Agenda — Hillsborough City Council, November 14, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

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, NOVEMBER 14, 2022
4:00 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/82859455523?pwd=QUI5bkxFZW5EM3c2UnJ6UEV5dzV5dz09 • 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: 828 5945 5523
Passcode: 860403
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 (4:00 pm)

CALL TO ORDER
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, November 14, 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 Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9(d)(2) of the California Government Code: One potential case (see claim document in agenda packet) B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Glenn Berkheimer and Kristin Armbruster Employee Organization: Hillsborough Police Officers Association C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
One Case – Town of Hillsborough v. Leininger, San Mateo Superior Court Action No. 22CIV04063
D. 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
E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Appeal Regarding 1950 Ralston Avenue Two Story Home and Litigation Threat based on November 4, 2022 Correspondence from Legal Counsel for the Property Owner (included as an attachment to Item 5)

ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (6:00 pm)
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, November 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
V. MINUTES: September 26, 2022, October 10, 2022, October 27, 2022, November 2, 2022 VI. PROCLAMATION:
• UNITED AGAINST HATE WEEK – NOVEMBER 13-19, 2022
VII. 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.

Members of the public may provide comments via the Zoom platform by using the “raise hand” feature or, if calling in by phone, by pressing *9 on the telephone keypad. In response, the Town will 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.

VIII. 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.

IX. 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: OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2022 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

2. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT SUPPORTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH’S SERIES 2000A, 2000B, 2003A, AND 2006A VARIABLE RATE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, AND ANCILLARY

DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO

3. RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 AND CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

4. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF AN EXISTING FIVEFOOT-WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1260 KENILWORTH ROAD PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(B)(3)
X. PUBLIC HEARING

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

REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1950 RALSTON AVENUE AND CONSIDER: (1) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, November 14, 2022

Page 4 ends

DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING THE TWO STORY HOME PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15303; OR (2) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE

APPEAL AND DENYING THE TWO STORY HOME PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15270 – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 10, 2022

6. PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RATES FOR SOLID WASTE CHARGES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378, 15273 AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080(B)(8)

7. PROPOSITION 218 HEARING: RESOLUTION ADOPTING MAXIMUM RATES FOR

WATER SERVICE CHARGES AND AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

REVENUE STABILIZATION FACTORS TO THE VOLUME CHARGE RATES, AS NECESSARY PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378, 15273 AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080(B)(8)
XI. NEW BUSINESS

8. APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE CENTER FOR AGE-FRIENDLY

EXCELLENCE'S TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO APPLY FOR THE AGE-FRIENDLY

COMMUNITIES (AFC) CERTIFICATION UNDER THE AARP/WORLD HEALTH

ORGANIZATION (WHO) NETWORK OF AGE FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

9. HILLSBOROUGH CONCOURS D ‘ELEGANCE 2022 – POLICE SERVICES – PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
XII. INFORMATIONAL

10. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BYLAWS PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

11. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE
XIII. 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.

XIV. 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.

XV. MAYOR'S APPLAUSE
This portion of the meeting is for the Mayor to provide brief highlights of current items of interest in the Town.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, November 14, 2022

Page 5 ends

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.

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.
-1-

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2022
6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hillsborough Town Hall and Zoom Video Conference
This City Council meeting was 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.

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

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Chuang, Cole, Krolik, Royse

Absent: May
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Royse led the Pledge of Allegiance.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT I
John Lockton stated he has been approached by a number of lawyers to get involved in a lawsuit regarding water rates and stated they have one under retainer. Lockton stated that if the rates are passed there will be a lawsuit and suggested a discussion of the current cost of service of study.

Mary Beth Bykowsky, Outreach Analyst, California Department of Insurance, provided information regarding their Safer from Wildfires framework approach to reducing risk to help make existing homes and businesses safer from wildfires, and announced an upcoming virtual town hall.

Dennis Moore spoke in support of the comments by Mary Beth Bykowsky and provided comments regarding the water and solid waste rate protest process and in opposition to the increase in rates.

Larry Friedberg spoke in support of Dennis Moore’s comments regarding the water and solid waste rate protest process and regarding the City Council’s prior action to appoint nominees to the City Council, citing concerns with the Town’s communication related to the election.

Friedberg stated a candidate who ran for election in 2020 was a victim of personal assaults and urged the City Council not to deny citizens the right to vote in the future and acknowledged Councilmember Cole and Mayor Royse for voting in opposition to the appointment.

V. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
City Attorney Christopher Diaz stated regarding Item 2, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has indicated for Housing Element discussions that if any Councilmember lives within 500 feet of one of the properties to be discussed or included in the Housing Element, the Councilmember should recuse themselves from the discussion. City Attorney Diaz stated that if any Councilmember lives within 1,000 feet it may be a conflict, and because the FPPC is the only body that can clear conflicts of interests for Councilmembers, out of an abundance of caution, Vice Mayor Krolik will step out of the discussion of the Strawberry Hill site as she is within 1,000 feet, Mayor Royse will step out for being within 500 feet of the SFPUC property -3-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 26, 2022

Page 2 ends

off Highway 280, and Councilmember Cole will step out for being within 500 feet of the Callan property.

Vice Mayor Krolik disclosed that her husband is a member of the Burlingame Country Club, if that property should come up in the discussion.

Mayor Royse stated that Councilmembers have met or spoken with many members of the community to listen to comments.

VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Royse removed Item 1 from the Consent Calendar.

Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions. City Attorney Diaz provided additional information.

Mayor Royse opened public comment. There were no speakers. Mayor Royse closed public comment.

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

1. RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO EPS INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING’S REQUEST

TO WITHDRAW ITS BID, REJECTING THE BID PROTEST RECEIVED FROM GATEWAY PACIFIC CONTRACTORS, INC. AS MOOT, AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO GATEWAY PACIFIC CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,180,000.00 WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $718,000.00, IF NEEDED, FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $7,898,000.00
The resolution consenting to EPS Inc. dba Express Plumbing’s request to withdraw its bid, rejecting the bid protest received from Gateway Pacific Contractors, Inc. as moot, and awarding the contract to Gateway Pacific Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $7,180,000.00 with a 10% contingency in the amount of $718,000.00, if needed, for a total project cost of $7,898,000.00, allocating funds from the Darrell Tank Improvement (Capital Improvement Plan #704.19), and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the Town was adopted.

VII. OLD BUSINESS

2. FIRST DRAFT OF THE RHNA 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE – CONSIDER AND

PROVIDE DIRECTION ON POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Mayor Royse provided introductory comments.

Liz Ruess, Long-range Planning and Special Projects and Senior Management Analyst Mandy Brown provided the staff report. City Attorney Christopher Diaz, Todd Leishman, Partner, Best, Best & Krieger, and City Manager Ann Ritzma provided additional information.

Mayor Royse opened public comment.

Ted Ullyot spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and in support of a revised draft to include no buffer, more than 451 ADUs, no rezoning and use of the overage from the RHNA 5 cycle and encouraged the City Council to protect the community and follow the same principles used in RHNA 5.

Dr. Lionel Foster, ADRB Chair, provided comments regarding the placement of the Callan property on the agenda as Old Business and provided historical information regarding the property.

Amy Jasmer, 2230 Oakdale Road, provided information regarding the Hillsborough Schools Foundation’s funding of schools and expressed concerns regarding the long- -4-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 26, 2022

Page 3 ends

term impact of the current draft Housing Element on schools including classroom size and funding.

Jordan Harband, 575 Pepper, spoke regarding the infrastructure needed to support increased housing, urged consideration of at least one parking spot for every adult living in the town, provided comments regarding the need for sidewalks for proper accessibility, and expressed concerns regarding impacts on schools.

Raayan Mohtashemi, Parrott Drive, spoke in support of the draft Housing Element as presented and requested the City Council prepare the draft for approval for submission to HCD for preliminary review and provided comments regarding the importance of planning for housing affordability.

Dan Capon expressed concerns regarding the suitability of the De Guigne site for development and the site suitability factor scoring in the draft Housing Element and displayed written materials.

Julius Young, McCreery Drive, HEAC member, spoke regarding AB 2097 regarding parking requirements, expressed concerns regarding transparency in the earlier presentation on the Town Hall campus and regarding Goal 4.5 in the draft Housing Element which he said was not presented to the HEAC, and requested it be removed.

Mark Lester, HEAC member, spoke regarding property rights and suggested the Town join with other communities in the State who are not going to go along easily with the State’s requirements, recommended analysis of additional alternatives, suggested use of eminent domain on the properties identified near Highway 280, and stated there is a lot of support to oppose the plan if adopted.

Aaron Zornes reported the results of a survey he distributed, spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and rezoning and displayed a PowerPoint presentation.

Jeff Ford, Fairway Circle, requested the buffer be reduced or eliminated based on exceeding the requirements in the last RHNA cycle, in support of a mostly or entirely ADU plan, in opposition to rezoning anywhere in the town, and urged careful consideration of use of the Town Hall site.

Brent Regan, Trustee, Strawberry Hill, stated that they have begun steps to formally subdivide Strawberry Hill to take it out of the 10 acre or larger parcels for R2 zoning and that he has engaged an engineering firm to draw maps. Regan stated that they desire to ensure that if Strawberry Hill is ever developed, it is developed in the same character as the rest of the town. Regan stated that if an overlay zone is implemented, he would likely put in deed restrictions.

Laith Salma, Fairway Circle, spoke in opposition to the Housing Element as proposed, requested consideration of a solution that uses primarily ADUs with no rezoning, elimination of the buffer citing the town’s RHNA 5 overage and a Town plan to include outreach to residents and financial incentives for ADU streamlining. Salma expressed concerns regarding the staff presentation and requested that Council not give in to pressure by the State, activists, or potential lawsuits. Salma spoke regarding the potential on the Town Hall site for features that benefit the entire community and in opposition to dense housing on the site.

Patrick Shannon provided comments regarding the grace period for compliance, expressed concerns regarding rezoning, and spoke in support of an ADU-concentrated plan and policies that would stimulate ADU production and working with HCD.

John Bruell spoke in support of ADUs in the Housing Element and in opposition to dense housing at the Town Hall site. Bruell expressed concerns regarding the use of the data from the COVID period, in support of ADU incentives, and requested the ability for residents to weigh in on the use of the Town Hall campus.

Sher Amos-Grosser, HEAC member, 315 Pinehill Road, spoke in opposition to the current plan and recommended reduction or elimination of the no net loss buffer, an -5-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 26, 2022

Page 4 ends

increase in the number of ADU units to reflect the ADU rate for 2021 and 2022, mandating ADUs for new construction and substantial remodels, and creation of a program to encourage and incentivize building on currently vacant privately-owned parcels in the town.

Greg Hampton, 1805 Elmwood Road, spoke in opposition to the draft housing element and expressed concerns regarding mandates from the State.

Kristen Brent, 810 Lombardi Lane, expressed concerns regarding the impact on property values and requested the City Council advocate on behalf of the residents’ economic interests and property values. Brent spoke in opposition to multifamily units in the town and in support of meeting State requirements with ADUs.

Alex Dyner, 322 Ascot Road, stated the current plan is not supported by the community and encouraged more ADUs and a smaller buffer.

Michelle Hallet, 20 Denise Drive, spoke in support of the principles that make the town great and expressed concerns regarding the staff presentation and regarding potential development of the Hayne site.

Joseph Toms, 460 El Arroyo Road, stated that the town does not have to do what the State wants and should do what is best for the community and what the citizens want.

Tracy Lane spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and encouraged a focus on an ADU-based plan, spoke in support of earlier comments regarding impacts on property values and schools, and in opposition to overlays citing impacts on property values, traffic, parking and safety.

Paul Regan, former Mayor, stated the Town’s success in RHNA 5 should be utilized to benefit the current plan, spoke in support of minimizing the buffer and maximizing ADUs and of spot rezoning the properties at Brooke Court and Tobin Clark citing their separation from the core of the town. Regan stated the current Town Hall site is not being utilized effectively and provided comments regarding the history of the site.

Dennis Moore, Churchill Drive, HEAC member, spoke in support of an alternate approach that he worked on called the “Smart Housing for Hillsborough” plan at smarthousingforhillsborough.org that is primarily based on ADUs. Moore expressed concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed buffer and requested the names of cities that have had their housing elements rejected for using exclusively ADUs, using one year of data or using projections for ADUs.

Elizabeth Jeffords, Fairway Circle, provided comments regarding the staff presentations, requested inclusion of legal risk categories and provided comments regarding the recommendations in a letter submitted by Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo.

Mayor Royse called a recess at 9:05 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 9:22 p.m. with Councilmember May absent.

Melissa Klaerner spoke in opposition to the draft housing element and requested the slides presented by staff be made available so that residents can review and respond to the risk assessment presented. Klaerner requested the City Council take a bold approach to preserve the character of the town. Klaerner spoke in opposition to changes in zoning, multifamily buildings, dense housing or reduced lot sizes. Klaermer spoke in support of the letter submitted by Ted Ullyot, requested the City Council attempt to reduce the required numbers and receive credit for the overage in the prior cycle and spoke in opposition to consideration of the Hayne property.

Jeff Brady, Robin Road, requested the Town be firmer with the State and stand up for the fabric of the town, spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element including the proposed buffer and rezoning, and recommended including more ADUs. -6-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 26, 2022

Page 5 ends

Mehran Farid, 10 Highgate Lane, spoke in support of making ADUs mandatory for new construction and major remodels and spoke in opposition to development of the Town Hall site citing concerns regarding the impact on nearby Town residents and Burlingame residents on Walnut.

Steve Jeffords, 632 Fairway Circle, spoke in opposition to the development of housing at the Town Hall site, relocation of the police station and high-density housing.

Arlene Rosenberg, McCreery Drive, HEAC member, spoke in support of the general framework of the draft Housing Element and in support of redevelopment of the Town Hall site to include housing along El Camino Real.

Kelsey Banes, Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, provided information regarding the coalition and regarding current rental rates in Hillsborough and stated that ADUs and Senate Bill 9 are not enough to create affordable housing and provided the coalition’s website: campaignforfairhousingelements.org for reference.

Gina Haggarty, Darrell Road, Realtor, spoke in opposition to the Housing Element and redevelopment of Town Hall citing impacts on property values and construction noise.

Larry Friedberg provided comments in opposition to the draft Housing Element, expressed concerns regarding lack of analysis of the options presented in the staff presentation, spoke regarding results of the survey conducted by Aaron Zornes, expressed concerns regarding guidance provided by the Town’s consultant, and displayed a slide.

Jim Arbeed, Realtor, expressed concerns regarding the impact of high-density housing and rezoning on property values, in support of additional ADUs, and in support of joining with other towns to fight the State.

Khristine Holterman, 108 Baywood, HEAC member, encouraged the City Council to revise the Housing Element to reflect the bulk of housing requirements fulfilled with ADUs and JADUs with no buffer or a low buffer, and expressed concerns regarding guidance received from the Town’s consultant.

Alex Ramsay, Brookvale Road, spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element and in support of an ADU-heavy plan.

Mike Swire spoke in support of focusing development close to transit and in support of solutions that show the State the Town is trying to do the right thing.

Irina Reykel, Churchill Drive, provided comments regarding her negative experience with a low-income housing development in San Francisco and spoke in opposition to the draft Housing Element.

Joshua Albrektson, resident of South Pasadena, provided comments regarding Housing Elements submitted by cities in Southern California that have been rejected and cities that have been sued.

Noelle Langmack, Eugenia Way, HEAC member, spoke in support of the draft Housing Element.

Josh Burns, Marlborough Road, provided comments regarding fiscal responsibility and inquired about property taxes paid by affordable housing developments, and spoke in support of ADUs in the Housing Element as recommended in the “Smart Housing for Hillsborough” plan.

Lizzie Siegle expressed concerns regarding comments made by earlier speakers in opposition to housing in the town.

Mayor Royse closed public comment at 10:11 p.m.
-7-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 26, 2022

Page 6 ends

Council proceeded to discuss and provide final direction on inclusion or exclusion of various properties in the Housing Element.

At 10:11 p.m., Vice Mayor Krolik recused herself and left the room prior to discussion of the Strawberry Hill property.

Following discussion, by consensus (Vice Mayor Krolik recused, Councilmember May absent), Council directed inclusion of five units for the Strawberry Hill property with no change in zoning.

At 10:15 p.m., Vice Mayor Krolik returned to the room and took her seat at the dais. At the same time, Mayor Royse recused himself and left the room prior to discussion of the SFPUC property. Vice Mayor Krolik presided over this portion of the meeting.

Following discussion, by consensus (Mayor Royse recused, Councilmember May absent), Council directed inclusion of zero units for the SFPUC property.

At 10:18 p.m., Mayor Royse returned to the room, took his seat at the dais and presided over the remainder of the meeting.

At 10:19 p.m., Councilmember Cole recused herself and left the room prior to discussion of the Callan property.

Following discussion, by consensus (Councilmember Cole recused, Councilmember May absent), Council directed inclusion of eight units for the Callan property.

At 10:28 p.m., Councilmember Cole returned to the room and took her seat at the dais.

City Attorney Diaz read a statement from Councilmember May in his absence.

Vice Mayor Krolik and Councilmember Cole, Council liaisons to the Housing Element Advisory Committee, provided a PowerPoint presentation with recommendations to the City Council regarding the proposals in the draft Housing Element.

Councilmember Chuang and Mayor Royse provided comments.

The City Council proceeded to discuss and provide direction on the five policy areas in the Housing Element.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed inclusion of 520 units for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the housing element.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed no RD-1 zoning and inclusion of a combination of 21 subdivisions and vacant parcels.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed no RD-2 zoning.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed inclusion of zero units at the De Guigne property.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed inclusion of five units at the Hayne property.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed inclusion of zero units at the Tobin Clark property.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed inclusion of two units at the Brooke Court property.

By consensus (Councilmember May absent), the City Council directed inclusion of zero units at Town Hall.
-8-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 26, 2022

Page 7 ends

Senior Management Analyst Brown provided a summary of the City Council direction of inclusion of 561 units with a 1.3 percent buffer.

Council recessed at 12:03 a.m. due to technical difficulties in Council Chambers.

Council reconvened at 12:13 a.m. following resolution of technical issues with all Councilmembers present.

Councilmembers indicated unanimous support (Councilmember May absent) for the direction given to staff for revisions to the draft Housing Element to be presented at the October 10, 2022 City Council meeting, including elimination of Goal 4.5: Discourage redevelopment of sites with existing, smaller, single-family homes.

Councilmembers provided closing comments.

VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT II
Jeff Ford provided comments regarding the ADU process and requested improvements to the process.

Laith Salma recommended a separate ADU incentive program to waive all fees on all applications that come in before January 1 and communicate it to the community, recommended mandating ADUs for new home construction and mandating an ADU and a Junior ADU on properties over a certain acreage, and urged the City Council to inquire as to whether the number of ADUs can be increased with these policies.

IX. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
There were no City Council reports.

X. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Royse adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m.
-9-

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
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 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 4:32 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 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
The Closed Session adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
-10-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

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
Mayor Royse stated that there was no Closed Session report.

V. MINUTES: September 12, 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 September 12, 2022 City Council meeting were approved.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENT I
Dennis Moore spoke in opposition to the proposed water rates, expressed concern regarding a potential lawsuit, requested an adjustment to the water rates, and spoke in opposition to the process for protesting the rates as described in the Proposition 218 notice.

VII. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Councilmember May disclosed he knows the attorney for the appellant, David Finkelstein, but has no other relationship with him.

City Attorney Christopher Diaz stated regarding Item 13, if there is a desire to have an individual discussion regarding the parcels discussed during the Housing Element item at the September 26, 2022 City Council meeting, for the SFPUC site, Mayor Royse would need to recuse as he is within 500 feet of the site, for the Strawberry Hill property, Vice Mayor Krolik would need to recuse out of an abundance of caution as she is within 1,000 feet of the property, for the Burlingame Country Club property, Vice Mayor Krolik would need to recuse as her husband is a member, and for the Callan property, Councilmember Cole would need to recuse as she is within 500 feet of the property.

VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Royse removed Item 4 and Item 11 for discussion.

Vice Mayor Krolik requested to remove Item 7 and Item 8 for discussion.

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, Consent Calendar Item 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were approved.

1. MONTHLY CLAIMS: SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 The monthly claims for September 1 through September 30, 2022 were approved as submitted.

2. QUARTERLY INTEREST RATE PRODUCTS (SWAP) REPORT
The Quarterly Interest Rate Products (SWAP) Report was accepted. -11-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

3. QUARTERLY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
The Quarterly Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2022 was approved.

4. APPROVE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: "A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND POWER: GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW"
City Manager Ann Ritzma reviewed the Town’s response to the findings and recommendations in the Grand Jury Report.

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Councilmember Cole and unanimous on roll call vote, the response to Grand Jury Report: "A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public's Right to Know" was approved.

5. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974 The resolution approving and adopting the Amended Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 was adopted.

6. 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 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.

7. 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 $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 This item was considered together with Item 8.

Vice Mayor Krolik provided comments. Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions.

On motion by Vice Mayor Krolik, seconded by Councilmember Chuang an unanimous on roll call vote, 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 was adopted.

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
This item was considered together with Item 7.

Vice Mayor Krolik provided comments. Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions.
-12-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

On motion by Vice Mayor Krolik, seconded by Councilmember Chuang and unanimous on roll call vote, 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 was adopted.

9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE

CALRECYCLE RUBBERIZED PAVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR WHICH THE

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH IS ELIGIBLE
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, was adopted.

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
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, was adopted.

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

IS YOUR WATER PROVIDER PREPARED FOR THE BIG ONE?”
Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions.

On motion by Councilmember Cole, seconded by Councilmember Chuang and unanimous on roll call vote, the response to Grand Jury Report: “The Other Water Worry:

Is Your Water Provider Prepared for the Big One?” was approved.

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
Mayor Royse outlined the hearing process.

Councilmember Cole made a statement addressing her ability to be impartial and a fair decision maker in response to a written request from the appellant.

Vice Mayor Krolik disclosed she visited 30 Country Club Drive, spoke briefly to the owner and viewed the backyard, and she visited 1950 Ralston Avenue.

Councilmember Chuang disclosed that she drove by 1950 Ralston, drove down Country Club Drive and stopped in front of 30 Country Club Drive.

