Agenda — Hillsborough City Council, February 13, 2023

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

A G E N D A
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2023
4:00 PM STUDY SESSION – GOAL SETTING (CONTINUED)
5:00 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 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/81697563890?pwd=a2RQVDRmeXVRUUg4MzNxbzkxb0pWUT09 • Dial-in via phone:
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 253 205 0468 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: 816 9756 3890
Passcode: 172716
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.

STUDY SESSION (4:00 pm)
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
A. CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2023) • Review of Proposed Work Plan for 2023
• Public Comment
• Council Discussion and Approval of Work Plan

ADJOURN STUDY SESSION
CLOSED SESSION (5:00 p.m.)

CALL TO ORDER

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 – PENDING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
One Case – Town of Hillsborough v. Leininger, San Mateo Superior Court Action No. 22CIV04063
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Town as Plaintiff – One Potential Case
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Town as Defendant – Two Potential Cases (see legal threat documents in agenda packet) D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Hillsborough Citizens Alliance v. Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 21CIV04709
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, February 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (6:00 pm)
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
V. MINUTES: January 9, 2023
VI. RECOGNITION
• RECOGNITION OF FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS CAROLE GROOM AND DON HORSLEY
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: JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2023 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

2. APPROVAL OF FUNDRAISING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION 23-01 FOR THE PARCA AUXILIARY LUNCHEON PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

4. APPOINTMENT OF LESLIE MARDEN RAGSDALE AS DIRECTOR TO THE BOARDS

OF THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERVATION AGENCY (BAWSCA) AND

BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM FINANCING AUTHORITY (RFA) PURSUANT Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, February 13, 2023

Page 4 ends

TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378

5. RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARED AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(B)(3)

6. RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BURNETT LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC. TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING AT FIRE STATION 32 FOR THE TOWN OF
HILLSBOROUGH FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $21,839.15 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301

7. RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

8. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 85 FAGAN DRIVE AND ADJACENT VACANT LOT (APN 027-330-630) INTO THREE PARCELS AND

DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PURSUANT TO CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15315 MINOR LAND DIVISIONS

9. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.16, 8.28, 14.04,

16.44, AND 17.56 OF THE HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TREE

PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(b)(3), 15307, 15308, 15378(b)(2) AND (b)(5)
XI. OLD BUSINESS

10. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2023 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
XII. INFORMATIONAL

11. PRESENTATION REGARDING AB 2449 AND OPTIONS FOR CONTINUED FUTURE

REMOTE/HYBRID MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT

12. UPDATE ON POLICE STATION DAMAGE FROM WATER INTRUSION FROM THE

WINTER STORM

13. 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.

Page 5 ends

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.

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. ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS:

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

ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL:

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

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.

City Council Goal Setting (continued)
February 13, 2023
-1-

STUDY SESSION ITEM A
2 Priority Areas
Town
‐wide
Goals
“Need to
Have” •Legally Mandated or Directed by City Council
Regular
Business
•Current In‐Motion Programs
“New”
Consider?
• New Projects or Initiatives
-2-
3 Need to Have
Town
‐wide
Goals
LEGEND
* Legally Mandated/Directed by Council ‐ "Need to Have" $ New Budget Resources Required
Town‐Wide Goal Area Key Projects/Initiatives Milestones for 2022 Quarter of Completion Lead Department Staff Effort (small, med, large) Multi‐Year Project? Land Use Planning * Design Guideline Revisions B&P Medium Yes Community and Customer Service *$ Highline Water Project Submit Federal Grant, response due in August Q3 PW Medium Yes Land Use Planning *$ Housing Element ‐ Policies and Programs B&P Large Yes Land Use Planning * CEQA ‐ Housing Element Q2 B&P Large Yes Community and Customer Service * Safety Element ‐ Policies and Programs B&P Medium Yes Land Use Planning * Tobin Clark Pathway (On Hold)
Award of Design Contract (On hold)
Complete Design (On hold)
Begin Construction (TBD)
Q1Q3Q4
PW Medium Yes
Land Use Planning * Eucalyptus Pathway PW Medium Yes
Financial Stability * ARPA Funded Projects ‐ Deliver 2024 PW, Finance Medium Yes Community and Customer Service * Water Conservation Communications, messaging in summer Ongoing Tracking Q2 PW Medium Yes Land Use Planning *$ General Plan ‐ Next Elements (1) Land Use, (2) Climate (2024) B&P Large Yes Community and Customer Service * Records Management CMO Medium Yes Community and Customer Service * Agenda Management CMO Medium Yes Community and Customer Service * Permit Tracking Software B&P Medium Yes Financial Stability * Financial Software ‐ Utility Billing Finance Medium No Land Use Planning *$ Objective Design Standards B&P Large Yes Community and Customer Service *$ Tree Ordinance ‐ Implementation, Policies, Education CMO, B&P Medium No -3-
4 Regular Business
Town
‐wide
Goals
Town‐Wide Goal Area Key Projects/Initiatives Milestones for 2022 Quarter of Completion Lead Department Staff Effort (small, med, large) Multi‐Year Project? Financial Stability
$
Grants Tracking ‐ Eucalyptus Pathway,
Highline BRIC Finance Large Yes
Community and Customer Service Wireless CMO Medium Yes
Community and Customer Service Baywood CMO Small Yes
Community and Customer Service Storm Drain PW Medium Yes Land Use Planning $ Town Hall Campus/Police Department CMO Medium Yes Regional Partnerships Legislation/Lobbyist CMO Small Yes Community and Customer Service Emergency Preparedness CMO Medium Yes Community Partnerships Community Events: Memorial Day, Shred It Event, Concours, LUTT, Veterans CMO, PW Medium Yes Land Use Planning $ ADU Forums B&P Medium Yes
Land Use Planning Design, Permitting, and Construction Forum B&P Medium Yes Community Partnerships Community Groups: HNN, Firewise CMO Medium Yes Community Partnerships Hillsborough Recreation N/A CMO Small Yes LEGENDCurrent In‐Motion Programs ‐ Regular Business
$ New Budget Resources Required
-4-
5 New – Consider?
Town
‐wide
Goals
Town‐Wide Goal Area Key Projects/Initiatives Milestones for 2022 Quarter of Completion Lead Department Staff Effort (small, med, large) Multi‐Year Project? Regional Partnerships $ Age Friendly City N/A CMO Large YesCommunity and Customer Service $ Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan N/A B&P, PW Large Yes Community and Customer Service New Communications Tools N/A CMO Medium Yes Community and Customer Service Electrification N/A B&P Medium Yes Community Partnerships Youth Council N/A CMO Large Yes
Community Partnerships $ Adopt a Storm Drain N/A PW Medium Yes Land Use Planning Second Story/First Story Work Session N/A B&P Medium No Land Use Planning Leaf Blower Education and Programs N/A CMO Medium Yes Community Partnerships Fundraising Permit Process and Fees N/A Finance/CMO Medium No Land Use Planning Firewise – Chapter 7A – entire Town N/A B&P/Fire/CMO Large YesLand Use Planning Dog Park Opportunities N/A B&P/PW Large Yes Employee Housing/Sleeping QuartersHousing Element – Debrief/Lessons Learned
LEGENDNew Projects/Initiatives ‐ Consider?
$ New Budget Resources Required
-5-

1 Lisa Natusch
Subject: FW: Meeting
From: John Lockton
Date: December 16, 2022 at 4:51:48 PM PST
To: Christine Krolik <[email protected]>, Al Royse <[email protected]> Cc: David Marquardt , Kirk & Katie Syme
<[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Meeting
Christine and Al,
Thank you again for the meeting and the open discussion. And we applaud your decision to introduce a knowledgeable third party to the discussion. As promised, I will be separately emailing the pages from the Manual that deal with uniform (flat) rates.

Some follow on comments:

We moved off too quickly from the central point we are making.

Hillsborough is basing its rates on an accounting methodology that no court has said is valid and which the courts we are familiar with have said is invalid. We frankly don’t understand why Hillsborough is willing to put its neck and its coffers out to take that risk when virtual no other jurisdiction in California has been willing to take that risk, and those that have, and been sued, have lost.

Al, you mentioned two pending lawsuits dealing with cost of service studies like the one in Hillsborough. Our attorney is unfamiliar with them despite being much involved in prop 218 litigation. Please furnish us more information and we will look at them. The two recent prop 218 cases we are familiar with are KCSTVI, LLC v. Florin County Water District where Florin County lost at the Court of Appeals level, and second, the class action case in Santa Clara County where eighty different water districts, yes eighty, are being sued simultaneously for violating prop 218. I believe Hillsborough would have been a defendant in this second suit had Hillsborough not already been involved in a 218 suit. As we said, Hillsborough is a sitting duck with the highest tiering in California. Class action lawyers are pursuing prop 218 litigation all over California. Check it out. And even if our group doesn't proceed, a class action attorney will have no trouble finding at least one resident to bring suit against Hillsborough, one resident being all that is needed in class action litigation. I can assure you there are about as many people in Hillsborough very angry about their tier IV rates as there are people you mentioned, Al, angry about the fixed rates.
-7-

CLOSED SESSION ITEM C

ONE OF TWO POTENTIAL CASES
2 Back to the risk Hillsborough is taking in basing water rates on non court approved accounting methodology, when I was on the FAC the goal was always to protect the Town by being as conservative as possible in everything, particularly things financial. What the Town has done in water rates is a vast departure from that, venturing into unproven accounting territory and taking every resident of Hillsborough with it.

This needs to stop now.

Perhaps all that we should have done at the meeting was to point out the risk and said nothing further, let the Town decide on its own whether it wants to take a costly lawsuit to be able to be the first jurisdiction in California to get court approval for the new accounting methodology. All the follow on discussion of the Manual and Cost of Service study was helpful. But in a way irrelevant. Hillsborough will be sued if it does not get off its tiered rates and no amount of discussion will change that.

Having said that I will nonetheless move to some of our discussion. 1) Much of our talk was about whether capacity demands justify tier III and IV rates. However, in large part our lawsuit is going to be focussed on tier I. As the Geo Law letter pointed out it is as illegal to subsidize rates, plug them at below actual cost and spread cost to higher tiers, as to overcharge rates. Tier I has to be justified under prop 218 just like tiers III and IV. And I think you will agree it plainly can not be. We now buy water at $4.10 per unit with this price headed up. We will be charging residents $6.49. As you pointed out, Christine, Hillsborough has a very expensive water system. This very expensive water system could not possibly provide water to anyone at a cost of only $2 over purchase price of water from San Francisco. No court is going to buy this. Look at pricing of water in other municipalities that buy water from San francisco. You will see nobody offers water at anything like as low as the $6 price in Hillsborough and they have less costly water systems.

And to make matters worse for the Town’s court position regarding tier I, in establishing tier I the consultant departed substantially from the Manual. The Manual sets tier I at average annual water use, which for us would have meant a tier I rate of over $9. The consultant instead set tier I not at average water use as required by the Manual but lowest water use in the year, the intent being to have a very low rate for tier I and to shift the cost of subsidizing this very low rate to the higher tiers.

So when this gets to court the Town will not be able to use the Manual to justify its tier I rates.

To cover cost, tier I rates must be set at at least $9 per unit. To make this bitter pill easier to swallow perhaps you could significantly pull back on the fixed rates people are complaining about at same time as increasing the per unit rates to $9.
-8-
3 2) I am not going to go back over the discussion of whether tier IV water use in winter causes actual cost to Town of over $18.00 per unit. (The Capistrano case does require “actual" costs on this issue, not costs imputed from the cost of tier IV use in peak periods.) However, there is clear confusion on something else, what you, Al, called excess or extraordinary capacity demand costs. I may not have your terminology correct but I think what you were referring to was the excess cost of infrastructure to meet excess demand that can come when something bad happens like a fire or earthquake. Hillsborough has a right to be proud of the extensive and expensive back‐up it has provided in all parts of the system as a matter of disaster preparedness. The reservoir you mentioned, Christine, is of course part of this. Who should pay the cost of this reservoir? Who should pay the cost of the excess capacity needed for the extraordinary/excess demand that might occur in fire or earthquake?
Consider what happens if Hillsborough does have a forest fire. Two 4000 square foot houses are on a street. One resident has lawns and a pool and has been paying at tier IV rates during the summer. The other resident normally pays at tier I rates. The extra water capacity in the system because of the extra capacity in Christine's reservoir saves both houses. Should the resident in the high water bill house pay three times as much toward the reservoir cost as a penalty for having higher water bills? That’s what the Cost of Service study does. The cost of the well engineered belt and suspenders system Hillsborough has put in to meet disasters is being disproportionally charged to larger users simply because of their larger water use even though every resident is being equally protected, and even though the larger water users day in day out water demands in no way relate to water demands in a disaster.

The larger user is being penalized for being a larger user not just in paying higher rates but in being charged a disproportionate part of the cost of disaster preparedness.

So, Al, in considering the cost to meet the extraordinary/excess demands you mention please break it apart from consideration of the question of costs being driven by large users' summer use. Disaster preparedness costs are to be spread to every resident equally as they benefit equally the small and large water user, not charged to the highest tiers.
3) Christine, we applaud your emphasis on fairness. We want fairness, too, and feel a flat/uniform rate is fair to everyone as pointed out in the pages of the Manual I will be sending you. At one point you said it is all a matter of arithmetic. Large users are using more of the system capacity so they should pay more. I may not have what you said exactly but something like that. The short answer is prop 218 relates to costs rather than determination of large and small user capacity use and you have to examine the capacity use and see if it generates cost. Accordingly we have a cost of service study, not a capacity utilization study. Fortunately -9-
4 or unfortunately the law does not allow us to apply simple arithmetic to capacity use to get to the necessary legal justification for prop 218 rates.

The long answer is that the costs in the system today are not being caused by capacity demands except for the emergency preparedness costs discussed above. It was not always the case. In the 70s and earlier the Town was in a development mode. (Don’t know the date of the last development, probably Sky Farm, but think it was early 70s). At that time infrastructure had to be added to increase system capacity. In fact capacity was overbuilt anticipating further population growth that did not occur, one of the reasons for the present tremendous excess capacity in the system. Anyway, tiered rates were put in in the 70s, and through those tiered rates larger users of water paid a disproportionate amount of the payoff of the cost of the capacity increasing infrastructure, which you would argue they should have because of their greater water demand. All that capacity increasing infrastructure was depreciated a long time ago. An all infrastructure adds since have been to maintain and upgrade the system or for emergency preparedness, nothing to expand the capacity of the system. So when you do the allocation you propose based on relative capacity demands of large and small users on the system you can’t find any costs being caused by large user demands as in the 70s.. With all the excess capacity large users are being served without any increase in costs to the system.

And prop 218 does not allow us to charge large users more unless their use causes “actual" extra costs.

Final point. I believe to pursue your idea of arithmetically determined capacity use based rates would probably require a new cost of service study.
4) Frankly, we feel the Town has been defrauded by its consultant.

When the Town had to consider new rates in the winter of 2016/2017, the earlier rates coming to an end, someone decided you wanted to continue with tiered rates despite the danger posed by the Capistrano case. So the consultant was not asked to consider the best rate approach for the Town (which with a Town with declining water demand would have been a uniform/flat rate.) Instead he was asked to justify the tiered rates of the Town, already the most tiered in California. For money consultants do what they are asked. This consultant took an accounting approach he admits in the Cost of Service study wasn’t designed to determine costs for tiered rates and created a piece of gobbledegook to meet the objective. I can show you that the Study was done to justify the tiers. The tiers were in general decided and then the consultant found a way with a lot of slide of hand to justify those tiers. The evidence is the consultant’s many departures from the Manual where necessary to justify the high tiering. So the Town is relying on an an unproven accounting methodology which in the Study has been rigged to meet a desired outcome of extreme tiering. -10-
5 So where are we? The most similar lawsuit to the lawsuit that will be brought against Hillsborough, the Glendale case, had the Town losing and our attorney is the successful attorney in that case. Next, the Town is clearly violating prop 218 in subsidizing its tier I $6.49 rate as well as in other ways. Next, the experimental accounting methodology being used by the Town has never been accepted by the courts and in fact has been held invalid. Next, the Manual on which the Cost of Service study is based does not cover costing of tiers of service and all the Town has behind its Cost of Service study is the creative accounting of the consultant. If I was still on the FAC I would be advising the Council to get off Cost of Service study based rates as fast as humanly possible.

We hope we can meet very soon with the third party. I will be here the first two weeks of January. We need to get this settled one way or the other very quickly. I say not as a threat but as a fact that the plaintiffs are not going to wait until anything like the June introduction date of the new rates, and once again say we will sue unless there is a move to flat/uniform rates.
-11-
-12-
-13-
-14-
-15-
-16-
-17-
-18-
-19-

CLOSED SESSION ITEM C

SECOND OF TWO POTENTIAL CASES
Legal Threat Document for Justification
I am memorializing my conversation with an attorney, who called me regarding a resident located at 100 Stonehedge Road, Hillsborough and his discussions with her. The attorney wanted to open discussions regarding claims that may exist on behalf of the resident due to the Town’s issuance of a permit for development of neighboring property located at 118 Baywood Avenue, Hillsborough and damages she may have incurred resulting therefrom. The attorney indicated that he would like to settle this matter before a formal lawsuit is filed and would like the opportunity to discuss in a mediation type format for now.

Al Royse
Councilmember
-20-

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2023
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 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.

CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krolik called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chuang, Ragsdale, Royse, Cole, Krolik

PUBLIC COMMENT
Joe Goethals introduced his client, Paul Leininger.

Paul Leininger provided comments regarding Closed Session Item A. Leininger requested that the City Council consider modifying the proposed settlement agreement to allow 24-hour loading and unloading four times per year because he is unable to load and unload in four hours.

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

ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
The Closed Session adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krolik called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Chuang, Ragsdale, Royse, Cole, Krolik
-21-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Krolik led the Pledge of Allegiance.

IV. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Krolik stated direction was given to staff and there was no reportable action.

Mayor Krolik announced that Item 21, Discussion of Potential Council Actions Regarding the Current Water Rates Threat of Litigation, Including Formation of a City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee and Direction to the Financial Advisory Committee Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378, was removed from the agenda.

V. MINUTES: November 28, 2022 and December 12, 2022
Mayor Krolik opened public comment. There were no speakers. Mayor Krolik closed public comment.

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Vice Mayor Cole and unanimous on roll call vote, the minutes of the November 28, 2022 and December 12, 2022 City Council meetings were approved.

VI. PRESENTATION
• REMARKS BY FORMER COUNCILMEMBER LAURENCE M. MAY
Mayor Krolik announced former Councilmember May was unable to attend the meeting. • WINTER STORM UPDATE
City Manager Ann Ritzma provided an update on the storm. • MAYOR’S APPLAUSE
Mayor Krolik recognized the Public Works Department, Police Department and all Town staff for their work during the storm.

Public Works Director Paul Willis, Chief of Police Doug Davis and Fire Chief Bruce Barron provided comments.

Mayor Krolik reiterated her earlier announcement that Item 21, Discussion of Potential Council Actions Regarding the Current Water Rates Threat of Litigation, Including Formation of a City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee and Direction to the Financial Advisory Committee Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378, was removed from the agenda.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT I
Dennis Moore expressed appreciation to Town staff for their work during the storm and provided comments regarding the Housing Element Advisory Committee’s (HEAC) involvement in the work on the Housing Element and expressed concern that HEAC members were not invited or involved in the recent staff meeting with HCD. Moore stated that he hopes the potential water litigation item will be resolved quickly and without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit.

Mayor Krolik stated that the meeting with HCD was for staff only, per HCD’s requirement.

Larry Friedberg expressed concern that only staff members were invited to the meeting with HCD and inquired as to why elected officials were not allowed to attend the meeting.

Mayor Krolik and City Manager Ann Ritzma stated that the meeting was HCD’s meeting, and a question regarding invitations to attend should be directed to HCD.

