO LESS THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWASTE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH IS RECOMMENDED. 5. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS. 6. PLANTING HOLES SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE SIZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMPOST & 95% EXISTING SOIL. PLANTING HOLES OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 7. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. 8. RESIDUAL WEED PRE-EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 9. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL NOTES 1. AN OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A BARRIER THAT SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO PLASTERING OR FILLING WITH WATER. 2. THE TOP OF THE BARRIER SHALL BE AT LEAST 48 INCHES (1219 MM) ABOVE GRADE MEASURED ON THE SIDE OF THE BARRIER THAT FACES AWAY FROM THE SWIMMING POOL. THE MAXIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN GRADE AND THE BOTTOM OF THE BARRIER SHALL BE 2 INCHES (51mm) MEASURED ON THE SIDE OF THE BARRIER THAT FACES AWAY FROM THE SWIMMING POOL 3. OPENINGS IN THE BARRIER SHALL NOT ALLOW PASSAGE OF A 1 3/4-INCH-DIAMETER (44.5 MM) SPHERE 4. CHAIN LINK FENCES USED AS THE BARRIER SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 11 GAUGE 5. ACCESS GATES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ITEMS 1 THROUGH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES SHALL BE SELF-CLOSING AND HAVE A SELF-LATCHING DEVICE. WHERE THE RELEASE MECHANISM OF THE SELF-LATCHING DEVICE IS LOCATED LESS THAN 54 INCHES (1372 MM) FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE GATE, (1) THE RELEASE MECHANISM SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE POOL SIDE OF THE BARRIER AT LEAST 3 INCHES (76 MM) BELOW THE TOP OF THE GATE, AND (2) THE GATE AND BARRIER SHALL HAVE NO OPENING GREATER THAN 1/2 INCH. ANY GATES OTHER THAN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH LOCKABLE HARDWARE OR PADLOCKS AND SHALL REMAIN LOCKED AT ALL TIMES WHEN NOT IN USE 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AN ANTI-ENTRAPMENT DEVICE(S) ON THE SUCTION OUTLET OF ANY POOL OR SPA WHICH MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS OR THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PER (AB) 2977 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL BOND ALL METAL WITHIN 5'-0" OF POOL PER UBC SPECS. JUNE 14, 2022 (N) 7'-6" BRICK COLUMNS *PAINT WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-0" WOOD GATE *MATCH HOUSE W / LIGHTS (N) STREET TREES (N) EVERGREEN HEDGE FRONT FENCE ELEVATION A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SEE PLAN GATE COLUMN / SPREAD FOOTING SCALE: NTS PAVING 3/4" ELECTRICAL CONDUIT (115V) (4) #4 REBAR HORIZONTAL GATE SWING HINGE (4) #4 REBAR VERTICAL #3 BAR TIES @ 16" O.C. 8" CMU W/ MORTAR FILL 18" SQ. CONCRETE BOND BEAM ACROSS DRIVEWAY 3/4" DIA. STEEL DOWEL SET 3' DEEP MIN. WEIGHT OF GATE DEPENDING ON SIZE AND VERIFY HINGE SYSTEM IRON FABRICATOR SHALL NOTE: 12" DIA. CONCRETE PIER W/ (3) #4 REBAR - ARRANGE IN TRIANGLE VERTICAL & #3 COMPACTED SUBGRADE TIES *16' O.C. HORIZONTAL DFINISHED GRADE *VERIFY W/ GATE FABRICATOR
18"
6 1/4"
4'-0" 12" 18" 18" 4"x6" PT. RWD POSTS *6'-6" O.C. MAX. 1"x6" CAP *MATCH HOUSE 1"x8" WOOD PANELS *MATCH HOUSE FINISH WOOD FENCE SCALE: NTS STAIN NATURAL NOTE:

F GRADE
7' MAX. 3' DEEP CONC FOOTING 4" DRAINROCK 12"
3'-0"
4" 2"X12" BASE FRONT VEHICULAR GATE
B SCALE: NTS SEE PLAN (N) 18" TALL DRYSTACK STONE WALL (N) 18" TALL DRYSTACK STONE WALL (N) EVERGREEN HEDGE (N) 7'-6" BRICK COLUMNS *PAINT WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-0" WOOD DOUBLE SWING VEHICULAR GATE W / LIGHTS *MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-0" BRICK COLUMNS *PAINT WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-0" BRICK COLUMNS *PAINT WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE SEE PLAN CONCRETE BOND BEAM *SEE DETAIL FIXTURES - (1) 60 w BULB MAX. FACEMOUNT LIGHT W/ FROSTED GLASS *MATCH HOUSE 16" O.C. B.W. #4 REBAR CONT. 8" CMU W/ MORTAR FILL & BRICK FACIA *MATCH HOUSE FIXTURES - (1) 60 w BULB MAX. FACEMOUNT LIGHT W/ FROSTED GLASS *MATCH HOUSE DOUBLE SWING GATE 7'-0" SOLID WOOD 1x8 WOOD BOARDS *STAIN WOOD TO MATCH HOUSE 7'-6" 2' SQ (N) 7'-6" BRICK COLUMNS *PAINT WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE W / LIGHTS 1x12 WOOD BASE BOARDS (N) 6'-6" STUCCO FENCE / WALL 1x12 WOOD BASE BOARDS FRONT PEDESTRIAN GATE C SCALE: NTS
7'-6" 2' SQ SEE PLAN CONCRETE
4'-0"FOOTING *3'-0" SQ. PEDESTRIAN GATE 7'-0" SOLID WOOD FIXTURES - (1) 60 w BULB MAX. FACEMOUNT LIGHT W/ FROSTED GLASS *MATCH HOUSE 16" O.C. B.W. #4 REBAR CONT. 1x12 WOOD BASE BOARDS 8" CMU W/ MORTAR FILL & BRICK FACIA *MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-6" BRICK WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE COLUMNS *PAINT 7/31/23 (N) 6'-6" STUCCO FENCING *MATCH COLOR/TEXTURE OF HOUSE (N) 6'-6" STUCCO FENCING *MATCH COLOR/TEXTURE OF HOUSE 1950 4" CMU W/ MORTAR FILL & BRICK FACIA *MATCH HOUSE CONCRETE FOOTING *3'-0" SQ. MAILBOX INSERT W/ 4" ADDRESS #'S BRICK FACIA 4'-0" 3'-0" 2' SQ SCALE: NTS BRICK MAILBOX
E 4" ADDRESS #'S *PAINT WHITE TO MATCH HOUSE
-196-
4"OAK 33"PINE 6"LOQUAT 4"OAK(3)4"EUGENIA 5"OAK 6"EUGENIA 29"CEDAR 41"PINE 9"OAK (3)8"OAK 19"MAG 9"CAMPHON 15"CAMPHER 4 1
3 12
6 7
8 9 10 1314 1516 11 17 18 19 21 20
2 22"CAMPHOR 18"OAK (3)2"BIRCH 18"CAMPHER 14"OAK 25"CAMPHER 5 12"OAK 10"YUCCA 6"OAK 6"ARBUSTUS 10"MAGNOLIA RESIDENCE (N) GARAGE (N) (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) SWIMMING POOL 18'x40' (N) LAWN (N) LAWN (N) SPA (N) CONCRETE PLAY AREA 23'x35' (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) SYNTHETIC TURF PLAY AREA 30'-0" DEFENSIVE SPACE 30'-0" DEFENSIVE SPACE 30'-0" DEFENSIVE SPACE
30'-0" DEFENSIVE SPACE 30'-0" DEFENSIVE SPACE
30'-0" DEFENSIVE SPACE (E) OAK TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) CEDAR TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (E) PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED (N) LAWN L6.0 DATE: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" / TREE REMOVAL PLAN TITLE: SHEET NO: PLAN PROTECTION REVISIONS TREE