Councilmember Cole disclosed she drove by 1950 Ralston and walked around Country Club Drive.

Councilmember May disclosed he drove by 1950 Ralston and has driven down Country Club Drive numerous times over the years.

Mayor Royse disclosed he drove by 1950 Ralston and drove through and walked through Country Club Manor but has not had any communication with the residents. -13-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 5 ends

Associate Planner Linda Roberson provided the staff presentation. City Attorney Diaz provided additional information.

Mayor Royse opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m. (3:18) David Finkelstein, attorney for appellants Jack Damato and Dana Galante, and Jack Damato, appellant, provided information regarding their appeal of the Architecture & Design Review Board decision.

Jim Yamas provided comments in support of the appeal citing the history of single-story homes in the neighborhood, incompatibility of the proposed home with the existing neighborhood and the number of neighbors in opposition to the two-story home, and displayed a map.

Anne Paulson, Los Altos, spoke in support of approval of the two-story home and if the home is not approved, recommended use of the site as a four-story apartment building.

Kathy Ceremsak, 10 Country Club Drive, stated that the house as proposed does not meet the ADRB guidelines and spoke in objection to the massing. Ceremsak stated that the home is only 3.5 feet lower than the maximum height for any house in Hillsborough.

Ceremsak stated that they had asked for the story poles to remain, but they were removed. Ceremsak stated that there are no CC&Rs for Country Club Manor with a requirement that homes remain one-story, but the neighborhood has remained a onestory neighborhood for 70 years with the exception of a two-story home at 301 Pepper and she was told it was approved because there were two easements on the property and it was otherwise unbuildable.

Joe Gurkoff, 1565 Bellevue Avenue, expressed concerns regarding R&G Development based on his experience with issues during construction of a home across the street from his home.

Katharine Moore, 35 Genevra Road, stated the design of the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood.

Patricia Pascoe, 130 Country Club Drive, expressed support for the openness of the existing one-story neighborhood and urged the City Council to keep the neighborhood the way it is.

Steven Hanson, 5 Country Club Drive, provided comments regarding the design guidelines related to massing and single-story and ranch style homes and expressed concern that the story poles were removed.

Casey Courneen, 1850 Ralston Avenue, expressed concerns regarding the process at the ADRB meeting and requested the item be returned to the ADRB, spoke regarding the importance of precedent and the historical character of the neighborhood and recommended the applicant consider other options.

Richard Gold, 70 Country Club Drive, spoke in support of building a subterranean level rather than a second story.

Appellant Jack Damato provided additional comments regarding the appeal.

Mayor Royse closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m.

Mayor Royse re-opened the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m. for a clarifying question of the appellant.

Appellant Jack Damato responded to City Council questions.

Mayor Royse closed the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m.

Councilmembers asked questions of staff.
-14-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 6 ends

Mayor Royse re-opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. to hear comments from the applicant.

Britt Miller, Applicant, provided information regarding the property and changes that have been made to the project during the process.

Mayor Royse closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.

City Attorney Diaz responded to City Council questions.

MOTION: Vice Mayor Krolik moved and Mayor Royse seconded the motion to direct staff to return to Council with a resolution of denial of the project for adoption.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Cole moved and Councilmember May seconded the substitute motion to deny the appeal and ask for some amendments around the parties working out the design in terms of the massing issue.

Following discussion, Mayor Royse summarized the substitute motion: Continue the item to the next regular City Council meeting with the with a strong recommendation to the parties to work out modifications to the design related to the massing and direction to staff to return to Council with a resolution of approval and resolution of denial for consideration at that meeting. The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Yes: 4 (Krolik, Chuang, Cole, May)
No: 1 (Royse)
X.

Mayor Royse called a recess at 8:54 p.m.

Council reconvened at 9:07 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

OLD BUSINESS

13. REVISIONS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Liz Ruess, Long-range Planning & Special Projects, provided the staff report. City Attorney Christopher Diaz and City Manager Ann Ritzma provided additional information.

Mayor Royse opened public comment.

Raayan Mohtashemi, 915 Parrott Drive, spoke in opposition to the plan as reformulated and recommended the HEAC-formulated plan.

John Bruell, 690 Fairway Circle, spoke in support of the revised draft Housing Element.

Ted Ullyot, Brookvale Road, spoke in support of the revised draft Housing Element and urged the City Council to reach out to other cities who have received or will receive rejection letters from HCD, and finding lawyers who can defend the Town against HCD.

Laith Salma stated he is planning to obtain an ADU permit by the end of the year, suggested notification to the community regarding the ADU process, suggested increasing the proposed units to 574 by rezoning the Town-owned house on Floribunda to be designed as a single-family home with eight microunits for fire, police and other Town staff in order to increase the proposed buffer, and spoke in support of the comments made by Ted Ullyot.

Larry Friedberg commended Dennis Moore and Aaron Zornes for their efforts related to the Housing Element, requested that the housing element include language regarding exceeding the RHNA 5 allocation and the type of community that Hillsborough is, and requested direction to staff to identify data related to ADUs, create an ADU volunteer program, and increased outreach regarding ADUs.

Gregory Hampton, 1805 Elwood Road, provided comments regarding the grace period allowed by the State and regarding the Builder’s Remedy. -15-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 7 ends

Josh, South Pasadena, provided comments regarding Housing Elements submitted by cities in the Los Angeles area, rejection by HCD of Housing Elements submitted with primarily ADUs, and regarding lawsuits against cities related to uncompliant housing elements.

Melissa Klaerner spoke in support of the revised draft Housing Element and of suggestions by other speakers to partner with other cities to engage with HCD or with the courts, if necessary, and to emphasize the Town’s success in RHNA 5, make use of data, and consider adopting or modifying ordinances to increase incentives to build ADUs.

Noelle Langmack, Eugenia Way, spoke in support of adopting the draft Housing Element developed by the HEAC, stated a lack of confidence that the plan for ADUs will result in more housing, and spoke in support of multifamily housing, citing the benefits to the entire community.

Joseph Toms, 460 El Arroyo Road, spoke in support of the revised draft Housing Element.

Paul Regan, El Arroyo Road, spoke in support of the revised draft Housing Element and of emphasizing in the document that our community is not adopting a NIMBY approach, but a “put it in my backyard” approach.

Anne Paulson, Los Altos, suggested creating a rental registry to demonstrate that the ADUs to be built will house low-income residents.

Dennis Moore, Churchill Drive, spoke in support of an ADU rental registry and teaching people how to build, rent and manage an ADU, and volunteered his time to assist with these efforts. Moore encouraged anyone interested in volunteering for a citizen’s approach to helping the plan to contact him or Larry Friedberg.

Lizzie Siegle urged the City Council to build affordable, multifamily housing at the Town Hall site and spoke in support of inclusivity and planning for housing for future generations.

Aaron Zornes spoke regarding the response to a survey he conducted and expressed appreciation to the City Council, Town staff, the Housing Element Advisory Committee members and the community for their efforts related to the Housing Element.

Mayor Royse closed public comment.

Councilmembers provided comments.

Following discussion, with Councilmember May opposed, the City Council directed staff to submit the Housing Element to HCD with modifications to expand the ADU section, add an explanation of why ADUs are best for the Town, add language regarding the type of community Hillsborough is, and exploration of the possibility of a personal meeting with HCD.

XI. INFORMATIONAL

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

XII. PUBLIC COMMENT II
Laith Salma stated the home across the street from him on Fairway Circle was broken into and expressed concern regarding the number of license plate readers in the town and recommended purchasing additional cameras.

Larry Friedberg inquired regarding the process for members of the public to provide comments on items requested to be removed from the Consent Calendar. -16-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 10, 2022

Page 8 ends

XIII. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Chuang reported that September was “Hillsborough Helping Month” and over 65 bags of groceries were collected for the Samaritan House to support food insecurity.

Mayor Royse reported his attendance at a meeting of SFO Airport/Community Roundtable in which airport capacity, the night hush program and sea level rise was discussed, a Sustainable San Mateo County Sustainability Dashboard meeting, and provided information about the Center for Age-Friendly Excellence (CAFE), led by former Burlingame Mayor Ann O’Brien Keighran, who will provide a presentation at the November 14 City Council meeting.

Mayor Royse congratulated Christine Reed for her receipt of the “Hidden Heroes of the Greenbelt” award from the Greenbelt Alliance for her work on the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) inspection program, Don Geddis for his receipt of the Associated Parents Group 2022 Citizen of the Year Award, and Tony Giacomazzi for his receipt of the Associated Parents Group 2022 Hillsborough Schools’ Community Care Award.

Vice Mayor Krolik reported her attendance at a meeting of Peninsula Clean Energy and a meeting of commute.org and recognized the programs at the Burlingame Community Center.

XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Royse adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m.
-17-

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2022
8:30 AM

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Zoom Video Conference
This City Council meeting was 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 Council Chambers was not open to the public for this special meeting.

I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Royse called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Chuang, Cole, May, Krolik (arrived at 8:34 a.m.), Royse III. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Royse read the title of the Consent Calendar item.

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

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Councilmember May and unanimous on roll call vote with Vice Mayor Krolik absent, the Consent Calendar was approved.

1. 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 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.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
There were no speakers.

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

VI. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM
Mayor Royse announced the item for Closed Session.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Michael Armstrong, Julie Deery v. Hillsborough Police Department, San Mateo and San Mateo County Coroner’s Office, Does 1-100
San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 22-CIV-02769
VII. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The Closed Session adjourned at 8:59 a.m.
-18-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough Special City Council Meeting Thursday, October 27, 2022

Page 2 ends

VIII. RECONVENE OPEN MEETING
Mayor Royse reconvened the meeting at 9:01 a.m. with all Councilmembers present.

IX. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Diaz reported the City Council unanimously approved a settlement agreement in the Armstrong v. Hillsborough Police Department case and the terms of the settlement agreement would be released upon execution by all parties.

X. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Royse adjourned the meeting at 9:02 a.m.
-19-

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2022
12:00 PM
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE
Hillsborough Town Hall and Zoom Video Conference
This City Council meeting was 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.

I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Royse called the meeting to order at 12:08 p.m. All Councilmembers were present.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.

III. UPDATES FROM COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Representatives from community organizations provided an update to the City Council on their work in the Town over the past year: Associated Parents Group President Mary Ann Hasenstab, Bridge School Executive Director Dr. Vicki Casella, Crystal Springs Uplands Head of School Kelly Sortino, Firewise Chair David Weinberg, Hillsborough Beautification Foundation President Angela Polk, Hillsborough City School District Board of Trustees President An Chen, Vice President Kim Oliff, Board Member Don Geddis and Board Member Gilbert Wai, Hillsborough City School District Superintendent Louann Carlomagno, Hillsborough Concours d’Elegance Chair Glen Egan, Hillsborough Parade Committee Chair Julie Borden, Hillsborough Recreation Director Tony Giacomazzi, Hillsborough Schools Foundation Executive Director Alicia Isero and President Amy Jasmer, San Mateo County Leadership Co-President Margi Power, and Nueva School Head of School Lee Fertig.

Mayor Royse provided an update on behalf of the Town. City Manager Ann Ritzma and Councilmembers provided comments.

IV. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Royse adjourned the meeting at 1:37 p.m.
-20-
-21-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: MONTHLY CLAIMS: OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2022 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
SUMMARY: The monthly claims for the month of October 2022 in the amount of $6,233,196.50 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 October 2022 as submitted. -23-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

REPORT OF GOODS & SERVICES PURCHASED
DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2022
PREPARED BY:

Alan Singh
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14C9BA71-DF9D-4B81-8BC2-50340C0A3176 -24-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

SUMMARY OF PURCHASES
DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2022
GOODS & SERVICES PURCHASED $2,649,452.89
NET SALARIES & TAXES PAID 911,740.17
HEALTH BENEFIT PREMIUMS 159,283.04
BOND PAYMENTS 47,680.76
CCFD FUNDING 654,879.00
SAN FRANCISCO WATER PAYMENTS 580,831.64
TOTAL COST OF GOODS & SERVICES TO BE APPROVED $5,003,867.50

FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE

CITY MANAGER DATE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14C9BA71-DF9D-4B81-8BC2-50340C0A3176 11/8/2022
11/8/2022
-25-

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
For the Month of October 2022
Oct-22 Oct-21 Oct-20
Goods & Services Purchased:

Operations 2,177,453.94 1,089,040.45 1,905,171.82
Capital 471,998.95 1,751,884.83 224,719.94
Net Salaries & Taxes Paid 911,740.17 1,305,938.55 1,192,775.37 Health Benefit Premiums 159,283.04 146,667.41 144,564.47 Bond Payments 47,680.76 27,256.92 30,961.27
CCFD Funding 654,879.00 602,441.00 660,690.00
San Francisco Water Payments 580,831.64 627,783.00 659,353.52 Section 115 Pension Trust 0.00 0.00 399,873.07
Total $5,003,867.50 $5,551,012.16 $5,218,109.46
NOTES:

Operations -
Capital -
Net Salaries & FY 22/23 payroll is lower compared to the prior year due to only two pay periods for Taxes Paid - October 2022 compared to three in the prior year.

Bond -
on the Town Certificates of Participation
CCFD -
Water -
FY 22/23 spending is consistent with FY 21/22 spending except for payment of Q1 and Capital project spending in October 2022 is primarily for the Sandra Hayne Storm Drain project, Sewer Priority Basins I & I Rehab, and Water Tank Improvements.

October Bond spending is higher than prior year due to higher variable rate of interest Q2 for the new City of San Mateo for the Clean Water Program agreement.

FY 22/23 contribution is based on budget/contract.

There was an SFPUC wholesale water rate increase on July 1, 2022 to $4.75 (from $4.10, a 15.9 % increase). The decrease from the prior year is primarily attributable lower water usage.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 14C9BA71-DF9D-4B81-8BC2-50340C0A3176 -26-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
PURCHASES MADE DURING OCTOBER 2022
CK # VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
10562 STATE OF CA ENERGY RESOURCES LOAN PAYMENT # 20 32,820.68 10563 AGUILAR & SONS REPAIR - INSTALL ASHPALT BUCKINGHAM PW 29,015.75 10564 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. INSTALL - CHAIN LINK FENCE FOREST VIEW TANK PW 13,630.00 10565 ALL GUARD ALARM SYSTEMS, INC REPAIR - ALARM CORP YARD PW 105.00 10566 ANN STAR FORMAN FEE - NOTARY SERVICES SEPT '22 PW 255.00 10567 AT&T 8/20/22-9/19/22 70.54
10568 BARKER BLUE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC IMAGING SERVICE – BINDERS SANDRA/HAYNE PRJ PW 766.69 10569 BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP SANDRA/HAYNE STORM DRAIN PRJ MATERIAL TEST PW 4,420.00 10570 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY/CONSERVATION AGENCY WATERSMART HOME USAGE REPORTS DEPOSIT PW 12,698.00 10571 BKF ENGINEERS A2 PHASE 2 DESIGN PRJ PW 3,105.50
10572 BURNETT LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC MAINT - OCT '22 TOWN LANDSCAPE VARIOUS SITES PW 2,930.00 10573 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT REMIT - Q1 FY 22/23 FIRE REVIEW FEE FN 7,330.50 10574 CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES,LLC SOFTWARE - CRW SUPPORT BP 16,044.68 10575 CITY OF SAN MATEO NOV '21 LIBRARY SERVICES FN 22,338.05 10576 CLARK PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL - ALL DEPARTMENTS PW 375.00 10577 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS JUL-SEPT '22 MESSAGE SWITCH PD 2,395.25 10578 COMCAST 9/26/22 - 10/25/22 PD 202.60
10579 COMCAST 9/20/22 - 10/19/22 PD 229.39
10580 CORE & MAIN LP PARTS - COPPER TUBING/PIPES PW 969.72 10581 CORRPRO COMPANY CATHODIC PROTECTION TOURNAMENT TANK 1 & 2 PW 14,366.00 10582 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. CIP ADM SEWER 8/1/22-8/26/22 & VARIOUS PRJ PW 140,557.50 10583 CWEA 22/23 MEMBERSHIP STAFF PW 202.00
10584 DANIEL RICHARD CHARLES REPAIR - ELECTRICAL WIRING BARROILET PUMP 2 PW 1,714.63 10585 DARRYL PANG SEPT'22 POLYGRAPH SERVICES PD 700.00
10586 DUDEK TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE 7/30/22-8/26/22 CM 2,500.00 10587 ENEL X WAY NORTH AMERICA , INC EQUIP - EV CHARGERS CORP YARD PW 17,544.66 10588 ESA SEWER/WATER MAIN/PUMP STATION PRJ COMPLIANCE 1,002.50 10589 FERGUSON US HOLDINGS, INC PARTS - VALVE SEALS PW 1,093.75 10590 FINANCIAL CREDIT NETWORK DEBT COLLECTION CHARGE FN 5,050.10 10591 FREYER & LAURETA, INC HIGH LINE WATER PRJ DESIGN PW 14,270.28 10592 GO NATIVE, INC MAINT - VEGETATION MANAGE VARIOUS SITES PW 166,431.98 10593 GRAINGER PARTS - VARIOUS ITEMS PW 9,260.04
10594 GRAY'S PAINT, INC SUPPLIES – WOOD STAIN TH KITCHEN PW 49.63 10595 HADRONEX, INC. RENEWAL-7/1/22-6/30/24 SOFTWARE SUPPORT/PART PW 37,146.00 10596 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY JUL'22 - JUN'23 MEMBERSHIP FEE CM 3,726.00 10597 HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC AUG'22 SOLID WASTE/WATER RATE STUDY FN 7,858.25 10598 BEACOM DEVELOPMENT LLC REFUND - WIRELESS DEPOSIT BP 7,650.00 10599 COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE REFUND - LOT LINE DEPOSIT PW 1,222.75 10600 ALVIN ROYSE REIMB - LEAGUE OF CA CONFERENCE EXP 9/7-9/22 CO 862.16 10601 ANDREW M KEARNS REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 431.45 10602 FLORENCIA ANGLIN REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 141.92 10603 HINES EDM, INC DOCUMENT SCANNING BP 1,116.00
10604 HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP LEGAL SERVICES AUG'22 CM 258.50 10605 INFOSEND, INC. SEP '22 UTILITY BILLING FN 1,373.64 10606 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORP DARREL TANK REPLACE PRJ PW 8,626.52 10607 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCT PARTS - CAPS/POST RIVETS PW 1,326.01 10608 JAMES WILLIAM NESS REPAIR - BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY PW 6,225.00 10609 JEFFREY SCHOENSTEIN PRINT - BREAST CANCER CAR MAGNETS PD 809.26 10610 KEVIN KASHIWAHARA BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION NEW HIRE PD 1,929.31 10611 MARK D HUDAK LEGAL SERVICES - AUG 2022 CM 9,990.00 10612 MIDSTATE BARRIER, INC. REPAIR - GUARDRAIL/WOOD POSTS VARIOUS SITES PW 23,490.00 10613 NAPA AUTO PARTS - BURLINGAME TOOL - HEX SOCKET PW 16.37 10614 NO-DES, INC SUPPLIES - FILTER BAGS PW 22,273.44
10615 J5 INFRASTRATURE PARTNERS LLC REFUND - WIRELESS DEPOSIT BP 2,625.00 10616 JASON E GREEN REFUND - EASEMENT DEPOSIT PW 1,864.00 10617 JF5 INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS LLC REFUND - WIRELESS DEPOSIT BP 7,705.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14C9BA71-DF9D-4B81-8BC2-50340C0A3176 -27-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
PURCHASES MADE DURING OCTOBER 2022
10618 KIMBERLY J WICKHAM REFUND - GRADE DEPOSIT BP 5,000.00 10619 L AND D DEVELOPMENT INC REFUND - EASEMENT DEPOSIT PW 1,864.00 10620 MARY SWANSON TAYLOR REFUND - EASEMENT DEPOSIT PW 1,409.50 10621 NYHUS DESIGN GROUP REFUND – EASMENT DEPOSIT PW 1,022.62 10622 PEILI SHU REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 7,157.50
10623 YU CAO REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 23,012.00
10624 YU CAO REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 1,829.94
10625 YU CAO REFUND - GRADE DEPOSIT BP 10,000.00
10626 JAKE NELSON REIMB - LUNCH MINIMUM STAFF PD 73.20
10627 LUIS PRIETO REIMB - DMV LICENSE TEST PW 86.79
10628 MARIE CHUANG REIMB - LEAGUE OF CA CONFERENCE EXP 9/7-9/22 CO 872.92 10629 MICHAEL FUNDERBURK REIMB -MILEAGE FOR TRAINING PW 41.43 10630 TOSONI LAVULO REIMB - CLASS B LICENSE EXAM PW 128.00 10631 JASON LAU REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 315.36 10632 ROBERT CHI REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 299.58 10633 SHAYAN MAJLESI REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 604.48 10634 WARREN CITRON REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 182.70 10635 YASER MASOUDNIA REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT BALANCE FN 285.60 10636 PAKPOUR CONSULTING GROUP,INC MARLBOROUGH TANK #1 IMPROVE & VARIOUS PRJ PW 7,850.00 10637 PASO ROBLES TANK, INC MARLBOROUGH TANK #1 IMPROVE PRJ PW 19,299.55 10638 PENINSULA TRUCK REPAIR INC REPAIR - SWEEPER #250 BRUSH REPLACMENT PW 1,606.98 10639 PG & E 8/6/22-9/6/22 MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS 808.24
10640 POWER DMS, INC SOFTWARE - PLANIT SUBSCRIPTION PD 1,817.90 10641 PRIME MECHANICAL SERVICE, INC REPAIR - HVAC UNIT FIRESTATION #33 PW 1,070.40 10642 PRIORITY 1 MAINT - MULTIPLE VEHICLES PD 2,950.00
10643 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO., INC. REPAIR - BARROILHET PUMP #1 PW 25,527.97 10644 QUENCH USA, INC WATER FILTERATION SERVICE 9/28/22-10/27/22 PD 77.66 10645 RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP LLP LEGAL RETAINER AUG '22 CM 4,000.00 10646 RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM SUPPLIES - SAND PW 1,102.95 10647 RL TOWING, INC TOW - CAR #14 PD 260.00
10648 ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC TEMP SERVICE - W/E 9/23/22 & 9/30/22 FN 5,700.00 10649 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB SEPT '22 CRIME LAB SERVICES/CONTRIBUTION FEE PD 6,023.36 10650 SAN MATEO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PW MAINT- 21/22 WEED WHACKING/STREET SWEEPING PW 22,013.21 10651 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FEE - COYOTE POINT RANGE 8/22 PD 2,400.00 10652 SAN MATEO LUMBER CO., INC SUPPLIES - WOOD/ADHESIVE PW 135.72 10653 SPOTLIGHT IMPRESSIONS, INC PRINT - EMPLOYEE EXCELLENCE PLAQUES FN 185.94 10654 STAPLES ADVANTAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES - ALL DEPARTMENTS 390.39 10655 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING RIMS CAD/RMS TECH SERVICES 7/1/22-9/30/22 PD 2,125.00 10656 THE ADAM-HILL COMPANY REPAIR - HOSE ASSEMBLY TRUCK #527 PW 303.56 10657 THIRKETTLE CORPORATION PARTS - METER LID HOUSING PW 868.81 10658 THOMSON WEST SEPT '22 INVESTIGATIVE WEBSITE PD 1,015.00 10659 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. SEPTEMBER '22 CITATION PROCESSING & SCANNER PD 1,577.93 10660 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TRAIN - ERP FINANCIAL SYSTEM 9/6/22 FN 1,080.00 10661 UNITED LABORATORIES SUPPLIES - SEWER LIFT-ZYME PW 2,984.04 10662 WESLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC FABRICATE/INSTALL-KITCHEN CABINETS FIRE ST #32 PW 6,316.00 10663 WILSEY HAM SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION PW 1,690.50
10664 WRA, INC SANDRA/HAYNE DRAIN REPLACE PRJ PW 6,915.08 10665 AGUILAR & SONS REPAIR - INSTALL ASPHALT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PW 7,038.50 10666 ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER UNIFORM CLEANING SERVICE MULTIPLE INVOICES PW 3,295.48 10667 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY/CONSERVATION AGENCY SMART CONTROLLER PROGRAM SEPT '22 PW 493.25 10668 CITY OF SAN MATEO Q1 22-23 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PRJ PW 487,249.50 10669 JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. CONSTRUCTION - SANDRA HAYNE CIP PW 289,522.00 10670 SFPUC RENT - 22/23 CHERRY CREEK PUMP STATION PW 2,867.25 10671 TESCO CONTROLS, INC MAINT - SCADA SUPPORT SERVICE PW 18,600.00 10673 CITY OF SAN MATEO Q2 22-23 CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PRJ PW 487,249.50 10674 ADP, LLC OCT '22 MASTERTAX SOFTWARE SUPPORT FN 76.08 10675 AFLAC SEP '22 INSURANCE PREMIUM HR 1,722.38
10676 AIXTEK OCT '22 IT MANAGEMENT SERVICE IT 29,502.00 10677 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC SEP '22 LISTENING & SPEAKING TEST HR 66.00 10678 AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC SEP '22 - BACKUP STORAGE IT 2,233.17 10679 ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER UNIFORM CLEANING SERVICE W/E 10/13/22 PW 469.35 DocuSign Envelope ID: 14C9BA71-DF9D-4B81-8BC2-50340C0A3176 -28-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
PURCHASES MADE DURING OCTOBER 2022
10680 AUTO PRIDE CAR WASH, INC SEPT '22 CAR WASHES PD 105.92 10681 BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP SANDRA/HAYNE STORM DRAIN PRJ MATERIAL TEST PW 2,765.00 10682 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY/CONSERVATION AGENCY FY 22-23 Q2 ASSESSMENT PW 36,397.50 10683 BAYSIDE BUILDING MATERIALS INC MATERIALS - BARK/CEMENT PW 139.47 10684 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP FEE - AUG '22 LEGAL SERVICES 50,797.30 10685 BKF ENGINEERS A2 PHASE 2 DESIGN PRJ PW 345.00
10686 BOSCO OIL COMPANY GAS PD 3,536.22
10687 BROWN AND CALDWELL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN PW 4,488.00 10688 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT OCT '22 FISCAL CONTRIBUTION 654,879.00 10689 CITY OF SAN MATEO OCT '22 LIBRARY SERVICES FN 21,690.36 10690 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INFO SVC SEPT '22 MICRO CHANNEL LINES PD 164.51 10691 DIEMER ENGINEERING, INC. SEPT '22 PROF ENGINEER VARIOUS PRJ PW 300.00 10692 FERGUSON US HOLDINGS, INC PARTS - CHLORINE/COUPLERS/HOSE ADAPTER PW 14,843.07 10693 GLENN BERKHEIMER OCT '22 LABOR RELATIONS HR 1,700.00 10694 GRAINGER EQUIP - STORAGE CABINET/VARIOUS ITEMS PW 2,525.41 10695 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC. PARTS - CUSTOM SIGNS PW 924.22 10696 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP SEPT '22 BUILDING INSPECTOR SERVICES BP 2,000.00 10697 JESSIE AIZENSTAT FOWARD LATERAL PROGRAM Q4 2022 PW 3,000.00 10698 KRONOS SAASHR, INC. SEPT'22 PAYROLL PROCESSING FN 1,945.97 10699 MCA DIRECT LLC SUPPLIES - MINUTE BOOKS CL 369.28
10700 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, A EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL HR 118.00 10701 HARRIS WATER HEATERS, INC. REFUND - PERMIT OVERPAY BP 20.00 10702 LKG IRREVOCABLE TRUST REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 1,063.16 10703 STRATA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. REFUND - EIR DEPOSIT BALANCE BP 250.00 10704 WE GREEN, INC REFUND - PERMIT OVERPAY BP 360.05
10705 ANGEL RODRIGUEZ REIMB - WATER PAYMENT MADE IN ERROR FN 95.38 10706 PENINSULA TRUCK REPAIR INC MAINT - FORD F150 TRUCK #230 PW 918.88 10707 PG & E 9/7/22-10/5/22 MULTIPLE INVOICES 799.64
10708 ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC TEMP SERVICE - W/E 10/07/22 & 10/14/22FN 5,700.00 10709 SAN MATEO LOCK WORKS, INC. KEYS PW 49.33
10710 SAN MATEO LUMBER CO., INC SUPPLIES - WOOD FN KITCHEN PW 49.81 10711 SFPUC FEE - 22/23 CHERRY CREEK PUMP STATION PW 150.00 10712 STAPLES ADVANTAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES - ALL DEPARTMENTS 3,829.53 10724 SUTTER EAP JUL-SEP '22 EMPLOYEE ASSIST U HR 813.55 10725 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING OCT '22 COMM CENTER/BASE PD 2,345.50 10726 THE ARTINA GROUP, INC PRINT - BLANK STOCK FN 391.55 10727 TOOLAND TOOLS - PLIERS PW 254.79
10728 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TRAIN - ERP UB SYSTEM 9/20/22 FN 1,080.00 10729 UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC REPAIR - SHORING PUMP PW 514.47 10730 UNLIMITED TOOL & EQUIPMENT REP MAINT - CONCRETE SAW PW 250.82 10731 VERIZON WIRELESS 9/7/22 - 10/6/22 PD 194.05
10732 VIKING SHRED LLC OCT '22 DESTRUCTION SERVICES PD 82.99 10733 WILSEY HAM SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION PW 1,138.50
10734 WRA, INC EL CERRITO CREEK BANK PRJ 7/30/22-8/26/22 PW 644.25 10735 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX JUL-SEPT '22 Q3 SALES AND USE TAX 784.00 10736 DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT JUL-SEPT '22 DISABILITY ACCESS & EDU FEE 235.60 TOTAL GOODS & SERVICES FOR THE MONTH PAID BY CHECK $3,010,828.35 CALPERS RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS 193,281.03
VISA PAYMENTS 22,198.89
RETIREE HEALTH REIMBURSEMENTS 78,023.62
TOTAL GOODS & SERVICES FOR THE MONTH $ 3,304,331.89
DocuSign Envelope ID: 14C9BA71-DF9D-4B81-8BC2-50340C0A3176 -29-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2022