VIII. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no announcements of conflict of interest.
-22-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 3 ends

IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Royse requested to remove Items 14 and 15 from the Consent Calendar.

Vice Mayor Cole requested to remove Items 15, 16 and 17 from the Consent Calendar.

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

Mayor Krolik read the titles of the Consent Calendar items.

Regarding Item 9, Resolution Authorizing Compensation Adjustments for the Unrepresented Employees, City Clerk Lisa Natusch stated the Brown Act requires a verbal report of the recommendations for final action on the salary or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive during the open meeting in which the final action is to take place, which includes the Department Head positions in the Unrepresented group. Natusch stated for Item 9, the recommended salary adjustments include a 3.75% cost of living increase for the City Manager, Police Chief, Finance Director, Building & Planning Director and Public Works Director. Natusch stated the new annual salaries are City Manager: $273,182, Police Chief: $255,216, Finance Director: $236,626, Building & Planning Director: $236,626, and Public Works Director: $252,876.

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Vice Mayor Cole and unanimous on roll call vote, Consent Calendar Items 1 through 13 were approved.

1. MONTHLY CLAIMS: DECEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The monthly claims for December 2022 in the amount of $5,203,100.51 were approved as submitted.

2. QUARTERLY INTEREST RATE PRODUCTS (SWAP) REPORT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The Interest Rate Products Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2022 was accepted.

3. QUARTERLY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2022 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2022 was approved.

4. RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A PARTIAL TERM JANUARY 10, 2023 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2023 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The resolution appointing Roger Davis to the Financial Advisory Committee for a partial term January 10, 2023 through December 31, 2023 was adopted.

5. APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW BANNER FOR THE

HILLSBOROUGH SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ANNUAL DINNER DANCE GALA FUNDRAISING EVENT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The application for the Hillsborough Schools Foundation Annual Dinner Dance Gala fundraising event banner was approved.

6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 PUBLIC WORKS AND CLERICAL UNIT EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The resolution authorizing compensation adjustments for the Teamsters Local 856 Public Works and Clerical unit employees pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378 was adopted.
-23-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 4 ends

7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS UNIT EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The resolution authorizing compensation adjustments for the Teamsters Local 350 Public Works Supervisors unit employees pursuant to CEQA guideline 15378 was adopted.

8. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF

HILLSBOROUGH AND THE HILLSBOROUGH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Hillsborough and the Hillsborough Police Officers Association pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378 was adopted.

9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378 The resolution authorizing compensation adjustments for the Unrepresented employees pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378 was adopted.

10. RECONFIRM FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 21-87 PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 AND CEQA GUIDELINE 15378 A motion to reconfirm the findings and determinations made in Resolution No. 21-87 pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 and CEQA Guideline 15378, with acknowledgement 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 was approved.

11. RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ODYSSEY POWER FOR GENERATOR
MAINTENANCE SERVICES IN A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $104,544.00 FOR THREE YEARS PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
The resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Odyssey Power for generator maintenance services in a not-to-exceed amount of $104,544.00 for three years pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378 was adopted.

12. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW

THE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DATA COLLABORATIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW

MEMBERSHIP FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $45,000 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301 AND 15378 The resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the California Data Collaborative for a one-year membership in the amount of $15,000.00 with an option to renew membership for an additional two years, for a not-toexceed amount of $45,000.00 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15301 and 15378 was adopted.

13. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL, INC. FOR WATER SYSTEM EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,985.00, FOR A TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF $104,643.00 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301 AND 15378 The resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. on behalf of the Town to provide water system Emergency Response Plan consulting services in the amount of $9,985.00, for a total -24-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 5 ends

agreement amount of $104,643.00 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15301 and 15378 was adopted.

14. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH PENINSULA TRUCK REPAIR, INC. TO REPLACE THE

EXISTING NO-DES WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM VEHICLE TO MEET CALIFORNIA EMISSION REGULATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,890.00, WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $164,879.00 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301
Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions.

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

On motion by Councilmember Royse, seconded by Councilmember Chuang and unanimous on roll call vote, the resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Peninsula Truck Repair, Inc. to replace the Town’s existing 2009 Ford F650 truck with a 2023 MV607 International or equivalent truck and transfer the No-DES equipment and PTO System onto it in the amount of $149,890.00, with a 10% contingency, for a not-to-exceed amount of $164,879.00 pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15301 was adopted.

15. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

AN AGREEMENT WITH BKF ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO

DESIGN THE TOBIN CLARK WALKING TRAIL RESTORATION PROJECT FOR THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $116,678.00 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301; AND APPROVING A FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE

STREETS AND STORMWATER OPERATIONS FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,678.00
Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions. City Attorney Christopher Diaz and City Manager Ann Ritzma provided additional information.

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

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Councilmember Royse and unanimous on roll call vote, the resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with BKF Engineers for professional services to design the Tobin Clark Walking Trail Restoration Project for the not-to-exceed amount of $116,678.00 pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15301 and approve a Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget amendment in the Streets and Stormwater Operations Budget in the amount of $116,678.00 was adopted.

16. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH GO NATIVE, INC. FOR OPEN SPACE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,130.00 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $491,419.00 PURSUANT TO

THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions.

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

On motion by Vice Mayor Cole, seconded by Councilmember Royse and unanimous on roll call vote, the resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Go Native, Inc. for open space vegetation management in the amount of $28,130.00 for additional services, for a total expended contract amount of $491,419.00 pursuant to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted.
-25-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 6 ends

17. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH AKEL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2022

HILLSBOROUGH WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,216.00, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $366,560.00 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15306
Public Works Director Paul Willis responded to City Council questions.

Councilmember Ragsdale noted a missing word in the last “Whereas” clause in the resolution. City Clerk Lisa Natusch stated the correction would be made.

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

On motion by Vice Mayor Cole, 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 Akel Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services for the 2022 Hillsborough Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update in the amount of $40,216.00, for a total contract amount of $366,560.00 was adopted.

X. PUBLIC HEARING

18. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 15.02, 15.03, 15.04, 15.06,

15.07, 15.08, 15.10, 15.12, 15.16, 15.17, 15.19 AND 15.20 OF THE HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CONSISTING OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, AND THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES 15061(B)(3) AND 15378
Assistant Director of Building & Planning Tim Anderson and Central County Fire Department Fire Marshal Christine Reed provided the staff report. City Attorney Christopher Diaz provided additional information.

Mayor Krolik opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. There were no speakers. Mayor Krolik closed the public hearing.

On motion by Councilmember Royse, seconded by Councilmember Chuang and unanimous on roll call vote, the ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough Amending Chapters 15.02, 15.03, 15.04, 15.06, 15.07, 15.08,

15.10, 15.12, 15.16, 15.17, 15.19 and 15.20 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code and Adopting by Reference the 2022 California Building Standards Code, Consisting of the 2022 California Administrative Code, the 2022 California Building Code, the 2022 California Residential Code, the 2022 California Electrical Code, the 2022 California Mechanical Code, the 2022 California Plumbing Code, the 2022 California Energy Code, the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, the 2022 California Existing Building Code, the 2022 California Historical Building Code, the 2022 California Referenced Standards Code, the 2022 California Fire Code, and the 2021 International Fire Code Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(B)(3) and 15378” was adopted.

XI. NEW BUSINESS

19. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2023 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
-26-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 7 ends

Human Resources Manager Kristin Armbruster provided the staff report.

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

On motion by Vice Mayor Cole, seconded by Councilmember Ragsdale and unanimous on roll call vote, the resolution adopting the 2023 Salary Schedule for the Town of Hillsborough pursuant to CEQA guideline 15378 was adopted.

20. RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND EXTENDING THE PROCLAMATION DECLARING

THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY BY THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
City Attorney Christopher Diaz presented the staff report. City Manager Ann Ritzma provided additional information.

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

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Councilmember Ragsdale and unanimous on roll call vote, the resolution ratifying and extending the proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency by the Director of Emergency Services pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378 was adopted.

21. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL COUNCIL ACTIONS REGARDING THE CURRENT

WATER RATES THREAT OF LITIGATION, INCLUDING FORMATION OF A CITY

COUNCIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE AND DIRECTION TO THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
As announced by Mayor Krolik earlier in the meeting, this item was removed from the agenda.

XII. DISCUSSION

22. TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES IN HILLSBOROUGH PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(B)(3), 15307, 15308, AND 15378 Senior Management Mandy Brown provided the staff report. City Manager Ann Ritzma, City Attorney Christopher Diaz and Plant Pathologist & Urban Forester Abby Beissinger, Dudek, provided additional information.

Mayor Krolik opened public comment.

Dennis Moore requested clarification regarding removal of branches from a neighbor’s tree that create a hazard or nuisance and requested an exception for invasive species such as Eucalyptus trees citing concerns with safety and fire hazards.

In response, Senior Management Analyst Brown stated there is existing State law regarding neighbor trees and that there is a section in the proposed codes relating to mediation of neighbor disputes. Brown stated the subject of invasive species was discussed in the focus group and there was a desire to not carve out specific species as invasive or protected species. City Attorney Diaz provided additional information.

Josh Burns, Marlborough Road, inquired about flexibility in the timeline in order to move quickly in the case of a high priority need to remove an unsafe tree.

In response, Senior Management Analyst Brown stated the current code accommodates this and the process will not change with the proposed revisions, and that health and safety is a priority.

Mayor Krolik closed public comment.

23. 2023 COUNCILMEMBER REPRESENTATIVES TO TOWN AND REGIONAL

ASSIGNMENTS
-27-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, January 9, 2023

Page 8 ends

Mayor Krolik provided an overview of the assignments.

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

XIII. INFORMATIONAL

24. ANNUAL UPDATE ON TOWN-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
Finance Director Jan Cooke, Assistant Finance Director Rich Santiago and Associate Engineer Doug Belcik provided an update on the Town-wide risk assessment.

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

25. FY 2023-24 BUDGET PLANNING
Finance Director Jan Cooke provided an update on FY 2023-24 budget planning.

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

XIV. PUBLIC COMMENT II
Dennis Moore stated that the California Air Resources Board requires most commercial and government trucks in the state with engines from 2010 or older be upgraded and inquired if staff considered replacing the engine of the No-Des truck rather than the entire truck, and whether staff has considered renting the No-Des truck to other municipalities as a revenue source or sharing it in exchange for labor, maintenance and depreciation costs. Moore expressed concern that the Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC) is not more involved in the final discussions of the update to the Housing Element and reported that the link to the Housing Element redirects to a site hosted by Houseal Levigne, that the link is lengthy and the page is outdated, and requested it be updated or removed.

Larry Friedberg expressed concern that elected officials were not able to participate in the meeting that Town staff had with HCD based on HCD’s requirement and stated that elected officials should not be excluded from participation with a state agency.

XV. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Ragsdale reported that she sat in on a meeting of the Peninsula Clean Energy Board and stated that she is excited to be working with the Citizens Communication Advisory Committee (CCAC) again.

In response to an inquiry from Mayor Krolik, City Clerk Lisa Natusch stated regarding the Councilmember appointments to Town and Regional Assignments that she would follow up with outside agencies regarding the assignments.

Vice Mayor Cole reported her attendance at a meeting of the Firewise Board and expressed appreciation to the Central County Fire Department for their work on the WUI program and their successful holiday toy drive.

Mayor Krolik expressed appreciation to residents for assisting with keeping storm drains clear during storm events and for discouraging their landscape service providers from allowing debris near the storm drains and provided information regarding “adopt a drain” programs available in other cities.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Krolik adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
-28-
-29-
-30-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: MONTHLY CLAIMS: JANUARY 1 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2023 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
SUMMARY: The monthly claims for the month of January 2023 in the amount of $4,224,000.03 are submitted for approval.

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

ATTACHMENTS: Monthly Claims Listing
PREPARED BY: Richard Santiago, Assistant Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: Approve the monthly claims for January 2023 as submitted. -31-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

REPORT OF GOODS & SERVICES PURCHASED
DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2023
PREPARED BY:

Alan Singh
DocuSign Envelope ID: 429A87A6-698F-499F-9EB3-A022F44A0895 -32-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

SUMMARY OF PURCHASES
DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2023
GOODS & SERVICES PURCHASED $2,206,321.72
NET SALARIES & TAXES PAID 944,466.71
HEALTH BENEFIT PREMIUMS 169,784.70
BOND PAYMENTS 39,282.36
CCFD FUNDING 654,879.00
SAN FRANCISCO WATER PAYMENTS 209,265.54
TOTAL COST OF GOODS & SERVICES TO BE APPROVED $4,224,000.03

FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE

CITY MANAGER DATE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 429A87A6-698F-499F-9EB3-A022F44A0895 2/6/2023
2/6/2023
-33-

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
For the Month of January 2023
Jan-23 Jan-22 Jan-21
Goods & Services Purchased:

Operations 1,600,651.41 1,507,283.69 725,857.96
Capital 605,670.31 247,496.44 797,436.17
Net Salaries & Taxes Paid 944,466.71 946,090.06 920,177.31 Health Benefit Premiums 169,784.70 160,792.01 149,465.05 Bond Payments 39,282.36 25,641.65 26,391.82
CCFD Funding 654,879.00 602,441.00 0.00
San Francisco Water Payments 209,265.54 187,194.91 240,348.28 Total $4,224,000.03 $3,676,939.76 $2,859,676.59
NOTES:

Operations -
Capital -
Bond -
on the Town Certificates of Participation.

CCFD -
Water -
FY 22/23 spending is consistent with FY 21/22 except for timing of various reoccurring Capital project spending in January 2023 is primarily for the Sandra Hayne Storm Drain project, Sewer Priority Basins I & I Rehab, and the Darrell Tank Improvements.

January Bond spending is higher than prior year due to higher variable rate of interest payments.