NEW RESIDENCE
1950 RALSTON AVE HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MANAGEMENT JUNE 13, 2022 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT NOTES 1. MAINTAIN A FIREBREAK BY REMOVING AND CLEARING AWAY ALL FLAMMABLE VEGETATION AND OTHER COMBUSTIBLE GROWTH WITHIN 30 FEET OF EACH BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS PURSUANT TO PRC §4291(A). SINGLE SPECIMENS OF TREES OR OTHER VEGETATION MAY BE RETAINED PROVIDED THEY ARE WELL SPACED, WELL-PRUNED, AND CREATE A CONDITION THAT AVOIDS SPREAD OF FIRE TO OTHER VEGETATION OR TO A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. CHIMNEY AND STOVEPIPE OUTLETS SHALL BE MAINTAINED WITH 10 FEET CLEARANCE TO ADJACENT VEGETATION. 2. DEAD AND DYING WOODY SURFACE FUELS AND AERIAL FUELS WITHIN THE REDUCED FUEL ZONE SHALL BE REMOVED. LOOSE SURFACE LITTER, NORMALLY CONSISTING OF FALLEN LEAVES OR NEEDLES, TWIGS, BARK, CONES, AND SMALL BRANCHES, SHALL BE PERMITTED TO A DEPTH OF 3 INCHES. THIS GUIDELINE IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO ELIMINATE TREES, BUSHES, SHRUBS AND SURFACE DEBRIS THAT ARE COMPLETELY DEAD OR WITH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF DEAD BRANCHES OR LEAVES/NEEDLES THAT WOULD READILY BURN. THE ROOF OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF LEAVES, NEEDLES, AND OTHER VEGETATIVE MATERIALS. 3. DOWN LOGS OR STUMPS ANYWHERE WITHIN 100 FEET FROM THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, WHEN EMBEDDED IN THE SOIL, MAY BE RETAINED WHEN ISOLATED FROM OTHER VEGETATION. OCCASIONAL (APPROXIMATELY ONE PER ACRE) STANDING DEAD TREES (SNAGS) THAT ARE WELL-SPACE FROM OTHER VEGETATION AND WHICH WILL NOT FALL ON BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OR ON ROADWAYS/DRIVEWAYS MAY BE RETAINED. 4. WITHIN THE REDUCED FUEL ZONE, ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FUEL TREATMENTS (4A. OR 4B.) SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED. PROPERTIES WITH GREATER FIRE HAZARDS WILL REQUIRE GREATER CLEARING TREATMENTS. COMBINATIONS OF THE METHODS MAY BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER §1299(C) AS LONG AS THE INTENT OF THESE GUIDELINES IS MET. 4A. REDUCED FUEL ZONE: FUEL SEPARATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH GENERAL GUIDELINES 1, 2 AND 3 ABOVE, MINIMUM CLEARANCE BETWEEN FUELS SURROUNDING EACH BUILDING OR STRUCTURE WILL RANGE FROM 4 FEET TO 40 FEET IN ALL DIRECTIONS, BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY. CLEARANCE DISTANCES BETWEEN VEGETATION WILL DEPEND ON THE SLOPE, VEGETATION SIZE, VEGETATION TYPE (BRUSH, GRASS, TREES), AND OTHER FUEL CHARACTERISTICS (FUEL COMPACTION, CHEMICAL CONTENT ETC.). PROPERTIES WITH GREATER FIRE HAZARDS WILL REQUIRE GREATER SEPARATION BETWEEN FUELS. FOR EXAMPLE, PROPERTIES ON STEEP SLOPES HAVING LARGE SIZED VEGETATION WILL REQUIRE GREATER SPACING BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL TREES AND BUSHES (SEE PLANT SPACING GUIDELINES BELOW). GROUPS OF VEGETATION (NUMEROUS PLANTS GROWING TOGETHER LESS THAN 10 FEET IN TOTAL FOLIAGE WIDTH) MAY BE TREATED AS A SINGLE PLANT. GRASS GENERALLY SHOULD NOT EXCEED 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT. HOWEVER, HOMEOWNERS MAY KEEP GRASS AND OTHER FORBS LESS THAN 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND WHEN THESE GRASSES ARE ISOLATED FROM OTHER FUELS OR WHERE NECESSARY TO STABILIZE THE SOIL AND PREVENT EROSION. CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE: • HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN TREE CANOPIES ON 0%-20% SLOPES SHALL BE 10 FEET, ON 20%-40% SLOPES 20 FEET, AND ON GREATER THAN 40% SLOPES, 30 FEET. HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN SHRUB CANOPIES ON 0%-20% SLOPES SHALL BE 2 TIMES THE SHRUB HEIGHT, ON 20%-40% SLOPES 4 TIMES THE SHRUB HEIGHT, AND ON GREATER THAN 40% SLOPES 6 TIMES THE SHRUB HEIGHT WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET CLEARANCE AND A MAXIMUM ON 40 FEET. HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE HELPS STOP THE SPREAD OF FIRE FROM ONE FUEL TO THE NEXT. • VERTICAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN LOWER LIMBS OF AERIAL FUELS AND THE NEAREST SURFACE FUELS AND GRASS / WEEDS SHALL BE 3 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE VEGETATION WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET CLEARANCE AND A MAXIMUM ON 40 FEET. VERTICAL CLEARANCE REMOVES LADDER FUELS AND HELPS PREVENT A FIRE FROM MOVING FROM THE SHORTER FUELS TO THE TALLER FUELS. 4B. REDUCED FUEL ZONE: DEFENSIBLE SPACE WITH CONTINUOUS TREE CANOPY TO ACHIEVE DEFENSIBLE SPACE WHILE RETAINING A STAND OF LARGER TREES WITH A CONTINUOUS TREE CANOPY APPLY THE FOLLOWING TREATMENTS: • GENERALLY, REMOVE ALL SURFACE FUELS GREATER THAN 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT. SINGLE SPECIMENS OF TREES OR OTHER VEGETATION MAY BE RETAINED PROVIDED THEY ARE WELL-SPACED, WELL-PRUNED, AND CREATE A CONDITION THAT AVOIDS SPREAD OF FIRE TO OTHER VEGETATION OR TO A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. • REMOVE LOWER LIMBS OF TREES (“PRUNE”) TO AT LEAST 6 FEET UP TO 15 FEET (OR THE LOWER 1/3 BRANCHES FOR SMALL TREES). PROPERTIES WITH GREATER FIRE HAZARDS, SUCH AS STEEPER SLOPES OR MORE SEVERE FIRE DANGER, WILL REQUIRE PRUNING HEIGHTS IN THE UPPER END OF THIS RANGE. 5. TREE BRANCHES SHALL BE LIMBED / TRIMMED UP 6' FROM THE GROUND OR 1 3 OF THE TREE HEIGHT FOR TREES UNDER 18 FEET. 6. DEAD LEAVES, NEEDLES AND LITTER ON THE GROUND UNDER TREES SHALL BE REMOVED. 7. ALL TREES SHALL HAVE NO BRANCHES EXTENDING OVER ANY PORTION OF A STRUCTURE. 8. ALL TREES / VEGETATION WITHIN 100' OF ANY STRUCTURE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT LEAST ANNUALLY TO MEET FUEL MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 9. ALL DEAD, DYING OR DISEASED TREES AND SHRUBS MUST BE REMOVED FROM SITE: DEAD VEGETATION DOES NOT HOLD MOISTURE AND BECOMES EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE AFTER A FEW DAYS OF DRY WEATHER. REMOVE ALL DEAD AND DISEASED VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY. 7/31/2023 NOTE: SEE LICENSED ARBORIST REPORT DATED 12/2/21 -197-
RESIDENCE (N) GARAGE (N) R A L S T O N A V E N U E 50' R.O.W. 20'-0" SETBACK
20'-0" SETBACK
20'-0" SETBACK
30'-0" SETBACK (E) SOLID WOOD FENCE