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

EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT SUPPORTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH’S SERIES 2000A, 2000B, 2003A, AND 2006A

VARIABLE RATE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, AND ANCILLARY DOCUMENTS

RELATED THERETO
SUMMARY: The Town’s Water and Sewer Funds are currently obligated under four series of the Town of Hillsborough’s Water and Sewer Variable Rate Certificates of Participation (COPs), denominated Series 2000A, 2000B, 2003A and 2006A, the interest rates of which are reset on a weekly basis by a remarketing agent. The COPs have final maturity dates of June 1, 2030 (Series A and B), 2033 (Series 2003A), and 2035 (Series 2006A).

As part of the reset process, holders of the certificates have the option to tender them for remarketing for any reason. To provide liquidity for this process, the Town is required by the rating agencies to have cash or a credit facility available to complete the purchases in the event the remarketing agent does not have buyers sufficient to acquire the put COPs. The current Standby Bond Purchase Agreement (SBPA) with Bank of the West expires on June 30, 2023. The SBPA provides Bank of the West’s commitment to purchase the certificates in the event of a failed remarketing. It is similar to a letter of credit, credit facility or liquidity facility. To date, the Town has never had a failed remarketing, nor has the facility been otherwise accessed for any reason.

The credit facility is required while the COPs remain in the variable rate mode. The Town periodically reviews converting the COPs to fixed rates, however, the cost to terminate the interest rate swaps implemented as part of the initial financings, per rating agency request and previous Town Council direction, has not been economically feasible for the Water and Sewer Funds in the recent past, and remains economically infeasible.

Staff is recommending the Town enter into a second amendment to the SBPA agreement as Bank of the West has offered competitive terms for the next six years, as well as a favorable time commitment. The Town currently pays 42.5 basis points (.425%) and the new price is 52.5 basis points (.525%). The term extension will commence on December 31, 2022 and remain effective for a six-year term.

Fees: .525%
Term: 6 years
Reimbursable Bank Legal Services – Not to exceed $7,500 Estimated Initial Annual Cost/Total 6 Year Contract: $113k/$538k -21- -31-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

The credit quality of Bank of the West has remained stable. The amendment has been reviewed by the Town’s bond counsel and financial advisor and the bank’s counsel and team.

FISCAL IMPACT: The annual facility fees are 52.5 basis points (.525%), which based on estimated outstanding principal of $21,605,000 would be $113k, declining as principal is repaid annually in June. Reimbursable legal costs are capped at a one-time cost of $7,500. Total estimated cost of the contract for six years is $546,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: There are no environmental issues associated with this agenda item.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Second Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreement

3. Fee Letter
PREPARED BY: Jan Cooke, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute the second amendment to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement supporting the Town of Hillsborough’s Series 2000A, 2000B, 2003A, and 2006A variable rate certificates of participation, and ancillary documents related thereto.
-22- -32-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT SUPPORTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH’S SERIES 2000A, 2000B, 2003A AND 2006A VARIABLE RATE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, AND

ANCILLARY DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough’s Water and Sewer Funds are currently obligated under four series of the Town of Hillsborough’s Water and Sewer Variable Rate Certificates of Participation, denominated as Series 2000A, 2000B, 2003A and 2006B, respectively (collectively, the “Certificates”) the interest rates related to which are reset on a weekly basis; and WHEREAS, the Town currently maintains a Standby Bond Purchase Agreement (the “SBPA”) with Bank of the West to provide liquidity for the weekly remarketing process with respect to the Certificates; and WHEREAS, the Town’s Financial Advisor worked with staff to evaluate an extension of the current SBPA; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that Bank of the West offers competitive terms for the SBPA for the next six years; and
WHEREAS, the form of certain documents related to the extension of the term of the SBPA, including a Second Amendment to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement and an Amended and Restated Fee Letter have been presented to the Town and have been reviewed by the Town’s bond counsel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby approves the Second Amendment to the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement and an Amended and Restated Fee Letter and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreement and an Amended and Restated Fee Letter, and execute any other documents deemed necessary to extend the term of the SBPA.
______________________________
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 14th day of November 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
-33-
ATTACHMENT 1
2 AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-34-
4865-3105-7718.2
NP DRAFT 10/18

SECOND AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Second AMENDMENT TO STANDBY BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Second Amendment”) dated as of November ___, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), is between TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA, a general law city organized and existing under the Constitution and the laws of the State of California (the “Town”), and BANK OF THE WEST, a California banking corporation organized under the laws of the State of California (the “Bank”).

All capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the hereinafter defined Agreement.

W ITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Town and the Bank have previously entered into a Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as June 1, 2016 (the “Original Agreement”), as amended by the First Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 22, 2019 (the “First Amendment”; and, the Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, the “Revised Agreement”), relating to those certain (i) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Refunding), 2000 Series A, (ii) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Refunding and Water and Sewer Systems Project), 2000 Series B, (iii) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Water and Sewer Systems Project), 2003 Series A and (iv) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Water and Sewer Systems Project), 2006 Series A (collectively, the “Certificates”); and WHEREAS, in connection with the execution of the Original Agreement, the Bank and the Town executed that certain Fee Letter, dated as of June 16, 2016 (the “Original Fee Letter”), which such Original Fee Letter was subsequently replaced by the Amended and Restated Fee Letter dated April 22, 2019 (the “Existing Fee Letter”), which was executed and delivered in connection with the First Amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Revised Agreement, the Revised Agreement may be amended by a written amendment thereto, signed by the Town and the Bank; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to make certain amendments to the Revised Agreement as set forth herein and to replace the Existing Fee Letter with a new Amended and Restated Fee Letter between the Bank and the Town dated as of the date hereof (the “New Fee Letter”); and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1. AMENDMENT.

1.01. The definitions of the terms “Fee Letter” and “Stated Termination Date” set forth in Section 1.1 of the Revised Agreement are hereby deleted in their entireties and replaced with the following:
“Fee Letter” shall mean that certain Amended and Restated Fee Letter, executed and delivered as of November ___, 2022, between the Town and the -35-
ATTACHMENT 2
4865-3105-7718.2 - 2 -
Bank, as the same may be amended, supplemented, modified or restated from time to time.
“Stated Termination Date” shall mean December 31, 2028, as extended pursuant to Section 2.4 hereof from time to time.

2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

This Second Amendment shall become effective on the Amendment Effective Date subject to the satisfaction of or waiver by the Bank of all of the following conditions precedent:

2.01. The Town shall have delivered to the Bank an executed counterpart of this Second Amendment and the New Fee Letter.

2.02. Delivery to the Bank by the Town of (a) evidence that the Town has authorized this Second Amendment and the New Fee Letter and the performance of its obligations under the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment and (b) a customary certificate executed by appropriate officers of the Town respecting the incumbency and signature of the officer of the Town executing this Amendment.

2.03. The Bank shall have received payment of all fees and expenses due hereunder and under the Fee Letter and the expenses of counsel to the Bank in an amount not to exceed $7,500 shall be paid to Nixon Peabody LLP, Bank Counsel, pursuant to an invoice provided by Bank Counsel no later than thirty days after delivery of such invoice.

2.04. All other legal matters pertaining to the execution and delivery of this Second Amendment shall be reasonably satisfactory to the Bank and its counsel.

3. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE TOWN.

3.01. The Town hereby represents and warrants that the following statements shall be true and correct as of the date hereof:
(a) the representations and warranties of the Town contained in Article IV of the Agreement, and in each of the other Related Documents are true and correct on and as of the date hereof as though made on and as of such date (except to the extent the same expressly relate to an earlier date); and
(b) no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing or would result from the execution of this Second Amendment.

3.02 In addition to the representations given in Article IV of the Agreement, the Town hereby represents and warrants as follows:
(a) The execution and delivery by the Town of this Second Amendment and its performance of the Agreement, as amended hereby, are within its powers, have been duly authorized by all necessary action and do not contravene any law, rule or regulation, any judgment, order or decree or any contractual restriction binding on or affecting the Town. -36-
4865-3105-7718.2 - 3 -
(b) No authorization, approval or other action by, and no notice to or filing with, any governmental authority or regulatory body is required for the due execution and delivery by the Town of this Second Amendment or its performance of the Agreement, as amended hereby.
(c) This Second Amendment and the Agreement, as amended hereby, constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Town enforceable against the Town in accordance with their respective terms, except that (i) the enforcement thereof may be limited by principles of sovereign immunity and by bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, liquidation, moratorium and other laws relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights and remedies generally, as the same may be applied in the event of the bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, liquidation or similar situation of the Town, and (ii) no representation or warranty is expressed as to the availability of equitable remedies.

4. MISCELLANEOUS.

The Town and the Bank have entered into this Second Amendment pursuant to Section

9.1 of the Revised Agreement to, among other things, extend the Stated Termination Date and amend other terms set forth in the Revised Agreement, to reflect the delivery of the New Fee Letter to replace the Existing Fee Letter. The terms of the Revised Agreement, as amended by this Second Amendment (as so amended, the “Agreement”), shall govern the rights and obligations of the Town and the Bank in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement.

Except as specifically amended herein, the Agreement will continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Reference to this Second Amendment need not be made in any note, document, agreement, letter, certificate, the Agreement or any communication issued or made subsequent to or with respect to the Agreement, it being hereby agreed that any reference to the Agreement shall be sufficient to refer to, and will mean and be a reference to, the Revised Agreement, as hereby amended. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein will not in any way be affected or impaired hereby. All capitalized terms used herein without definition have the same meanings herein as they have in the Agreement. THIS SECOND AMENDMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE OBLIGATIONS, RIGHTS AND

REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH LAWS, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ITS CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES.

This Second Amendment may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

This Second Amendment may be delivered by the exchange of signed signature pages by facsimile transmission or by e-mail with a pdf copy or other replicating image attached, and any printed or copied version of any signature page so delivered shall have the same force and effect as an originally signed version of such signature page. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
-37-
[Signature Page to Second Amendment to BOTW-Town of Hillsborough SBPA] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their respective representatives hereunto duly authorized as of the Amendment Effective Date.

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA
By: _____________________________________
Name:

Title:

BANK OF THE WEST
By: ____________________________________
Name: Edward C. Neu
Title: Director and Public Finance Manager
-38-
4863-9749-5350.5
NP DRAFT 10/31

AMENDED AND RESTATED FEE LETTER
DATED AS OF NOVEMBER ___, 2022
Reference is hereby made to (i) that certain Standby Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2016, as amended by the First Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 22, 2019 and by the Second Amendment to Standby Bond Purchase Agreement, dated as November ___, 2022 (as further amended, supplemented, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Agreement”), between TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA, a general law city organized and existing under the Constitution and the laws of the State of California (the “Town”), and BANK OF THE WEST, a California banking corporation (the “Bank”), relating to those certain (i) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Refunding), 2000 Series A, (ii) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Refunding and Water and Sewer Systems Project), 2000 Series B, (iii) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Water and Sewer Systems Project), 2003 Series A and (iv) Town of Hillsborough, California Certificates of Participation (Water and Sewer Systems Project), 2006 Series A and (ii) that certain Amended and Restated Fee Letter, executed and delivered as of April 22, 2019 (the “Existing Fee Letter”), between the Town and the Bank. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

The Bank and the Town have agreed to replace the Existing Fee Letter, and, for the sake of clarity and convenience, the Bank and the Town wish to replace the Existing Fee Letter in its entirety, and this Amended and Restated Fee Letter shall replace the Existing Fee Letter in its entirety. The purpose of this Amended and Restated Fee Letter (this “Fee Letter”) is to confirm the agreement between the Bank and the Town with respect to, among other things, the Facility Fee (as defined below) and certain other fees payable by the Town to the Bank. This Fee Letter is the Fee Letter referenced in the Agreement, and the terms hereof are incorporated by reference into the Agreement.

ARTICLE I. FEES.

Section 1.1. Facility Fee. (i) The Town agrees to pay or cause to be paid to the Bank, on December 31, 2022, for the period commencing on October 1, 2022 through and including December 31, 2022, a non-refundable facility fee (the “First Amendment Facility Fee”), in an amount equal to the rate per annum (the “First Amendment Facility Fee Rate”) specified in the applicable pricing grid below (based on the corresponding Ratings as defined below) times the average daily unused Available Commitment:

S&P RATING FITCH RATING FACILITY FEE RATE
Level 1: AA and above AA and above 0.425%
Level 2: AA- AA- 0.525%
Level 3: A+ A+ 0.625%
Level 4: A A 0.725%
Level 5: A- A- 0.825%
Level 6: BBB+ BBB+ 1.525%
Level 7: BBB BBB 3.025%
Level 8: BBB- BBB- 3.525%
Level 9: Below BBB- Below BBB- 3.775%
-39-
ATTACHMENT 3
4863-9749-5350.5
- 2 -
(ii) From and after June 1, 2023 through and until the Stated Termination Date, the Town hereby agrees to pay to the Bank in arrears on the first Business Day of each December and June (each a “Semi-Annual Payment Date”) occurring prior to the last day of the Purchase Period, a non-refundable facility fee (the “Second Amendment Facility Fee,” and, (for definition purposes only) together with the First Amendment Facility Fee, the “Facility Fee” ) in an amount equal to the rate per annum (the “Second Amendment Facility Fee Rate,” and, (for definition purposes only) together with the First Amendment Facility Fee Rate, the “Facility Fee Rate”) specified in the applicable pricing grid below (based on the corresponding Ratings as defined below) times the average daily unused Available Commitment beginning on the first day of each semi-annual period and ending on the last day of each semi-annual period; provided, however, that with respect to such Second Amendment Facility Fee payment due and owing on June 1, 2023, such payment shall be for the period commencing on January 1, 2023 through and until May 31, 2023; provided further however that with respect to the Second Amendment Facility Fee payment due and owing on the Stated Termination Date of December 31, 2028, such payment shall be for amounts due and owing from December 1, 2028 through and including December 31, 2028, unless the Town and the Bank have agreed to extend the Stated Termination Date further:

S&P RATING FITCH RATING FACILITY FEE RATE
Level 1: AA and above AA and above 0.525%
Level 2: AA- AA- 0.625%
Level 3: A+ A+ 0.725%
Level 4: A A 0.825%
Level 5: A- A- 0.925%
Level 6: BBB+ BBB+ 1.625%
Level 7: BBB BBB 3.125%
Level 8: BBB- BBB- 3.650%
Level 9: Below BBB- Below BBB- 3.900%
For purposes of this Section 1.1 only, the Available Commitment shall be deemed not to be reduced during any period, for which the Bank’s obligation to purchase Bonds has been suspended as of a result of any Potential Termination Event during each related period.