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 increase from the prior year is primarily attributable to the rate increase.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 429A87A6-698F-499F-9EB3-A022F44A0895 -34-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
PURCHASES MADE DURING JANUARY 2023
CK # VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
11062 AGUILAR & SONS REPAIR - DRIVEWAY & PARKING STRIP PW DARRELL 13,590.00 11063 AIXTEK SOFTWARE - SYNOLOGY NAS IMPLEMENTATION PD 2,220.00 11064 AKEL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 2022 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN #10 PW 39,867.75 11065 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRINGS OCT '22 WATER FN 14.34
11066 ANN STAR FORMAN FEE - NOTARY SERVICES DEC '22 BP 105.00 11067 AT&T 10/17/22-11/16/22 PD 66.36
11068 BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP 2023 SANDRA/HAYNE STORM DRAIN PRJ MAT TEST #4 3,305.00 11069 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP FEE - OCT '22 LEGAL SERVICE 250.00 11070 BOSCO OIL COMPANY GAS PD 1,929.02
11071 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCESLOAN PAYMENT # 21 32,820.68 11072 CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC SEWER CIP PRJ GEOTECHNICAL SUPPORT PARROTT #4 9,525.63 11073 CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES,LLC SOFTWARE - CRW TRACKIT PRJ MILESTONE 2 - BP 35,078.00 11074 CLARK PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL - #2221313 PD 91.00 11075 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES, INC. STREET SWEEPING SERVICE PW ZONE #1 2,349.00 11076 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. NOV'22 MICRO CHANNEL LINES PD 164.51 11077 COLMA FIREMEN'S SOCIAL CLUB COUNCIL OF CITY MTG 12/16/22 180.00 11078 COMCAST OCT'22-JAN'23 PW 1,432.78
11079 CONSOLIDATED CM, INC DARRELL TANK REPLACE PRJ MANAGE #1 PW 28,952.99 11080 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. BUILDING INSPECT SERVICE SEP- NOV '22 BP 12,290.82 11081 CWEA 22/23 MEMBERSHIP PW 202.00
11082 DANIEL RICHARD CHARLES REPAIR - PUMP SKYFARM PIT (-25% FTB) PW 426.00 11083 EPRINTS & DOCUMENT SERVICES PRINT - BUSINESS CARDS COUNCIL/STAFF HR 323.39 11084 ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC SANITARY SEWER DESIGN 23A PRJ #1 14,069.62 11085 F.S.O.C. LLC UNIFORM - BODY ARMOR VESTS/CARRIERS STAFF PD 12,288.04 11086 FASTRAK BRIDGE TOLL PW #CA 1579399 OCT 5,6,11,14 2022 48.00 11087 FERGUSON US HOLDINGS, INC PARTS - COUPLERS PW 639.84 11088 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WITHHOLD ORDER - CASE #133566712 25% OF $1,278 FN 319.50 11089 FREYER & LAURETA, INC HIGH LINE WATER PRJ DESIGN #23, #24 20,992.45 11090 GATEWAY PACIFIC CONTRACTORS, INC DARRELL WATER TANK REPLACE PRJ #1 PW 77,900.00 11091 GEORGE'S GARDEN SERVICE MAINT - NOV '22 HAYNE/DARRELL ISLAND PW 350.00 11092 GO NATIVE, INC MAINT - VEGETATION MANAGE WHITWELL PW 6,345.00 11093 GRAINGER PARTS- MAGNET, JUMPER CABLES, ROAD MIRROR PW 2,024.44 11094 HASSETT HARDWARE-SAN MATEO SUPPLIES - MAIN BREAK LAWN REPAIR PW 45.80 11095 HOUSEAL LAVIGNE ASSOCIATES,LLC GENERAL PLAN/HOUSING ELEMENT NOV '22 BP 10,996.50 11096 HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP LEGAL SERVICES NOV'22 CM 282.00 11097 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES SEPT & NOV '22 GIS SERVICES PW 1,051.25 11098 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORPORATION DARREL TANK REPLACE PRJ #20 PW 16,510.00 11099 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC. SUPPLIES - PAINT PW 341.80 11100 JOHN M. & JENNIFER L. REED PRINT - GAVEL, NAME PLATES COUNCIL CHAMBERS CO 404.59 11101 MIDWEST MOTOR SUPPLY CO, INC SUPPLIES - VARIOUS ITEMS PW 456.83 11102 KRONOS SAASHR, INC. NOV'22 PAYROLL PROCESSING FN 1,962.83 11103 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE NOV '22 LEGAL SERVICES HR 3,496.00 11104 MASTERPIECE GARDENERS, INC MAINT - NOV-DEC '22 HBF LANDSCAPE VARIOUS SITES 1,665.00 11105 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP INC CONSULT - NOV '22 PLANNER SERVICES BP 8,021.25 11106 ANH VAZQUEZ HATZOPOULOS REFUND - GRADE DEPOSIT BP 10,000.00 11107 DINA JACKSON REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 1,862.70
11108 DINA JACKSON REFUND - GREEN/BUILD DEPOSIT BP 27,175.00 11109 DINA JACKSON REFUND - GRADE DEPOSIT BP 7,500.00
11110 JASON TING REFUND - GRADE DEPOSIT BP 5,000.00
11111 JASON TING REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 29,925.00
11112 JASON TING REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT LANDSCAPE 4,000.00 11113 KEVIN K LI REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 2,764.50
11114 PATRICK GILSON REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 15,215.00 11115 XI QIAO REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT BP 2,400.00
11116 XI QIAO REFUND - GRADING DEPOSIT BP 15,000.00
11117 SARAH BOWAB REIMB - CAAPA CONFERENCE EXP 9/30/22-10/5/22 2,376.74 DocuSign Envelope ID: 429A87A6-698F-499F-9EB3-A022F44A0895 -35-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
PURCHASES MADE DURING JANUARY 2023
11118 PENINSULA TRUCK REPAIR INC MAINT - FORD F150 TRUCK #188 PW 4,933.71 11119 PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT, INC UNIFORMS - VARIOUS ITEMS PD 6,376.93 11120 PG & E 10/15/22-11/28/22 MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS 2,123.99 11121 QUENCH USA, INC WATER FILTERATION SERVICE 12/28/22-01/27/2023 PD 77.66 11122 RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM SUPPLIES - BASE ROCK PW 1,852.37 11123 ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC TEMP SERVICE - MULTIPLE INVOICES FN/PW 6,602.70 11124 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT CO SUPPLIES - AMMUNITION PD 475.99 11125 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FEE - COYOTE POINT RANGE 11/22 PD 1,200.00 11126 SAN MATEO LUMBER CO., INC MATERIALS - VARIOUS PW 965.80 11127 SFPUC FINANCIAL SERVICES OCT '22 - WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS PW 800.00 11128 SHAWN KIRBY NOV '22 POOL SVC PW 1640 RENTAL 180.00 11129 SHOE DEPOT, INC A CALIFORNIA WORK BOOTS - MULTIPLE PW 900.00 11130 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING TRAIN - FTO UPDATE AND DRIVING COURSE 1,025.00 11131 SPOTLIGHT IMPRESSIONS, INC PRINT - EMPLOYEE/COUNCIL NAME BADGE/PLATES AD 79.84 11132 STAPLES ADVANTAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES - ALL DEPARTMENTS 645.49 11133 STATE OF CA MILITARY DEPT TRAINING FACILITY ACCESS 10/21-24-22 PD 355.00 11134 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARDANNUAL PERMIT FEE 494017 7/22-6/23 2 41M1000055 PW 10,602.00 11135 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES DEC '22 COMM CENTER/BASE PD 2,345.50 11136 THIRKETTLE CORPORATION INSTALL - AIRLINK BASESTATION PW 750.00 11137 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. MAINT - TREE REMOVAL PW FERN/FLORIBUNDA 3,385.00 11138 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TRAIN - ERP FINANCIAL/UB SYSTEM MULTIPLE INVOICE FN 67,087.00 11139 VERIZON WIRELESS 11/7/22-12/10/22 PD 1,505.00
11140 VIKING SHRED LLC DEC'22 DESTRUCTION SERVICES PD 82.99 11141 WATERSMART SOFTWARE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM FINAL 50% PW 4,000.00 11142 WRA, INC SANDRA/HAYNE DRAIN REPLACE PRJ #23 PW 22,140.34 11143 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES JAN'23 VARIOUS PARTS & SUPPLIES/PRIOR BALANCE PW 5,365.31 11144 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION COPIER CHARGES- ALL DEPARTMENTS 1,645.42 11145 ADP, LLC DEC '22 MASTERTAX SOFTWARE SUPPORT FN 76.08 11146 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. HISTORIC EIR ASSESSMENT 420 ROBLAR, 101 ROBIN 2,780.00 11147 AFLAC DEC '22 INSURANCE PREMIUM HR 1,611.36
11148 AGUILAR & SONS MAINT - LANDSLIDE CLEAN UP VARIOUS SITES PW 44,800.00 11149 AIXTEK SOFTWARE - VMWARE LICENCE PD 11,982.00
11150 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA SPRINGS NOV '22 WATER FN 11.95
11151 ASF ELECTRIC, INC INSTALL- EV CHARGE STATION PW 14,720.25 11152 AT&T 11/20/22-12/19/22 PD 70.54
11153 AUTO PRIDE CAR WASH, INC DEC '22 CAR WASHES PD 10.99 11154 BARKER BLUE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC PRINT - DARRELL TANK BID BINDERS PW 1,530.51 11155 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERVATION AGENCY FY 22-23 Q3 ASSESSMENT PW 28,638.54 11156 BOSCO OIL COMPANY GAS PD 1,471.06
11157 BURNETT LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC MAINT - SEPT'22-JAN'23 HBF/LANDSCAPE VARIOUS 25,441.25 11158 CALIFORNIA GENERATOR SERVICE MAINT - INSPECT GENERATOR VARIOUS SITES 5,400.00 11159 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JAN '23 FISCAL CONTRIBUTION 654,879.00 11160 CENTRALSQUARE TECHNOLOGIES,LLC SOFTWARE - CRW/TRACK IT CONSULT 11/22-12/22 BP 1,080.00 11161 CLARK PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL - #1179327 PW 250.00 11162 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES, INC. STREET SWEEPING SERVICE PW VARIOUS ZONES 2,658.50 11163 COMCAST 12/20/22-1/19/23 PD 229.39
11164 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FY2022-23 ANIMAL CONTROL PD 92,326.00 11165 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. CIP ADMIN SEWER 11/1/22-11/25/22 & VARIOUS PRJ PW 118,742.50 11166 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION LEGAL NOTICES- VARIOUS 4,870.61 11167 DANIEL RICHARD CHARLES REPAIR - PUMP BARROILET PIT (-25% FTB) PW 532.50 11168 EPS, INC. REPAIR - CAP WATER LINE 1640 RENTAL PW 3,890.00 11169 FLOWATER EQUIP - FEB '22 - MAR '22 WATER STATION END #1601 PW 216.56 11170 FREYER & LAURETA, INC HIGH LINE WATER PRJ DESIGN #25 PW 6,800.00 11171 GEORGE'S GARDEN SERVICE MAINT - JUN '22 - SEPT '22 HAYNE/DARRELL ISLAND PW 1,400.00 11172 GRAINGER EQUIP - CHAIN SAW PW 492.21
11173 GREATLAND CORP 2022 W2 FORMS AND ENVELOPES FN 118.81 11174 HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC NOV'22 WATER AND SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY FN 5,254.50 11175 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES AUG '22 GIS SERVICE PW 2,000.00 11176 INFOSEND, INC. NOV '22/DEC '22 UTILITY BILLING FN 2,622.43 11177 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORPORATION DARREL TANK REPLACE PRJ #21-#23 PW 31,020.50 11178 JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. REIMB - HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT SANDRA/HAYNE PW 2,000.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 429A87A6-698F-499F-9EB3-A022F44A0895 -36-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
PURCHASES MADE DURING JANUARY 2023
11179 K-119 OF CALIFORNIA INC EQUIP - MOISTURE METER PW 208.71 11180 LANDTEK LANDSCAPE INC MAINT - WEED CLEAN UP BELLVUE/PEPPER HBF 3,440.00 11181 NORGO ENGINEERING INSTALL - PRV LID RALSTON PW 9,400.00 11182 HE LIU REFUND - GREEN/BUILD DEPOSIT BP 29,162.50
11183 HE LIU REFUND - BUILD DEPOSIT LANDSCAPE BP 1,645.00 11184 LDI, INC. REFUND - EIR DEPOSIT BALANCE 937.91
11185 THE WISEMAN GROUP, INC. REFUND - EIR DEPOSIT BALANCE 950.39 11186 SOPHIE COLE REIMB - LEAGUE OF CA CONFERENCE EXP 9/7-9/22 CO 788.15 11187 QUIET RIVER LAND SERVICES, INC. REIMB - BUSINESS LICENSE OVERPAY FN 3,325.19 11188 AARON & SIMAR ESQUIVEL REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 198.32 11189 CAROLYN DALEY REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 500.00
11190 HECTOR M DOMINGUEZ REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 321.52 11191 JUDITH T PAGE REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 391.98
11192 LANA CUNNINGHAM REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 118.60
11193 MICHAEL MANSOUR REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 235.28
11194 OLGA AVANESOVA REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 267.18
11195 TED & JOSEPHINE LAGUATAN REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 121.79 11196 WILL ARCHIE REFUND - WATER DEPOSIT FN 253.76
11197 PG & E 10/11/22-12/01/22 MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS 55,544.45 11198 PLAN JPA JAN '23 DEDUCTIBLE CLAIMS ABGV27736A1 12.50 11199 PRIORITY 1 MAINT - MULTIPLE VEHICLES PD 2,900.00
11200 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC POSTAGE METER LEASE 9/30/22 - 12/29/22 FN 532.59 11201 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC SUPPLIES - SURE SEAL/LABEL POSTAGE METER FN 63.38 11202 R & A JANITORIAL SERVICE, LLC JAN '23 JANITORIAL SERVICES PW 10,093.72 11203 RECOLOGY SAN MATEO COUNTY SMCO GARBAGE FEES FY22-23 1ST PERIOD 50% FN 643,995.00 11204 ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC TEMP SERVICE - MULTIPLE INVOICES FN/PW 8,016.53 11205 SAN MATEO LOCK WORKS, INC. MAINT - ADA DOOR BUTTONS FN/PD 2,936.45 11206 SAN MATEO LUMBER CO., INC SUPPLIES - SAND BAGS PW 35.81 11207 SFPUC FINANCIAL SERVICES NOV '22 - WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS PW 2,255.00 11208 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION COPIER CHARGES- ALL DEPARTMENTS 3,433.76 11209 STAPLES ADVANTAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES - ALL DEPARTMENTS 617.53 11210 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD2022-23 WATER SYSTEM FEES 4110016 PW 27,873.56 11211 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES RIMS CAD/RMS TECH SERVICE 10/1/22-12/31/22 PD 687.50 11212 TESCO CONTROLS, INC MAINT - SCADA SUPPORT SERVICE PW 150.00 11213 THOMSON WEST DEC '22 INVESTIGATIVE WEBSITE PD 1,015.00 11214 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. MAINT - TREE REMOVAL VARIOUS SITES PW 16,690.00 11215 TRESSERS TOW SERVICE MAINT - TIRE CHANGE FORD EXPLORER PD 75.00 11216 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. DEC'22 CITATION PROCESSING & SCANNER PD 1,539.39 11217 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TRAIN - ERP FINANCIAL/UB SYSTEM MULTIPLE INVOICE FN 2,080.00 11218 ULINE, INC. SUPPLIES - VARIOUS ITEMS PW 661.46
11219 WESLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC INSTALL-KITCHEN CABINETS STATION #32 PW #2 11,029.00 11220 WILSEY HAM SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION #12-1 PW 2,315.00 11221 WRA, INC SANDRA/HAYNE DRAIN REPLACE PRJ #24 PW 7,110.21 11222 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX OCT-DEC '22 Q4 SALES AND USE TAX 1,449.00 11223 DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT OCT-DEC '22 DISABILITY ACCESS & EDU FEE 71.58 TOTAL GOODS & SERVICES FOR THE MONTH PAID BY CHECK $2,561,494.73 CALPERS RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS 190,748.17
VISA PAYMENTS 27,655.29
RETIREE HEALTH REIMBURSEMENTS 81,302.53
OTHER ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS 0.00
TOTAL GOODS & SERVICES FOR THE MONTH $ 2,861,200.72
DocuSign Envelope ID: 429A87A6-698F-499F-9EB3-A022F44A0895 -37-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FUNDRAISING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION 23-01 FOR THE PARCA AUXILIARY LUNCHEON PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378 SUMMARY: PARCA (Partners and Advocates for Remarkable Children and Adults) Auxiliary submitted an application to conduct the PARCA Auxiliary Luncheon at 8 Homs Court in Hillsborough. This event is proposed to take place on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The total number of guests expected during the event is approximately 350.

Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 5.16.080 requires City Council approval for a fundraising event permit where more than 200 people will be in attendance during any one day at any one property. Public notices have been sent to owners of properties located within a 500-foot radius of the property.

The Police Department, Fire Department and Building & Planning Department have reviewed the application and submitted comments and recommendations, which are included in the attachment.

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

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. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15301 as the permitting of an existing facility involving a temporary negligible expansion of use with no corresponding construction or expansion of existing structures.

ATTACHMENTS: Fundraising Event Permit Application 23-01 and Police Department, Fire Department and Building & Planning Department Comments and Recommendations PREPARED BY: Lisa Natusch, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Fundraising Event Permit Application 23-01 for the PARCA Auxiliary Luncheon subject to the conditions recommended by staff, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378.
-39-
1/4/2023 23-01 II
X
-40-
-41-
-42-
-43-
-44-
-45-
-46-
-47-
-48-
-49-

Page 1 of 2 ends

DATE: January 10, 2023
TO: Lisa Natusch, City Clerk
FROM: Julie Parenti, Fire Inspector
SUBJECT: PARCA ANNUAL FUNDRAISER LUNCH - MAY 17, 2023
The following list is a typical set of conditions the fire department utilizes to ensure a minimum standard of fire and life safety. Arrangements should be made by the applicant for a tour of the event site to receive more detailed comments. This tour should be conducted at least 14 days prior to the event.

Final conditions of approval are subject to review of floor plans, proposed routes of travel for public viewing, and a field inspection prior to opening. Temporary conversion of this space for public attendance will be acceptable, provided the applicant addresses the following concerns.

1. Provide a floor plan with site dimensions, exits, and proposed foot traffic pattern for the public. Floor plan shall be emailed to Inspector Julie Parenti at [email protected]. A review of the floor plan and arrangement of contents will be used by the Fire Department to determine a maximum occupancy load. Maximum occupancy load shall not exceed this limit. In addition to the overall limit, secondary floor areas served by a single stairway will be further restricted based on a review of floor plans. Event volunteers are to be provided in sufficient numbers to ensure enforcement of the limits. The standby fire watch has the authority to restrict additional visitors and/or order the number of people in the venue reduced if overcrowding exists at any time. Foot traffic flow pattern shall be designed to minimize overcrowding in any area. Traffic flow shall be continually monitored and regulated by the volunteers.

2. If applicable, a standby fire watch shall be on duty during the time the fair is open to the public. The primary responsibility is enforcement of fire and life safety provisions of the California Fire Code. Duties are limited to those activities, except for medical emergencies, or other unusual, or hazardous conditions that may arise. Standby costs are paid by the applicant and are negotiated with the awarded security company.
-50-

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Exterior exit pathways shall be a hard surface walkway free from tripping hazards.

Exterior exit pathways shall be illuminated at night at any time the event is open to the public. Exterior gates shall be kept unlocked at all times.

4. Portable fire extinguishers with a minimum UL rating of 2A10BC shall be provided so that travel distance to an extinguisher does not exceed 75’. A fire extinguisher shall be provided for each 3000 square feet of floor area and at least one fire extinguisher shall be provided for each level. Extinguishers shall be accessible and visible. Or their location clearly marked.

5. Building Department approval and permits shall be obtained, if necessary, for remodeling and electrical work. The applicant is responsible to ensure compliance with all Town of Hillsborough requirements.

6. Light duty extension cords are prohibited. UL approved multi-outlet power taps may be acceptable provided they are connected directly to a permanent outlet.

Power tap cords shall be protected from physical damage and must be located so as not to present a tripping hazard.

7. No smoking signs shall be posted throughout event space.

8. Candles, open flame, and other sources of ignition are prohibited.

9. Flammable liquids, propane, or other highly flammable materials or decorations are prohibited.

10. The driveway shall be maintained clear for emergency vehicle access during the hours the event is open to the public. Parking related to the event shall not restrict emergency vehicle access.

11. If applicable, tent and canopy installations shall comply with Article 31 of the California Fire Code and Town of Hillsborough requirements. A tent permit shall be obtained from the Fire Department before inspection. An inspection is required for tent installations prior to occupancy.
-51-
Town of Hillsborough
Building Department
Conditions for a Fundraising/Charitable Event
Date: JANUARY 6, 2023
From: TIM ANDERSON, ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PLANNING Location of Event: 8 HOMS CT, HILLSBOROUGH CA, 94010
Organization: PARCA
Name: PARCA ANNUALFUNDRAISER LUNCHEON
Date of Event: MAY 17, 2023
General minimum requirements

1. Any Building being used for an event is required to keep all exits clear.

2. It will be necessary to provide restroom facilities for all guest attending the event.

3. Jf a tent is to be used for the event, you are required to obtain a permit from the Fire Department

4. Inspections must be coordinated with the Fire Department 48 hours in advance.

5. Inspections are limited to regular business hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F) If you have any further questions, please contact the Building Department at 650-375-7411
-52-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
SUMMARY: A legislative platform is made up of policy statements, adopted by the City Council, that provides the framework for a local agency to respond to legislative issues of importance in a timely manner. The intent of the Hillsborough Legislative Platform is to convey to state legislators, policymakers, and the public where the Town stands on important policy issues. This platform provides the direction needed for the Town to engage on state initiatives that affect the Town’s key priorities, programs, and/or operations.

Background
The Town’s legislative consultants, Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) provide full lobbying services, including:
• Tracking state legislation and provide priority state legislative tracking documents regularly to Town.
• Drafting legislative language and talking points or other advocacy materials on legislation, as necessary.
• Preparing position letters reflective of the City’s adopted legislative position to members of the state legislature, executive branch, and other officials in State government as needed. • Testifying at the direction of and on behalf of the Town at hearings before legislative committees. • Preparing written testimony for Town officials who wish to testify before legislative committees. • Regularly communicating with Town staff to assess legislative options, analyze legislation and discuss policy objectives including review and input into the Town’s legislative policy platform.

By adopting a legislative platform, the Town will enhance its capacity to monitor, analyze and respond to complex and swift moving legislation.

Near the end of the legislative session each year, hundreds of bills are amended and move quickly through the process. Many of these bills have detrimental effects on public agencies. A legislative platform and policy allow advocates to quickly educate lawmakers in Sacramento on how legislation will impact Hillsborough.
-53-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

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

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and Exhibit A Legislative Platform PREPARED BY: Ann Ritzma, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution adopting the Town of Hillsborough 2023 Legislative Platform.
-54-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ADOPTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) desires to convey to state legislators, policymakers and the public where the Town stands on important policy issues; and
WHEREAS, a legislative platform provides direction for the Town to engage state initiatives that affect the Town’s key priorities, programs and/or operations; and
WHEREAS, a legislative platform and policy allow advocates to quickly educate lawmakers in Sacramento on how legislation will impact the Town; and WHEREAS, by adopting a legislative platform (attached hereto as Exhibit A), the Town will enhance its capacity to monitor, analyze and respond to complex and swift moving legislation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby adopts the Town of Hillsborough 2023 Legislative Platform.

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 13th day of February 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-55-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
2023 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM

PURPOSE
The Legislative Platform confirms the City Council’s position on current issues with the potential to directly or indirectly impact the Town. The legislative platform is a guiding document that the Town will continue to work with constituents, consultants, and elected representatives to promote and preserve the Town’s interest at the State level.

Each year, the City Council will consider modifying its platform by taking into consideration emerging and ongoing legislative trends, issues emerging locally that may require state policy reforms, Council’s annual strategic priorities, or other factors deemed appropriate by the Town to ensure its policy statements reflect the direction of the Council.

Below are the Guiding Principles and Policy Statements that will allow staff to address legislative and regulatory issues in a timely manner, without precluding the consideration of additional legislative and budget issues that may arise during the legislative session.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
I. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Support measures that enhance the ability for Council to achieve its strategic priorities. Oppose legislation that seeks to undermine the ability for Council to enact its long-term mission and vision for the Town of Hillsborough.

II. PRESERVE LOCAL CONTROL
Preserve and protect the Town’s powers, duties, and prerogatives to enact local legislation and policy direction concerning local affairs, local land use and oppose legislation that preempts local authority. Local agencies should preserve authority and accountability for revenues raised and services provided.

III. PROMOTE FISCAL STABILITY
Support measures that promote fiscal stability, predictability, financial independence, and preserve the Town’s revenue base and maximum local control over local government budgeting. Oppose measures that shift local funds to the County, State or Federal Governments and/or make local agencies more dependent on the County, State or Federal Governments for financial stability, such as unfunded mandates or mandated costs with no guarantee of local reimbursement or offsetting benefits.
-56-
2 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM STATEMENTS
Administration, Finance, Human Resources and Risk Management • Support maximum flexibility for local government in contracting and contract negotiations.
• Support legislation that promotes efforts to advance workplace diversity, equity and inclusion.
• Support legislation that facilitates the ability of local government to share resources to increase efficiencies and decrease costs, including local efforts to address regional management of fire services.
• Monitor and evaluate Proposition 13 and Town and county tax apportionment proposals.
• Monitor and evaluate all proposals that include an unfunded mandate to local governments.
• Support long term statutory solutions to adequately reimburse cities from the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Swap of 2004 as well as short term, temporary adjustments.
• Oppose measures that reduce local control over employee relations issues or mandate new or enhanced local government employer obligations. • Oppose measures that impose compulsory and binding arbitration with respect to employees.
• Support efforts to maintain fiscal solvency with respect to unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liability. Support efforts that decrease local costs. • Support effort that would lower the bond threshold to fund housing and infrastructure projects.
• Oppose efforts that seek to modify current constitutional protections for what constitutes a tax versus a charge as well as the manner in which local agencies and the public can place tax initiatives on the ballot.