FENCING FENCING
(E) (N) (N) 7'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCE (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) STONE PATIO (N) SWIMMING POOL 18'x40' (N) LAWN (N) LAWN (N) STONE PATH (N) STEPPING STONES W/ GRAVEL JOINTS (N) STEPPING STONES W/ GRAVEL JOINTS (N) STEPPING STONES (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON (N) SPA (N) 3' TALL BBQ / COUNTERTOP W/ STORAGE BELOW *FLUSH W/ LAWN (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCE / GATE STORAGE AREA (N) STONE STEPS / LANDING (N) STONE STEPS / LANDING (N) 4' MAILBOX W/ 4" ADDRESS #'S (N) 7'-0" TALL STEEL DOUBLE SWING VEHICULAR GATES (N) 7'-6" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ LIGHTS FIXTURES *MATCH HOUSE (N) STUCCO FENCE / WALL *6'-6" TALL MAX (N) DECORATIVE (N) 7'-0" TALL STEEL PEDESTRIAN GATE *MATCH HOUSE *MATCH HOUSE (N) 7'-6" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ LIGHTS FIXTURES *MATCH HOUSE (N) 6' CONCRETE PAVER PARKING STRIP *INSTALL PER TOWN STD / SPECS (N) 6' CONCRETE PAVER PARKING STRIP *INSTALL PER TOWN STD / SPECS (E) WATER VALVES (E) UTILITY POLE (E) FIRE HYDRANT (E) 2' CONCRETE CURB / GUTTER *REPAIR / REPLACE AS NEEDED PER TOWN SPECS / STDS (E) WATER METER (N) EVERGREEN TREES (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY HEDGE

FENCING FENCING
(N) 6'-0" (E) 7'-0" (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING *MATCH (E)(E) PARKING STRIP *ADJACENT PROPERTY (N) CONCRETE PLAY AREA 23'x35' (N) STONE STEPS / LANDING (N) 7'-0" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ LIGHTS FIXTURES *MATCH HOUSE (N) GUEST PARKING (2) 9'x18' (N) UNIT PAVER DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCE / GATE STORAGE AREA (N) DECORATIVE PLANTING POTS W/ DRIP IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE (N) STEPPING STONES W/ GRAVEL JOINTS (N) GRAVEL SEATING AREA (N) SYNTHETIC TURF PLAY AREA (E) FENCE (E) FENCE (E) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING *MATCH (E) (N) 6'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING *MATCH (E) (N) 18" TALL DRYSTACK STONE PLANTER WALL *REQUIRES PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL (N) STREET TREES *INCLUDE ROOT BARRIER INSTALLATION (N) STUCCO FENCE / WALL *6'-6" TALL MAX. (N) 18" TALL DRYSTACK STONE PLANTER WALL *REQUIRES PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL GRAVEL (N) DECORATIVE GRAVEL (N) 7'-0" SOLID WOOD GATE (N) DECORATIVE GRAVEL (N) 7'-0" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ (N) 7'-0" PAINTED BRICK COLUMNS W/ (N) LAWN L0.0 DATE: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" AREA CALCULATIONS TITLE: SHEET NO: CALCULATIONS AREA REVISIONS

NEW RESIDENCE
1950 RALSTON AVE HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA WATER FEATURES HARDSCAPE DESCRIPTION AREA CALCULATIONS LEGEND SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA SYM 7,645 LAWN LANDSCAPE AREA - MOD / MIXED LANDSCAPE AREA - LOW LANDSCAPE AREA - HIGH JUNE 13, 2022 SQ. FT. 2,402 698 6,378 002,269 7/31/2023
-198-
Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ [email protected]

Inspiration for House Color Scheme

Windsor-one trim + accents Bevolo Contemporary Series Modernist Original Bracket (Stainless)
1950 Ralston Avenue – Hillsborough, Calif. – Finish Board -199-
Kielty Arborist Services LLC
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-515-9783
December 2nd, 2021
Form + One
Attn: Tim Raduenz
4843 Silver Springs Drive
Park City, Utah 84098
Site: 1950 Ralston Avenue , Hillsborough CA
Dear Mr. Raduenz
As requested on Wednesday, September 8th, 2021, Kielty Arborist Services LLC visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. A new 2-story home with a pool is proposed for this site, and your concern for the future health and safety of the trees near the proposed work has prompted this visit. Site plan A1.0 dated 7/15/21 was reviewed for writing this report. In this report you will find a summary of the trees on site, a discussion of the proposed work with recommendations, followed by a tree protection plan. All trees measured 12” in diameter or over were surveyed.