The applicable Facility Fee shall be payable in immediately available funds and computed on the basis of a 360-day year.

The following paragraph shall be applicable to both clause (i) (including the pricing matrix) and clause (ii) (including the pricing matrix) above. In the event that any long-term, unenhanced rating on the Certificates or any other obligation secured on a parity therewith is suspended, withdrawn or otherwise unavailable for credit related reasons, from either S&P or Fitch (each a “Rating Agency”), the Facility Fee Rate shall be that set forth in Level 9 above. Upon the occurrence and continuance of an Event of Default (other than as set forth in Section 7.1(a)(xii) of the Agreement), the Facility Fee Rate shall be increased by 1.50% per annum from the Facility Fee Rate in effect on the date of the occurrence and during the continuance of such Event of Default. The term “Rating” as used above shall mean the lower of the two unenhanced -40-
4863-9749-5350.5
- 3 -
long-term ratings assigned to the Certificates (without regard to bond insurance or any other form of credit enhancement) or any other obligation secured on a parity therewith assigned by S&P and Fitch (or to the extent only one of S&P and Fitch is then maintaining such an unenhanced long-term rating, the rating assigned by such Rating Agency); provided however, that in the event that Moody’s Investor Service (“Moody’s”) assigns an unenhanced long-term rating to the Certificates or any other obligation secured on a parity therewith, the term “Rating” shall mean the lowest of the three long-term unenhanced long-term debt ratings assigned to the Certificates (without regard to bond insurance or any other form of credit enhancement) or any other obligation secured on a parity therewith assigned by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch (or to the extent only one of S&P and Fitch is then maintaining such an unenhanced long-term rating, the lower of the two ratings). In the event Moody’s assigns a rating to the Certificates (without regard to bond insurance or any other form of credit enhancement) or the any other obligation secured on a parity therewith, the Facility Fee Rate corresponding to such rating shall be to the Moody’s rating level which most closely corresponds to the ratings categories of S&P and Fitch set forth in Levels 1 through 9 of this Section 1.1. Any change in the Facility Fee Rate resulting from (i) a change in a relevant rating shall be and become effective as of and on the date of the announcement of the change in such rating and (ii) the occurrence and continuance of an Event of Default shall be and become effective as of the occurrence and continuance of such Event of Default. The increase in the Facility Fee as a result of the occurrence and continuance of an Event of Default shall be in addition to all other rights and remedies of Bank related thereto, at law or in equity, or under this Fee Letter, the Agreement or any of the Related Documents. Each Facility Fee shall be fully earned by the Bank upon the Town’s payment of such Facility Fee to the Bank. References to the ratings above is a reference to the rating category of the Rating Agencies as presently determined by the respective Rating Agency and in the event of adoption of any new or changed rating system by any Rating Agency, the ratings from the applicable Rating Agency shall be deemed to refer to the rating category under the new rating system which most closely approximates the applicable rating category as currently in effect. If any Facility Fee is not paid when due, then such Facility Fee shall accrue interest at the Default Rate commencing on the relevant Semi-Annual Payment Date or Termination Date, as applicable, until such Facility Fee and the interest due thereon is paid in full.

Section 1.2. Purchase Date Fees. The Town also hereby agrees to pay to the Bank, on each Purchase Date, a fee equal to $250.00 for each aggregate purchase of Certificates made by the Bank under the Agreement on such Purchase Date.

Section 1.3. Amendment, Waiver and Other Fees and Expenses. The Town agrees to pay to the Bank on the date of each amendment, modification, or supplement of the Agreement or this Fee Letter, or any amendment, modification, or supplement to any Related Document which requires the waiver or consent of the Bank, a non-refundable amendment, modification, supplement, waiver or consent fee, as applicable, in such amount as the parties shall then agree, plus the reasonable fees of any legal counsel retained by the Bank in connection therewith.

Section 1.4. Voluntary Termination; Make-Whole. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Agreement or this Fee Letter to the contrary, the Town agrees that prior to the first anniversary of the date hereof, it shall not (1) terminate or replace the Agreement, (2) direct any Trustee to terminate the Agreement without a replacement letter of credit or standby purchase agreement being substituted therefore or (3) redeem the Certificates in whole or in part, in each -41-
4863-9749-5350.5
- 4 -
case, prior to first anniversary of the date hereof except upon (a) the withdrawal, suspension or reduction in the rating assigned to the Bank’s senior unsecured short-term obligations by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., S&P and Fitch below “P1,” “A-1” and “F1” respectively, (b) the imposition, with payment by the Town, of any payments pursuant to Section 2.2(h) of the Agreement or (c) (i) the payment by the Town to the Bank of a make-whole fee (the “MakeWhole Fee”) on or prior to such termination, replacement or redemption date in an amount equal to the facility fees payable pursuant to Section 1.1 hereof (based upon an Available Commitment in an amount equal to that in effect on the Effective Date) for the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on first anniversary of the date hereof at the Facility Fee Rate in effect as of the date of such termination or redemption, as applicable, less the actual amount of Facility Fees the Town has previously paid to the Bank pursuant to Section 1.1 hereof, (ii) the payment to the Bank of all fees, expenses and other amounts payable hereunder and under the Agreement, (iii) the payment to the Bank of all principal and accrued interest owing on any Bank Certificates (including any unpaid Differential Interest Amount, if any, to the extent permitted by law) and (iv) providing the Bank and the applicable Trustee notice of its intention to do so at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of such termination or replacement; provided that all payments to the Bank referred to in this Section 1.4 shall be made with immediately available funds.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Make-Whole Fee shall be payable if the Certificates are redeemed or otherwise prepaid with the proceeds of a publicly sold fixed rate refunding bond issue that is not supported by a letter of credit, standby bond purchase agreement or similar liquidity or credit support facility.

ARTICLE II. MISCELLANEOUS.

Section 2.1. Amendments. No amendment to this Fee Letter shall become effective without the prior written consent of the Town and the Bank.

Section 2.2. GOVERNING LAW; ARBITRATION. (A) THIS FEE LETTER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICT OF LAW PRINCIPLES. (b) This Fee Letter is expressly subject to the provisions of Section 9.7 of the Agreement, which provisions are incorporated herein and made applicable hereto by this reference.

Section 2.3. Counterparts. This Fee Letter may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original but both or all of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one instrument; and any of the parties hereto may execute this Fee Letter by signing such counterpart. This Fee Letter may be delivered by the exchange of signed signature pages by facsimile transmission or by attaching a pdf copy to an email, and any printed or copied version of any signature page so delivered shall have the same force and effect as an originally signed version of such signature page.

Section 2.4. Severability. Any provision of this Fee Letter which is prohibited, unenforceable or not authorized in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition, unenforceability or non-authorization without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof or affecting the validity, enforceability or legality of such provision in any other jurisdiction.
-42-
4863-9749-5350.5
- 5 -
Section 2.5. Depository Relationship and Extension of the Stated Termination Date.

If the Town deposits and maintains $15,000,000 (the “Minimum Deposit”) to the Bank prior to [_____, 202_] and agrees to maintain the Minimum Deposit for at least twenty-four months, the Bank agrees [to seek credit approval (which shall be at the Bank’s sole discretion)] to reduce the Facility Fee Rate by .125 basis points set forth in Section 1.1(ii) of this Fee Letter. If the Town agrees to establish its primary depository and treasury management relationship with the Bank prior to [_____, 202_], the Bank agrees [to seek credit approval (which shall be at the Bank’s sole discretion)] to reduce the Facility Fee Rate by .20 basis points set forth in Section 1.1(ii) of this Fee Letter.

Section 2.6. Representation by Legal Counsel; Joint Preparation. The parties hereto have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Fee Letter, and each of the parties was represented by its respective legal counsel during the negotiation and execution of this Fee Letter. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises, this Fee Letter shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties, and no presumption or burden of proof shall arise favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Fee Letter.

Section 2.7. Fee Letter. This Fee Letter replaces the Existing Fee Letter in its entirety.

Reference to this specific Fee Letter need not be made in any agreement, document, instrument, letter, certificate, the Agreement, the Existing Fee Letter itself, or any communication issued or made pursuant to or with respect to the Existing Fee Letter, any reference to the Existing Fee Letter being sufficient to refer to the Existing Fee Letter, as replaced hereby, and more specifically, any and all references to the “Fee Letter” in the Agreement shall mean this Fee Letter.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
-43-
4863-9749-5350.5
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FEE LETTER]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Fee Letter to be duly executed and delivered by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first written above.

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA
By: ______________________________________
Name:

Title:

BANK OF THE WEST
By: _____________________________________
Name: Edward C. Neu
Title: Director and Public Finance Manager
-44-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 AND CEQA GUIDELINE 15378 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 -45-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 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, September 12, 2022, October 10, 2022 and October 27, 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. -46-
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:
-47-

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
-------------------
-48-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF AN EXISTING FIVE-FOOT-WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1260 KENILWORTH ROAD PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(B)(3)
SUMMARY: In 1927 a five-foot-wide public utility easement delineated as “Reserve 5 Ft. Wide” was dedicated to the Town of Hillsborough for public utilities. The current property owner of 1260 Kenilworth Road, which a portion of the easement lies within, has requested that the Town vacate the easement as it is crosses through the property at an irregular angle and existing nonconforming improvements were located within the easement. The Town does not anticipate a future need for the easement. The easement has never been used for public utilities and can be vacated.

A public agency may vacate/terminate a “public service easement” in accordance with the provisions and hearing process described in the Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law (Sts. & Hy. Code, §§ 8300 et seq.). Additionally, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code Section 8333, a formal easement vacation and hearing process is not necessary and the City Council may summarily vacate the easement by adopting a resolution of vacation, in accordance with Streets & Highways Code Section 8335, if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation, or if the easement has been determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.

The area proposed for vacation is shown and described in Attachment 2. Vacating the unused portion of the public utility easement would release the Town’s liability for future maintenance and allow the property owners to fully utilize their entire parcel.

Should the City Council adopt the resolution approving the summary vacation, the City Engineer can then complete the map and recordation process. The vacation would be complete upon recordation of the resolution. (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 8336(b) FISCAL IMPACT: This action will not create any new financial responsibility to the Town.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: As the lead agency, the Town of Hillsborough has determined that the actions proposed in this report do not constitute a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Guideline 15061(b)(3) primarily because it can be seen with certainty that the vacation of an existing unused public utility easement will cause no physical changes in the environment and is merely a change on a map versus a physical change in the environment.
-49-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and Exhibit A
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving the summary vacation of an existing fivefoot-wide public utility easement at 1260 Kenilworth Road. -50-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

APPROVING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF AN EXISTING FIVE-FOOT-WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1260 KENILWORTH ROAD PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(B)(3)
WHEREAS, a five-foot-wide public utility easement (“Easement”) exists at 1260 Kenilworth Road (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Easement was dedicated to the Town of Hillsborough for the purpose of public utilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 8333(a) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California allows a city to summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation; and
WHEREAS, Section 8333(c) of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California allows a city to summarily vacate a public service easement if it has been determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement; and WHEREAS, the Property owner has requested for summary vacation of the Easement by the Town; and
WHEREAS, this Easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated for over five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation; and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined that this existing Easement is in excess and is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was dedicated and contains no public facilities.

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

1. The facts set forth in the recitals above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The Easement located at 1260 Kenilworth Road, depicted and described in Exhibit A, is hereby ordered vacated. This summary vacation is made pursuant to the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4 (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 8330 et seq.).

3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this resolution with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo. From and after -51-
the date the resolution is recorded, the Easement will no longer constitute a public service easement.

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-52-
EXHIBIT “A”

EASEMENT ABANDONMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All that real property situated in the City of Hillsborough, County of San Mateo, State of California, being a portion of that 5-foot-wide reservation lying within Lot 8, Block B as said Lot and Block are shown on that certain Map entitled “MAP OF HILLSBOROUGH PARK NO. 2, HILLSBOROUGH, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA”, filed April 05, 1927 in Volume 15 of Maps, at Pages 39 to 47 inclusive, in the Office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County, State of California, said portion bounded on the North by the general Northerly line of PARCEL TWO as described in that certain Grant Deed recorded August 06, 2020 as Document Number 2020-077463, Official Records of San Mateo County, State of California, and bounded on the South by the general Southwesterly line of said PARCEL TWO.

This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act.

Signature: ____________________________
Jacqueline Luk, PLS 8934
Date: September 19, 2022
-53-
-54-
-55-

TOWN OF

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 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 AVENUE AND CONSIDER: (1) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING THE TWO STORY HOME PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15303; OR (2) ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND DENYING THE TWO STORY HOME PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15270 – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 10, 2022
SUMMARY: The appeal was continued to the November 14, 2022, City Council meeting with a recommendation to the parties to work out modifications to the design related to massing. Staff received direction to return to Council with a resolution denying the appeal and approving the twostory home and a resolution upholding the appeal and denying the two-story home. Staff has included a resolution denying the appeal and approving the two story home consistent with the prior resolution included in the October 10, 2022, with minor modifications, and has also included a draft resolution upholding the appeal and denying the two-story home with a blank section for the City Council to potentially articulate findings for denial of the home.

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.
-57-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

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 in Attachment 3.

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.”
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. -58-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

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:

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. -59-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022

Page 4 ends

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 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 based on the “Neighborhood Context” as described in the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, page 28 Chapter 5: Massing, “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 massing of buildings in the neighborhood.” Ralston Ave. and Pepper Ave. not only establish an edge to the country club neighborhood itself, but both streets function as borders between the Town of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame 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. In particular, as noted in the Design Guidelines, second story additions and new homes higher than one story shall invoke design strategies such as modulating the building mass to minimize boxiness, incorporating a partial versus full second story addition, and adding in setbacks for second story volumes. 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. Further, the project incorporates a partial second story versus a full second story as noted by the Design Guidelines. 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 applicant will be required to redesign the proposed pitched roof over the garage to a -60-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022

Page 5 ends

flat roof, to reduce the height at the rear of the structure. The area over the garage is not a second story.

Public Comments Received
Public comments received since the October 10, 2022 meeting agenda packet deadline are available in Attachment 5.

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 Denying the Appeal and Approving the Two-Story Home

2. Resolution Upholding the Appeal and Denying the Two-Story Home

3. October 10, 2022 City Council Meeting Agenda Materials

4. Town Standard Conditions of Approval

5. Public Comments received since the October 10, 2022 Meeting Agenda Packet deadline

6. Correspondence from Applicant’s Attorney November 4, 2022

7. Declaration from Applicant November 4, 2022

8. Correspondence from Appellant November 9, 2022
PREPARED BY: Linda Roberson, Associate Planner
-61-
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) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15303
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 -62-
ATTACHMENT 1
2 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:
-63-
3 • Height: The maximum allowable height is 32’ where 28’ 6-1/2” is proposed.
• 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, based on the “Neighborhood Context” as described in the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, page 28 Chapter 5: Massing, “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 massing of buildings in the neighborhood.”
Ralston Ave. and Pepper Ave. not only establish an edge to the country club neighborhood itself, but both streets function as boundaries between the Town of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame.

There are a total of 17 existing two-story homes on Ralston Ave. and Pepper Ave., three of which are less than 320’ away from the subject property, establishing a precedent for the type of construction described in the Residential Design Guidelines and that proposed in the approved plan.

Furthermore, the proposed design strategies maintain consistency with those outlined in the Town Design Guidelines for one-story -64-
4 neighborhoods. As noted in the Design Guidelines, second story additions and new homes higher than one story shall invoke design strategies such as modulating the building mass to minimize boxiness, incorporating a partial versus full second story addition, and adding in setbacks for second story volumes. 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. Further, the project incorporates a partial second story versus a full second story as noted by the Design Guidelines.

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 applicant will be required to redesign the proposed pitched roof over the garage 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 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 14th day of November 2022, by the following vote of the members thereof:
-65-
5 AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-66-
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND DENYING 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) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15270
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 -67-
ATTACHMENT 2
2 residence in a residential zone, but in the event of denial of the project, the Town relies on CEQA Guideline 15270; 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.

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-68-
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3, the October 10, 2022 City Council Meeting Agenda Materials, is available at https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10102022-1208#page=144 -69-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Revised April 3, 2013

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
for projects approved by the City Council, the Architecture and Design Review Board, and the Planning Department staff
This application has been approved, subject to compliance with these conditions, and satisfactorily meeting the requirements, codes and ordinances of the Town of Hillsborough. A final sign-off on the project (or a Certificate of Occupancy) will not be granted until the project has been inspected for compliance with these conditions and requirements. Where applicable, compliance with these conditions shall be reflected on the plans submitted for permit(s).

Property Owner Acknowledgement
I am the owner of this property and, by signing this document, I acknowledge that I understand and agree to the terms of the Standard Conditions dated March 1, 2004 and revised on May 08, 2006.
_________________________________________ __________________________ Owner’s Signature Date
Print Owner’s Name: _______________________________________________________ Property Address: _________________________________________________________ Note: This form must be signed and submitted as part of the Building Permit application.

Attachments: Tree Protection for Construction Sites
Requirements for Parking Strips
Planning Office
650/375-7422
Fax: 650/375-7415
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough
California 94010
-70-
ATTACHMENT 4
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
2 Permits Required

1. Before beginning work on the project, all necessary permits (such as Demolition, Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing) must be secured from the Building Department.

Separate Permits are required for landscape installation, pools, retaining walls, and certain large tree removals. Construction plan set must show the total area of conditioned space.

2. An Encroachment Permit must be obtained for all work within the Town's right-of-way, including but not limited to landscaping, parking strips, driveways, curbs and gutters, and for work on Town utilities including water, sewer and storm drain piping (Hillsborough Municipal Code (HMC) Section (§) 12.24.010 and §13.32.030).

3. A Grading/Hauling Permit must be obtained for a project with a combined amount of cut and fill exceeding 50 cubic yards of material (HMC §15.24.030). Additionally, City Council approval is required whenever soil-haul to or from the site exceeds 1500 cubic yards (HMC §5.24.070). Projects and/or permits requiring City Council approval due to soil-haul exceeding 1500 cubic yards shall also be subject to environmental review (HMC §15.24.040). The environmental review process generally requires approximately three to nine months to complete and must occur prior to City Council approval. See the City Engineer's Grading/Hauling Application form for additional information. Grading is not permitted between October 15th and April 15th without approval from the City Engineer.

Plan Requirements

4. Site development, including landscaping, shall conform to the approved plans. No significant changes shall be made to the approved plans without Planning Department approval and revisions to the permit(s).

5. Where applicable, plans submitted for a Building Permit shall fully document (on the actual plans) the lot size, structural coverage and floor area (FAR) calculations. The permit plans shall fully document the construction details sufficient to demonstrate that all areas of the house which are not counted as floor area in the FAR calculations on file with the Planning Department will not be constructed as floor area. For example, attic spaces with sloped ceilings which are not included in the FAR calculations shall be detailed and constructed such that the floor-to-ceiling height is less than five feet and basement areas which are not included in the FAR calculations shall be detailed and constructed such that the floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet (see HMC §17.32.020). Floor area which is not identified in the FAR calculations shall not be permitted.

6. The plans submitted for permit shall address truck traffic issues regarding noise, dust and vehicular and pedestrian safety; the storage of construction materials; clean-up areas; the placement of sanitary and construction facilities; and parking areas for construction vehicles and construction personnel to comply with HMC Chapter 15.26, Construction Management.

Recycling and Waste Reduction

7. Before any demolition and/or construction work is initiated, and before a Demolition or Building Permit is issued, a waste reduction plan shall be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval by the Town's Recycling Coordinator (HMC §15.18.020). The plan shall include, but not be limited to, details on types of materials to be recycled, how they will be transported, and to what facility they will be taken for -71-
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
3 recycling. A waste reduction plan packet that includes resource lists and specific recycling requirements is available at the Building Department counter. The Town’s Recycling Coordinator is available to provide information and assistance on all aspects of compliance with Town recycling requirements, including the location of recycling facilities and their services. Violation of recycling requirements shall subject the violator to a penalty of up to ten times the Building or Demolition Permit fee (HMC §15.18.040).

8. Reusable items and materials shall be removed before demolition; mixed debris shall be taken to a mixed-debris recycling facility having a franchise agreement with the Town of Hillsborough, and like materials (e.g., scrap wood, metal, glass) shall be kept clean and separated for recycling. Use of debris box service shall be limited to those with franchise agreements with the Town (HMC Chapter 8.12).

Tree Protection

9. An arborist report and tree protection plan shall be submitted to the Building Department to ensure the survival of all trees that are designated "to remain" on the approved plans and which are subject to damage by construction activities and equipment and/or the storage of materials (HMC Chapter 14.04). Please see the attached sheet, Tree Protection for Construction Sites, for further information.

10. Tree protection measures identified in the tree protection plan must remain in place and adequately ensure the protection throughout the construction process; violation of this requirement shall result in a “Stop Work” order issued to the job site and may result in penalties including requirements for tree restoration and/or replacement subject to the direction of the City Engineer (HMC §14.04.06).

11. Trees to be installed within the public right-of-way shall be installed a minimum of seven (7) feet behind the back of existing curb and gutter. Trees planted in the right-of-way shall be installed with root shields/barriers. All work within the right-of-way shall require an Encroachment Permit from Public Works (HMC §21.24.010).

12. Any existing tree within an existing public utility easement where utilities exist shall be removed and replaced outside the easement area. No new trees shall be planted within easements where utilities exist.

Erosion and Sediment Control

13. Developers/owners/ builders of projects that disturb one acre or more of land area are required to show clearly on the plans the area of land disturbance. The applicant shall also demonstrate proof of permit coverage from the State Water Resource Control Board under the State Construction Activity Stormwater General Permit, consistent with the Town’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, prior to obtaining a Grading Permit for the site (HMC §15.24.120). For more information please go to the State Water Resource Control Board’s website at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr/docs/finalconstpermit.pdf

14. Regardless of project size, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval in conjunction with the plans for Building Permit (HMC Chapter

15.24). The erosion control plan shall be in compliance with the Town’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) including but not limited to perimeter erosion -72-
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
4 control, slope protection, dust control, street sweeping, storm drain inlet protection, concrete handling and disposal, and stockpile sediment control.