Governmental Transparency and Public Access
• Support legislation that balances increased public trust, confidence and access to public meetings while realizing the fiscal and operational constraints of local government.
• Support legislation that would increase civic participation and engagement including the continued allowance of legislative subcommittees, advisory committees, and commissions to participate virtually (post COVID-19 state of emergency) without physical location posting requirements under the Ralph M.

Brown Act.
• Support legislation that would permit a minority amount of virtual council member participate without physical location posting, so long as a physical in-person quorum is present.
-57-
3 • Support state funding efforts to assist with enhanced public access for members of the community.
• Oppose legislation that would incentivize increased litigation by removing safe harbor provisions permitted in the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). • Oppose legislation that drives up the cost of municipal elections through unnecessary new requirements.
• Support legislation that would permit the Town to provide electronic copies of documents to satisfy requirements in the California Public Records Act. • Monitor and evaluate proposals that create new mandates under the California Public Records Act without state reimbursement provisions. • Monitor and evaluate proposals that requires a one-size-fits-all to local retention polices.
• Support modifications to Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 filing requirements that take into account the differences between a full-service municipality and a primarily residential community.

Environment
• Support legislation that provides funding opportunities focused on coordinating sustainable planning practices in the areas of environment, transportation, and housing.
• Support legislation that would improve air quality and reduce the negative impact of noise and toxic substances.
• Support polices that promote responsible use, collection and reduction in use of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides.
• Monitor state polices that further the federal government’s evaluation and actions of flight paths as it relates to noise.

Solid Waste and Recycling
• Support measures that maintain and enhance local authority and economic flexibility to regulate solid waste and recyclables.
• Support legislation that facilitates development of local and regional recycling and composting facilities and collaborative solution to SB 1383 implementation.

Water Quality and Water Supply
• Support and monitor legislation that would increase the availability of, and funding for, water conservation, water reuse technologies, water recycling, local water storage and other water supply technologies.
• Support the enhancement of a reliable and sustainable water supply for California. • Support measures to increase water supply and improve water quality in the region, including drought relief legislation.
-58-
4 • Support funding opportunities that are provided to local jurisdictions through past and future bond opportunities.
• Support legislation or regulatory efforts that reflects the realities of persistent drought conditions and impacts associated with reduced water supply including meeting state mandated regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) targets and other housing mandates.
• Oppose new fees on water that would not benefit ratepayers. • Support legislation that promotes water conservation while preserving the authority of local agencies.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
• Support all efforts to create efficiencies within CEQA and support local discretion and planning efforts to limit delays.
• Support legislation that prevents CEQA lawsuits from being filed for any reason other than a bonafide environmental impact.
• Support legislation that streamlines federal and state environmental review processes and limits court reviews of environmental documentation.

Land Use Planning and Housing
• Support efforts to strengthen the legal and fiscal capability of local agencies to prepare, adopt and implement plans for orderly growth, development, beautification, and conservation of local planning areas. • Support housing measures that promote the preservation of existing affordable housing and the development and enhancement of safe and affordable housing and accessible housing within the Town. Provide housing for all economic segments of the population, while still preserving local control and the unique character of the community.
• Support legislation that permits regional collaborations to achieving housing production.
• Support funding for local jurisdictions when statewide bond efforts are proposed. • Oppose measures that would withhold funding dedicated to transportation funding unless proposed housing goals are being met.
• Oppose measures which would undermine Town adopted and established general plan, zoning and housing policies and plans.
• Oppose measures which undermine the planning vision of local government and contradict the expectations of our community.
• Support measures which support meeting the State’s planning goals while maintaining local control, ensuring communities evolve in a manner that reflects the will of the residents and protects the public’s health, safety, and welfare. -59-
5 • Oppose legislation that encourage increasing the housing density in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Energy
• Support legislation that promotes the development and long-term sustainability of locally run Community Choice Aggregators (CCA).
• Support legislation that promotes ratepayer equity between CCA’s and other public and private electrical utilities.
• Oppose legislative attempts that shift wildfire costs associated with investor-owned utility-caused events to the Town and its residents.

Open Space, Parks and Recreation
• Support legislation and funding opportunities (e.g., federal and state park grant funds, conservancy grant funds, project mitigation funds, etc.) that helps cities build better, stronger communities by providing funding to improve air, water, parks, open space, natural resources, historic preservation, the arts and cultural resources.
• Promote local agency control over policies that recognize the benefits of open space, parks and recreation facilities.
• Oppose efforts that erode funding for vital regional and community services that negatively impact Californian's access to parks, open space, bike lanes, after school programming, youth services, senior services, food programs, facilities that promote physical activity, protect natural resources, and strengthen safety and security.

Public Safety/Police
• Support legislation that strengthens community-oriented public safety policies. • Support legislation that would increase accountability and transparency and law enforcement agencies and personnel.
• Support legislation that strengthens local law enforcement and encourages regional collaboration for deployment of resources and specialized taskforce operations.
• Support legislation that strengthens penalties for repeat property crime offenders. • Monitor legislation on implementation of best practices regarding law enforcement procedures.
• Support measures that protect children and youth from exposure to tobacco and tobacco related products such as e-cigarettes.

Fire Services
• Support legislation that provides funding and resources for promoting defensible space within a Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) area.
-60-
6 • Support legislation that encourages regional collaboration and deployment of resources to maximize firefighting efforts.
• Support local control of emergency medical services and ambulance services, including pre-hospital care and transport.

Transportation
• Support legislation that would increase funding for local transportation projects including road resurfacing projects, green infrastructure projects, adding bicycle lanes, sidewalks and trails throughout the Town where appropriate, programs that enhance pedestrian safety.
• Support increased State and Federal funding of transportation improvements with regional or sub-regional benefits for all modes of transportation. • Support protection of dedicated transportation-related tax revenues and enhance the ability of local agencies to finance local transportation programs and facilities. • Support joint planning efforts and projects with border cities on traffic congestion relief projects.

Public Works and Utilities
• Support funding for broadband middle and last mile expenditures. • Oppose measure that undermine local decision making in installation of broadband services.
-61-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF LESLIE MARDEN RAGSDALE AS DIRECTOR TO THE

BOARDS OF THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERVATION AGENCY (BAWSCA) AND

BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM FINANCING AUTHORITY (RFA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
SUMMARY: The Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) is a special district that provides regional water supply planning, resource development and conservation program services for 26 cities, water districts and private utilities in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda County. Member agencies provide water service to 1.8 million residents and over 40,000 commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts.

BAWSCA is governed by a 26-member Board of Directors comprised of community leaders representing the 24 cities and water districts that are member agencies of BAWSCA, and two private utilities that also have appointees to the board, Stanford University and California Water Service Company.

Since July 1, 2015, the Town's representative to the Board of Directors of BAWSCA and the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA) has been former Councilmember Jess E.

Benton who completed his last term on the City Council in December 2020. Former Councilmember Benton served on the BAWSCA and RFA Boards for a four-year term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2019, and is currently serving a term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023. The upcoming appointment will be for a four-year term beginning July 1, 2023 and ending on June 30, 2027.

The enabling acts for both special districts require that a vacancy be filled no later than 90 days from the date the vacancy occurs; however, BAWSCA encourages the Town to make the appointments before June 30, 2023, effective July 1, 2023, so that a quorum of both boards can be ensured and the Town is continuously represented. BAWSCA requires action by the full City Council. At the January 9, 2023 City Council meeting during discussion of Item 23, 2023 Councilmember Representatives to Town and Regional Assignments, the appointment of Leslie Marden Ragsdale to the BAWSCA Board following completion of Jess E. Benton's term was discussed.

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

Page 2 ends

15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS: Letter from BAWSCA, dated January 26, 2023 PREPARED BY: Lisa Natusch, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Councilmember Leslie Marden Ragsdale as a director to the BAWSCA and RFA Boards to represent the Town of Hillsborough, effective July 1, 2023 for a term to June 30, 2027.
-64-
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650 ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650 349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org January 26, 2023
The Hon. Christine Krolik, Mayor
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Ave.

Hillsborough, CA 94010
Subject:Appointment of a Director to the Boards of the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency and the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority
Dear Mayor Krolik,
The four-year term of Jay Benton on the board of directors of the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) will end on June 30, 2023, as will his term on the Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority (RFA). Action by your Council must be taken promptly.

The enabling acts for both special districts allow the city to reappoint its director for an unlimited number of terms or to appoint a new director at the end of each term. The appointment will be for a four-year term. While BAWSCA and RFA are special districts, they are not a Joint Powers Authority (JPA);therefore, the term and duty is independent of the appointee’s home agency.

Hence, whoever is appointed will have a term that ends on June 30, 2027.

The enabling acts for both special districts require that a vacancy on their boards be filled no later than 90 days from the date the vacancy occurs. However, we encourage your city to make the appointments before June 30, effective July 1, 2023, so that a quorum of both boards can be ensured.

Statutory qualifications:
• The appointee must be a resident of, and a registered voter in, the City. • The appointee may, but need not, be a member of your City Council.

Mechanics of the appointment process:
• The appointments must be made at a public meeting of the City Council and be properly agendized.
• The appointments must be made by action of the full City Council, rather than by unilateral action of the Mayor.
• The appointments do not need to be memorialized in a resolution; a motion duly passed and recorded in the minutes of the meeting is sufficient. -65-
Christine Krolik, Mayor
January 26, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

• A copy of the record of the council actions making the appointment should be sent to BAWSCA. The oaths of office must be administered prior to the appointee’s first meeting as a director on the BAWSCA and RFA Boards.

The two questions most frequently asked about an appointment are:
• Should the appointee be an elected member of the appointing agency’s governing board?
• Should the same person be appointed to the boards of both agencies? Both of these are matters of policy left entirely to the discretion of your council. I offer the following observations, based on BAWSCA’s experience.
• The great majority of cities and districts which are participants in BAWSCA and the RFA do select a member of their governing body to serve on the BAWSCA and RFA boards.

One advantage of appointing a currently serving or former elected member of your council to the board is the stature that his or her presence gives BAWSCA in its dealings with San Francisco, regulatory agencies and legislators. Another is the familiarity and experience the appointee already has in addressing policy matters for the City. The governing body of each individual agency is, of course, in the best position to evaluate these, and other relevant considerations.
• With no exceptions, cities and districts have appointed the same individual to both the BAWSCA and RFA boards.

Appointing one person on both boards offers an advantage because, although the two special districts have distinct roles, they are closely related. The familiarity with the issues gained through service on one board will be useful in participating on the other.

Additionally, having the same person appointed to both boards assure greater continuity.

Please see that your council places this matter on an agenda for action by the end of June 30, 2023. I may be reached at (650) 349-3000 or [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Nicole Sandkulla
Chief Executive Officer/General Manager
cc via email:

Jay Benton, BAWSCA Board Member
Paul Willis, BAWSCA Water Management Representative
Ed Cooney, BAWSCA Water Management Representative
-66-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARED AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(B)(3) SUMMARY: On February 26, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) confirmed the first possible case of community transmission of COVID-19 in the United States. On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. And on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) publicly characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.

On March 17, 2020, on the recommendation of the Town’s Director of Emergency Services (otherwise known as the City Manager), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-16 proclaiming the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Hillsborough Municipal Code Section

2.24.060(A) and the California Emergency Services Act.

The public health community’s response to mitigating the spread of COVID-19 has changed over time in response to the fluctuating presence of the disease, and fortunately, the State and County are currently experiencing a significant decrease in confirmed cases, test positivity rates, and related hospitalizations. In fact, California’s death rate as a result of COVID-19 is the lowest amongst large states. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are now widely available, and vaccination rates are increasing – in fact, as of January 18, 2023, approximately 94% of San Mateo County residents have received the vaccine. Most businesses are operating as normal, and San Mateo County has reduced the number of restrictions countywide in response to current conditions. Although COVID-19 continues to remains a threat, the State, County, and Town have successfully developed measures to effectively combat the spread of the disease, and these efforts have transformed a once-crisis-level event into a manageable long-term situation. Governor Newsom has since announced that the statewide state of emergency will end on February 28, 2023.

The intent of the local emergency proclamation was to prevent a catastrophic failure of Town services, personnel, equipment, and facilities. The Town’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has stabilized, and a declared local emergency is no longer necessary. However, should the circumstances change significantly, the City Council may declare a new local emergency, pursuant to state law and the Hillsborough Municipal Code, in order to respond as needed. If adopted, the resolution terminating the local state of emergency will take effect February 28, 2023, to coordinate with the date the Governor’s state of emergency is set to terminate.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. -67-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The City Council’s action to introduce and adopt this resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, as it can be seen with certainty that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3).

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution terminating the local emergency declared as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
-68-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

TERMINATING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARED AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(B)(3) WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act (“CESA”) (Government Code Section 8550, et seq.) authorizes the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a municipality exist; and WHEREAS, in late 2019, an acute respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19, began to spread globally and rapidly, resulting in severe illness and death around the world. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) described COVID-19 as a global pandemic. The WHO reports that to date the disease has caused over 6 million deaths worldwide; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a statewide state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for the broader spread of COVID-19. Further, in this declaration, the Governor also directed State agencies to enter into contracts for the procurement of goods and supplies that could be provided to impacted local government including the Town and Central County Fire Department. The Governor also directed the Office of Emergency Services to provide assistance to local governments impacted by COVID-19.

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, the San Mateo County Health Officer declared a local health emergency pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 101080, and on March 10, 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted to ratify the Health Officer’s declaration of a local health emergency; and
WHEREAS, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the State and County declarations of emergency, on March 17, 2020, on the recommendation of the Town’s Director of Emergency Services, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-16, proclaiming the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Hillsborough Municipal Code (“HMC”) Section 2.24.060 (A); and WHEREAS, during the term of the local emergency and statewide emergency, the Director of Emergency Services is empowered to, among other things, issue rules and regulations on matters pertaining to the local emergency, subject to confirmation by the City Council; obtain vital supplies and equipment needed for the protection of life and property; requisition necessary personnel or material of any Town department or agency; and exercise all emergency powers otherwise conferred by lawful authority, pursuant to HMC Section 2.24.060 (B); and
-69-
2 WHEREAS, ordinarily, the City Council is required under CESA to review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days until it terminates the local emergency. (Gov. Code, § 8630.) However, under Governor Newsom’s state of emergency proclamation issued on March 4, 2020, the 60-day time period in Government Code Section 8630 was waived for the duration of the statewide emergency. As such, the City Council’s local emergency proclamation has remained in effect and will remain in effect until terminated by this formal action of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the public health community’s response to mitigating the spread of COVID-19 has changed over time in response to the fluctuating presence of the disease, and fortunately, the State and County are currently experiencing a significant decrease in confirmed cases, test positivity rates, and related hospitalizations. In fact, California’s death rate as a result of COVID-19 is the lowest amongst large states. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are now widely available, and vaccination rates are increasing – in fact, as of January 18, 2023, approximately 94% of San Mateo County residents have received the vaccine. Most businesses are operating as normal, and San Mateo County has reduced the number of restrictions countywide in response to current conditions; and
WHEREAS, Governor Newsom has now announced that the COVID-19 state of emergency will end on February 28, 2023. The announcement was made on October 17, 2022, months before the termination date, to allow time for the health care system and state and local partners to prepare for this phase-out; and
WHEREAS, although COVID-19 continues to remains a threat, the State, County, and Town have successfully developed measures to effectively combat the spread of the disease, and these efforts have transformed a once-crisislevel event into a manageable long-term situation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 8630, the City Council shall terminate the existence of a proclaimed local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.

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

1. The conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property that arose as a result of COVID-19 in the Town of Hillsborough no longer exist to a level warranting the continuation of a local emergency. As such, the proclamation of an existence of a local emergency declared in response to COVID-19 proclaimed by the Town pursuant to Resolution No. 20-16 on March 17, 2020 is hereby terminated on the date the Governor terminates the State of Emergency which is anticipated to be on February 28, 2023.
-70-
3 2. The Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

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 13th day of February, 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-71-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BURNETT LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC. TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING AT FIRE STATION 32 FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $21,839.15 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301 SUMMARY: California and the Town of Hillsborough has been experiencing drought conditions.

On May 24, 2022, the State Water Board adopted a second statewide emergency water conservation regulation that bans using potable (drinkable) water on decorative or non-functional grass at commercial, industrial, and institutional properties. It went into effect on June 10, 2022.

Fire Station 32 (Ascott) has decorative turf. Irrigation of the turf ended in June 2022, resulting in brown lawn areas. To improve Fire Station 32’s drought readiness and appearance during drought, the Town prepared a design to replace the turf with drought tolerant landscaping, landscape elements and drip irrigation. Bids for work proposed at Station 33 (Chateau) will be presented at a future City Council meeting.

Staff competitively solicited three quotes from three landscaping companies in accordance with the Town’s competitive selection procedures. All three companies provide landscape maintenance for Town islands and public property sites. The Town received three responses, and Burnett Landscape Development Inc. was determined to be the most qualified and responsive, with a cost proposal in the not-to-exceed amount of $21,839.15.
$25,505.00
$27,800.00

NAME RESPONSE
Burnett Landscape Development Inc. $21,839.15
Landtek Landscaping Inc.

Masterpiece Gardens and Design
FISCAL IMPACT: Budget for these services is available in the FY 2022-23 Fire Station 32 Improvement CIP #503.01.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act according to Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
-73-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution awarding and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town with Burnett Landscape Development Inc. for a not-toexceed amount of $21,839.15 and authorizing the use of the Fire Stations CIP surplus to fund the project.
-74-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BURNETT LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC. TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING AT FIRE STATION 32 FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $21,839.15 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301
WHEREAS, California and the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) have been experiencing drought conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, the State Water Board adopted a second statewide emergency water conservation regulation that bans using potable (drinkable) water on decorative or non-functional grass at commercial, industrial, and institutional properties which went into effect on June 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, irrigation of Fire Station 32 decorative turf ended in June 2022, resulting in brown turf areas; and
WHEREAS, staff competitively solicited three quotes from three landscaping companies in accordance with the Town’s competitive selection procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Town received three responses, of which Burnett Landscape Development Inc. was determined to be the most qualified and responsive, with a cost proposal in the not-to-exceed amount of $21,839.15; and
WHEREAS, funding will be allocated from FY 2022-23 Fire Station 32 Improvement CIP #503.01.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby awards to and authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Burnett Landscape Develop Inc., for an amount not-to-exceed $21,839.15, with funding allocated from the FY 2022-23 Fire Station 32 Improvement CIP #503.01.

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

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

EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH NORGO ENGINEERING FOR THE EMERGENCY BOWHILL SEWER MAIN REPAIR IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,000.00, WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY, FOR A TOTAL ALLOCATION OF $178,200.00 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301 SUMMARY: Due to recent storm events and a landslide, a segment of the Town’s sanitary sewer main pipe, between Endfield Way and Bowhill Road, has become exposed resulting in a sanitary sewer overflow. The pipe has since been temporarily repaired but the Town’s Engineering Division assessed the situation and determined that the entire segment, between Endfield Way and the connection to the Bowhill Road sewer main needs to be replaced as soon as possible. Doing so will prevent another sanitary sewer overflow, reduce the risk of rainwater from entering the sewer system, and avoid further deterioration of the pipe and private property. This emergency sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement project involves installation of approximately 510 linear feet of broken sewer pipe, two manholes, and four connecting service laterals from Endfield Way to Bowhill Road following the existing sewer main alignment in the existing easements.