Method:

All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The trees in question were located on a topography map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale:
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The height of the trees was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.

Survey Key:

DBH-Diameter at breast height (54 inches above grade)
CON-Condition rating
HT/SP-Tree height and canopy spread
R-Indicates proposed tree removal
P-Protected (over 12” in diameter)
-200-
1950 Ralston (2)
Survey:

Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments
1*P Camphor 22est 50 25/30 Fair vigor, poor form, topped in past. (Cinnamomum camphora)
2P Coast Live Oak 18.0 65 30/30 Fair vigor, fair form, leans towards street. (Quercus agrifolia)
3P/R Camphor 25.6 45 30/25 Poor vigor, fair form, abundance of dieback, (Cinnamomum camphora) in decline.
4P/R Camphor 18.0 45 25/25 Poor vigor, fair form, abundance of dieback, (Cinnamomum camphora) in decline.
5P/R Camphor 15.3 45 25/20 Poor vigor, fair form, abundance of dieback, (Cinnamomum camphora) in decline.
6P Coast Live Oak 18-18-16-12-14 50 30/35 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader at 3 feet, (Quercus agrifolia) topped on neighbor’s side of canopy, heavy into property, damaging hardscape, off
balanced canopy
7 Coast Live Oak 8.9 50 30/15 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed. (Quercus agrifolia) Under 12”
8P/R Coast Live Oak 14.2 45 30/30 Fair vigor, poor form, leans 45 degrees into (Quercus agrifolia) property.
9 Camphor 9.2-7.1 40 25/15 Fair to poor vigor, poor form, suppressed. (Cinnamomum camphora) Under 12”
10P Deodar Cedar 29.7 70 90/30 Fair vigor, good form.
(Cedrus deodara)
11R Magnolia 10.5 30 20/20 Poor vigor, fair form, drought stressed, in (Magnolia grandiflora) decline. Under 12”
12P/R Magnolia 18.9 50 30/30 Fair vigor, fair form, surrounded by (Magnolia grandiflora) hardscapes, minor drought stress. 13R Cherry brush 4-4-6 45 30/12 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader at grade, (Syzygium australe) old hedge material, poor species.

Under 12”
-201-
1950 Ralston (3)
Survey:

Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments
14R Cherry brush 6.0 45 30/12 Fair vigor, poor form, codominant at 6 feet, (Syzygium australe) old hedge material, poor species.

Under 12”
15R Coast Live Oak 5.5 40 20/10 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed. (Quercus agrifolia) Under 12”
16R Coast Live Oak 4.0 50 12/6 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed. (Quercus agrifolia) Under 12”
17R Loquat 6-5 30 15/12 Poor vigor, poor form, in decline, (Eriobotrya japonica) codominant at grade.

Under 12”
18P/R Monterey Pine 33.5 45 70/35 Fair to poor vigor, fair form, too close to (Pinus radiata) home, leans, in decline, pine pitch canker disease, poor species.
19P/R Monterey Pine 41.5 45 70/35 Fair to poor vigor, fair form, too close to (Pinus radiata) home, leans, in decline, pine pitch canker disease, poor species.
20 Coast Live Oak 4.0 50 12/10 Fair vigor, fair form, young. (Quercus agrifolia) Under 12”
21 Birch 4-2-2 45 15/10 Poor vigor, fair form, drought stressed. (Betula pendula) Under 12”
-202-
1950 Ralston (4)
Showing tree locations
Tree removal ordinance:

All proposed tree removal with a diameter of 12 inches or larger which is related to property improvements (including landscaping) require design review & approval from the Planning Department (by ADRB or Administratively). Once approved, a permit must be obtained from the Building Department. All trees measuring 12 inches in diameter or larger were surveyed near the proposed work. Trees measuring 12” or larger are shown with a bold P (protected) in the survey portion of this report. The following trees are measured at larger than 12” in diameter: #1-6, 8, 10, 12 and 18-19.
-203-
1950 Ralston (5)
Summary of trees over 12” in diameter:

The trees on site are a mix of native and imported
trees. Trees with a condition rating under 50 are
considered poor trees and not suitable for
preservation. Deodar Cedar tree #10 is the only tree
on the property that was given a good condition
rating. The rest of the trees are in fair to poor
condition.