15. The approved erosion control plan shall be implemented continually for the duration of the project until landscaping or ground cover is installed and established.

16. All project contractors and the property owner(s) shall comply with NPDES Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent contaminated or non-storm water discharge into the storm drain system (HMC §13.50.040 and §13.50.120). General guidance for selecting and implementing BMPs can be found at:
http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Construction.asp

17. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a project “Stop Work” order. Fee schedules have been established for additional inspections and for “Stop Works” (HMC §13.50.150 and §13.50.180).

Landscaping Installation and Maintenance

18. For new houses, landscaping shall be installed within 6 months of the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Provided, however, that the applicant shall obtain a final inspection within one (1) year of the sheetrock nailing inspection (HMC §17.56.090(A)).

19. For additions and remodels, all new landscaping indicated on the plans (or required by condition) shall be installed and have received the final inspection prior to securing a final inspection from the Building Department on the house (HMC §17.56.090(B)).

20. All landscaping shall be installed in compliance with the Town’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (HMC §13.50.120 and §15.24.120).

21. All landscaping shall be properly installed, using soil amendments and other techniques to ensure successful growth, and shall be properly maintained in good health (or replaced) for a period of at least 90 days (HMC §8.16.035 and §13.50.010).

Lighting and Street Numbers

22. Exterior lights (including those on façades, walkways, pilasters, porches, etc.) shall be installed in such a manner that there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties, streets, or the sky.

23. The house address shall be clearly delineated with numerals at least 4 inches in height that contrast with their background and are visible from the street. These numerals shall be at the street, rather than on the face of the house.

Driveways

24. Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department, all new or reconfigured driveways shall have a minimum width of fourteen (14) feet (HMC §12.12.050(E)), with a maximum slope of 16%, except that the first fifteen (15) feet shall have a slope no greater than 5%.

Please also see the Fire Department Requirements listed below. -73-
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
5 25. All new driveway cuts are subject to the approval of the City Engineer and plans shall demonstrate optimum site distance for each location proposed.

Curbs, Gutters and Parking Strips

26. Curbs, gutters, driveway approaches, and parking strips shall be installed or repaired/replaced to Town standards, as required by the City Engineer, prior to the Building Department's final sign-off on the construction project (HMC §12.04.120 and §12.24.070). Please see the attached sheet regarding parking strips.

Grading, Drainage and Utilities

27. Grading, Drainage and Utility plans shall be submitted with the first submittal of plans for plan check to the Building Department, if applicable (see HMC Chapter 15.24). Delays will result if these plans are not submitted with the initial submittal.

28. Grading plans shall include the total area of land disturbance (in square feet) clearly delineated on the plans, total cut/fill/import/export quantities in cubic yards, and total impermeable areas in square feet (structural and hardscape). All quantities shall be shown in tabular form on grading plans (HMC §15.24.040).

29. Positive measures shall be taken during the design of projects that contain basement excavations to prohibit draining/pumping of the ground water after construction is completed. If sub-foundation drains are used they shall not drain any water below the normal high water mark for ground water aquifers/springs. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall determine the normal high water mark for the project, using defendable engineering methods, and design the project to withstand both lateral earth pressures and hydrostatic pressures. The applicant shall submit plans for dewatering during construction if needed (the plan shall include all discharge locations, methods, and details).

30. All storm water collected from impervious surfaces, including but not limited to roofs, patios/decks and driveways, shall drain to an approved drainage system after filtration / detention through landscaping features where feasible. All roof leaders shall be directed to landscape features prior to being collected in closed conduits which lead to an approved facility. No collected water shall be allowed to drain onto any adjoining property, unless there is an approved easement and an approved drainage facility (HMC §13.50.040).

31. All projects that increase the onsite imperviousness (structural and hardscape) by more than or equal to 1,000 square feet shall be required to detain the difference between the existing and proposed runoff quantities for the site as a whole using the Town’s criteria for calculating runoff.

32. All utilities to, and within, the project shall be placed underground. All public utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements and sized to meet Town and utility company standards. If the City Engineer determines that installation of a new water main or hydrant is required as a public improvement for fire suppression, these facilities should be installed before framing of the structure begins.

33. Pressure reducing and isolation valves shall be installed for all water services. Isolation valves shall be placed on the discharge side and within one foot of the water meter box (HMC §15.16.080(C)). Pressure reducing valves are required when the system pressure exceeds 80 psi and shall be located on the exterior wall of the structure and/or between -74-
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
6 the isolation valve and the structure. A backflow prevention device shall be installed between the meter and the isolation valve.

34. A water backflow prevention device and isolation valve shall be installed for all irrigation and fire suppression systems (HMC §15.16.085). A pressure-reducing valve may be necessary depending on the maximum operating pressure of the irrigation system.

35. Ultra-low-flush toilets, meeting the Town’s requirements, shall be installed for all remodeled and/or new bathrooms.

36. If the addition, replacement or repair of a sewer lateral is required by the City Engineer, such improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (HMC §13.32.110).

37. Sanitary sewer lateral cleanouts shall be installed at the property line and within three feet of the building as required by the City Engineer and the Building Official (HMC §13.32.080). A sewer backflow prevention device is required on all sewer laterals, unless otherwise waived in writing by the Building Official. The Town’s Backflow Protection Ordinance requires that at least two elements of backwater protection system be installed on all properties by January 2007, unless waived by the Building Official.

Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges

38. Pool (including swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains) discharge drains shall not be connected directly to the storm drain system (HMC §13.50.010).

39. When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sanitary sewer cleanout. The cleanout shall be installed in a readily accessible area within 20 feet of the pool (HMC §13.50.010).

40. Pool water shall be de-chlorinated prior to discharging to the storm drain system (HMC §13.50.010).

Fire Department Requirements

41. Installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system is required for all new homes and accessory structures equipped with sleeping areas, cooking areas and/or bathrooms (HMC §15.20.090).

42. Installation of an automatic fire sprinkler is required for all additions and remodels (or combination thereof) that equal 1,500 sq. ft. or more (HMC §15.20.090(A)(2)).

43. Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall conform to the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association pamphlet #13D for residences. Automatic fire sprinkler contractors should call the Central County Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau at 650/375-7421 for sprinkler requirements or to schedule a fire flow test (HMC §15.20.090(B)).

44. Every new structure or addition shall have an adequate supply of water for firefighting purposes; this water supply is termed “fire flow”. Fire flow shall be determined at a ratio of water to fire area (square footage per single parcel). Every new structure or addition shall have immediate access to fire hydrants. The number of fire hydrants required per property and their spacing is determined by the amount of required fire flow. Refer to -75-
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
7 Appendix III-A and III-B of the Uniform Fire Code to determine the fire flow for a given amount of square footage and the number of fire hydrants required (California Fire Code, Title 24 §903).

45. An all-weather road surface capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be in service prior to combustible materials being delivered to the construction site (California Fire Code, Title 24 §8703).

46. All hydrants shall have a 3-foot diameter clearance from all obstructions and 6-foot clear width to the street (California Fire Code, Title 24 §1001.7.2).

47. To maintain an effective firebreak, flammable vegetation and combustible growth shall be removed and cleared away. Fire-resistant landscaping is recommended. (See California Fire Code, Title 24 §1103.2.4)

48. New structures and additions shall be situated such that the furthest point of the entire building shall not exceed 150 feet from the public street (California Fire Code, Title 24 §902).

49. New structures and additions shall be situated such that the furthest point of the entire building shall not exceed 500 feet from the nearest public fire hydrant (California Fire Code, Title 24 Appendix III-B).

50. Roofing materials shall be Class “A” roof coverings as classified by the Uniform Building Code (HMC §15.20.100).

51. Chimneys used in conjunction with fireplaces, barbecues, or heating appliances in which solid fuel is used shall be provided with an approved spark arrestor. Portions of trees that extend within 10 feet of the outlet of any chimney must be removed. (See HMC §

15.20.080.)

52. Wood siding or wood decks are prohibited to any building constructed on a lot contiguous to Town Open Space if such building is located on a slope in excess of ten percent (10%) (HMC §15.20.120 and §15.20.130).

53. Wood siding or wood decks on existing structures shall be removed from any building on a lot contiguous to Town Open Space if such building is located on a slope in excess of ten percent (10%) before any exterior remodeling of such building or structure shall be permitted (HMC §15.20.120 and §15.20.130).

Floodplain Management Regulations - these relate only to the following properties:
50 & 99 Baywood Ave.;
100, 130,150, 170, 190, 194, 222, 230, 240, 250, 260, 310, 320, 330 & 340 Bridge Rd.; 10 & 20 Creekwood Way;
91, 96, 100, 760, 805, 807, 815, 891 & 893 Crystal Springs Rd.; 107, 109, 123 & 139 De Sabla Rd.;
125, 235, 245, 303, 325, 333, 401, 501, 515, 525, 545, 555, 565, 585, 595, 731, 739, 757, 763, 775 & 777 El Cerrito Ave.;
5 & 8 Homs Ct.;
-76-
Standard Conditions
May 8, 2006 (reformatted 04-03-13)
8 15, 25, 30 & 35 Laureldale Rd.;
90 Rockridge Rd.;
300, 320 & 383 Sierra Drive; and,
200, 260 & 270 Stonehedge Rd.

54. Any proposed development in the area designated as “Special Flood Hazard Area” will require a Development Permit, which is a preliminary assessment of the project by the Flood Plain Administrator/City Engineer before an application is made for a Building Permit (HMC §15.44.030).

55. The Flood Plain Administrator/City Engineer shall grant or deny Development Permits in accordance with the HMC Chapter 15.44.

Creek Protection

56. No structures shall be constructed or installed within twenty (20) feet from the top of bank of any water course
.
-77-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

SAN MATEO COUNTY

TREE PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES
The protection of trees is a high priority in the Town of Hillsborough. Tree protection measures are required prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or a Demolition Permit.

Steps for Tree Protection

1. Consult with an arborist about what measures must be taken to preserve and enhance the life of trees which are designated “to remain” on the site during and after the construction process. Have a report prepared by a licensed arborist.

2. Submit to the Building/Planning Department the arborist report, along with two (2) copies of a tree protection plan which incorporates the recommendations. The plan shall include:
• The specific location of the trees, with the species identified and their actual canopies shown;
• The location of the construction trailer, debris box(es), portable toilets (if any), worker/equipment parking areas (if any), and the staging areas for construction materials;
• A list of the equipment (which is moved by having someone drive/operate it) which will be used for the job; and,
• The locations of, and specifications for, the tree protection measures consistent with the arborist report.

Note: For some jobs the installation of netting will not be a sufficient protection measure; construction fencing may be required to protect the roots of trees, especially if there will be heavy equipment on the site or if grading is involved.

3. When the report and tree protection plan have been approved, install the plan. The approved plan shall be kept on the construction site at all times.

4. Before work on the job may commence, or any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit is issued, the tree protection measures must be installed and certified by a licensed arborist that the plan has been installed according to the report and the approved plan. To document the arborist's certification, a signed, stamped and dated letter from the arborist must be submitted to the Building Department; once the arborist certification is received, you may arrange for an inspection by the Town.

5. If at any time during the construction period the tree protection measures are found to have been jeopardized, the job will be stopped until steps #2 – 4 have been repeated, including remediation for any potential damage. If damage has occurred sufficient to endanger the life of a tree which was to have been protected, a public hearing to consider mitigation measures may be required.

Tree Protection 1/06
Planning Office
650/375-7411
Fax: 650/375-7415
1600 Floribunda Ave.

Hillsborough
California 94010
-78-
-79-
ATTACHMENT 5
-80-
-81-
-82-
-83-
-84-
-85-
-86-
-87-
-88-
-89-
-90-
-91-
-92-
-93-
-94-
-95-
-96-
-97-
-98-
-99-
-100-
-101-
-102-
-103-
-104-
-105-
-106-
-107-
-108-
-109-
-110-
-111-
-112-
-113-
-114-
-115-
-116-
-117-
-118-
From: Katharine Moore
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: 1950 Ralston appeal - Moore letter
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 2:06:15 PM
Attachments: 1950 Ralston 110922 copy.docx
Dear Lisa,
Attached please find a letter from me in support of the 1950 Ralston appeal that will be before the City Council (again) at the next meeting.

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you very much for your help with this.

Cheers,
Katharine Moore
Sent from my iPhone
-119-
Hillsborough, CA 94010
November 9, 2022
City Council
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
RE: 1950 Ralston Avenue – Appeal – SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Royce, Vice Mayor Krolik, Councilmember Chuang, Councilmember Cole and Councilmember May,
I join with my neighbors in appreciation of the time, effort, and extended discussion that you, our City Council, dedicated at your October 10, 2022 Council meeting to the appeal of the 1950 Ralston Avenue project approval by the Architecture & Design Review Board (ADRB). I also appreciate the opportunity the City Council provided for the neighbors and the developer to try to seek resolution. Those discussions, initiated by the neighbors, ultimately failed despite numerous compromises proposed by the neighbors.

In the interests of brevity, I will not repeat all of the numerous points raised in support of the appeal in the letter submitted by my neighbors. I agree with them all. I would, however, like to add my personal perspective.

After growing up in Hillsborough and living here for decades, I literally waited years for the opportunity to buy in Country Club Manor because of its existing historic design ethos of single story ranch style homes. I passed on a single story home on Fairway Circle specifically because it was immediately adjacent to a two story home whose windows looked down upon the property and into the home. A developer interested in building a maximum square footage multiple story house can build it almost anywhere else in Hillsborough where there is a mix of building scales. There is no mix of building scales within Country Club Manor.

Further, as was repeatedly noted by members of the Council during the October Council meeting, the Country Club Manor subdivision is historic – well over fifty years old, among other qualifying criteria. Importantly, protections apply regardless of whether historic status has been formally designated.

Finally, I am troubled by apparent shortcomings in the ADRB process revealed by the approval of the 1950 Ralston Avenue project. Current Country Club Manor residents have in aggregate provided literally centuries of commitment, investment and anticipated continuing investment in its existing historic design ethos. The process followed discounted this commitment and investment by your constituents in their homes and neighborhood in order to prioritize a developer’s spec house. The developer will move on, and landscaping won’t hide or mitigate the impact on our neighborhood. -120-
For these reasons, among others, I support the appeal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,
Katharine Moore
-121-
-122-
From: Katharine Moore
To: Lisa Natusch
Subject: 1950 Ralston Appeal joint support letter
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 2:02:25 PM
Dear Lisa,
I believe you have received via email a letter in support of the appeal of 1950 Ralston signed jointly by the appellants and adjacent neighbors. I have also agreed to sign that letter.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you for your help with this matter.

Warm regards,
Katharine Moore
Sent from my iPhone
-123-
1 Lisa Natusch
Subject: FW: 1950 Ralston Ave, Hillsborough
Attachments: Doc Oct 31, 2022, 2.04.pdf
From: Gina Gambrioli
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Linda Roberson <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Gambrioli <[email protected]>; Britt Miller <[email protected]>; Tim Raduenz <[email protected]>
Subject: 1950 Ralston Ave, Hillsborough
Good Afternoon Linda,
I would like to submit these signed neighbor letters for the upcoming council meeting.

I would also like to note that while I was talking to many neighbors on Country Club Drive, they let me know that they did not oppose our project but would not sign the affidavit in fear of backlash from certain neighbors.

Thank you,
Gina Gambrioli
-124-
-125-
-126-
-127-
-128-
-129-
-130-
-131-
-132-
-133-
-134-
-135-
-136-
-137-
-138-
-139-
-140-
-141-
-142-
-143-
-144-
-145-
-146-
-147-
-148-
-149-
-150-
-151-
-152-
-153-
-154-
-155-
-156-
-157-
-158-
-159-
-160-
-161-
-162-
-163-
-164-
October 5, 2022
Town of Hillsborough
City Council
James Yamas, Owner.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
Re: Appeal of ADRB October 10, 2022 1950 Ralston Avenue

RECEIVED
OCT - 6 2022

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
Ref 1: Development standards page 2-Revised January 2019 with no changes from prior standard as to page 2 and pertinent language.

Ref 2: A map that included most of Country Club Manor for use in a similar attempt to build a home at 930 Hillsborough Blvd in part because it did not conform to development standards. In part "with strong consideration given to the compatibility of the proposal to the neighborhood ." Ref 3: 11' x 17' Copy of Country Club Manor Parcel Map dated September 1954. \IV ,~ ·-5 2-i..£ t"1"e'1S In addition, the Hillsborough General Plan pointed out that Lower Hillsborough, Country Club Manor was an area that could be given consideration as it is the only area in Hillsborough of conforming onestory homes.

At the ADRB meeting I attended August 1, 2022, Mr. Foster (the Chair) made several of the same comments about "diversity and that everyone should have the same choice;" I took an exception to that repeated statement. For among other reasons, he and others are on the ADRB to follow and enforce the Development Standard and not to inject personal statements as to choices. Looking at the bigger picture, if 1950 is approved, Country Club Manor would be well on its way to eliminating the choice of living in a conforming neighborhood of one-story homes. In addition, it would cause the Development Standards to be changed to eliminate "strong consideration given to the compatibility of the proposed to the neighborhood."
Planting Trees does nothing to conforming to the neighborhood; it is a band aide that would not be needed if the applicant conformed to the Development Standards. Compatibility to neighborhood of Country Club Manor neighborhood 1950 Ralston is part of see REF 3 11' x 17' parcel map that the planning department should have had to demonstrate both the neighborhood they belong and should have compatibility to, not the south side of Ralston .

Things that could have been done better:
-Planning should have had Country Club Manor parcel map to show, among other things, that 1950 Ralston was part of Country Club Manor as is all homes on the north side of Ralston Ave from Pepper to Hillsborough Blvd and beyond! "
)
-165-
I asked planning for copies of all applicant's letters plus attachments. I got the letters but no \ attachments. Form+ One claimed, they had "gotten an extra letter of support from a significant neighbor." I find no such letter provided by the "significant neighbor" included with what was provided to me.

In Form+ One dated 7/22/2022, page 2 of Letter subject "Overall Review" page 2.

Is 1950 Ralston Ave in Country Club Manor subdivided? Yes! Does the applicant have the right to build? Yes!
Has the applicant demonstrated a strong consideration given to thr compatibility of the proposal to the neighborhood? No!
Have two-story homes been proposed in Country Club Manor before? Yes! 22.Q Hillsborough Blvd and 400 Pepper that is outside of Country Club Manor, both built as one-story homes. In addition, 20 Country Club Drive, 30 Country Club Drive, 75 Country Club Drive, 40 Genevra Road, 1850 Ralston, 1900 Ralston and 585 Pepper all conformed to the Development Standards. 7 Tc)'{:c~ \ S11,,..'c-e C/S-0 Jt; I/::; h<Y# " Did all these homes have restrictions on the deeds? NO! -166-
fi
Town of Hillsborough

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
These are the development standards for all projects within the Town of Hillsborough. All exterior changes are subject to Design Review approval (including re-roofing, landscape installations, color or material changes, fencing, additions, and other new construction), either by the Town's Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB) or by Planning Staff (for minor projects only). It cannot be assumed that designing a project to the technical maximums (or minimums) contained in these standards will result in design approval.

The Town's "Residential Design Guidelines," available in the Planning Office and from the Town's website (www.hillsborough.net), should be consuJted to better understand the criteria used by the ADRB when considering dn application.

Project conformance with the Residential Design Guidelines will be strongly encouraged by the Town through t he.Design-Review process as these guidelines express the community's values and the Town's expectations for new development. Project plans that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines are more likely to be successful.

The ADRB cautions prospective buyers from purchasing a home based on the assumption that the maximum permitted square footage (based on these standards) can be built. E9ch project is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with strong consideration_given to the compatibility of the proposal to the neighborhood (its best asp ects, not its mistakes), authenticity of architectural style, quality of building materials and level of detailing.

Furthermore, if you are planning an addition or a new home and the floor area approaches the maximum permitted 25% Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the ADRB may determine that the project is too massive or too bulky, especially if there are areas of the home with excessive floor-to-ceiling heights or "open-to-below" areas. Th e ADRB expects a higher level of architectural quality and design detailing for larger houses and houses which approach the maximum permitted FAR .

Unenclosed parking spaces need to be treated with sensitivity so that th e street and the neighbors are not impacted by the view of parked vehicles. Be sure to mitigate the visua l effects with screening and landscaping.

Copies of the complete Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance are available on-line at:
http://www.hillsborough.net/l 47 /municipal-code ,,
2 -167-
·-
9~ 5 . . 1 . .
1;:J~ Y00
f\0---~-
..:.: a.a· \U
EJ~
. riwn r. Hi!kh0r011r,h l - ···· -~- ..... ~·--·-~;:;;;J·• Cl ..... n.-=v~1nPMf:"-JT ,T.at-Jnn~n, ~ - V ~ - -- l ,i .. l - i 'i t - Y. -~ I_ l. I ~ ....... _#_ -~ ·-~ ..... '\J' ---· -- - . .. ' . . These are the deve!opment standards for all projects within the Town of Hi!_lsbora.ugh.

All exterior changes are subject to Desig11 Review approval (including re-roofing, landscape installations, t§ CitJ.g, additions, and 0th.er new construction), either. by the Town's Architecture and Design Revi~w Board (ADRB)_or"by Planning Staff (for min·or projects only). It cannot be assumed lhat designing ·a project to the technical maximums (or minimums) contained in these standards .wili result in design approval. .. The ADRB cautions prospectiv_e buyers.from purchasing ·a home bas_~d on Jh_e assum tion that the maximum · ermitted s uare foota (based on these standards) can be built. · Eac . ro·ect is evaluated on a case--b ---case: basfa ·with stron .... consideration qi 'en to·the compatibility of the oropos·a to -the ·neigh1-orliood (its best -aspect;,, not its mistakes), authenticity of architect0rarstyl~;:quality of-building materials : and level of detailing. .-,. . _ .. ... _ · · · · · . .. -.· .. :_ .. or the 32 homeowners of the Heartl ....,3 . C~f'~ .;J,/;)rC $ ~i fo. ""'w'o s 10 re- ho""- ~..s ./ ---l' 4...,,. I • The main obj L:ctions are:
-+.-Opp0sgJ I1:Hrnw rw0-story-hem~

2. Out of character with neighborhood
J _ Not compatible with area -J
-168-
VOt
40-
/ro/J pipe monv.menls sef.. ____ @
Iron pin monumen/s l'ou,od.. ____ •
Nor.cs:
/. All d/mens/on.ss/Jown on 1/Je W/lh/n map ure//7T~londdec/- mo/s //,ereo/.