Due to the time sensitive nature of this project, Town staff requested informal quotes from three contractors for this project to be completed as an emergency. The bid results were:

D’Arcy & Harty (Bid Received After Deadline)
NORGO Engineering $162,000.00
C2R Engineering $188,900.00
D’Arcy & Harty submitted their bid after the 2pm deadline and could not considered. Thus, based on the above-mentioned informal bids, NORGO Engineering (“NE”) was confirmed by staff to be the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive informal bid in the amount of $162,000.00.

Although its an informal bid, because the bid exceeds $100,000 the Town's purchasing policies and procedures requires City Council approval. Staff conducted an analysis of the quote and determined it to be reasonable based on the expected level of effort to complete the emergency work. NE’s qualifications and experience levels are satisfactory to perform all work associated with this project as NE has successfully completed similar projects for the Town in the past. Staff recommends approval of this project so we may take immediate action to install a new sewer system in this neighborhood.

FISCAL IMPACT: It is recommended the total cost of the proposed project in the amount of $162,000.00, with a 10% contingency, if needed, for a total allocation of $178,200.00. Funding shall be allocated from the Miscellaneous Sewer System Repairs Fund (CIP#707) and the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Fund (CIP#701).
-77-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution awarding to and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement for the emergency Bowhill Sewer Main Repair to NORGO Engineering in the amount of $162,000.00, with a 10% contingency, for a total allocation of $178,200.00, allocating funds from the Miscellaneous Sewer System Repairs Fund and the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Fund.
-78-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

AWARDING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT WITH NORGO ENGINEERING FOR THE EMERGENCY BOWHILL SEWER MAIN REPAIR IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,000.00, WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY, FOR A TOTAL ALLOCATION OF $178,200.00 PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15301
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) maintains the Town’s sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, Public Works staff have performed assessments that identify the existing sanitary sewer pipe as been made structurally deficient as a result of a landslide, resulting in a rupture and sanitary sewer overflow, and therefore hazardous to public health, safety and wellbeing; and
WHEREAS, the entire sewer segment between Endfield Way and Bowhill Road will need to be repaired to prevent another sanitary sewer overflow, reduce the risk of rainwater from entering the sewer system, and avoid further deterioration of the pipe and private property; and
WHEREAS, Public Works staff directly contacted three qualified contractors that have experience completing similar types of projects; and
WHEREAS, three contractors proficient in this type of construction submitted quotes; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted an analysis of the proposals, and verified that the low bidder’s qualifications and experience levels are satisfactory; and WHEREAS, funding will be allocated from the Miscellaneous Sewer System Repairs Fund (CIP#707) and the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Fund (CIP#701).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby awards to and authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with NORGO Engineering for the Emergency Bowhill Sewer Repair in the amount of $162,000.00, with a 10% Town owned/controlled contingency, if needed, for a total allocation of $178,200.00, allocating funds from the Miscellaneous Sewer System Repairs Fund (CIP#707) and the Priority Basins Inflow & Infiltration Fund (CIP#701).

Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
-79-
2 This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 13th day of February 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-80-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
8 PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 85 FAGAN DRIVE AND ADJACENT VACANT LOT (APN 027-330-630) INTO THREE PARCELS AND DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PURSUANT TO CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15315

MINOR LAND DIVISIONS
SUMMARY: On May 16, 2022, the Town received a Conceptual Plan application to subdivide 85 Fagan Drive and the adjacent vacant lot (APN 027-330-630) into three lots. The proposed subdivision also includes an extension of Fagan Drive to be offered as dedication of public right-ofway.

The relatively flat properties are located at the end of the Fagan Drive cul-de-sac. 85 Fagan Drive is a 2.18 acre parcel that contains a single-family residence and the adjacent 0.90 acre vacant lot contains an existing well, shed, tanks and water lines that provide irrigation to both parcels. The proposed subdivision would result in three parcels:

1. Parcel A: Proposed at 1.66 acres and would retain the existing home and associated improvements along with the existing driveway; and

2. Parcel B: Proposed at 0.58 acres and would be vacant and suitable for a future home with independent driveway access off of Fagan Drive; and

3. Parcel C: Proposed at 0.68 acres and would retain the existing well, shed, tanks and water lines.

This lot would be vacant and suitable for a future home with independent driveway access off of Fagan Drive.

The conceptual plan indicates a fourth parcel, Parcel D, which represents an extended area of Fagan Drive proposed at 0.19 acres and would be offered as dedication of public right-of-way. This extension allows proposed Parcel A, B, and C to meet the minimum lot frontage requirements and provides better access for utility service to the properties from the public right-of-way. The conceptual plans also indicate the quitclaim of 1,211 square feet of existing right-of-way in favor of proposed parcel C and the quitclaim of 1,705 square feet of existing right-of-way in favor of 80 Fagan (APN: 027-330-580).

In September 1967 the Fagan Estates Subdivision was approved and recorded. The subdivision consisted of 21 roughly half-acre lots and one 2.5-acre lot. In August 2006 a previous owner merged lots 17 (.58 acre) and 18 (2.5 acre) into one parcel creating the current 3.08-acre parcel. In July 2020, the owners subdivided the property back into two lots, essentially returning the property to a configuration similar to the original 1967 Fagan Estates Subdivision design. The current property owners are now requesting to subdivide these two properties into three and extend Fagan Drive as public right-of-way.

-81-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION
Hillsborough Municipal Code (HMC) section 16.16.020 requires Conceptual Review of all proposed subdivision projects. This preliminary review of proposed subdivisions is intended to facilitate optimum subdivision design, reduce unproductive efforts by all parties, and bring about a better result for applicants, Town residents and the City Council. The process provides a forum for citizens and the City Council to provide preliminary feedback on issues relating to the subdivision’s design and potential environmental issues. This conceptual review is step one in a multi-step subdivision map approval process and does not constitute final approval of the proposed subdivision. Per the California Subdivision Map Act and HMC Sections 16.16.010.B and

16.16.060, a Tentative and Final Parcel map must be submitted to the City Engineer and reviewed by the City Council in advance of any final subdivision approval.

The proposed subdivision meets all requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance for lot design, access, topography and future building site.

Details on each lot are outlined in the table below:

Average
Slope (%)
Minimum
Required Lot
Size (Acres)
Proposed
Lot Size
(Acres)
Maximum
Allowed
Floor Area
(SF)*
Existing
Floor Area
(SF)
Parcel A 12.9 0.557 1.66 15,202.4 14,495
Parcel B 13.5 0.561 0.58 6,316.2 N/A
Parcel C 12.0 0.552 0.65 7,078.5 N/A
*The total covered floor area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the net lot area for the first acre plus fifteen percent of the net lot area over one acre. Per HMC Section 17.32.030.

While not required, the applicant has also prepared a conceptual site plan for proposed Parcel B and C, which is included as Attachment 1 to the staff report. Note that the houses are shown in concept only, intended to illustrate that a future new home on the site could meet the minimum development standards required by the Municipal Code. The actual design of any future new home would be subject to review and approval by the Town’s Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB).

As proposed, the water line and associated facilities would be located in an easement on Parcel C and would be a reservation from the grant deed when Parcel C is sold. In addition, a joint maintenance agreement (or similar) would be created to outline the maintenance responsibilities of the water facilities between Parcel B and C.

The City Engineer notes that the proposed lot would comply with all other subdivision standard requirements, as outlined in HMC Chapter 16.28, and the new driveway would not cause a traffic concern. Per HMC Section 16.28.020.B, should a future house be constructed on Parcel B or Parcel C, the developer of that project would be required to construct new sewer and water services to the Town mains. The developer would also be responsible for paying all development charges, including sewer and water capital fees.
-82-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

Conceptual review of this subdivision was already proposed at the July 2022 Council meeting.

However, this item was pulled. Public comment received for this item in advance of the July 2022 City Council meeting is included as Attachment 5 to the staff report.

Public Comment letters for this conceptual review item received before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 are included as Attachment 6 to the staff report. The public comment letters received thus far primarily express concerns over the subdivision process, cul-de-sac layout, safety, property value, existing and proposed utilities, neighborhood, and assurances that public comment is heard. Any public comment received after 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 and prior to 2:00 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 2023 will be emailed to the City Council and posted on the Town website.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Categorical Exemption Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Conceptual Plan

2. Slope Density Exhibit

3. CEQA Determination Letter

4. Applicant Letter to City Council

5. Previous Public Comment (July 2022 City Council Meeting)

6. Current Public Comment (February 2023 City Council Meeting) PREPARED BY: Doug Belcik, Acting Senior Civil Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and receive comments;

2. Close the public hearing; and

3. Per HMC Section 16.16.060, provide preliminary comment on the Conceptual Plan. -83-
-84-
-85-
-86-
-87-
-88-
-89-
-90-
-91-
-92-
ATTACHMENT 2 -93-
Building and Planning Department
Phone: 650-375-7411 | Fax: 650-375-7415 | 1600 Floribunda Ave., Hillsborough, CA 94010 | www.hillsborough.net

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
California July 5, 2022
Benoit A.V.J. McVeigh, PE, LS
DK Engineering, Senior Engineer
1931 San Miguel Drive, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
RE: 85-90 Fagan Drive, Environmental Review for proposed Subdivision #ENV22-0001 Dear Mr. McVeigh:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed work at the above referenced site in Hillsborough, CA. The Town Planning Department is pleased to provide our determination for the Environmental Review of the 85-90 Fagan Drive subdivision application.

The project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA provides several exemptions for projects that the lead agency (Town of Hillsborough) has determined do not pose a risk of significant impact on the environment. Under article 19 section 15315 Minor Land Divisions, this project is categorically exempt.
“Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.” For the reasons cited above, the project will not result in a significant environmental impact and qualifies for a Categorical Exemption.

Regards,
Linda Roberson, AICP
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT 3
-94-
ATTACHMENT 4
-95-
-96-
-97-
-98-
From: James McDowell
To: Natalie Gribben; Lisa Natusch
Cc: Caryn McDowell
Subject: Further Subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive
Date: Monday, June 27, 2022 3:56:26 PM
Dear Ms Gribben & Ms Natusch –
Caryn McDowell and I are the owners of the property at in Hillsborough. We received, today 6/27/22, the notice regarding the further subdivision of 85-90 Fagan Drive, which abuts our property. This proposed hearing is slated to be part of the July 11, City Council meeting.

Unfortunately, we will be in-transit on a long-delayed vacation at the time of the July 11 meeting, and will not be able to attend either in person or virtually. The materials are scheduled to be available by Friday July 8, however, three days (including only a single business day) is an extraordinarily short period to digest and prepare comments on such a substantial subdivision proposal, especially one being done so shortly after the property had already been subdivided.

Given several important facts, including --
1) This property was already subdivided once very recently, 2) The short notice of the hearing date,
3) The extraordinary short period (one business day) to review the materials, and
4) We are the immediate neighbors to the side of the property that does not have the existing structure, sharing a long property line, and we believe (but without the materials have no way of knowing) that we will be impacted more than any other party in the city of Hillsborough,
We respectfully request the hearing on this matter be postponed at least until the August 2022 meeting so we have the ability to thoroughly review the proposal and offer appropriate comments.

Thank you,
James and Caryn McDowell
Hillsborough, CA
-133-
ATTACHMENT 5
-99-
James McDowell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mcdowellj
-13 -100- 4-
From: Mike Folgner
To: James McDowell
Cc: Natalie Gribben; Lisa Natusch; Caryn McDowell
Subject: Re: Further Subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive
Date: Monday, June 27, 2022 5:53:05 PM
Thank you James.

Dear Ms Gribben and Ms Natusch,
We are the lot next to James, across the cul de sac from the lot in question and we share the same concern regarding the timing. We will also be unavailable to attend on July 11th but more importantly this notice period is too short for such an impactful change and we kindly ask that this be delayed until at least the August meeting and that there be more time between the disclosure of the materials and the meeting.

Thank you,
Mike and Karen Folgner
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:56 PM James McDowell wrote:

Dear Ms Gribben & Ms Natusch –
Caryn McDowell and I are the owners of the property at in Hillsborough. We received, today 6/27/22, the notice regarding the further subdivision of 85-90 Fagan Drive, which abuts our property. This proposed hearing is slated to be part of the July 11, City Council meeting.

Given several important facts, including --
1) This property was already subdivided once very recently, 2) The short notice of the hearing date,
3) The extraordinary short period (one business day) to review the materials, and
4) We are the immediate neighbors to the side of the property that does not have the existing structure, sharing a long property line, and we believe (but without the materials have no way of knowing) that we will be impacted more than any other party in the city of Hillsborough, We respectfully request the hearing on this matter be postponed at least until -13 -101- 5-
the August 2022 meeting so we have the ability to thoroughly review the proposal and offer appropriate comments.

Thank you,
James and Caryn McDowell
Hillsborough, CA
James McDowell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mcdowellj
-13 -102- 6-
1 Lisa Natusch
Subject: FW: 85-90 Fagan Drive
From: Boutin, Peter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 9:38 PM
To: [email protected]; Natalie Gribben <[email protected]> Cc: Boutin, Peter <[email protected]>;
Subject: 85‐90 Fagan Drive
Dear Ms. Gribben and Ms. Natusch,
My wife Suzanne and I are the owners of the property located at . Our property backs up to 85‐90 Fagan Drive.

Upon returning today from business out of town, I received the notice regarding a July 11, 2022 hearing to consider a proposal for Conceptual Review of further subdividing 85‐90 Fagan Way. Providing one business day to review the materials relating to this Conceptual Review is demonstrably insufficient. We ask that the hearing in this matter be continued to the Council’s August or September meeting so that we and our neighbors have adequate time to review the materials and provide comments.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Peter Boutin
Hillsborough, CA. 94010
Sent from my iPhone
-13 -103- 7-
From: James McDowell
To: Natalie Gribben
Cc: Caryn McDowell; Mike Folgner; Lisa Natusch
Subject: Re: Further Subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive
Date: Friday, July 1, 2022 10:48:34 AM
Hi Natalie -
Thank you for the additional information and response.

Before I consider the last-minute offer to meet with their engineer, I need the City to explain the process as it will proceed from here. I appreciate your initial note indicating that at the July 11 meeting "there will be no action taken by the Council." However, our experience with the 2020 subdivision was that at each meeting the subdivision as proposed moved one step closer to approval, and despite numerous issues raised by the neighbors related to timing (e.g., prior behavior by the long-time owners, concerns about traffic and suggestions to improve the proposal as it related to traffic and access), the proposal was approved in its initial form. We intend to submit comments, as we did in 2020 when this property was subdivided, although we feel that our prior comments were overlooked in favor of the developer.

Although I hesitate to speak for the Folgners, I believe we both accepted the outcome graciously and realized we had to live with the inevitable update of 85 Fagan and construction of a new home at 90 Fagan, along with the related traffic. Among other issues, we have experienced jackhammers, stone cutting, noise and an incredible amount of dust from the just the current driveway redesign at 85 Fagan. The building department has confirmed that much of this work has been done before the permits were approved--not the sort of behavior on their part that gives me confidence that promises made during any discussion will be kept, or that moving and adding a street will be done with any sensitivity to the neighbors. Despite our direct conversations with the Stanley Lo and contacting the Hillsborough police, the cul-de-sac and the property in front of our house (and often our driveway) is still treated as an empty parking lot with little regard for our families.

My questions for the City are: 1) what assurances are there that if the current project is approved that there will not be an additional request to further subdivide and add another lot and home to the area? 2) what is the process of the City and the Council, how many meetings, where is input from the public considered? 3) which meeting/when is the action taken? 4) who will respond to the citizen input and fully explain which legitimate concerns of long-term residents are dismissed in favor of the developers and why? 5) will this be the final subdivision -- it is very difficult to understand the intent and also raise our concerns if these are merely incremental changes that fundamentally affect the street and our home. Finally, is there any concrete assurances the City can give us that our concerns are as important as the developers?
Each time I read the lengthy and complex documents and plans, I find additional items of concern, so I'm not sure I'm ready to discuss this with the engineer yet, -13 -104- 8-
especially with the Holiday weekend upon us. I am also concerned that the offer to meet came only AFTER we responded to the mailed notice, and not in the many months before. This is especially concerning since (so far) I see they are proposing 1) to change my curb, move me from the cul-de-sac--which any realtor knows is more valuable property--to a simple street side (while getting 2 lots on a valuable cul-desac for themselves), 2) move my water meter, 3) change my drainage, and 4) have the street positioned in a way that vehicles coming downhill from the new street will have headlights pointed at our front door, which is flanked by two windows approximately 5 feet x 7.5 feet. It is unclear what new requirements we will have if the cul-de-sac is carved out and added to our property. Will the town require us to make any changes to our property to comply with regulations? And these are only the immediate issues I see related to our property, without listing any concerns of the Folgners or the properties on Oakdale or those on Downey. Again, it is also necessary to point out we have made numerous complaints to the City police about parking during the current renovations 85 Fagan, which include fully blocking the street on a few occasions, parking not parallel to the existing curbs, leaving construction trailers on the street overnight and repeated incidents of blocking the existing fire hydrant. As I write this email, Stanley Lo's construction crew is blasting music, parking in front of our house, and blocking the fire hydrant with two trucks. The town and the police almost never make their way to our cul-de-sac so Stanley Lo and crew do not seem to follow laws or regulations.

Item 4 above is particularly distressing for many reasons. Even with the short amount of roadway in the current configuration, cars and currently large numbers of construction vehicles come down from 85 Fagan quite quickly, and go into the blind curve in front of 70 Fagan in the center of the street. If there is a longer street and more homes, aesthetically, there will be more traffic, and from a safety perspective much more distance to gain speed. Another is that our home was designed by Claude Oakland, an architect known for working with the Eichler homes, who placed a particular emphasis on the harmony with nature. Some of the hallmarks of this architecture is creating a feeling inside/outside throughout the home by using large amounts of glass and very deliberate site selection. By increasing traffic and moving the street, this site selection is undermined, and our window expanses change from an asset to liability, with the proposed street pointing at our home - fundamentally changing our enjoyment of, and the value of our property.

When we purchased this home, only 6 years ago, we purchased a quite home at the end of a cul-de-sac, with only one home, tucked across the street on almost 3 acres.

In the last 2 years, the City approved the subdivision of that land into 2 lots over our objections. Now, it appears the City is poised to approve yet another lot, remove our peaceful cul-de-sac and, unarguably and permanently degrading the character of the entire neighborhood for the benefit of a single owner.

Finally, as it relates to the offer to meet. Stanley Lo, who you indicate is the applicant, but you did not confirm he is the owner of the property, has been on site weekly since last October, and almost daily over the last few weeks as work on 85 Fagan continues. He has never once mentioned the proposed subdivision, solicited our thoughts or given any indication of this plan--which includes the City giving us land -13 -105- 9-
(?!). The plans you received and then provided to us are sufficiently thorough that you and we both know the owner(s) have been working on them for a long time.

During all of these visits, there was a complete lack of communication from the applicant or engineers. The public notice through the City shortly before the July 4th Holiday, with the minimum notice allowed under regulation, made during summer vacations, are clearly part of the owner's plan to spring this egregious change on the neighbors without regard to their concerns, safety or property values.

At this point, I really need to understand the City process as I outlined above before I feel that I can have any productive conversations with the applicant's hired engineer.

I would also like to request that at this point you do not share our concerns with the applicant until we have an understanding of the process and when/where our concerns are best addressed to the Council and City. The incredible complexity of the process and the extraordinary changes proposed only prove the need to delay even the initial presentation to the Council.