Showing Deodar Cedar tree #10
Coast Live Oak tree #2 is in fair condition. The tree
is well placed on the lot, far from any proposed
construction. This tree is well suited for preservation within the landscape.

Coast Live Oak tree #6 was given a fair condition rating (lower end). The tree is located at the western property line. The adjacent neighbor has poorly pruned the tree using large topping cuts so that no foliage exist on the neighbor’s side. The canopy of the tree is no unbalanced due to the neighbor’s pruning. The tree is recommended to be pruned using appropriate crown reduction cuts to reduce risk of limb failure.

Showing topped Oak tree #6
-204-
1950 Ralston (6)
Protected trees (over 12”) proposed for
removal:

Camphor trees #3-5 are recommended/proposed
for removal. All 3 camphor trees were given a
poor condition rating. The trees are in decline as
large areas of dieback were observed in the tree
canopies. The Camphor trees are under a
considerable amount of drought stress that has
likely led to the decline. The trees are poorly
placed on the lot, too close to the buildable area.

A significant amount of root disturbance is
proposed near the trees. The trees are poorly
suited for preservation. Tree removal is
recommended as these trees are likely to
continue to decline regardless of management.

Showing large areas of dead wood
Coast Live Oak tree #8 is in poor condition.

The tree is suppressed and growing at a 45-
degree lean. The tree is at high risk of failure
due to the tree’s lean. Tree removal is
recommended as the tree will continue to grow
at a lean. Once the load on the wood exceeds
the woods strength, failure would be imminent.

Showing leaning Oak tree #8
-205-
1950 Ralston (7)
Magnolia tree #12 is in fair condition (lower
end). The tree is completely covered by
hardscapes is in slight decline due to drought
stress. The demolition of the hardscapes is
expected to have high impacts on the tree. The
tree is poorly located near the center of the lot
within the proposed building footprint. Tree
removal is recommended.

Showing Magnolia tree #12
Monterey Pine trees #18 and #19 are in poor condition. Pine pitch canker disease was observed within the canopies of the trees. There is no known cure for this disease. The disease will continue to cause large areas of die back and limb failures. The trees are at the end of their natural lifespan within the landscape. Future limb failure and bark beetle attack is imminent.

Tree removal is recommended as the trees are hazardous.

Showing Monterey Pine trees
-206-
1950 Ralston (8)
Non-protected trees (under 12”) proposed for removal:

Trees #11, and #13-17 are proposed for removal to facilitate construction. These trees are under 12” in diameter and will not require approval.

Impact/Recommendations:

Coast Live Oak tree #6 to be retained is near the proposed driveway work for the site. The existing site conditions have concrete all the way up to the tree’s trunk. The concrete within the tree’s dripline is recommended to be retained for the majority of the construction process as a tree protection measure. If the concrete were to be removed at demolition, a large tree protection zone would be needed (at the canopy spread) and would further reduce the amount of staging areas and parking areas on the lot. At the end of the construction, when the driveway work is to take place, the existing concrete within the tree’s dripline is recommended to be carefully removed by hand under the Project Arborist supervision. A jackhammer can be used to carefully break the material into small hand manageable sized pieces. The proposed driveway near this tree is recommended to be at the same finished grade as the existing concrete. Any excavation needed for base rock material is recommended to be done by hand under the Project Arborist supervision when within the tree’s dripline. All encountered roots measuring 1.5” in diameter or larger are recommended to be retained within the new base rock section for the driveway.

Exposed roots are recommended to be wrapped in layers of wetted down burlap while still exposed. Burlap shall maintain moisture daily while exposed. Structural Soil (CU Mix) is then recommended to be used as base rock when within the tree’s dripline. This material looks like your average base rock, but slightly larger pieces mixed with a hydrogel. Tree roots can grow within this medium under compaction as Structural Soil was designed to allow roots to grow.

Using standard base rock would over compact the area and would eventually kill roots and have a high impact on the tree. Once the work is completed, the tree is recommended to be deep water fertilized as a mitigation measure. If the work is done as described above under the supervision of the Project Arborist, impacts are expected to be minor.

The proposed pool near Deodar Cedar tree #10 is 20 feet from the tree. The hardscape surrounding the pool is 15’ from the tree. At 20 feet (8x diameter) impacts are expected to be minor. The pool excavation is recommended to be done under the Project Arborist supervision.

Encountered roots are recommended to be cleanly cut as needed. The hardscape surrounding the pool on the tree side is recommended to be built using minor excavation not to exceed 6” below grade. A soaker hose is recommended to be installed at the edge of the hardscape area when construction is to start. Every 2 weeks the irrigation is recommended to be turned on until the top foot of soil is saturated. This irrigation shall continue 3 years following the construction.