2. The colored ,border //ne 1i"Jd1cq/es /he boundary o/" /he /onQ' subd/nded by' 1½/s mo,o. ·
COUNTRY CI.U8 MtfNOR.

HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORN/J'I
Seo-le: I' , 100' Sep/ember, 1954
JAME.5 ,/ J1/ATE/?;J, C!YIL ENGINEEl(,2
.5A/>f MATEO, CALIFORNIA .

Slleel Z d,? sh&/:,.
~2ef/._q ~CII.
33 VOL
40 -169-
OPPOSED TO 1950 Ralston
Name ( wrote letter *) Address
Steve & Karen Hanson *
Bob & Kathy Ceremsak *
Loui s & Audrey Chang *
Jack Damato
Dana Galante
Hannah Wynne *
Norm Brod & Peggy Andrews *
Nathan & Marilyn Schmidt*
Richard Gold *
before 5pm Mike & Joni Amaroli
Eric Goodwill *
Jeremy & Ericka Silva *
will be late Bruce & Terry Ching
Wendy Yeh*
Larry Tsai
Greg & Janet Buncke *
Celia Tung *
Chri s & Patty Pascoe *
Richard & Christine Corsetti *
Naomi Cochran*
Jim Yamas *
Dennis & Christina Mangano
Katharine Moore *
Michael & Heidi Zhang
Tammy Martino*
Sheila Brosnan *
Casey Courreen *
will be late Herman & Angela Fitzgerald
Elizabeth Marr*
Peter & Kelli Benz
Nancy Tateosian
Steven & Judith Mitchell *
Gerald & Lily Preiner *
Shantanu Mitra
Sara Kenka re-Mitra
Email
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 .24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
-170-
Steve Hanson
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
JUL 2 6 2022
TClV\/1'1 L), :-.1LL:.-;,.3QROUGH
COMMUNITY Sti~VICES
Please find enclosed one document and three photos representing my public comments for the formal design review by the Hillsborough ADRB regarding the property at 1950 Ralston Ave August 1st 2022.

My two objections to the proposal are with the incompatibility the 2nd story presents to the neighborhood as well as the privacy and landscaping concerns it presents.

The document is the Feb-Oct 2008 ADRB minutes for the property at 930 Hillsborough Blvd that essentially covers the same neighborhood concerns that 1950 presents that was ultimately denied by the ADRB and settled on a basement instead.

The photos highlight the scale of massing and height of the proposal from the front on Ralston. Not shown is how it sticks out near 30 Country Club Dr. The photo with the telephone pole in front of 1950 shows the top of pole lower than the top of the proposed home. This isn't the case for the homes at 1900 and 1850 Ralston and certainly not the case for 2000 Ralston where the top of pole is at or below the pole.

With exception of 930 Hillsborough that ultimately was denied two story design settling instead on a basement all other new homes and upgrades have opted for compatibility of context with the neighborhood. These home include the redesign at 930 Hillsborough Blvd, together with relatively recent additions: 20 Country Club Dr, 30 Country Club Dr, 75 Country Club Dr, 20 & 40 Genevra, 1850 and 1900 Ralston and 585 Pepper.

Thanks for considering our input. I hope the charm of Country Club can be maintained.

Thanks,
Steve
PS: Documents and photos available also from
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/05pxc01e6xos405/AACMiKZl7DFf9gjmp7bbpAGUa?dl=O Files:
1950PublicCommentletter.docx. (This letter)
1950Ralston-1.heic, 1950Ralston-2.heic, 1950Ralston-3.heic (photos) PleaseSaveCountryClubCharmADRB.pdf (ADRB minutes for 930 Hillsborough Blvd) -171-
July 25, 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 houses 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 ranch houses, 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-G0s 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 context. The landscape is dependent on a new owner who is not even a part of this conversation. The most affected neighbor at the back fence (30 Country Club) has no 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 attempt such a 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, favored by young families, retirees and singles. It meets a need; it's worth preserving. Those who want one-story homes need to have confidence that their privacy will be assured. This house will change that forever.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service.

Sincerely,
Kathy and Bob Ceremsak
-172-
7/21/22
To the Hillsborough ADRB,
We live at 20 Country Club Drive 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 comer 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
-173-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
JUL2 6 2022
TClV\i'i\J v1= n,LLSdOROUGH
COMMUNITY SERV!CES
'-----------·-·-------
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

Our understanding is that it will be a two story house that will back up directly to several homes in our area. While privacy and proper landscaping will be an issue, we are more concerned about the possibility of a two story home in a neighborhood that is all one story homes. This will definitely change the character of a very old, established neighborhood.

As long as we have owned our home in this neighborhood, we have been under the assumption that two story homes are not allowed. It has been an unwritten rule since the 1950's that no one is allowed a two story home . . Several remodels and new homes have been built in the area and a two story has never been allowed. Many of our neighbors have the same concerns. We would like to preserve the historical and quaint nature of our neighborhood by not changing a very old precedent of one story homes. We worry that this approval could lead to other new, two story homes in the future. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Name +/«jJtfJJ:d WytJtf£.

Address
Phone number /
SignaMe~ J 1{F
-174-
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Dear Linda,
Peggy Andrews
Unda Roberson
1950 Ralston project
Friday, May 6, 2022 10:19:37 AM
I am writing to the ADRB in regards to 1950 Ralston. My husband and I have resided at 50 Country Club Dr 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
-175-
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Hello,
marijn3624@aol com
Linda Roberson
pega12so@gmai1 com
Re: Proposal of 1950 Ralston Avenue Project
Wednesday, May 11, 2022 9:54:04 AM
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 60 Country Club Drive, 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
-176-
From:

To:

Peggy Andrews
Unda 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 accorrunodate raised ceilings but are still considered rancher-style.

A few years ago I asked the owner/builder of75 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 considerations
Sincerely,
Richard Gold
'1o (-Ou ls!~'f CUlB
-177-
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

BY EMAIL
Eric Goodwill
Linda Roberson
1950 Ralston
Monday, July 25, 2022 8:52:28 PM
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 940 I 0
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regard to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. I Jive 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
-178-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1 600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
JUL 2 5 2022
TOWN UF hilL6dOROUGH

COMMUNITY SERVICES
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

We moved into the Country Club Manor area almost 4 years ago and were told by both the buying and selling realtors that two-story homes are not allowed in this neighborhood and has been the case since the 1950's. In fact, we bought into the neighborhood because there were no large 2-story houses and no gates in the neighborhood. We have 4 children and wanted them to be able to feel safe and free to walk up to our neighbors without feeling intimidated.

Furthermore, we believe there has been unfair treatment of owners who have recently proposed to build 2-story homes in the neighborhood but were discouraged to do so, whereas the current proposal has been approved by ADRB because it has been presented by a developer who does not care about main.taining the character of the neighborhood.

This approval would definitely lead to other new, 2-story homes in the future and we ask this proposal to be reconsidered by ADRB.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, 1 '
1 /'
· V Nv<l1fV\L
Wendy Yeh '/ '-1
Larry Tsai
..,. ~ ~
-180-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
JUL:2 6 2022
TOWN OF i-,iLLSBOROUGH
COMrv1UN!TY SERVICES '------- - - --------· ___ _.

I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

As long as we have owned our home in this neighbQrhood, we have been under the assumption that two story homes are not allowed. It has been an unwritten rule since the 1950's that no one is allowed a two story home.

Phonenumber _
Signat re ~ ~
7~'
-181-
.,
....... ~ = = ·=:::,,,.._~ --... ~ --.. -
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

PATRICIA KAITZ PASCOE
Hillsborough, CA 9401 0
415-308-7 400
The Architectural and Design Review Board
Town of Hillsborough
JI II. 2 2 2J22
TOWI\J OF HILLSBOROUGH
COMMUNITY SERVICES ·------------ ____________ _,
RE: Opposition to plans submitted for a new two- story structure at 1950 Ralston Avenue Dear Chair Foster, Member Egan, Member Filer, Member Gill, Member Hardy, and Alternate Delaveau, We are expressing our strong opposition to the two-story structure intended to be built at 1950 Ralston Avenue. Though we do not live within five hundred feet of the new structure, and as such did not get the notice, we have been part of the close community in Country Club Manor for thirty- four years and feel what affects one Country Club Manor neighbor affects all of us. We thank you for your attention to this extremely critical matter.

We have loved living at 130 Country Club Drive. Our unique historical neighborhood composed of all ranch style one-story homes has been a valued place to raise our three children and in which we remain. Over these thirty-four plus years, and particularly during the Pandemic, the privacy and comfort of our backyards have given us a place to gather, be separated as needed and somewhere to exercise our legs, swim, etc., while not worrying about our neighbors peeping at us.

The two-story house designed for 1950 Ralston will potentially have a detrimental effect on the value and appeal of all our homes since the consistency of one-story homes and our valuable privacy are key expectations when people choose to live in Country Club Manor. If the ADRB approves this house, they are giving a profit advantage to a builder and taking value from existing owners of homes here. There are many better locations in Hillsborough for a builder to construct a two-story home for sale without disturbing the unique qualities of a whole neighborhood of one-story houses.

The Town of Hillsborough Residential Design Guidelines provide guidance, and we hope the Board will invoke · the relevant provisions relating to "two-story buildings in one-story neighbor neighborhoods" and "compatibility to the neighborhood."
We also note that the ADRB's purpose is defined as follows:

The purpose of the ADRB is to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the town and maintain and enhance the desirability and historic quality of life in the town.

Please protect Country Club Manor as a special community that offers unique historical qualities to the Town of Hillsborough.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

If you have any questions, please contact Chris Pascoe or Patricia Pascoe at and , respectively.

Since~
Christopher Pascoe and Patricia Kaitz Pascoe, JD
-183-
. July 25, 22022
Town of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
r------···
1 1-:~ ~F_:: ,f~:;i ,~-.:: r
JUl .2 6 2022
This letter is in reply to the two-story spec home that is being built at 1950 Ralston.

What is going on here? I thought that we were done with this two-story event a few years ago when they tried to build a two-story at 930 Hillsborough Blvd, between the two Country Club streets. We all complained and it was denied. What has changed? I have lived here at this address for 47 years and everyone I talk with is adamant about keeping our Country Club Manor like it was built for, single-family ranch homes. Allowing two-story homes will destroy the quaintness it now has along with everyqne's privacy.

I ask you to once again, to deny the builders request for a two-story and keep our Country Club Manor a community of single-family ranch homes.

Than-~, . 1 /) ~
//.-- -~ )H~
· g.rd and Christine Corsetti
Hillsborough, CA
-184-
October 1 st 2022
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you regarding the proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We have lived on Country Club Drive for over 18 years. During that time we were able to remodel our. house. We like our privacy. We also appreciate that all the houses in our neighborhood are single levels homes.

Let's please not change this. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
· ., J . / } ro, //7 . V ( aCTrrU L . cvv~
Naomi Cochran
-185-
Town of Hillsborough
City Council/ ADRB
Jim Yamas, Owner
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Subject: 1950 Ralston Ave, Hillsborough, CA
Reasons for Disapproval:

Hillsborough general plan designates subject area as a one-story neighborhood that should be preserved . This has been reaffirmed several times in the last 10 years.

Examples as follows:

A. 930 Hillsborough Blvd originally proposed 2 story, built one story.

B. 400 Pepper originally proposed 2 story, built one story.

C. 30 Country Club was built as a one story to comply with the area.

D. 20 Country Club was also a remodeled one story house.

These examples demonstrate consistency to the general plan of development.

The development standard states "The ADRB cautions prospective buyers from purchasing a home based on the assumption that the maximum square footage {based on these standards) can be built. Most important is that "Each project is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with strong consideration given to the compatibility of the proposal to the neighborhood {It's best aspects, not it's mistakes).

Summary of the main objections:

1. Opposed to new two-story homes built in a one-story neighborhood.

2. Not compatible and out of character with the area.

3. Two story homes would create a privacy issue that the neighborhood has enjoyed for 60 years. -- 4. Approval would change the precedence and result in more work for the town and applicant.

5. When I opposed 930 Hillsborough Blvd, there were 23 out of 32 homeowners who also submitted letters opposing a two-story home.

Jim Yamas
-186-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

Name C 4_ nsk ~A- /4 fiAA -MA Al Ml'-' 0
Address,
Phone number __
-187-
Hillsborough, CA 94010
July 25, 2022
The Architectural and Design Review Board
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
RE: 1950 Ralston Avenue on August 1, 2022 agenda - OPPOSE via email
Dear Chair Foster, Member Egan, Member Filer, Member Gill, Member Hardy, Alternate Delaveau, and planning staff,
I am writing to you today as a current resident of the Country Club Drive neighborhood, a proud graduate of Hillsborough schools, and a Hillsborough resident of over 30 years.

I have been and remain opposed to the proposal by a developer to construct a two story house at 1950 Ralston Avenue on the August 1, 2022 ADRB agenda. My home is just outside the range of those homeowners who are required to be notified of the proposal.

Approval of the proposal does not meet the ADRB's purpose "to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the town and maintain and enhance the desirability and historic quality oflife in the town." While the deed to my house has few formal covenants, this neighborhood is a neighborhood of single-story largely 1950s era ranch houses. Even the new houses - all single-story - invoke the ranch house aesthetic.

From my backyard, I see my neighbors' roofs - not their second story windows looking down into my home and bedrooms. In fact, when we were looking at single story homes prior to purchasing our house on Genevra Road in 2016, we passed on a ranch house on Fairway Circle precisely because the windows of a neighboring two-story house looked right down into the house for sale. My neighbors' homes in the Country Club Drive neighborhood that I have been in are all designed the same way as mine - based upon the presumption that all neighbors will have single-story homes. Otherwise, there is no privacy. A two-story house at 1950 Ralston Avenue is not in keeping with the "historic quality of life" in this neighborhood. The story poles at 1950 Ralston show that the proposal dwarfs the surrounding homes, and is entirely incompatible with their design, volume, and mass.

If a developer is interested in a maximum square-footage, multi-story house - that is harmonious with virtually every other neighborhood in Hillsborough, but not this one. I have a close friend who has built or remodeled many homes in Hillsborough in the last several years. My friend has passed on purchasing homes in the Country Club Drive neighborhood for development because there are no two-story homes. The Town's residential design guidelines recommend "looking around." No buyer familiar with this -188-
Letter to ADRB, dated July 25, 2022 page2
neighborhood would not have known about the existing neighborhood aesthetic of only one story homes.

The developer has not made anything other than desultory changes to the design in response to the initial comments. These have been essentially non-responsive to the concerns raised. The proposed house - if built - would stick out from the surrounding homes on the north side of Ralston Avenue and be out-of-keeping with the character of this neighborhood to the north. Again - this does not come close to meeting the "excellence in design as the prevailing standard for the town" metric that the ADRB uses.

Finally, it is incumbent upon the ARDB to recognize that the recent major state legislation related to housing is under challenge, and to avoid making precipitate decisions that will affect the aesthetic quality of the town that we all love for decades to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my opposition to the proposal for 1950 Ralston A venue for the reasons provided above. I can be reached on my cell phone if you have any questions for me.

Warm regards,
Katharine Moore
-189-
Town of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda A venue
Hillsborough, CA 9401 O
October 5th, 2022
Re: 1950 Ralston Avenue
Dear Planning Division,
We are writing to OPPOSE the currently proposed two-story plan for 1950 Ralston.

While new to Hillsborough, we have lived in neighboring Burlingame for the last 10 years and have been looking for our dream home in Hillsborough for the last 5 years. We focused our search exclusively in the Country Club area specifically because of its one-story rancher style homes exude the understated charm that we so desire as a young family.

Our realtor who has worked in the Hillsborough area since the early 1990s has been very clear from the beginning that a two-story home is virtually impossible to be allowed here as it radically alters the characteristics of the neighborhood, let alone intrudes privacy of neighbors. Every selling agent that we came across told us the same thing. We also want our two young children to grow up in this relatively modest, and open neighborhood instead of being surrounded by large, gated mansions.

After we purchased our home in March of 2021, we have undertaken a large renovation. While everything inside is new, we maintained the exterior look exactly as before, because we respect the history of this neighborhood and our neighbors and simply love the way this neighborhood looks and feels. This is our "forever house". So, it is even more disappointing that a spec builder whose incentive is purely monetary, and none towards the neighbors is allowed to build a two-story home that no neighbors support. It truly feels like a big slap in the face to us.

We respectfully ask you to reconsider and deny the construction of the proposed two-story homes in our neighborhood and preserve its long-standing history and unique beauty. Thank you again for your consideration and service.

Sincerely yours,
~ :J
Heidi Pan ~ chael Zha g
Hillsborough, CA 94010
-190-
_., , .,....\-...
--
·..,..'t'-·
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

Several remodels and new homes have been built in the area and a two story has never been allowed. Many of our neighbors have the same concerns. We would like to preserve the historical and quaint nature of our neighborhood by not changing a very old precedent of one story homes. We worry that this approval could lead to other new, two story homes in the future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 7 f.
f
I
'
I
i
!
/,---
~-----~---------~----·
-191-
July 26th, 2022
Town of Hillsborough
Architectural Design Review Board
Re: 1950 Ralston Avenue - Demolition of existing home and construction of a new home I am writing this second letter of opposition to the proposed new home development at 1950 Ralston Avenue because my family and I still feel very strongly that even in its currently revised status, the plans do not adequately address the neighborhood's respectfully expressed concerns and strong desire to maintain a unique yet special uniformity within our existing community. Now I realize that in today's day and age, people tend to use words like "tradition" and "precedence" and "community" at a pace that sometimes causes them to lose their meaning, or worse yet some of their actual impact. But I'm here, along with 20+ of my neighbors, trying to remind everyone in this process that those words, used in the right context, still do truly matter to a lot of families, as do words like "privacy" and "quality of life" and a desire for the peaceful inhabitance and enjoyment of one's entire property. And I feel extremely confident that the entire community of Country Club Manor believes that this developer has paid little to no attention to those words, nor to the wishes of the neighborhood, and nor to the guidance previously provided by the ADRB during the preliminary design review earlier this year.

Aswe all well know, the ADRB is the metaphorical "guardians of the gate" for our community, and as such, I implore you to take that responsibility as seriously as we all do. I respectfully ask that you use your position of authority and public trust, in addition to your collective and creative wisdom and expertise, to help this developer do a proper course correction with regards to their current plans of constructing and then ultimately selling an outlier home in our neighborhood. Precedence matters, and if we all collectively somehow fail to hold the line on this project, I believe we run the risk of losing a mutually beneficial and very tangible foundational/cornerstone element of our neighborhood. In fact, I believe we run the long term risk of losing the very essence of what makes our neighborhood so great and so unique in this special town of Hillsborough. The preponderance of single story, yet diversely designed, family homes that all preserve the privacy and the freedoms that come with that feeling of privacy, is one very important aspect that many, if not all, of us in Country Club Manor have come to rely upon as fellow neighborhood/community members.

It honestly doesn't feel like the developer genuinely took into account anything that really mattered to the adjacent neighbors, nor the broader Country Club Manor community in their revisions. It seems like all they did was snub their nose at our collective requests and then chose to do the least amount of creative modifications in order to meet the minimum standards of what could possibly be deemed a plan "alteration" for the Board to hopefully place a rubber stamp approval upon and then move on from. One would naturally think that after meeting with neighbors directly and hearing what the biggest concerns were, more substantive change would have come from the revisions process. Instead, it feels as though the developer and their investors are acting more like mavericks, operating under their own profit driven set of rules, and essentially daring the Board and our neighborhood to try and prevent them from doing the very thing that we have politely, thoughtfully, and respectfully asked them not to do.

As an extremely financially successful local developer and investor group, one would have naturally thought that they would be more concerned with maintaining a strong positive public perception and a -192-
respectable reputation within this community. But clearly, that type of sentiment and goodwill does not resonate in earnest with this particular group of profiteers. Only selling a newly constructed home for somewhere in the astronomical neighborhood of $2,000 to $2,400/sq ft., while incurring the least amount of cost in doing so, seems to be tantamount to their goal. So now the gauntlet has been clearly laid down, and the Board finds itself in the unenviable position to have to make the difficult choice between a cavalier local Developer chasing maximum profit and an entire community of 20+ like-minded but independent families who all share a similar vision for what they want their homes, their neighborhood, and their lives to be like as we raise our children in this very blessed community. I trust the Board will make the right decision and provide the right guidance and direction on this project, so that both sides can still mutually reap long term and short term benefit from this endeavor.

Sincerely,
c~t!:---
-193-
July 25 . 2022
Town of Hillsborough
Plannin g Division
I 600 Floribunda
Hi llsborough. CJ\ 940 10
Re: 1950 Ralston Avi.:nue - Demolition or ex isting home and constructi on of new home Thank you for allowing 111c the opport unity to reiterate my concerns abo ut a two-story build in th is neighborhood. Country Clu b Manor has been comprised of one-story homes since its begi nning. There have been building proposa ls in the past that began as two-story plans but have ultimately resulted in builds or one-story homes. The neighborhood is a blend of original and modern iterations or tht: ranch style home, complcrncntnry ancl cohesive because of the common 011-:-story charact.:r tliruughout the neighborhood./\ t\\'o-sto ry bui ld would disrupt the cohcsivrness aml charm:lL'r ur the block, ncl the neighborhood.

Currently. everyone in the neighbo rhood with a backyard and pool is afforded the type of privacy that comes with no surrounding houses having second story living areas. With the proposed dimensions of the house recentl y mocked up using llags, it is visuall y apparent how imposing and out or place this strncturc wuuld be :1111ong the existing homes in Country Club M:111or. The previously mentioned pri\'aC)' th:1t \\'C nre afforded wou ld nlso be clisruptL·cl by this proposed t\,·ostury struc ture . 1 stand with !"cllow ne ighbors in requesting this two-story home build in this neighborh ood be clcniccl . Thank yo u for your consideration of our thoughts and concerns.