We look forward to hearing from you.
best
James
James McDowell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mcdowellj
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 08:34:40 AM PDT, Natalie Gribben <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mr. Folgner,
They are extending the end of the cul-de-sac, so the “bulb” of the cul-de-sac would be located in what is now 85 Fagan and the vacant lot (part of the bulb in each lot). This shape or any part of the street along your frontage would not change.

The project proposes the land part of the current existing “bulb” revert back to the adjacent property owners, which means the McDowell’s would be most impacted. (Mr. McDowell, I encourage you especially to allow me to share your contact information with the applicant who would like to have a detailed discussion with you about this.)
The slope of the street would remain generally consistent with the existing slope all the way to the end of the proposed new “bulb” location.

Stanley Lo is the applicant and your contact information would be shared with him and the project -1-106- 40-
engineer of record, and you would be contacted by Ben McVeigh from dk Engineering.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. Please don’t hesitate to call either.

Thanks,
Natalie Gribben, P.E., QSD
Senior Civil Engineer
Town of Hillsborough | Public Works Department
P: (650)375-7444
D: (650)375-7510
Drought is Here: Is Your Yard DrSught Ready? Visit www.hillsborough.net/Drought for more information.

Download the new Simplicity App for Hillsborough to stay up-to-date Subscribe to the Town’s e-Announcements
Sign up for SMCAlert to receive emergency updates by phone and email The opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the sender and are not an official position of the Town of Hillsborough, of the respective body, or of the board I serve on at the Town.

From: Mike Folgner
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 6:34 PM
To: Natalie Gribben <[email protected]>
Cc: Caryn McDowell ; James McDowell ; Lisa
Natusch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Further Subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for your reply and help.

Am I understanding the plans that they are moving the location of the cul de sac to the middle of the property and creating a larger downhill curve towards our house? That’s a substantial change so I want to make sure I’m interpreting these correctly.

Also the name on the property plans is Hussein AlSaud LLC. I was under the impression that Stanley Lo -1-107- 41-
had purchased the property. I may be interested in talking to them but can you please clarify who the applicant is, then We would be happy to consider that request.

Thank you!
Mike
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:18 PM Natalie Gribben <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry one clarification on the highlighted sentence below: Any public comment submitted before 5pm Wednesday will be included in the agenda packet, and any public comment received after that but before 4pm on the 11th, will be provided to the City Council, posted to the website, and retained for the record.

From: Natalie Gribben
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Mike Folgner >; James McDowell >
Cc: Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>; Caryn McDowell Subject: RE: Further Subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive
Hi Mr. Folgner & Mr. McDowell,
Apologies for the delayed response. I’d like the clarify that the full agenda packet is typically posted 3 days before the Council meeting, but materials related to public hearing items are available upon request. Please see attached conceptual plans available for your review that the applicants wanted to share.

I am sorry Mr. Folgner that you will not be able to attend on the 11th. The meeting will by a hybrid meeting, so perhaps you can join by zoom or by phone. If not, the meeting will be recorded and available for viewing afterwards. There will be no actions taken by the Council on the 11th on this item - this meeting is only to allow the Council to provide their preliminary comments on the proposed subdivision, and to hear feedback from neighbors and public. Any public comment submitted before Wednesday will be included in the agenda packet, and any public comment received before the 4pm on the 11th, will be read into the record. And course, there will be an opportunity to speak for 3 minutes at the meeting as well. Also, if you are not able to attend or have any after thoughts, I welcome any additional comments and feedback after the meeting as again, there is no action associated with this item.
-1-108- 42-
Lastly, applicants would like to reach out and discuss the proposed subdivision prior to the Council meeting to any neighbors that have expressed interest. Would it be alright if I shared your phone numbers or emails with the applicant team? Feel free to email me separately and directly with this information if you’d like.

Please feel free to give me a call anytime to discuss.

From: Mike Folgner
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 5:53 PM
To: James McDowell
Cc: Natalie Gribben <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]>; Caryn McDowell
Subject: Re: Further Subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive
Thank you James.

Dear Ms Gribben and Ms Natusch,
We are the lot next to James, across the cul de sac from the lot in question and we share the same concern regarding the timing. We will also be unavailable to attend on July 11th but more importantly this notice period is too short for such an impactful change and we kindly ask that this be delayed until -1-109- 43-
at least the August meeting and that there be more time between the disclosure of the materials and the meeting.

Thank you,
Mike and Karen Folgner
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:56 PM James McDowell wrote:

Unfortunately, we will be in-transit on a long-delayed vacation at the time of the July 11 meeting, and will not be able to attend either in person or virtually.

The materials are scheduled to be available by Friday July 8, however, three days (including only a single business day) is an extraordinarily short period to digest and prepare comments on such a substantial subdivision proposal, especially one being done so shortly after the property had already been subdivided.

Given several important facts, including --
1) This property was already subdivided once very recently, 2) The short notice of the hearing date,
3) The extraordinary short period (one business day) to review the materials, and
4) We are the immediate neighbors to the side of the property that does not have the existing structure, sharing a long property line, and we believe (but without the materials have no way of knowing) that we will be impacted more than any other party in the city of Hillsborough, We respectfully request the hearing on this matter be postponed at least until the August 2022 meeting so we have the ability to thoroughly review the proposal and offer appropriate comments.

Thank you,
James and Caryn McDowell
-14 -110- 4-
-14 -111- 5-
From: James McDowell
To: Natalie Gribben; Lisa Natusch
Cc: Caryn McDowell; Mike Folgner
Subject: Comments for City Council meeting 11 July, 85 Fagan additional subdivision Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 4:51:31 PM
Attachments: 11 July comments to City
Dear Lisa & Natalie,
Lisa, it was good to speak to you in person today, we appreciate your time.

In addition to the concerns I expressed in my earlier email, most of which are related to the process the City Council uses and the standard used to judge the proposal, I have put together some concerns with the proposal itself. I have attached them in a Word document, and believe I am sending them in time to be included in the written packet.

I remain especially curious as to the standard for approval or rejection that the Council uses, as well as any rules that relate to the incremental changes proposed by repeatedly returning to the Council to request yet another division to create yet another parcel. As you can imagine, in addition to being blind-sided by this notice, we now live with the dread another notice for the creation of another parcel may come at any time.

I understand additional comments will be considered by the Council if emailed in, but will not make it into the initial packet for Council members, so I do hope I made the deadline. I am sorry we will be unable to make the meeting via Zoom.

Please let me know if the attached is unreadable.
thank you,
James & Caryn McDowell
James McDowell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mcdowellj
-14 -112- 6-
We are James & Caryn McDowell, who own and reside at with our two daughters (Crocker class of 2022). We have lived on this quiet street since 2016 and are heartbroken to learn about the proposal to fundamentally and irrevocably change our neighborhood (and likely Blackhawk neighbors) and we are pleased that the Council will seriously consider our concerns.

Because the proposed changes are so significant and extensive, and fundamentally and permanently alter our neighborhood, we have requested, and reiterate our request that consideration by City Council be delayed so that we and the other neighbors can have ample time to digest the proposal and make meaningful comments. We acknowledge the notice was delivered timely, however, with summer vacations (after two years of lockdown), and the holiday weekend intervening, the time between notice and meeting is particularly burdensome on the existing homeowners. It appears the applicant timed the submission to minimize the likelihood of comment.

When we purchased our home at , we deliberately chose the location for its quiet and seclusion, as well as the site placement of the home. The title search we had at the time showed a single home at 85 Fagan tucked away on a single lot of 3 acres. In 2020, the Council approved subdivision of 85 Fagan into two parcels. Now, the owner and/or applicant proposes to remove our cul-de-sac and gain two building sites on a cul-de-sac for themselves. This dramatically and permanently alters the character, and peace we specifically sought when we found and purchased our home and also affects our property value.

As far as we can see, all burdens of the proposal fall on us and long-term neighbors of the Fagan Estates, while all benefits and value accrue to someone who does not live here and will not suffer the endless noise and disruption the proposed construction guarantees. Fagan is a dead-end street, with only one entry/exit, few families and a character uncommon, even here in Hillsborough. It is not a major thoroughfare like Sharon Drive, with its extra setback, providing access to huge parts of town, with multiple entries and exits. In the short time since we learned of the proposal, several neighbors have expressed deep concern, and none of have been supportive—how can this proposal possible benefit the residents if I am unable to find a single neighbor in favor?
Concern #1: Public Safety and Our Safety.

1. Our property, as well as 85 Fagan are both within the WUI zone that requires a bi-annual inspection from Central County Fire because of the heightened fire risk. The plans provided include the removal of the fire hydrant that abuts our property, which, at a minimum • increases the risk of damage if/when a fire might occur, and • will require the shutoff of water for an undefined period during construction, both of which negatively impact our safety, and should a fire occur, dramatically increase the risk to us and all other homes nearby.
-14 -113- 7-

2. Removal of existing road and construction of a new road will inevitably lead to periods of poor and zero access to our property and some adjoining properties. The historic wall that surrounds the existing Fagan Estates neighborhood is over 10-12 feet high behind our home and prevents emergency access from anywhere other than Fagan Dr., a severe compromise of public safety.

3. During the current renovation of 85 Fagan, there has been a significant increase in traffic, and the departing vehicles frequently move too fast as they reach the blind curve which is sharpest (over 90 degrees) at the border of our home and 70 Fagan. If the road were extended as provided in this proposal, there would be
• a longer and/or second curve to the road, with poor visibility, and • a longer run for vehicles to gain even more speed before entering the blind curve which would increase the likelihood of an accident involving the numerous families from the neighborhood who enjoy using Fagan and the cul-de-sac for learning to bike, skateboard or hoverboard because this is a dead-end with limited traffic.

The proposed subdivision would allow two large homes to be built, which increase the number of driveways above us by 200%, which could go to 500% if all properties installed ADUs, fundamentally increasing the traffic load for every home on Fagan, Sheldon and Margo.

4. During renovation of 85 Fagan, there have been multiple times the entire street has been blocked (without prior notice) by construction trucks, usually in front of 60 Fagan, completely blocking access to 60, 70 and 80 Fagan, as well as 85 Fagan. This disregard for our safety, and lack of common courtesy, will become even worse while executing the proposed plan.

5. On the morning we are drafting this, trucks involved in the renovation at 85 Fagan have filled the cul-de-sac. Despite numerous visits by Hillsborough Police, at least two of the vehicles are blocking the existing fire hydrant. This pattern and practice disregarding the rules of public safety, especially during fire season in a super-drought indicate a complete lack of respect for safety, neighbors and the law.

Concern #2: issues surrounding utilities – both convenience and safety • In addition to the water and sewer questions below, what is the overall plan for water and sewer?
• Fagan and Sheldon already experience a large number of electric blackouts (we have had more in the last 3 years than we did in the 10 years we lived in Burlingame). What is the electric upgrade plan to support additional homes?
• Will all utilities be underground?
• Where will the gas lines run?
-14 -114- 8-
• Can the water main support additional homes? Or will there be an additional project to address that?
Concern #3: Issues of our own quiet enjoyment and our ability to make a living We have been working from home for several years now, and with the fundamental shift in workplace behavior ushered in by the pandemic, this situation appears permanent for us. The recent work on the driveway at 85 Fagan introduced jackhammers, concrete destruction and stone cutting to the area, making it nearly impossible to conduct phone calls or video conferences for several days. Destroying part of the road and building a new one will be substantially worse and burden both our personal and business lives.

Local experience (2225 Oakdale) shows that home completion can take nearly 3 years. By doubling the number of allowable homes, the construction period we will suffer could easily reach six years, equal to the amount of time we have lived here! We do not speak for other neighbors, but believe other abutting properties have full-time stay at home and full-time work from home inhabitants who will also be hit hard from the proposed changes, and we encourage the city to actively interview neighbors to gauge their concerns.

Concern #4: Finality
85 Fagan was just subdivided less than 2 years ago. Now, the owners come for another bite at the apple. It is unfair to us and the long-term residents to have an endless grind against our peace and enjoyment and degradation of our property values. When does this end? Isn’t the 2020 decision a final word?
Concern #5: Issues of destruction of Value
As described above, we sought a quite location, and fell in love with being at the end of a cul-desac, where our children (and others!) play safely. In addition to these joys the proposal will strip from us, we will lose the substantial monetary value of being on the cul-de-sac and “the last house on the right,” while the developer gains not one, but two sites at the end of a cul-de-sac, and all the value that goes with it. In addition to that permanent loss, doubling the allowable homes doubles the construction disruption we will suffer, substantially lowering any value from sale we could realize until the building is completed, on a schedule we do not control.

Concern #6: Unanswered questions about the gift of land from the City The proposal indicates the City will gift us a triangle of land. In smaller type, the proposal indicates the existing fire hydrant will be removed and our water meter must be moved. There is no mention of the costs or who will perform this work, and how careful they will be. Further, the -14 -115- 9-
first we learned of this was when the City provided plans to us – no one from the developers ever mentioned this to us. We also do not see anything addressing the points below. Nor do we know if these are even the most pressing items, as “free land” is so uncommon, we do not know where to start an evaluation.
• What is the landscaping requirement for the area where 50-year-old road will be jackhammered and removed?
• What sort of pollutants exist in the road, or under it, and will be disturbed? Will these drain to the bay or public sewers when it rains? Who will remediate? How? • What is the quality of the underlying soil – is it arable for plans or does it contain old chemicals?
• Will the slope and drainage of the site change?
• Will the geologic characteristics be integrated into our existing yard? • Will the City grant permits (without cost) for us to landscape in accord with our existing landscape? Will we be reimbursed for any requirements to hire a landscape architect or other professionals off our choosing? Or will current requirements require us to remodel the entire area?
• Where is the water main? Will moving the street require additional access to our yard for moving water or other utilities? How long will we lose water during the various construction phases?
• Where is sewer main? What other concerns should we have relating to sewer? • Will the existing fence between 80 and 85/90 Fagan be extended? Will it match the existing fencing? Will it integrate with the existing road-fronting fence we have? • Will this work damage our current irrigation system (recently updated for water savings)? • What are the tax consequences of receiving additional land? Concern #7: Positioning of the revised street
• The street proposal is such that vehicles coming downhill from the new street will have headlights pointed at our front door, which is flanked by two windows approximately 5 feet x 7.5 feet, and will shine through our open-plan house (the backyard can be viewed through our home while standing on the front walk).
• By increasing traffic and moving the street, the site selection made by the architect of our home (Claude Oakland, of Eichler fame) is undermined, and our expansive windows change from an asset to liability, with the proposed street pointing at our home - fundamentally changing our enjoyment of, and the value of our property.

We urge the Council to make several Site Visits (unannounced) before making any decision to better understand the lack of regard to safety and for the neighbors shown by the applicant
As noted above, at one time today, there were more than 7 large trucks parked around our house (including several in front of the fire hydrant). Two trucks and at least one car drove around the blind curve today at an excessive speed. This needs to be seen to be appreciated -1-116- 50-
In Conclusion
We believe the Council is well-versed in analyzing the public safety issues such as fire risk, density, traffic and utilities, including the unreliable above-ground electric that serves the Fagan Estates, so I want to emphasize the intangibles here:
• The Fagan Estate itself is one of the original mansions of Hillsborough, and the 1967 subdivision (and further division in 2022) have created and maintained a wonderful and safe enclave that cannot be reproduced—and should not be destroyed. • Innumerable families have and continue to visit Fagan for its seclusion, peace and safety.

Often, this is to teach their children the simple joys of biking. This availability is especially important in a town that prides itself for having no sidewalks and with most streets living up to the “hill” in Hillsborough. The grade of the proposed cul-de-sac along with the increased traffic prevents the proposed street from being a substitute. • While it is impossible to know how many families have pulled off their training wheels and learned to ride their two-wheelers on Fagan, we do know there are currently 18 school-aged (or younger) children living inside the Fagan Estate gates—not including regularly visiting grandchildren.

Every bit of new traffic puts the residents, their children and the children of the neighborhood at greater risk. This proposal degrades the legacy of all those families who have trekked up here over 50 years, and strips the opportunity from generations to come. We urge the council to reject this proposal and preserve the Fagan Estates as they have thrived for over fifty years. -1-117- 51-
-118-
-119-
ATTACHMENT 6
-120-
-121-
1 Lisa Natusch
Subject: FW: 85 Fagan Drive Subdivision
Attachments: Feb 2023.02.08 Town Comments.docx; 11 July comments to City.docx From: James McDowell
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Doug Belcik <[email protected]>; Lisa Natusch <[email protected]> Cc: Caryn McDowell
Subject: Re: 85 Fagan Drive Subdivision
Hi Lisa and Doug -
Caryn and I would like to submit the attached comments on the new proposal for additional subdivision at 85-90 Fagan Drive. In our current comments, I refer to our previous submission (July 11, 2022), and have enclosed that for your convenience as well.

My understanding is that today is the deadline for publishing, although we may make additional comments that will get the coucil if we provide them by Monday.

I would also like a Yellow Card to present at the meeting, in case that is necessary. I plan to attend in person.
thank you!
best
James & Caryn
James McDowell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mcdowellj
-122-
We are James & Caryn McDowell, who own and reside at with our two daughters (Crocker class of 2022). We have lived on this lovely street since the spring 2016 and are heartbroken that we must return to the council to oppose another proposed subdivision that, further chops up the historic Fagan Estate. This proposed subdivision, close on the heels of the 2020 subdivision is an even more substantial change in character to the neighborhood, with almost 150 feet of new roadway, a new cul-de-sac. This proposal will fundamentally and irrevocably change our neighborhood and we are pleased that the Council will seriously consider our concerns.

After the Town Council approved a subdivision plan for 85 Fagan in 2020, the Applicant now returns to the town with another proposal to further subdivide the existing parcels, remove some of the existing roadway, and install a new road and cul-de-sac. The new proposed parcels do not conform to the Hillsborough code regarding subdivisions, and if approved, set a precedent that allows new developments and redevelopment to substantially change the character of the Town we all love, and force neighbors to violations of Town Code by others, while having lived with them ourselves.

As owners of the adjacent property on Fagan Drive, the extraordinary harm, destruction of value and inconvenience of road, and then home construction falls disproportionately on us. This harm includes the erosion of our quality of life (both short term and permanent), a decrease in the value of our property, and, since we work from home, added difficulty in pursuing our livelihoods.

The Proposal does not comply with Hillsborough Code regarding subdivisions The proposed subdivision does not meet the requirements of Title 16 Subdivisions rules of the Hillsborough Code. Each new parcel fails to meet the code independently. Specifically:

Conceptual Parcel B
This parcel fails to meet Hillsborough Code Section 16.08.030 D which requires lot lines to be “approximately at right angles to the street.”
The proposed property line between Conceptual Parcels A & B is at least 45 degrees from a right angle where it intersects the proposed cul-de-sac (this measurement is not provided on the plans).

It is also more than 70 degrees from than the lay of the proposed road line. As explained below, in addition to being a violation in and of itself, this improper angle (1) causes a substantial violation of the rule enumerated in 16.08.030 B and (2) creates an additional sharp and awkward angle at the rear of the property where it meets 45 Downey Way (identified as Black Hawk Ranch 30 Maps 3 Lot 6).

This parcel also fails to meet Section 16.08.030 B, which requires “the minimum width between any non-intersecting property lines of a lot shall be one hundred feet. That is, each point along a property line of a lot shall be at least one hundred feet away from each point along any other property line of the same lot.”
-123-
At the frontage on the proposed cul-de-sac, Conceptual Parcel B the distance between the proposed line between Parcels A & B and the line between Parcels B&C is just under 65 feet, well below the 100 minimum. Because of the violation of 16.08.030 D (immediately above), this violation continues for a much longer distance than it would if the property line met the requirements of 16.08.030 D, as noted above.