The tree is recommended to be deep water fertilized in early spring of 2021 as a mitigation measure for the minor impacts.
-207-
1950 Ralston (9)
Tree protection plan:

Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for tree protection should be 6’ tall, metal chain link material supported by metal 2” diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than 2’. The location for the protective fencing should be located the tree driplines where possible. When approved work is to take place underneath the dripline of a tree, the tree protection fencing must be placed as close as possible to the proposed work, while still allowing construction to safely continue. The tree protection fence for the trees must be maintained throughout the entire project. No equipment or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Anywhere tree protection fencing needs to be reduced for access or any other reason a landscape barrier shall be installed. Landscape barriers consist of coarse wood chips spread to a depth of 6 inches with plywood placed on top. This will reduce risk of compaction from foot traffic or heavy machinery.

Landscape Barrier zone
If for any reason a smaller tree protection zone is needed for access, a landscape buffer consisting of wood chips spread to a depth of six inches with plywood or steel plates placed on top will be placed where tree protection fencing is required. The landscape buffer will help to reduce compaction to the unprotected root zone.

Staging
All tree protection measures must be in place before the start of construction. An inspection prior to the start of construction is often required by the town. All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. Existing pavement should remain and should be used for staging. If vehicles are to stray from paved surfaces, 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch layer. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction of desired trees.

Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces
Root Cutting
If for any reason roots are to be cut, they work shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2” diameter) or large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at this time, may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to be cut should be cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist.

Trenching/excavation
Trenching or excavation for irrigation, drainage, electrical, foundation or any other reason shall be done by hand when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time (24 hours), will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots. -208-
1950 Ralston (10)
Irrigation
All of the imported trees will require normal irrigation at a rate of every 2 weeks during the dry season. Irrigation should consist of surface flooding, with enough water to wet the entire root zone. If a root zone is traumatized this type of irrigation should be carried out weekly. Native oak trees shall not be irrigated unless traumatized.

Tree Pruning
During construction any Pruning will be supervised by the site arborist and must stay underneath 25% of the tree total foliage. No Pruning is expected on this site.

The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices.

Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A
David Beckham Certified Arborist WE#10724A TRAQ Qualified Kielty Arborist Services
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-515-9783

ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees.

Arborist: ____________________________
Kevin R. Kielty David Beckham Date: December 2nd, 2021
-209-
-210-
-211-
-212-
-213-
-214-
-215-
-216-
-217-
-218-
-219-
-220-
-221-
-222-
-223-
-224-
-225-
-226-
-227-
-228-
-229-
-230-
-231-
-232-
-233-
July 26, 2022
Architectural Design and Review Board
Town of Hillsborough
Re: 1950 Ralston Avenue
We OPPOSE the proposed plan for 1950 Ralston as presented.

Attractive as it may be, it is out of context. The Country Club neighborhood is exclusively onestory, and four adjacent houses, to the right and back of 1950 Ralston, are newly built one-story homes that demonstrate commitment to that context. Also, ADRB design guidelines for changing a predominate style, such as partial second stories, modulating mass, incorporating horizontal lines and low-pitched roofs that are characteristic of houses in the neighborhood, have not been followed. If the builder is looking instead to the two-story houses across Ralston for context, even there, the two houses immediately across the street are 1950-60s style homes that are more appropriately transitional.

Buffering dramatic differences in scale and style with landscape screening and setbacks cannot be a satisfactory solution in this unique situation. The landscape is dependent on a future owner who is not even a part of this conversation. The most affected neighbor at the back fence(30 Country Club) doesn’t have the ability to layer on screening due to that home’s unusual setback. This is true of other adjacent neighbors whose setbacks are also affected by the creek. The time (and water) needed to grow screening of sufficient scale to shield this house will not be realized in the current neighbors’ lifetimes. This is not the right place to propose this transition.

One of Hillsborough’s defining (and great) characteristics is its very distinctive neighborhoods; South Hillsborough, Upper Ralston (Pinehill, Robin Road) and Brewer Drive to name a few.

Country Club Manor is distinctive as a more modest neighborhood, laid out uniformly in the late 1950s, favored by young families, retirees and singles. It meets a need; it’s a bit of history worth preserving. Those who want to live in a one-story home here need to have confidence that their privacy is assured. This house will change that forever.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service.

Sincerely,

Kathy and Bob Ceremsak
-234-
-235-
7/21/22
To the Hillsborough ADRB,
We live at and are backyard neighbors for 1950 Ralston. We are writing to express our continued concern with the proposed house design at 1950 Ralston. We have had several meetings with both the architect and the general contractor over the last few months and have listened and seen their proposed plans.

As noted in our initial letter, our first and main concern is with regard to privacy. The design incorporates a 2-story rear elevation with the second story directly looking into our backyard and into the primary living spaces of our home. For further context, our pool is in the corner closest to 1950 Ralston and the entire back of our home is composed of glass sliding doors with no window treatments. We opted for this design when we built the home because we knew the neighborhood to be a one-story neighborhood and fencing was sufficient for our privacy.

The proposed 2-story build at 1950 Ralston, however, would greatly impact the privacy inside of our own home as there would be direct views from the second story into our great room and family room, which is where we spend the vast majority of our family's time.