H.1.·sp1.'et!"ul ly.
~~
l-1 i I lsborough
-194-
October 6, 2022
To Whom it May Concern,
My name is Kelli Benz I am writing to support my fellow residents of Country Club Manor regarding placing a large two-story home constructed by RG Developers when the integrity of the neighborhood dictates single-story ranch homes. It's vital that the residents' requests be heard throughout this process! As Hillsborough residents we deserve to have our concerns met, our taxes to live here are astronomical and it is our desire to maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods without having some enormous home constructed in a neighborhood of single-story homes!
Our concerns should be acknowledged and the planning process halted immediately!
There are so many other options and that should be considered promptly.

Kelli Benz
Hillsborough Resident on Floribunda
-195-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I

RECEIVED
I
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

Name '3ni=,/A A7U
Address ) [+r I ls~ov (L
Phone number
Signature
-196-
, -·--=~""""--~ ----,.. ••~ ,.-=-,,.,,.,.TJw-. •&.o., ... ,~ ~---.
' ··,
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

Our understanding is that it will be a two story house that will back up directly to several homes in our area. While privacy and proper landscaping will be an issue. we are more concerned about the possibility of a two story home in a neighborhood that is all one story homes. This will definitely change the character of a very old, established neighborhood.

Signature~(/' J~/UJ
~------·------
·•-......
...,
f
-197-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

As long as we hav~ owned our home in this neighborhood, we have been under the assumption that two story homes are not allowed. It has been an unwritten rule since the 1950's that no one is allowed a two story home.

Name -It{ tU+6 'r ~'--/eAJW Vb I tzhc l f
Address
Phone number
Signa~ Ad;/ rl~
-198-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,

RECEIVED
JUL 2 5 2022
TOWN Of- HILLSBOROUGH

COMMUNITY SERVICES
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

A"- r ,~
Phone number
Signatu,./4ef/ ~j_
fi//?tbl,_ d~ hN// },1/r,t.5 Y1~rrl/l{ l-,1!?-f (Jr 1A/) f'/-1/f'!J j if 5-)/lJfv:f0 1c,£ )1i Ii 6 £~f) ~,v,r; f/1 l,!>1,11/11/uf. ~~ If J11Jp t,>J /J 11'4 ?-f Y --r) I?/~ f If v {/ /
ij'/ A J J il ✓~I :> -fi-i 11 /fq V # Pr/ il r t,f l'~a/'J> Ii# 1 I} ff, ,{ t;. A 5 ti 11111:f P J'I /ljo Af t,r p /.,)I£,; J,,o; j A'~?f:t~
-199-
Town Of Hillsborough
Planning Division
1 600 Floribunda
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Planning Division,
I am writing to you in regards to a proposed project at 1950 Ralston. We live nearby and will be directly affected.

Name s\-lf\l\J\i'.\ NV ·{\\ \\ \z A
Address
Phone number
Signature ~w=~ CA-LLt~ ./ ,./
?. S. \AJ ~V\ \J0-Q. \oc'-'-t; lA:J dl.A.1\..--- \l\.e \.V~ ·\ v,._ ~ 0 \ 0 1 l.AJ Q i.A.J'-0\JL
-½i\c: ·1::,c\ av.5\... 12. 'c ~ ½_ ow V\-'---tf-'rurs ~ w e... lt00 vM. ~-\- b__ (A_,llD~ <ta aad °"- Sec~ s to ~ .
l v-.qyN'\.AV> ctl -~\oc,W-- Cl r k of Q__')Jj,.c! ~ V'.. O,__ ~ ~(a_,'l- ~~;- .

Hillsborough, CA 94010
Shontonu Mitro, PhD.
-------
Soro Kenkore-Mitro, PhD.
-200-
RLNA-58732\2697802.1
1331 N. California Blvd.

Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www.msrlegal.com
Arthur F. Coon
Direct Dial: 925 941 3233
[email protected]
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
November 4, 2022

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Alvin L. Royse
Town Hall
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Email: [email protected]
City Council:

Town Hall
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Vice Mayor Christine Krolik
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Marie Chuang
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Sophie Cole
Email: [email protected]
Councilmember Laurence M. May
Email: [email protected]
Re: Applicant’s Opposition to Appeal of Architectural and Design Review Board’s (ADRB) Approval of 1950 Ralston Ave., Hillsborough, CA-Single Family Residence Housing Development Project; November 14, 2022 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Royce and Honorable Members of the City Council:

This office represents 1950 Ralston Ave., LLC (“Applicant”), the developer of a housing development project consisting of construction of a new single family residence (“Project”) located at 1950 Ralston Avenue (“Property”) in the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”). The ADRB’s approval of the Project is the subject of the above-referenced appeal to the City Council (“Council”) filed by Jack Damato and Dana Galante (“Appellants”). We write to oppose Appellants’ appeal and to explain in detail why applicable law requires the Council to deny the appeal and approve the Applicant’s Project.
-201-
ATTACHMENT 6
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 2 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
I. THE PROJECT’S FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL

HISTORY
A. The Project Property And The Town’s Applicable Land Use Regulations
The Applicant’s Property consists of a .52-acre (22,486 square feet) lot containing a nearly 70-year old single family residence with 2,630 square feet of living space, which the Project would replace with an updated single family residence with approximately 4,600 square feet of living space and an attractive, diverse and creative design. The Property’s land use designation in the Town’s General Plan is “Residential.” (See Exhibit A, Staff PowerPoint presentation for 10/10/22 Council hearing Agenda Item 12, at p. 5 [showing location of Property on 2005 General Plan land use designation map, Figure LU-1].) The Property’s zoning is “residence district” (Hillsborough Municipal Code [“HMC”], § 17.12.010) and its permitted uses by right include a single-family dwelling and accessory structures (HMC, § 17.16.010 A.1), as well as uses “which, by state or federal law, may not be prohibited in the residence district.” (HMC, § 17.16.010 D. 5.) As noted, the Project proposes to replace the existing residential structure with a new residential structure which is, without dispute, consistent with the land use designations and permitted uses for the Property provided in the Town’s General Plan and zoning ordinance.

The Project, as proposed by Applicant and approved by the ADRB, is also fully consistent with all applicable objective development standards in the Town’s zoning ordinance. (See Ex. A, at pp. 6-7 [demonstrating Project’s compliance with all applicable zoning standards for structure’s maximum height, FAR, lot coverage, and structure size, and for minimum streetside, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, as well as streetside open space and parking requirements].) The Project at its highest roof ridge has a height approximately 3 ½ feet lower than the height that is permitted by the applicable zoning standard (id. at pp. 8-9), and as noted, its FAR and lot coverage are also below permitted maximums. (Id. at p. 10.) Neither Appellants, nor anyone else, have ever disputed that the Project complies and is consistent with all applicable objective General Plan and zoning standards and requirements.

The Project’s designer, Tim Raduenz, designed the Project with a partial second story containing an upstairs master bedroom. The two-story design serves to add greater balance and symmetry to Ralston Avenue, which serves as a “gateway” to the larger golf course homes to the west, and which has a mix of one and two-story homes with numerous two-story homes located in a grouping directly across the street from the Property. To the extent it addresses any issue of substance at all, Appellants’ appeal is based solely on the Project’s alleged failure to comply with subjective provisions of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, which Appellants argue limit the Project to not more than a single story. Appellants’ argument lacks merit, as will be discussed in more detail below.
-202-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 3 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
B. The ADRB Conducts A January 24, 2022 Preliminary Review Hearing and Provides Comments On The Proposed Project; The Applicant Thereafter Conducts Extensive Neighbor Outreach Over A Six-Month Period And Modifies The Project To Address Expressed Concerns
Pursuant to the Town’s established procedures and practice, the ADRB conducted a preliminary review hearing on the Project to address concerns and provide the ADRB members’ input prior to the Project application being formally finalized and set for an approval hearing. Following the ADRB’s preliminary review hearing, which occurred on January 24, 2022, the Applicant held three well-attended outreach meetings with neighboring residents to discuss the Project and their concerns with its design.

As a result of those meetings, and the ADRB’s input, the Applicant modified the Project’s design and timing of construction significantly in an effort to address the neighbors’ expressed concerns with “privacy” and “massing.” These changes included: beginning planting of perimeter landscape-plan screening trees and plants on the Property immediately after demolition of the existing structure (to allow more time prior to construction for their growth); reducing all roof ridge heights; converting all side upper story bedroom windows to awning windows; adding satin frosting to upper portions of upper story rear-facing windows; increasing rear and side setbacks and moving the house as close to Ralston Avenue as possible; redesigning to achieve an elongated porch; redesigning to achieve a lower, stepped-back partial second story focused more toward the center of the building; and completely eliminating an above-garage accessory dwelling unit (ADU).1 The 1 The Applicant eliminated the ADU from the Project application solely to try to appease the neighbors and present a Project that would be more easily approved by the Town. Had the Applicant chosen to retain the ADU, it would have been pursuing a project with two residential units subject to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”, see Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5(h)(2)(A), (j).) By eliminating the ADU in a good faith attempt to satisfy the Town’s and neighbors’ expressed concerns, the Applicant removed its current Project from the protections of the HAA, which protections go beyond those provided by the still-applicable Housing Crisis Act. The Applicant was willing to make this significant concession in the belief that the Town would act fairly and in compliance with applicable law on its Project.

Should the Town fail to do so, the Applicant will be left with no choice but to reconsider its options, which will then include (1) immediate litigation against the Town for an unlawful denial and/or (2) resubmitting a revised Project application including an ADU and, perhaps, an additional Junior ADU. The Town would then be required to process and approve a project application with one or more ADUs in compliance with the HAA’s additional legal requirements and protections. To make this point perfectly clear, if the City Council were to grant the appeal and purport to deny the Project, the Applicant could both pursue litigation against the Town -203-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 4 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
Applicant also eliminated all but two rear windows from the second story portion of the house, in addition to converting the side windows in that portion to awning windows, to address alleged “privacy” concerns. (See Exhibit B [8/1/22 Town staff memorandum showing some of Applicant’s modifications to Project to address ADRB and neighbor concerns]; see also, e.g., Exhibit C [7/22/22 memo from Project designer T. Raduenz to Town addressing neighbors’ concerns].) As noted, Applicant’s accelerated landscape plan proposed extensive plantings as screening on the rear and side lot lines, which would be planted and begin growing substantially in advance of the construction of the new home.

C. The Modified Project Application Is Deemed Complete On July 15, 2022; The ADRB Approves The Project With Conditions At A Formal August 1, 2022 Hearing And Determines It Is Exempt From CEQA
The Town accepted and deemed the Project application to be complete on July 15, 2022. (Declaration of Greg Gambrioli, ¶4.) Per the Town’s requirements, story poles were erected on the Property and remained in place from July 22, 2022 to August 23, 2022. (Exhibit D [approved story pole plan]; see Gambrioli decl. ¶4.) On August 1, 2022, the ADRB held a formal hearing and voted 2-1 to approve the Project (Exhibit E [8/2/22 letter from Associate Planner L. Roberson to T. Raduenz]), determining it to be categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). (See, CEQA Guidelines, § 15303 [exempting, inter alia, a single-family residence or second unit in a residential zone].) In addition to the Town’s standard conditions of approval, the ADRB imposed additional conditions of approval, including a condition to reduce massing even further by allowing a flat roof over the house’s garage. (See Exhibit E.)
challenging that decision and, at the same time, pursue a revised project application with two to three residential units (i.e., including an ADU, or ADU and JADU).

Submission of a revised project application would not require the Applicant to withdraw its original Project application, which is now before the Council, or to abandon its legal position that the City Council had improperly denied it. (See, e.g., Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1140 [holding developer’s “submission of a revised Project application is not tantamount to withdrawal of its original Project application or abandonment of its legal position”].) The Town would be unable to deny an HAA-protected multi-unit housing development project as described above based on any subjective design standards, and without making stringent health and safety findings that would be impossible for it to make. (See, Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j).)
-204-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 5 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
D. On August 15, 2022, Rear Lot Line Neighbors Damato and Galante File An Administrative Appeal of the ADRB’s Approval of the Project to the City Council; The Town’s Staff Report Recommends That The Council Uphold The ADRB’s Approval
Decision And Reject The Appeal
On August 15, 2022, Jack Damato and Dana Galante, the owners of a lot at 30 Country Club Drive, which is located on a different street but shares a rear lot line with the Property, filed an appeal of the ADRB’s decision. Appellants’ 4-page appeal letter did not dispute the Project’s consistency with all applicable objective General Plan and zoning requirements, nor did it challenge the ADRB’s CEQA exemption determination. While it contained little of actual substance relating to the merits of the ADRB’s decision or the design features of the Project, the appeal letter made unsubstantiated insinuations of the Town’s alleged bias and the Applicant’s alleged undue influence, and unsubstantiated complaints about the timing, noticing, and conduct of the ADRB hearing – a hearing which Appellants attended and fully participated in and at which there was a full legal quorum of the board members. (HMC, § 2.12.040 [“A simple majority of the voting members of the board shall constitute a quorum.”].) The appeal letter further expressed concerns about an ADU later being added were the Project to be approved. As noted above, at the time the Project was approved, the ADU that had originally been part of the Project had been removed, and the Town’s Code purportedly prohibits the Council from even considering the ADU on this appeal. (HMC, § 2.12.080 A., F.) Notwithstanding the neighbors’ “concerns,” the City Council cannot deny this Project based on an ADU that is not currently proposed and based on speculative fears of what may happen in the future. What is certain, though, as noted above (see fn. 1), should the Council decide to grant the appeal and purport to deny the Project, the Applicant will be left with legal options including litigation to overturn the Council’s unlawful decision and resubmission of a revised application with an ADU unit (or units) included, and could pursue either option independently or both simultaneously.

As best can be discerned from the appeal letter’s text, its sole substantive argument against the ADRB’s approval is that the Project is a two-story house whereas Appellants contend that (1) “[t]he Country Club Manor neighborhood of Hillsborough has been, without exception, limited to one-story homes for decades (at least fifty years)” and (2) there supposedly exists a “precedent against, if not outright prohibition upon, two-story homes [that] is codified in the Town of Hillsborough’s Design Guidelines and Development Standards” (which the appeal letter attached in allegedly relevant part). (See 8/15/22 Appeal letter at p. 1, and its Ex. B [various pages from “Massing” and “Style” chapters of Town’s Residential Design Guidelines]; id. at p. 4 [expressing fear that two-story home “looming over” -205-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 6 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
neighboring homes will negatively affect their property values and result in “major loss of privacy.”].)2
Notwithstanding Appellants’ letter’s assertions about serious massing issues and privacy intrusions, due to the proposed Project’s allegedly “looming over” neighboring homes situated on their own half-acre lots, neither Appellants nor any other neighbor submitted any photographic or other evidence showing whether, and if so to what extent, the story poles on the Project Property were actually visible from locations on Appellants’ or any of the surrounding neighbors’ properties.

The well-researched Staff report for the Council’s first hearing on the appeal recommended that the Council approve the Project and deny the appeal. After demonstrating and confirming that the Project complied with the General Plan, zoning and all applicable objective development standards – and that there is no such objective standard restricting the Project to only a single story – the Staff report demonstrated how the ADRB’s findings correctly determined that the Project also meets the Town’s subjective Residential Design Guidelines. Responding to Appellants’ argument that the Design Guidelines mandate a one-story design, Staff prepared an area map documenting numerous existing two-story homes in the immediate vicinity of the Project along the same street (Ralston Avenue) and a nearby cross-street (Pepper Avenue); the map showed that the Project Property is located on the outmost edge of the Country Club Manor subdivision, an area that the Town’s massing guidelines refer to as a “neighborhood edge” or “transitional area between neighborhoods” that is “more conducive to new construction that proposes a change in the generally established massing of buildings in the neighborhood.” (Exhibit A, p. 13 [quoting Guidelines, Ch. 5, Massing, at p. 28].) Based on the Project’s location, modified design features, and unique and diverse Craftsman-style design, the Staff report opined that the ADRB had correctly determined the Project met the Town Guidelines’ subjective goals of reinforcing Hillsborough’s image; conforming to buildings in the surrounding vicinity; encouraging Town-wide diversity; and fostering creativity. This conclusion was consistent with the intent of the Project’s design to add balance to the neighborhood of homes along Ralston Avenue. Accordingly, the Town’s Staff recommended that 2 Curiously, despite the Appeal’s only substantive claim being the Project’s supposed inconsistency with the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, and despite the Council’s legal charge to hold a de novo appeal hearing under its Code, Appellants’ letter states that they “are not asking for the City Council to make a determination regarding whether the [Project] is compliant with the Town of Hillsborough’s Design Guidelines[,]” only that the Project approval be revoked and another ADRB meeting held. (Id. at p. 3.)
-206-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 7 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
the City Council affirm the ADRB’s approval by approving the Project and denying the appeal.3
E. The City Council Holds A De Novo Hearing On The Appeal On October 10, 2022, But Defers Its Decision To A Continued Hearing While Urging The Applicant And Appellants To Make Further Efforts To Resolve Their Differences
On October 10, 2022, the City Council held a de novo hearing that lasted over two hours. At that hearing, Staff confirmed once again that there is nothing in the Town’s development standards or guidelines, or in any CC&Rs, that restricts the Project to one story, and that the Town’s maximum height limit – which the Project falls well below at its very highest roof ridge – is the same regardless of whether a house contains one or two stories.4 Staff confirmed that the Applicant had made ample outreach to the neighbors – holding three well-attended meetings when only one was required – and had also made significant concessions through the revisions in the Project’s design noted above addressing their concerns. Staff further confirmed that story poles had been duly erected and maintained in place per the Town’s requirements, and that the Project was located on a neighborhood edge along a major neighborhood arterial roadway (Ralston Avenue) that serves as a gateway to the larger houses near the golf course.

City Attorney Christopher Diaz, of the law firm Best, Best & Krieger, cautioned the Council during its first hearing on the Project that while the HAA does not apply to the Project, because it proposes only one home rather than two or more residences, the Housing Crisis Act as recently amended does apply to the Project and constrains the Council’s discretion such that it cannot deny the Project based on subjective design review standards. He further advised that nothing in the Town’s Code precludes the construction of two-story dwellings on neighborhood edges. The City Attorney’s advice as given at the Council’s last hearing was correct as a matter of law, and the Council should heed it.

In the public comment portion of the last hearing, the Appellants’ attorney, David Finkelstein, claimed Appellants had submitted a list of 32 owners in the “Country Club Manor neighborhood” allegedly opposed to the Project, disparaged the Applicant’s Project modifications as “minimal,” and repeated Appellants’ unsubstantiated allegations of an unfair and biased ADRB hearing depriving them of due process. In fact, the submitted list of neighbors allegedly supporting the appeal 3 So firm was the Town Staff’s recommendation for Project approval that no alternative resolution for denial was even presented to the Council for consideration at its first appeal hearing.
4 In fact, and strictly speaking, the Project is not even a true two-story house as it proposes a home with only a partial second story above only a portion of the first floor area.
-207-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 8 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
contained the names of 28 individuals affiliated with 18 property addresses.5 In any event, and while legally irrelevant, the Applicant has now submitted statements signed by the owners and occupants of 17 other neighborhood properties who have reviewed the relevant plans and do not oppose the Project as approved by the ADRB. (See Declaration of Gregory Gambrioli, ¶9, Exhibit 2.) Appellant Damato commented at the first City Council hearing on his appeal that a two-story house would allegedly be “very invasive” to neighbors, and pointed to other past applications he claimed had originally been proposed as two stories that were subsequently either rejected and/or redesigned to eliminate the second story or to build a subterranean level (i.e., a basement) instead. Damato also falsely claimed the Applicant could build a one-story house that would meet its needs; falsely claimed the Applicant had not been willing to meet with the neighbors; falsely claimed that updated landscaping plans had not been submitted; cast unwarranted aspersions on an individual member of the Applicant; and falsely claimed that despite its two public hearings the ADRB did not want to listen to the neighbors, claiming he could get more neighbors to oppose the Project and telling the Council “I don’t know how much more opinion you need.” Some other neighbors expressed their subjective opinions that the Project was “not compatible” with the neighborhood (Jim Yamas); that it was “only” 3 ½ feet below the maximum permitted height (Kathy Cerensak); and that the design was inconsistent with the alleged one-story “nature” of the “neighborhood” (numerous). One speaker disagreed that the Project was located in a “transitional area,” and claimed the massing guidelines required the “exercise of caution” in approving anything other than a one-story ranch-style home on the Property. Yet another speaker thought the Applicant should apply to build four units and sue the Town using the “builder’s remedy” (i.e., under the HAA) if such project were denied.
5 It is ironic that Appellants’ counsel has invoked alleged “due process” violations on the part of the Town’s ADRB while apparently believing that a group of neighbors can be delegated an unlawful “veto power” over other owners’ housing developments they disfavor without regard to those developments’ compliance with the Town’s written standards. But the law does not allow a “private veto” power to neighbors based on who yells the loudest or longest. Whether considered under principles of non-delegation, equal protection or due process, a City’s providing a private veto power to community members guided only by their own private prejudices is patently unconstitutional. (E.g., City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr. (1985) 473 U.S. 432, 448-449 [equal protection precludes private veto of land use development project]; Vill. Of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) 528 U.S. 562, 564 [violation of equal protection when plaintiff intentionally treated differently than others similarly situated with no rational basis]; Am. Motor Sales v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 984 [due process proscribes delegation of decision-making to partisan, self-interested tribunals or adjudicatory bodies]; Bayside Timber Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors (1971) 70 Cal.App.3d 1, 10-15 [delegation of regulatory authority to private party with financial interest is unconstitutional].) -208-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 9 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
Britt Miller, a member of the Applicant who was allowed by the Council to speak on behalf of the Applicant for only 3 minutes as a “member of the public” (as compared to the 15 minutes allotted to Appellants and their attorney), emphasized that the Applicant had conducted due diligence in ascertaining what was allowed by the Town’s regulations before undertaking and investing in the Project; noted that numerous design modifications had been made in response to neighbors’ concerns; and mentioned the physical and economic constraints (including a high water table and nearby underground water main) that make subterraneous construction highly problematic and economically infeasible.6
During the Council’s discussions, City Attorney Diaz reiterated on the record that the Housing Crisis Act would require the Council to show noncompliance with an objective development or design standard in order to deny the Project and grant the appeal. The Council members discussed differing perspectives on whether the Project was within or compatible with a “single story” neighborhood, or was in a “transitional” location, as well as concerns with the legal issues raised by City Attorney Diaz. Ultimately, the Council deferred its decision on the merits of the appeal and voted 4-1 in favor of a motion to continue the hearing for another 30 days, to November 14, 2022, with direction for the Staff, Applicant, and Appellants to try to work together in the interim and agree on further design modifications to address the massing and other issues that had been raised.