In this case, the multiple, substantial deviation from the Code, combined with the other lot lines in the neighboring lots (and entire Fagan subdivision) which meet this requirement, create exactly the odd shaped lot the rules are designed to prevent.

Conceptual Parcel C
This parcel also fails to meet Section 16.08.030 B. The frontage along the proposed extension to Fagan Dr. is less than 100’ from Oakdale Road), which borders the back of the property. This measurement is not provided on the plans; however, it can be calculated from the dimensions on the plans as provided.

Lot 16 – 80 Fagan Dr.

However, the most infuriating violation of Town Code is the part of the Conceptual plan proposing a quitclaim in favor of Lot 16 (80 Fagan Drive). In addition to the unanswered environmental issues as to the quality of the land and soil, chemical makeup of the existing pavement, the proposal would also force Lot 16 to have less than 150’ of road frontage in violation of Section 16.08.030 A. This measurement, like others that do not meet the Town Code, are not provided on the proposals, but must be calculated. Any move where a developer attempts to force a neighbor to violate a town ordinance should preclude that developer from doing any further business in the Town.

Quality of life/Quiet Enjoyment
• We deliberately purchased at the end of a street, surrounded by a large (and historic) wall, after living less than 50 feet from Broadway in Burlingame. The lack of traffic, the privacy, and the security of being one of only two homes at the end of the cul-de-sac were paramount in our decision. The minimal number of people living and working at 85 Fagan also appealed to us for both silence and security. • The proposed plan shows a home a mere 20 feet from our lot, while the 2020 plan which the Council approved placed the home 60 feet away – three times further away, and more in line with the privacy common in Hillsborough. 20 feet feels like an invasion of privacy, while 60 feet is in line with community standards. • The maintenance work at 85 Fagan is now in its 16th month, subjecting us to excessive noise – everything from concrete cutting to landscaping equipment so large it is brought -124-
in on tractor-trailers – and a tremendous increase traffic, much of it heavy trucks and vehicles.
• There have also been multiple times the entire street has been closed as pavement has been torn up for undisclosed reasons. While we understand emergency work must be done, because the street is so little used, the construction teams did not include flagmen, even though the entire street was impassible at times.
• The street proposal is such that vehicles coming downhill from the new street (with a grade varying from 3.4% to over 11%) will have headlights pointed at our front door, which is flanked by two windows approximately 5 feet x 7.5 feet. This intrusion will shine through our open-plan house fully to the backyard, which can be viewed through our home while standing on the front walk—a design allowed by the privacy of the location as it currently exists. We also understand some residents on Jackling have been getting lights into the 2nd floor of their homes from construction vehicles at the site currently.
• By increasing traffic and moving the street, the site selection made by the architect of our home (Claude Oakland, of Eichler fame) is undermined, and our expansive windows and sliding glass doors change from an asset to liability - fundamentally changing our enjoyment of, and the value of our property.

Decrease in Property Value
As we all know, property value is often “location, location, location.” The proposal changes our neighborhood and entirely removes the value we have being on a cul-de-sac, and if approved, transfers that value directly to not one, but two properties owned by the applicant.

Difficulty in Pursuing a Livelihood
As noted above, the work currently being performed is very loud and disturbs us on most days.

This is not just unnerving and an inconvenience but because the built-in workstation for our office is on the 2nd floor, there is a straight shot from the noise to our workspace. This makes phone and video calls impossible to complete at times during the work day.

Unanswered questions about the quitclaim from the Town
The proposal indicates the Town will quitclaim a triangle of land to Lot 16. In smaller type, the proposal indicates the existing fire hydrant will be removed and our water meter must be moved.

For us to consider the quitclaim the Town must address the following issues with concrete proposals:
-125-
• Who will perform this work moving water mains, water meters, electric services and sewer – and how will they be held accountable to a high standard of care. • What is the landscaping requirement for the area quitclaimed? • Provide an environmental report indicating what sort of pollutants exist in the road, or under it, and whether the demolition will disturb them. This must address issues of pollutants draining to the bay or public sewers during demolition. • How will the Town remediate pollutants identified in the environmental report? • Will the slope and drainage of the quitclaim be integrated with the existing slope of Lot 16?
• Will the geologic characteristics be integrated into our existing yard? • Will the Town grant permits without cost for us to landscape in accord with our existing landscape? If not, how will the Town reimburse us for any requirements to hire a landscape architect or other professionals of our choosing? If current requirements, such as parking strips are necessary, how will the Town reimburse us for this?
• Where is the water main? Will moving the street require additional access to our yard for moving water or other utilities? How long will we lose water during the various construction phases?
• Where is sewer main? What other concerns should we have relating to sewer? • How will the existing fence between 80 and 85/90 Fagan be extended? Will it match the existing fencing? Will it integrate with the existing road-fronting fence we have? • Will this work damage our current irrigation system (recently updated for water savings)?
• What are the tax consequences of receiving additional land? The proposal has only a single beneficiary – the applicant who freely admits the intent is to sell these lots and be gone. However, because of the remoteness of the Fagan Estates subdivision, the harm will fall on existing Hillsborough residents who have lived here for years, and intend to stay. Although there is a number of residents who will suffer, as the immediate neighbor, the vast majority of this harm will fall on us.

The engineer’s letter coyly suggests that if approved, the two lots will be “purchased by affluent younger couples” and disavows knowledge of what construction will take place or when. The letter also makes “no attempt…to address landscape grading, decorative walls, staircases etc.” It also disavows issues relating to lot coverage and floor area ratios.

While kicking the can down the road may be beneficial for their application, we neighbors know that adds more burdens to us. We can easily see approval of this plan leading to:
• A 12-month project for demolition of the existing road, building the new road, and implementing any “temporary grading” and other measures to prepare the lots for sale.

This likely will cause unpredicted and times of utilities being unavailable at 80 Fagan as the water meter is moved and electrical connections changed • A second 12 month period for the first home to pass through ADRB and other permitting process
• Then 30-36 months of construction of the first home
-126-
• Another 12 months for ADRB and town review of the second home, and then • Another 30-36 months for construction of a second home.

A best-case scenario appears to be five years of disruption on top of the 15 months (and counting) we have already endured, while a worse case could easily exceed eight years.

As we can all see, all burdens of the proposal fall on us and other long-term neighbors of the Fagan Estates, while all benefits and value accrue to someone who does not live here and will not suffer the endless noise and disruption the proposed construction guarantees. Fagan has only one entry/exit, few families, and a character uncommon, even here in Hillsborough. It is not a major thoroughfare like Sharon Drive, with its extra setback, providing access to huge parts of town, with multiple entries and exits. Our Fagan neighbors have expressed deep concern, and none of have been supportive of the proposal—how can this proposal possible benefit the residents if we are unable to find a single neighbor in favor? Lastly, because Fagan is remote and dead-end, town inspectors, police and others only come here on occasion (and on request) – unlike locations closer to town hall or the corporation yard where the Town can stay apprised of developer compliance with ease. Because of this, we feel as though the development is less likely than most to adhere to noise regulations, time day restrictions and any agreements the developers of the various properties may make.

If the proposal can overcome the multiple code violations, to be properly evaluated, the proposal should at a minimum address the following issues:
• How does the Applicant propose to protect our access to our property (and those of 60 & 70 Fagan)? We have been blocked in by full street closures recently. • The Applicant must propose a reasonable time period for construction of the roadway and a reasonable period for construction of the two homes – which must be done simultaneously. As noted above, serial construction of the new homes could create disruptions for nearly a decade! This would be a menace for all residents on Fagan Drive, as well as some on Oaks and Downey.
• How does the Applicant plan on mitigating noise during road construction? Ongoing maintenance behind the gates of 85 Fagan already makes working difficult – noise will be substantially worse when the work is OUTSIDE the gates. • How does the Applicant plan on mitigating noise during home construction? Again, noise levels make it difficult to work and study.
• Applicant must propose all construction vehicles will be parked on Applicant’s property, or at a remote location, for safety and access issues.
• Applicant should propose a mitigation and repair strategy for all of Fagan Dr, which will suffer from years of truck traffic.
• Applicant (or Town) will install a Fire hydrant at the border of Lot 16 and proposed Parcel C.
• Applicant should propose an indemnity to neighbors for violations of any agreement with the neighboring properties, any plans approved and any expenses incurred by neighbors due to the proposal, including recording fees, tax burdens, title searches, loss of value for site variations, and recording fees.
-127-
• Applicant, the Town, and the Fagan, Oaks and Downey residents must agree on an enforcement mechanism for any violation of code or agreements during construction – this should include automatic monetary penalties.

In Conclusion
We believe the Council is well-versed in analyzing the public safety issues such as fire risk, density, traffic, and utilities, including the unreliable above-ground electric that serves the Fagan Estates, and assume these issues will be properly considered. We also enclose our comments from the applicant’s failed attempt at a similar subdivision in July of 2022, which raise numerous safety issues that the Applicant has failed to address. We also stand to lose the quality of life we sought out in moving to Hillsborough, as we look at the possibility of construction for a period longer than we have lived here.

The proposal as it stands appears unique in the recent history of Town—we were unable to find proposals with new roads and quitclaims either recently approved or rejected by the Town. We believe the proposal lacks sufficient detail for its unique nature and is not even the best way to access the lots if they are approved. The proposal should be rejected recognizing (a) the multiple code violations required to create the subdivision and (b) that the original Fagan Estate went through sub-division in 1967, 2003 and 2020 and all reasonable development in line with Hillsborough’s unique character has been done. If the proposal is not rejected, it should be reconsidered in favor of access via Oakdale, a larger street, with two-way access via both Jackling and Carmelita, which would make construction access substantially easier, and give residents the ability to always come and go freely even if the road needed to be blocked, and address the concerns raised by us and the other residents of Hillsborough. -128-
We are James & Caryn McDowell, who own and reside at with our two daughters (Crocker class of 2022). We have lived on this quiet street since 2016 and are heartbroken to learn about the proposal to fundamentally and irrevocably change our neighborhood (and likely Blackhawk neighbors) and we are pleased that the Council will seriously consider our concerns.

When we purchased our home at we deliberately chose the location for its quiet and seclusion, as well as the site placement of the home. The title search we had at the time showed a single home at 85 Fagan tucked away on a single lot of 3 acres. In 2020, the Council approved subdivision of 85 Fagan into two parcels. Now, the owner and/or applicant proposes to remove our cul-de-sac and gain two building sites on a cul-de-sac for themselves. This dramatically and permanently alters the character, and peace we specifically sought when we found and purchased our home and also affects our property value.

Concern #2: issues surrounding utilities – both convenience and safety • In addition to the water and sewer questions below, what is the overall plan for water and sewer?
• Fagan and Sheldon already experience a large number of electric blackouts (we have had more in the last 3 years than we did in the 10 years we lived in Burlingame). What is the electric upgrade plan to support additional homes?
• Will all utilities be underground?
• Where will the gas lines run?
-130-
• Can the water main support additional homes? Or will there be an additional project to address that?
Concern #3: Issues of our own quiet enjoyment and our ability to make a living We have been working from home for several years now, and with the fundamental shift in workplace behavior ushered in by the pandemic, this situation appears permanent for us. The recent work on the driveway at 85 Fagan introduced jackhammers, concrete destruction and stone cutting to the area, making it nearly impossible to conduct phone calls or video conferences for several days. Destroying part of the road and building a new one will be substantially worse and burden both our personal and business lives.

Concern #6: Unanswered questions about the gift of land from the City The proposal indicates the City will gift us a triangle of land. In smaller type, the proposal indicates the existing fire hydrant will be removed and our water meter must be moved. There is no mention of the costs or who will perform this work, and how careful they will be. Further, the -131-
first we learned of this was when the City provided plans to us – no one from the developers ever mentioned this to us. We also do not see anything addressing the points below. Nor do we know if these are even the most pressing items, as “free land” is so uncommon, we do not know where to start an evaluation.
• What is the landscaping requirement for the area where 50-year-old road will be jackhammered and removed?
• What sort of pollutants exist in the road, or under it, and will be disturbed? Will these drain to the bay or public sewers when it rains? Who will remediate? How? • What is the quality of the underlying soil – is it arable for plans or does it contain old chemicals?
• Will the slope and drainage of the site change?
• Will the geologic characteristics be integrated into our existing yard? • Will the City grant permits (without cost) for us to landscape in accord with our existing landscape? Will we be reimbursed for any requirements to hire a landscape architect or other professionals off our choosing? Or will current requirements require us to remodel the entire area?
• Where is the water main? Will moving the street require additional access to our yard for moving water or other utilities? How long will we lose water during the various construction phases?
• Where is sewer main? What other concerns should we have relating to sewer? • Will the existing fence between 80 and 85/90 Fagan be extended? Will it match the existing fencing? Will it integrate with the existing road-fronting fence we have? • Will this work damage our current irrigation system (recently updated for water savings)? • What are the tax consequences of receiving additional land? Concern #7: Positioning of the revised street
• The street proposal is such that vehicles coming downhill from the new street will have headlights pointed at our front door, which is flanked by two windows approximately 5 feet x 7.5 feet, and will shine through our open-plan house (the backyard can be viewed through our home while standing on the front walk).
• By increasing traffic and moving the street, the site selection made by the architect of our home (Claude Oakland, of Eichler fame) is undermined, and our expansive windows change from an asset to liability, with the proposed street pointing at our home - fundamentally changing our enjoyment of, and the value of our property.

We urge the Council to make several Site Visits (unannounced) before making any decision to better understand the lack of regard to safety and for the neighbors shown by the applicant
As noted above, at one time today, there were more than 7 large trucks parked around our house (including several in front of the fire hydrant). Two trucks and at least one car drove around the blind curve today at an excessive speed. This needs to be seen to be appreciated -132-
In Conclusion
We believe the Council is well-versed in analyzing the public safety issues such as fire risk, density, traffic and utilities, including the unreliable above-ground electric that serves the Fagan Estates, so I want to emphasize the intangibles here:
• The Fagan Estate itself is one of the original mansions of Hillsborough, and the 1967 subdivision (and further division in 2022) have created and maintained a wonderful and safe enclave that cannot be reproduced—and should not be destroyed. • Innumerable families have and continue to visit Fagan for its seclusion, peace and safety.

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
9 PUBLIC HEARING

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.16, 8.28,

14.04, 16.44, AND 17.56 OF THE HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TREE

PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(b)(3), 15307, 15308, 15378(b)(2) AND (b)(5)
SUMMARY: In September 2021, staff presented an informational item on existing tree protection guidelines and comparative research on guidelines in other, nearby jurisdictions. City Council provided preliminary direction to develop a short-term work plan as well a longer-term plan to revise the tree protection guidelines in Town. In October 2021, staff presented a short-term work plan focused on public education as well as a long-term work plan to update Town ordinances related to tree preservation and protection. In February 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract to update the Town’s ordinances related to tree preservation and protection.

The contract was awarded to Dudek to complete the following project objectives:
• Provide community engagement through the process
• Update the Town’s tree removal ordinance(s) in coordination with related ordinances to include industry best practices
• Provide recommendations and analysis of innovative ways to protect and increase the sustainability benefits of trees in Town
• Provide on-call consultation services, as needed to provide advice or lead portions of ordinance implementation
The project team working on the ordinance update has extensive understanding and experience in the key roles of arboriculture and urban forestry, fire management in open-space and wildlandurban interface (WUI) areas, modeling fire behavior and wildfire hazard conditions, community outreach and engagement efforts (community meetings, survey design and analysis, etc.), and preparation and assessment of ordinance language.

The project team worked with staff to gather background information and work directly with the community to solicit feedback throughout this process. A summary of the outreach activities include:
• Interviews with staff in key departments: Building & Planning, Public Works, Police, the City Attorney’s Office, and the City Manager’s Office
• Interviews with community stakeholders from Firewise, Hillsborough Beautification Foundation, City Council, and the broader community
• Community survey with 240 respondents
-135-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

• Listening session conducted in a hybrid setting to solicit feedback on potential ordinance changes
• Focus group session with volunteers to serve as a focus group on proposed ordinance changes
As a result of the outreach and subject-matter expertise, the proposed ordinance updates reflect the feedback received. A summary of the major changes is provided below, with additional detail available in Attachment 3.
• A town qualified arborist shall be the authorized officer to determine whether a tree is dead, diseased, infested or dying for purposes of whether the tree constitutes a nuisance. Easements were also added to the list of locations that could be affected by trees as nuisances, giving the Town the authority to cite easement holders accordingly. • New definition of “protected tree”: All species with a diameter of 18”, measured at 4 feet, 6 inches above grade (diameter at breast/standard height, [DSH]). Creating a definition of a protected tree will address a need to clarify how the city treats trees at different sizes. A decrease from 36” to 18” will enable the Town to protect more trees that are middle-aged and provide the greatest quantity of environmental services available to the Town. This change will result in increased tree removal permits submitted to Town staff, which will increase staff resources needed to complete permits. However, staff is recommending approval of this measure despite the additional staff resources required, as the environmental benefits of preserving more trees outweighs the minimal cost to the Town in the form of additional staff hours.
• The actions that constitute removal of a tree were updated to reflect International Society of Arboriculture (“ISA”) standard language, and to include that a townqualified arborist shall be the authorized agent to determine if actions taken shall permanently compromise the health and safety of a tree. • A new section was added to address a need for protected tree replacement requirements to appear in the municipal code. This includes that all protected trees that are removed must be replaced with 1 tree that is of the same species or suitable alternative; that is, a 24” box size. The property owner must replace the tree if it dies within 6 months, and the future property owners must continue to maintain the tree. If the site cannot support new tree planting, in-lieu fees to the Town’s tree preservation fund will be required. • New penalties for violation include that if a tree is not able to be restored to its former condition, a penalty will be assessed of either $150 per inch of trunk diameter of the removed tree, or the appraised value of the removed tree as determined by the 10th Edition ISA Guide for Plan Appraisal, whichever is greater. An additional fee may be assessed to mitigate damages caused during the tree removal. • A replacement tree of a species approved by the town that is 36” box size will be required to be planted within 6 months if a town qualified arborist determines the damaged tree cannot be restored to its original condition. -136-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

• Additional penalties and the withholding or revocation of building permits apply should a developer violate the chapter. The Building & Planning Department may suspend any permit processing or issue a stop work notice pending City Council review and shall request City Council to withhold permits for a maximum of 6 months if construction has begun, or revoke permits for constructions on properties that has not begun. The section also describes the process for seeking a hearing before the City Council if the illegal removal or relocation of protected trees takes place.

FISCAL IMPACT: Potential fiscal impacts of enforcing the ordinance and other required implementation costs include retaining an arborist firm for assistance and increasing the amount of overall Town staff time required to process additional tree-related permits. The existing professional services budget will be used to pay for the costs incurred by the arborist consultants, and the Town has already budgeted sufficient money through 2023 to provide for the additional Town staff time that may be required. Staff will return to Council or incorporate these costs into next year’s budget process if additional funding is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3), and, alternatively, is exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guideline sections 15307 and 15308 as an action authorized by local ordinance to maintain, restore, or enhance a natural resource. Finally, the proposed action is also exempt from CEQA under 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:

1. Ordinance

2. Exhibit A – Redline Ordinance Sections
PREPARED BY: Mandy Brown, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and waive further reading of the ordinance titled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough, California Amending Chapters 8.16, 8.28, 14.04,

16.44, 17.56 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating Tree Protection and Preservation” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, 15308, 15378(b)(2) and (b)(5). -137-
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.16, 8.28, 14.04, 16.44, AND 17.56 OF THE HILLSBOROUGH

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(b)(3), 15307, 15308, 15378(b)(2) AND (b)(5)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH HEREBY FINDS AND ORDAINS:

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract to update the Town’s ordinances related to tree preservation and protection; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the desired outcome of the Ordinance update is to promote tree preservation and environmental sustainability while balancing property rights and implementation efficiency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the Ordinance update process evaluated current issues and successes with the existing ordinance and explored options for changes based on evidence and best practices in other communities and industry experts, as well as input from residents and community members; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Ordinance updates will meet the Town’s stated goals of increasing clarity and effectiveness of ordinance implementation for tree removal and replacement, and accordingly, adopts the following amendments to the Hillsborough Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Chapters 8.16, 8.28, 14.04, 16.44, and 17.56 are hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference. All provisions of those chapters not affected by the adoption of this Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect unless and until the Town amends or repeals them at a later date.