While there have been some slight modifications to the original plan, the revisions still call for a 2-story rear elevation with major privacy implications for our property. While the landscaping and hedging that is planned would partially block some of the line of sight, landscaping is far from a permanent feature and is difficult to rely upon as we envision our lives here over the next 20-30+ years. A single story elevation would not only retain the existing character of the Country Club area where every property is a single story home, but would also alleviate any privacy issues whatsover, both for our home and for the home at 1950 Ralston.

Our second concern relates to the precedent set by a 2-story home in Country Club Manor. One of our main attractions and reasons for moving into the neighborhood was the consistency of having all single-story residences and no excessively large homes. In fact, when we built our new construction home, we adhered to the prevailing single-story character and are thrilled with our decision to do so. The proposal at 1950 Ralston would be the first 2-story residence in our immediate area and my overwhelming concern is that it would create a precedent for developers and home owners to continue building larger and taller homes, destroying much of the essence of our charming neighborhood.

Our strong preference is to see the plans for 1950 Ralston reimagined with a single story elevation (perhaps with a basement if the extra square footage is required). In doing so, we feel that it would retain one of the essential elements for our neighborhood and also allow the developer to complete his project in a timely manner.

Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns and feel free to reach out if you’d like more detail or have any questions.

Regards,
Louis and Audrey Chang
-236-
-237-
-238-
-239-
-240-
-241-
From: Peggy Andrews
To: Linda Roberson
Subject: 1950 Ralston
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 3:33:34 PM
Dear Linda,
I received notification of the design review board meeting. I would like to add these photos to my letter explaining how close this house will be to my backyard. In the corner of both photos is a ficus tree. That is at my property line and 1950 Ralston is directly over that. If it is allowed that a twostory home will be built there the east facing windows will look directly into my whole yard. There are no amount of trees or landscaping material that can protect my privacy from the views of the second floor windows. It is my sincere hope that the design review board will consider the strong objections to a two story house. I will be joining the meeting and voicing a strong opposition to this project.

Peggy Andrews
Norm Brod
Sent from my iPhone
-242-
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
-243-
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
-244-
From: Peggy Andrews
To: Linda Roberson
Subject: Fwd: Design Review 1950 Ralston Ave.

Date: Friday, July 22, 2022 7:40:59 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Gold
Date: July 22, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM PDT
To:

Subject: Fw: Design Review 1950 Ralston Ave.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Richard Gold
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 at 04:17:27 PM PDT
Subject: Design Review 1950 Ralston Ave.

Gentlemen:

I urge you to REJECT the Design Review of 1950 Ralston Ave. The orange flags depict a MONSTER HOUSE which sticks out like a sore thumb in rancher-style Country Club Estates. This developer has "zero" regard for all the other residents of this area while trying to maximize his profits. I know he reduced the roof line a few feet which did absolutely nothing. I suggest he pattern the house after 75 Country Club Dr. and 901 Hillsborough Blvd. Both have second levels below ground. I have been in both and they are positively beautiful. Furthermore, his neighbor at 1850 Ralston Ave. also has a floor below ground and the house exterior is beautiful although I have never been inside. All three of these houses have high roof lines to accommodate raised ceilings but are still considered rancher-style.

A few years ago I asked the owner/builder of 75 Country Club why he put the level below ground instead of building a traditional two-story house? He answered that he learned from the realtor who sold him the house that the neighbor were vehemently opposed to a two-story and he did not want to upset anyone. I guess this is also the case with 1850 Ralston Ave (?) I moved to Country Club Dr. 27 years ago and was told by my realtor that this is a rancher-style area that would never allow 2 story homes. Kindly do not allow this developer to destroy the ambience of County Club Estates. In my opinion, there are just as many people who would buy an area CONFORMING rancher with level below as would buy a 2 story SORE THUMB MONSTROSITY.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Richard Gold
-245-
-246-
From: Eric Goodwill
To: Linda Roberson
Subject: 1950 Ralston
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 8:52:28 PM

BY EMAIL
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regard to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. I live nearby and will be affected.

My understanding is that it will be a two story house that will back up directly to several homes on my street.

Privacy is an issue for those directly adjacent, and I am more concerned about the possibility of a two story home in a neighborhood that is comprised of all single stores houses. This will greatly change the character of our old, long established neighborhood.

From the time I bought my home in this neighborhood I have been under the impression that two story homes are not allowed. My real estate agent first told that before I made an offer on my property in 1996. Several remodels and new homes have been built in the area and a two story home has never been allowed. I would like to ensure that the town will decide to preserve the historical and quaint character of this neighborhood by not breaking with the precedent of not allowing two story homes. I am concerned that if this project were to be approved it could lead to other new two story homes in the future.

Thank your for you attention and consideration.

Yours truly,
Eric Goodwill
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-247-
-248-
-249-
-250-
-251-
-252-
-253-
-254-
-255-
-256-
-257-

Page 1 of 2 ends

Hillsborough City CouncilOctober 10, 2022

Hillsborough City Council
October 10, 2022