F. The Applicant Corresponds And Meets Yet Again With
Appellants On November 2, 2022, Offering Further Significant Project Design Modifications In An Attempt To Address Their Massing And Privacy Concerns
In a good faith effort to follow the City Council’s direction and further address Appellants’ concerns, the Applicant developed further revised design plans, communicated its willingness to make additional concessions to Appellants, and arranged a November 2, 2022 meeting with Appellants and Town Staff to present and discuss such matters. The Applicant’s proposed additional design modifications included retaining one additional mature tree along the rear property line that its landscape plans and arborist’s report had previously called for removing, adding “double screening” by proposing to fund a second row of additional Grecian Laurel tree plantings on Damato’s property all along the shared rear lot line, and adding satin window “frosting” treatment to the entirety of the upstairs master bedroom’s two rear-facing windows, all to further block any potential views and address the 6 The severe physical, environmental, and economic constraints that render building a basement at this site infeasible are further explained and elaborated in paragraphs 5 through 8 of the accompanying declaration of Greg Gambrioli, and are discussed in more detail in this letter’s Section II B.4, below.
-209-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 10 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
expressed “privacy” concerns.7 At the November 2, 2022 meeting, which was attended by all three members of the Applicant, the Appellants, and about ten others, the Applicant discussed the Project in detail with the attendees, and offered several additional concessions on condition that Appellants withdraw their appeal and that all opposition to the Project be withdrawn. These additional proffered concessions included blanking off the rear dormer of the master bedroom and converting it to a rec/playroom or media room; removing the small deck between the house and garage; and potentially restoring a pitched garage roof (something the neighbors seemed to favor) to address privacy concerns.

Unfortunately, the Applicant’s additional proffered concessions still did not satisfy the Appellants, who continued to insist that the Applicant redesign the house to entirely remove the partial second story, and refused to withdraw their appeal or opposition to the Project unless the Applicant did so, notwithstanding the Applicant’s offer of additional concessions to address alleged privacy concerns. The additional communications and meeting with Appellants made clear to the Applicant that the only issue motivating Appellants’ continued opposition to the Project is its partial second story, not actual impacts to their privacy or views.

As a result of Appellants’ refusal to compromise their opposition to a partial second story, regardless of what concessions are offered, it is, unfortunately, necessary for the Applicant to submit this formal opposition to the appeal and, as explained below, for the Council to proceed to deny the appeal as required by applicable law.

II. APPLICABLE LAW MANDATES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE

THE PROJECT AND DENY THE APPEAL
A. The ADRB Correctly Found, Based On Substantial Evidence, That The Project Satisfies All of the Town’s Applicable Objective General Plan and Zoning Standards And Also Its Subjective Residential Design Review Guidelines
As discussed above, the Project is clearly consistent with the Town’s General Plan and Zoning, and clearly complies with all applicable objective development standards, as correctly found by the ADRB and by Town Staff in its report. The appeal does not contest, and thus concedes the correctness of, these conclusions.

The Staff presentation and the discussion and findings of the ADRB – the Town body that, unlike the City Council, actually possesses architectural and design review expertise (see HMC, § 2.12.030 [board has five members with preferred 7 The Applicant also provided Appellants with video recently shot from a drone at the height of the future second story rear windows demonstrating that views of neighboring properties are virtually completely obscured by existing trees and vegetation and would not be “intrusive” or threaten privacy even were the rear windows not frosted.
-210-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 11 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
composition including two architects or building designers and two other design professionals]) – also constitute substantial evidence that the Project complies with all applicable subjective design guidelines.

In sum, there is no applicable objective ordinance, standard, requirement, or other provision – in the Town’s General Plan, zoning code, design review guidelines, or elsewhere – that prohibits the Project from having more than one story.8 B. Appellants’ Arguments Are Legally Meritless And Unsupported By Substantial Evidence

1. Appellants’ Due Process Arguments Are Meritless And
Also Effectively Mooted By The Council’s De Novo
Hearing
Appellants’ arguments that the August 1, 2022 ADRB approval hearing was unfair and deprived them of due process are specious. Appellants’ complaints about the hearing notice’s content and their alleged failure to receive the notice, which was sent to all owners within 500 feet of the Project, not only lack factual credibility, but are legally irrelevant. Appellants have shown no substantial injury or prejudice, and have not shown that a different result would have been probable if the alleged noticing errors had not occurred. (E.g., Gov. Code, § 65010 [no action by any public agency or any of its administrative agencies shall be set aside for any error, irregularity, or omission related to notices, appeals or any procedural matters unless court finds error was prejudicial and that complaining party suffered substantial injury from error and different result would have been probable had error not occurred].) Appellants have not shown that they, or anyone else, was prevented by the alleged noticing errors from presenting any evidence, argument or opinion at the ADRB hearing, much less that a different and more favorable result would have been probable had such precluded material or information been presented at that hearing. Not only did Appellants and their neighbors actually attend and fully participate in the ADRB hearing, but their appeal has also given them a new forum and de novo public hearing before the City Council in which they, their attorney, and their supporting neighbors have all vigorously participated, thus effectively mooting any supposed concerns about the prior hearing.
8 Any search of the Town’s Municipal Code for such a provision will bear no fruit. To the extent dwelling stories are mentioned by the Code in any conceivably relevant context, it is only to expressly provide for design review of certain second story additions (HMC, § 2.12.070 A.(1)(b)), and to require second story ADU windows less than 30 feet from a side or rear property line to be treated with frosted or obscure glass, or to be clerestory as specified. (Id., § 17.52.020 E. (10)(d).) These Code provisions merely serve to confirm that two story homes are allowed, as such provisions obviously would not even exist if any objective standard actually prohibited second stories in homes in the Town.
-211-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 12 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
Nor did the comments by Dr. Foster, made on the record during the ADRB’s public hearing, in which he disagreed with Appellants and expressed his (and the Board majority’s) view that the Project complied with the Town’s Residential Design Review Guidelines, demonstrate any unacceptable “bias” depriving Appellants or anyone else of a fair hearing or due process. The case referenced at the hearing by Appellants’ attorney, Petrovich Development Company, LLC v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 93, is completely inapposite and fails to support their position.

In that case, during the pendency of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a CUP for a gas station project to the City Council, a City Council member actively sought to secure other Council members’ votes against the project; prepared “talking points” advocating against the project; coached the person appealing the CUP on how to bring the appeal; and at the appeal hearing made the motion to overturn the CUP approval. The Court of Appeal found that proof of such highly-orchestrated, behind-the-scenes, pre-hearing advocacy against a project by a Council person who was supposed to consider and vote on the project as an impartial decision maker at the quasi-adjudicatory appeal hearing met the legal standard of demonstrating “an unacceptable probability of actual bias” that denied the developer a fair hearing.

Nothing remotely similar to the extreme facts involved in Petrovich occurred (or is even alleged to have occurred) in connection with the ADRB hearing here; there is simply no evidence that Dr. Foster or any other ADRB member exhibited any bias or prejudged any aspect of this Project in the run-up to the ADRB’s public hearing, as did the disqualified city council member in Petrovich. Appellants’ desire for a “doover” hearing of the ADRB simply because a legally-constituted quorum of the ADRB ruled against their arguments, after a duly noticed and fairly conducted public hearing, in which they had a full opportunity to and actually did present their positions, does not establish that they were deprived of any constitutionally protected due process rights. It simply means that a majority of the Town’s body with expertise and authority in the matter disagreed with Appellants on whether the Project met the subjective standards of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines.

Full stop.

2. Appellants’ “Massing” And “Privacy” Arguments Lack
Substantial Evidence Support
Boiled down to the essentials, Appellants’ “massing” and “privacy” arguments are all based on the erroneous premise that the Project’s residence will somehow – in Appellants’ own words – “loom over” and be “intrusive” to neighboring homes. Yet these ipse dixit assertions are not supported by any substantial evidence in the record. The homes in question, like the Project, are all located on large half-acre lots, shrouded with mature trees and other vegetation. Despite the Project’s story poles remaining in place for over a month pursuant to the Town’s stringent requirements, not a single neighboring homeowner – neither the Appellants nor anyone else – has produced so much as a single line-of-sight photograph of such poles in support of their claims.
-212-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 13 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
Like the “dog that didn’t bark in the night” from the famous Sherlock Holmes story, the complete absence of any such evidence is both curious and legally significant.

While logic and common sense counsel that the considerable distances, large lot geometry, and extensive tree and vegetation screening involved, standing alone, cast substantial doubt upon Appellants’ claims that the Project would “loom” in their viewsheds or allow its upper story occupants to “intrusively” peer down into their properties, the burden is on Appellants to prove these assertions with actual evidence. They have not done so despite the availability of the story poles, which could (and presumably would) have been photographed to substantiate such claims – if those claims had any actual merit. One must presume that Appellants, who have been represented in these administrative proceedings by counsel, and/or their equally tenacious and resourceful neighbors of like mind, would have produced and submitted to the Town numerous photographs of the story poles taken from various vantage points on their properties, if such photos would have demonstrated that the story poles were, indeed, visually prominent therefrom. Appellants’ failure to produce such actual evidence – which only they and their neighbors could have produced, as the Applicant obviously has no access to their properties – requires that their unsupported assertions be rejected. (See, e.g., Cal. Evid. Code, § 412 [“If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.”].) The well-established evidentiary principle in the just-cited statute applies with even more force here, since Appellants have not even mustered “weak” evidence – rather, they have submitted no evidence in support of their claims on appeal.

Indeed, Appellant Damato himself, in his testimony at the first, October 10 City Council appeal hearing, admitted that screening with plants could block his views of the proposed Project, while expressing unsubstantiated concerns that if they were not watered and died they would be ineffective. But mere speculation that conditions of project approval could be violated in the future is not evidence that such conditions have been or will ever be violated. (E.g., Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1153-1154 [rejecting CEQA plaintiff’s argument that adverse environmental impacts that could occur if permit conditions were violated in the future required EIR as speculative and not constituting substantial evidence].)
While the foregoing facts, as well as the fact that the Project’s highest roof ridge will at all points be substantially lower than the Town Code’s objective standard for maximum allowed height, are sufficient to justify rejecting Appellants’ massing and privacy arguments out-of-hard as factually and legally unsupported, the Applicant has nonetheless “gone the extra mile” and offered further relevant concessions since the last hearing to address Appellants’ unsupported concerns. These include, inter alia, retaining an additional mature tree near the rear lot line, offering “double screen” planting of Grecian Laurel trees on Mr. Damato’s property along the rear lot line (so that he could personally control the watering of at least one row of trees), and frosting the two upper story rear windows to completely obscure any views -213-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 14 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
therefrom in order to further address – and, indeed, completely eliminate – any alleged privacy concerns about future Project occupants “peering into” neighboring lots. That the offer of these, and other significant design concessions as described above, in addition to those design modifications previously incorporated into the approved Project, has been rejected as still insufficient to satisfy Appellants is quite telling. Appellants’ intransigent stance merely underscores the unsupported and irrational nature of their dedicated opposition to a Project that, in actual fact, poses no cognizable harm whatsoever to them and fully complies with all the Town’s standards and requirements.

3. Appellants’ Argument That The ADRB’s 2008 Denial Of A Different Two-Story Project Constitutes A “Precedent”
Requiring Denial of This Project Lacks Merit; The More
Relevant Precedent Is The ADRB’s 2020 Approval Of A
Very Similar Two-Story Project
Appellants’ formal appeal letter also argues that the ADRB’s denial, 14 years ago, of a different 2-story home proposal, with a different size and design, in a different location (930 Hillsborough Blvd.) requires denial of the Project. Not so. Appellants’ argument lacks merit and ignores materially significant differences between the two projects and their circumstances, including:
 The 2008 project was denied by the ADRB – the Town body with design expertise – and that denial was affirmed by the City Council; here, the Applicant’s Project was approved by the ADRB and Appellants are asking the Council to overturn that approval.  The 2008 project proposed a 6,159 gross square foot house – over 50% larger than surrounding houses – and driveway gates along the street in an “open” neighborhood with very few such street gates.

The Project at issue here does not have such characteristics or compatibility issues; at 4,600 square feet of living space it will have almost exactly the same living area square footage as the average square footage of recently sold comparable Hillsborough homes on comparably sized lots.9 The Property is also located along a major arterial (Ralston Ave.) which serves as a gateway to larger homes near the golf course.
 The 2008 project was deemed to be located in the middle of a singlestory neighborhood, completely surrounded by single-story homes, rather than being on the edge of such a neighborhood. The ADRB 9 See Exhibit F, 3/11/22 Fidelity Property Details Report for subject Property, at page 4, Comparables Report. The average living area square footage of the homes on the subject Property and the seven comparables on lots of .31-acre or larger (nos. 2, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 18) is 4,535 square feet. -214-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 15 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
and Town Staff found exactly the opposite with respect to the Project at issue here, namely that it is on the edge of a single-story neighborhood and has numerous surrounding two-story homes in its vicinity along Ralston and Pepper Avenues, and under the Town’s applicable design guidelines it is thus more conducive to new construction changing the generally established massing pattern.

Appellants’ “precedent” argument is thus a case of “apples and oranges”; there is no valid comparison between the 2008 project rejected by the ADRB one-and-one-half decades ago and the Applicant’s Project approved by the ADRB here.

In fact, a much closer “precedent” to the ADRB’s approval of the Applicant’s Project here was its August 3, 2020 approval of a new, two-story 5,928-gross square foot Contemporary Clapboard-style residence on a 24,811-square foot lot at 50 Knightwood Lane. (See Exhibit G [8/6/20 approval confirmation letter from Town Planning Consultant N. Martin].) The lot was slightly larger than the Project Property; the 2-story home approved was about 589 feet in gross square footage larger than the approved Project here; the surrounding neighborhood was predominantly single-story family homes on large lots (as compared to the Project’s “edge” location in a transitional area with numerous documented two-story homes); and the approval was granted only 2 years ago. If prior ADRB actions approving two-story homes are to be seriously treated as “precedent,” then the 50 Knightwood approval is the more similar one that should be followed here. The ADRB’s approval of the Project is perfectly consistent with that approval, as well as all applicable Town standards.

4. Appellants’ Argument That the Applicant Should Be
Required To Construct An Underground Basement Living
Area Instead Of A Partial Second Story To Obtain
Allowable Living Space Square Footage Is Meritless, And Doing So Would Not Be Environmentally, Economically,
Or Legally Feasible
The alleged “massing” or “privacy” impacts of the Project on Appellants and their neighbors are both pretextual and have been more than fully “mitigated” by the Project modifications already incorporated into the ADRB approval and agreed to by the Applicant. Appellants’ suggestion that the Applicant be required by the City to build a second subterranean level to obtain allowable living space square footage is unreasonable, infeasible, and illegal.

To borrow a definition of “feasible” from the State’s premier environmental law (CEQA), that term means that a project modification is capable of being accomplished within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, 21061.1, 21100; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.)
-215-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 16 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
Beginning with the environmental and technological infeasibility of “going underground”, there is a very high water table at the Project lot location, likely due in substantial part to its location in proximity to an active creek running through properties to the rear of the lot. This “environmental setting” factor, combined with the massive excavation that would be required to put a level of living space underground, would require development of complicated and expensive pumping and shoring systems to both dewater and “shore up” the excavated area – to protect the construction itself and nearby property – as well as for hauling away and disposing of the excavated spoils (soils and mud) during home construction. (Declaration of Greg Gambrioli, ¶¶ 5-8.) The potentially significant environmental impacts from “going underground” – e.g., additional traffic and staging impacts, and impacts from truck haul and disposal trips for the spoils, flooding, subsidence, creek dewatering, erosion and water quality (e.g., sedimentation) impacts, noise from required on-site equipment, etc. – alone make such an option infeasible, as it could present “unusual circumstances” creating a “reasonable possibility” that the Project‘s construction will have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c)), thus threatening the viability of the project’s CEQA exemption and taking the project out of a more straightforward design review and approval process that does not implicate significant environmental effects subject to CEQA review. (Gambrioli decl., at ¶ 6.) Since there exist no legitimate “privacy” or “massing” impacts that would even be mitigated by “going underground,” the notion proposes a completely unnecessary “cure” that would have real-world physical and environmental impacts far worse than the fictional “disease.” The economic infeasibility of “going underground” must also be considered. Under CEQA, the test for economic feasibility of an alternative project “is not whether [the Applicant] can afford the proposed alternative, but whether the marginal costs of the alternative as compared to the cost of the proposed project are so great that a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with the [alternative].” (Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 622, quoting Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600.) In this case, modifying the Project to “go underground” would literally add millions of dollars to its cost, and a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with such an alternative project. The legal costs of additional CEQA review and potential CEQA litigation challenging a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR for the modified project would, based on my own 35 years of experience in the field, add between $150,000 to $600,000, or more, to the project costs. Additional costs for constructing, dewatering and shoring the basement would be an additional approximately $1.5 million or more. (Gambrioli decl., ¶ 7.) Another $150,000 or more would be required for the large back-up generator needed in case of a loss of power to the pump system. (Ibid.) The additional time required by underground construction alone would be at least 12 months, and likely more, with additional carrying costs (taxes, insurance, mortgage) on the Property of approximately $295,000, or more, and there would also be increased construction and materials costs in an inflationary economy. (Ibid.) Adding two to four more years for a potential CEQA review and litigation process would increase those carrying costs -216-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 17 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
anywhere from three- to five-fold. Moreover, a builder constructing an underground basement living area in a known high water table faces substantial expense and potential legal liability for water intrusion damages claims in a construction defect lawsuit that could be brought by a subsequent owner at any point during a 10-year period following the sale of the house. (Gambrioli decl., ¶ 7; Code Civ. Proc., § 337.15.)
The additional time that would be required is also not a reasonable period of time under the circumstances of this Project, thus showing that “going underground” is also infeasible because such a project cannot be successfully accomplished within a reasonable period of time. For additional proof of this, one need look no further than the fact that the project at 1850 Ralston Avenue that Appellants point to as an exemplar of the supposed ease of “going underground” took over three years to complete. (Exhibit H; Gambrioli decl., ¶ 8.) That unreasonable amount of time to complete construction of a single-family residence was most likely caused by the owner encountering some of the same environmental and technological problems described above that the Applicant’s Project design here has wisely avoided – as would any reasonably prudent property owner. The mere fact that another owner or owners may have gone to unreasonable lengths and expense to appease their unreasonable neighbors does not show that a reasonably prudent property owner would do the same, and certainly not under the circumstances of the Project here.

Finally, it would be legally infeasible for the City Council to attempt to require the Applicant to “go underground” here. Under CEQA, a lead agency need only impose mitigation measures or conditions on a project approval to mitigate significant environmental impacts, and the pretextual “massing” and “privacy” issues raised by Appellants are design issues and not adverse impacts on the environment cognizable under CEQA. (McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St.

Helena (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 80 [local design review ordinance did not extend to addressing environmental effects and city’s discretion was limited to design review].) Moreover, CEQA is concerned only with a project’s impacts on the environment of persons in general, not a few particular persons, and is not concerned with alleged impacts on private views. (E.g., Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885; Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477; see also Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1143 [“CEQA aesthetic review should not be used to protect the views of particular persons versus the general public” and “should not be used to secure social or economic… goals”].) Further, imposing mitigation measures or alternatives that conflict with a lead agency’s legal obligations – here the City Council’s legal obligation to deny the appeal and approve the Applicant’s Project – are legally infeasible. (Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 732.) Applicable constitutional protections also require that ad hoc project conditions or mitigation measures imposed by an agency on a land use permit or approval must have an “essential nexus” to a legitimate government interest (Nollan v. California Coastal -217-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 18 ends

RLNA-58732\2697802.1
Com’n (1987) 43 U.S. 825, 837; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4)(A)), and bear a “rough proportionality” to the adverse impacts of the project. (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 391; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 866-877; see CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4)(B).) Any Town-imposed requirement that the Applicant alter its Project to build living space underground would violate all of the above legal and constitutional requirements, as well as the City Council’s legal duty to approve the Project under state and local law (as explained further below); accordingly, any condition that would require the Applicant to “go underground” is legally infeasible, in addition to being environmentally and economically infeasible.

5. The Design Guidelines And Development Standards
Cited By Appellants Contain No Provision, Objective Or
Otherwise, That Prohibits Two-Story Homes
Appellants also attached as Exhibit B to their appeal letter the portions of the Town’s Design Guidelines and Development Standards that they argue have “codified” a “precedent against, if not outright prohibition upon, two-story homes…” (Appeal letter, p. 1.) But the argument lacks support; any reader will search the pages of Exhibit B in vain for any such “precedent” or “prohibition.” The first page in the exhibit is the first page of Chapter 5 (Massing), page 27 of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines. It speaks of the Chapter’s guidelines and strategies for breaking up, articulating, and mitigating mass and contains an illustration depicting what appears to be a rather tall 2-story building with a gable roof breaking up its mass.

No two-story “prohibition” there.

The second page of the exhibit from the Massing chapter, page 28 of the Guidelines, states that “[s]econd 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” and “require a heightened sensitivity to their neighborhood context.” But it also does not state any “prohibition” on twostory homes in such neighborhoods; indeed, to the contrary, it suggests “design strategies” for building such homes of more than one story that include “modulating building mass,” “[p]artial second story addition,” and “setbacks for second story volumes.” It also states that: “The edges of neighborhoods or transitional areas between neighborhoods are more conducive to new construction that proposes a change in the generally established massing of buildings in the neighborhood.” Here, both the ADRB and Town Staff report found, based on substantial evidence documenting its location and existing one- and two-story homes in its vicinity, that the Property is located in a “neighborhood edge” and “transitional” area, rather than in the midst of a neighborhood comprised of one-story homes, and that it is thus more conducive to a change in established massing. Further, and notwithstanding that finding, the Project clearly did receive careful scrutiny from the ADRB and did demonstrate “heightened sensitivity” to neighborhood context by incorporating all of the Guidelines’ design strategies for two-story homes located in one-story -218-
Mayor Royse
City Council
November 4, 2022

Page 19 ends

Hillsborough City CouncilNovember 14, 2022

Hillsborough City Council
November 14, 2022