Section 2. Environmental review is not required because adoption of the Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(5) (organization or administrative activities of governments not a project), and, alternatively, is exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guideline sections 15307 and 15308 as an action authorized by local ordinance to maintain, restore, or enhance a natural resource. The Ordinance updates are intended to enhance the level of tree protection provided by the Town’s current Ordinance, while providing more clarity and better enforcement procedures.

No direct or indirect impacts to the environment are anticipated as a result of adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase in this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid, the validity of -138-
ATTACHMENT 1
2 the remainder of this Ordinance or the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases or the application thereof to any person or circumstance be held invalid.

Section 4. No less than five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk published a summary of this Ordinance in accordance with Government Code section 36933. The City Clerk will certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough, California, and cause a summary to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in the City in accordance with Government Code section 36933.

Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023. __________________________________
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
______________________________
Attest: City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the Town of Hillsborough introduced on____________, and adopted on _____________, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-139-

EXHIBIT A
-140-

Page 1 of 18 ends

Chapter 8.16 NUISANCES

8.16.030 Nuisances—Affecting peace and safety.

The following are expressly declared to be public nuisances adversely affecting the public peace and safety:

A. Storage, leakage, release or use of any explosive, flammable liquid or other dangerous, toxic or hazardous substance in any manner or in any amount other than as permitted pursuant to this code and county, state and federal law; B. All loud and unusual noises and annoying vibrations which offend the peace, quiet and tranquility of persons of ordinary sensibilities;
C. 1. All buildings and other structures including, without limitation, towers as defined in Chapter

15.36 and including alterations, or parts thereof, made or erected in violation of ordinances prescribing the location, size, manner and materials of construction;

2. Any tarp or other similar covering on any portion of a structure or on any land area, which tarp or covering has become torn or otherwise unsightly or which, regardless of condition, has remained in place longer than one year.

D. All obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use or free passage over or on the public streets, roads, driveways, alleys, sidewalks, rights‐of‐way or public grounds, except when permitted by laws and regulations or this code, and adequately protected with barriers, barricades, temporary covers and lights;
E. The keeping of any animals, birds or fowl, or permitting the keeping thereof, by the owner of any premises within the town, which by the sounds or normal crying of said animals, birds or fowl, might disturb the neighborhood or interfere with any person's reasonable, comfortable enjoyment of life and property;
F. Drainage water, rainwater, backwash water or other discharge from any building, structure, equipment, pool facility or other installation which flows across the public sidewalk area and interferes with the normal use of said area;
G. To conduct any business within the town which shall cause any noise or disturb the rest and quiet of the residents, due to the use of hand or power driven equipment or tools of any kind or size except that such business may be conducted between the hours of seven a.m. to five p.m., Mondays through Fridays and between the hours of eight a.m. to five p.m. on Saturdays. No such business may be conducted on Sundays or legal state holidays. Any use for the purpose of this section is a business use where the person, firm, corporation or association is doing the work either for a direct or indirect monetary gain or for the sale of the results of the work. Contractors may be exempted by the city manager from the provisions of this subsection if they are working at the instructions of the town on an emergency project; H. Except as installed by the town in order to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare:

1. Barbed wire fence,

2. Razor wire fence,

3. Any other fence with jagged or sharp edges or projections,

4. Electrified fence,
-141-
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 2 of 18 ends

5. Any wall with jagged or sharp edges or projections or incorporating barbed wire or razor wire, and

6. Any wire, twine, or rope fence (excepting any metal fence that has been approved by the architecture and design review board), consisting of one or more strands of wire, twine, or rope, any strand of which is located less than three feet above the surface of the ground and less than three feet from any public right‐of‐way (including streets, parking strips, and other public rights‐of‐way).

I. All dangerous, unguarded machinery, equipment, apparatus, installations, trenches, ditches, pools, or other construction or structures which are so situated or located and exposed in a manner to attract children or the general public;
J. Any tree or shrub determined by a Town qualified arborist to be dead, diseased, infested, or dying tree or shrub (or any other tree or shrub in any condition, including, but not limited to, completely healthy) on any property so near to a street, public right‐of‐way, or public utility easement as to constitute a danger to any public utility service, street, sidewalk, vehicle travel, person (other than the owner of the tree or shrub), or property (other than property belonging to the owner of the tree or shrub);
K. Hedges or dense, thorny shrubs extending into a street or public right‐of‐wayeasement; L. Any tree or portion thereof adjacent to or overhanging any public street in the town in such a condition as to (1) constitute a hazard or impediment to the progress or vision of anyone traveling on such public street or (2) otherwise interfere with the use of any street so as to endanger the life, health, safety or property of the public. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the town, its officers, or employees, nor to relieve the owner of any private property from the duty to keep any tree upon his or hertheir property or under his or her control in such a condition as to prevent it from constituting a public nuisance.

M. Any fence, wall or hedge that violates the restrictions imposed by Chapter 12.20; N. Generation of intense glare or heat that adversely affects use and enjoyment of neighboring property or confuses or interferes with travel along a street or sidewalk; O. Excavations or ponds that are open and attractive to persons; P. Any other act, occupation or use of property that in fact endangers or jeopardizes the public peace and safety; or
Q. Any violation by a property owner or other responsible person of any order issued by the hearing panel pursuant to Section 8.16.070 hereof.
(Ord. 654 § 8, 2004; Ord. 633 § 1, 2002; Ord. 624 §§ 1, 2, 2001; Ord. 618 § 3, 2001; Ord. 609 § 2, 2000; Ord. 597 § 1, 1999; Ord. 557 §§ 6—8, 1997; Ord. 361 § 1, 1978; Ord. 6.4.12)

8.16.035 Nuisances—Property.

The following are expressly declared to be public nuisances adversely affecting the public health, peace, safety or welfare and are deemed to be an offense against property:

A. Buildings or structures which are structurally unsafe or which constitute a fire hazard or which are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which, in relation to existing use, constitute -142-

Page 3 of 18 ends

a hazard to safety or health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, abandonment or otherwise;
B. Subsidence or surface water drainage problems of such magnitude as to be injurious or potentially injurious to the public or adjacent properties whether caused by grading operations, excavations or fill, by building stormwater drains, or as a result of the topography, geology or configuration of the land in its natural state; C. Debris, litter, dirt, overgrown vegetation, dead trees or plant materials or weeds on a property which are visible from a street or public right‐of‐way which constitute a fire hazard, potential to become a fire hazard or a likely harborage for vermin; D. 1. Buildings, fences or other structures which are or have been abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, in need of repair or maintenance, or permitted to remain in a state of partial construction, whether or not any building permit has expired, and which have been in such condition for at least twelve months or, if an insurance claim has been filed with respect to such structure, for at least six months after settlement of the insurance claim; provided, however, that any structure that has been in such condition for at least twelve months shall be deemed a nuisance hereunder regardless of the status of any insurance claim;

2. Story poles that have remained on site longer than thirty days after the planning office staff has notified the property owner in writing that the story poles are to be removed shall be deemed a nuisance hereunder;

3. Construction projects in violation of Chapters 15.26 and 15.30 relating to implementation of construction management requirements and time limits for completion of construction shall be deemed a nuisance hereunder; E. Partially chipped or peeling exteriors of buildings or structures causing or tending to cause dry rot, warping or termite infestation, or buildings or structures left unpainted, unstained, partially unpainted or partially unstained for more than three months; F. Buildings with an exterior door or doors missing or with windows containing broken glass or no glass at all where the window is of a type which normally contains glass; G. Trees, weeds or other vegetation which, by reason of being overgrown, dead, decayed or diseased or location, are:

1. Likely to harbor rats, vermin or other nuisances, or

2. A clear and present risk of physical injury to inhabitants or occupants of the premises or to the public, or as determined by a Town qualified arborist

3. By virtue of the excessive amount or exotic character, inconsistent with community standards or the aesthetic character of the community, or are an interference with the interest of others in the use, enjoyment or value of their property, or

4. Hanging closer than fourteen feet above the surface of, or blocking or obstructing, a public right‐of‐way (including street, parking strip, or other public right‐of‐way), driveway, or alley, or

5. Obstructing the sight of drivers of vehicles at street intersections; H. Landscaping which is negligently maintained or permitted to become overgrown, rank and unsightly;
-143-

Page 4 of 18 ends

I. Any wrecked, disabled, inoperative, salvaged or dismantled vehicle, vessel, equipment, appliance or part stored or parked in front or side yard areas where the vehicle, vessel, equipment or parts are visible from a street, public right‐of‐way or adjacent property; J. Storage of boxes, litter, garbage, broken or discarded furniture, household equipment, appliances, vehicle parts, shopping carts or other refuse in front, rear or side yards for more than five days if visible from the street or for more than one month if not visible from the street;
K. The presence of any building or object, whether natural or manmade, which, whether in its original condition or that in which it is allowed to remain, is attractive to children and in which potential hazards exist, such as:

1. Abandoned, broken or neglected equipment or machinery, or

2. Pools, ponds or excavations inadequately protected;
L. Garbage cans, recycling bins or other containers stored for more than twenty‐four hours in front or side yards and visible from the public street; M. Neglect of premises:

1. To spite neighbors,

2. To influence zone changes, or

3. To cause a detrimental effect upon nearby property or property values; N. Maintenance of premises in such condition as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or in such manner as to constitute a public nuisance; O. Property maintained in such condition as to become so defective, unsightly or in such condition of deterioration or disrepair that the same causes appreciable diminution of the property values of surrounding properties or is materially detrimental to nearby properties and improvements;
P. Maintenance of premises so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties as to cause substantial diminution of the enjoyment, use or property value of such adjacent properties;
Q. Property having clotheslines, bedding or laundry in a front yard or in any other location which is not appropriately screened from public view;
R. Violation of Chapter 10.56;
S. Unlandscaped areas of developed lots if the areas have remained unlandscaped for at least three months (or such longer period as allowed by the deadlines set forth in Section

17.56.090) and are visible from any street or public right‐of‐way; T. Treehouses, platforms or similar structures constructed on or within a tree or shrub in front or side yards which are visible from any street or public right‐of‐way; U. Accumulation of animal excrement or decayed vegetation in any front, rear or side yard, constituting an unsightly appearance, danger to public health, safety or welfare or which is visible from any street or public right‐of‐way or which creates a noticeable odor; V. All other acts, occupations, and uses of property, which are nuisances, including, but not limited to, all violations of Title 17.
-144-

Page 5 of 18 ends

(Ord. 652 § 5, 2003; Ord. 639 §§ 4, 28, 2003; Ord. 631 § 1, 2002; Ord. 624 §§ 3, 4, 2001; Ord. 608 § 28 (part), 2000; Ord. 597 § 2, 1999; Ord. 557 § 9, 1997)
(Ord. No. 739, § 1, 7‐11‐2016)
Chapter 8.28 VOLUNTARY RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES REGARDING TREES AND VIEWS

8.28.010 Purpose and intent.

A. In enacting this chapter, the city council desires to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between owners of adjoining properties within the town concerning the obstruction of views or the obstruction of sunlight caused by the growth of trees, groves, shrubs or other vegetation. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by providing a means to resolve disputes regarding trees and views in order to preserve peace between neighbors and to preserve the property values and quality of life in the town.

B. The city council finds that the character and beauty of the town and the enjoyment and value of real property therein is dependent in part upon preserving views and access to sunlight and at the same time upon preserving the scenic beauty and environmental protections afforded by trees, groves, shrubs and other vegetation. The city council further finds that the trees within the town contribute importantly to the privacy and serenity valued by the inhabitants of the town. Thus, the intent of this chapter is not to diminish the number or variety of trees in the town or the privacy afforded by them, but rather to preserve, where possible, conditions as they existed at the time the owners in question purchased their property. That is, if a view existed at the time the property owner purchased the property in question ("time of purchase"), that view is to be preserved to the extent practical, from subsequent encroachment by trees and other vegetation. If, however, at the time of purchase, trees or other vegetation already existed in the location complained of and at roughly the height or mass complained of, then such trees or vegetation are not required by this chapter to be removed or reduced to create or improve a view beyond the state of such view at the time of purchase.
(Ord. 606 § 2 (part), 2000: Ord. 406 § 1 (part), 1985)

8.28.020 Unreasonable obstruction prohibited—Definitions of certain terms.

No tree, grove, shrub or other vegetation shall be planted, maintained or permitted to grow upon any parcel of property in the town in such manner as to obstruct unreasonably the view from, or the sunlight reaching, any other adjoining parcel of property. The term "adjoining parcel" shall include any parcel located directly across the street from the parcel in question. One parcel shall be "directly" across the street from another if a line drawn perpendicular to any point along the common boundary of either parcel and the street shall intersect any point along the common boundary of the other parcel and the same street. The term "unreasonably," as used in this section, means that the detriment to the adversely affected parcel caused by such growth is greater than the benefit of such growth to the parcel upon which it is located. The view from or sunlight reaching a parcel shall not necessarily be deemed to be unreasonably obstructed merely because it is not completely unimpeded. (Ord. 606 § 2 (part), 2000: Ord. 406 § 1 (part), 1985)
-145-

Page 6 of 18 ends

8.28.030 Complaint.

Any property owner (hereinafter "complainant") who believes that the view from or sunlight reaching his their property is being unreasonably obstructed, as defined in Section 8.28.020, shall contact the owner of the parcel upon which such obstruction is situated and attempt to resolve the problem.
(Ord. 606 §§ 2 (part), 3, 2000: Ord. 406 § 1 (part), 1985)

8.28.040 Complaints concerning town property.

If the obstructing growth is on the town's property, the city managera town qualified arborist shall determine whether the growth merits pruning, removal or other treatment and, notify the city manager and Building & Planning Official of the findings. within Within ten days after receipt of the complaint, the city manager shall notify the complainant in writing, by ordinary mail or personal delivery, of such determination. If the city town qualified arborist’s manager's determination is that pruning, removal or other treatment is appropriate, the city manager or Building & Planning Official shall so inform the complainant as set forth above and shall authorize the performance of such work. (Ord. 606 §§ 2 (part), 4, 2000: Ord. 406 § 1 (part), 1985)

8.28.060 Voluntary mediation and arbitration.

If the persons subject to the provisions of this chapter cannot resolve any dispute governed by this chapter on an informal basis, the complainant may offer voluntary mediation to the other party. Should mediation fail or be declined by the other party, the complainant may present the other party with a written claim and offer of voluntary binding arbitration within thirty days. If the other party declines such arbitration, then civil action may be pursued by the complainant to resolve the dispute. (Ord. 606 §§ 2 (part), 6, 2000: Ord. 429, 1986)
Chapter 14.04 TREE REMOVAL

14.04.020 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following words have the meaning respectively ascribed to them, unless otherwise specifically indicated in this chapter:

Town Qualified Arborist. “Town Qualified Arborist” means any certified arborist authorized to work on behalf of the town of Hillsborough.

Grove. "Grove" means a group of a least five woody plants of the same type with a diameter of six inches or more measured at four feet, six inches above natural grade.

Protected Tree. “Protected Tree” means:
-146-

Page 7 of 18 ends

1. Any tree species, which measures 18 inches or more in cumulative diameter, measured at four feet six inches above natural grade.

2. Any tree planted as a requirement tree for site development, tree permit condition, landscape plan removal replacement, or other designated condition by the city.

3. “Protected tree” does not include any tree grown or held for sale by a licensed nursery.

Removal of a Tree. "Removal of a tree" means any pruning, cutting, or damage to any portion of major surgery of the trunk of a tree, in the opinion of a town qualified arborist, which shall in effect permanently compromise the health and safety of a destroy the tree.

Tree. "Tree" means any woody plant which has a trunk with a diameter of twelve six inches or more measured at four feet, six inches above natural grade.

1. Trees shall be divided into two groups for the purpose of this definition, as follows:
a. Those which will sucker back after major surgery to the trunk, such as eucalyptus and poplar; and
b. Those which will not sucker back.

2. In the case of a tree which will sucker back, removal of a tree is defined as severance of the trunk less than ten feet above natural grade. In all other cases, removal is defined as major surgery to the tree which, in the opinion of a recognized consultant in tree care, has the effect of destroying the tree.

Tree Protection Plan. A “Tree Protection Plan” means a document prepared by a certified arborist stating the type of protection needed, steps required and approved work within the dripline or other designated protected areas near protected trees. The tree protection plan shall be included on all construction documents, specification documents, and explained to all contractors and subcontractors working on the subject project.

Tree Protection Zone. A “Tree Protection Zone” means a zone of protection that extends 5 feet from a tree’s dripline, or 15 feet from the trunk (whichever is greater), and shall be clearly delineated with protective fencing in order to clearly identify the area where no construction work is to take place. (Ord. 618 § 11 (part), 2001; Ord. 608 § 3 (part), 2000: Ord. 322 § 1, 1973; prior code § 100.7.20)

14.04.030 Procedure—In subdivisions.

A. All subdivision maps or divisions of land filed for tentative approval shall include an arborist report prepared by a certified arborist that clearly designates all protected trees and/or groves upon the property proposed for subdivision or division.; provided, however, that regarding areas to be dedicated to open space, only a general statement relating to species of trees will suffice. Those protected trees and/or groves proposed to be removed and those protected trees and/or groves proposed to be retained shall be shown by canopy size and species on the map. Any proposed additions or replacements of protected trees and/or groves shall also be indicated by canopy size at maturity and species on the map, and will require a tree removal permit.. -147-

Page 8 of 18 ends

B. Should a protected tree require removal in a subdivision, a protected tree removal permit must be submitted. A protected tree removal permit application, which can be obtained from the Building & Planning Department, must include the following:

1. A site plan including a map showing the location, species, and size of the tree(s);

2. An arborist report, which shall include a discussion of those matters city council shall consider in determining conditions to be imposed under this chapter as outlined in item J. of section

14.04.030;

3. A letter indicating why removal is requested,;

4. A statement indicating the number of replacement trees to be replanted and the nature of any associated maintenance; and

5. The appropriate fee as determined by the town. The fee is based on valuation; however, additional fees may be required based upon a determination by the town qualified arborist, or if a public notice must be prepared (depending on the scope and nature of the proposed removal).

C. Within three business days of submitting an application for tree removal, under this section, the property owner shall mail written notice to all the owners of record of each of the adjacent residential parcels, utilizing the mail notice template provided by the town, which shall include the following information:

1. Notice that a tree removal permit application has been submitted;

2. The anticipated start and end dates for removal;

3. Contact information for the town planning division; and

4. Contact information for the property owner.

D. Within one business day of completion of mailing, the property owner shall submit to the Building and Planning Department a completed and signed affidavit of mailing, utilizing the affidavit of mailing template provided by the town.

EB. A town qualified arborist shall review the arborist report to determine the accuracy of the report, and provide the findings to the city engineer. The city engineer shall, at the time the tentative subdivision map or application for division of land comes up for consideration by the city council or appropriate city officer, render his their opinion as to whether the tree removal and/or replacement proposal should be accepted, rejected or modified. In rendering such opinion, he they shall take into consideration the analysis of the town qualified arborist and recommendations adopted by resolution of the city council from time to time as to which trees are desirable and which undesirable for various purposes and locations within the town.

FC. The city council or other appropriate city officer shall, at the time of making its tentative approval, consider the report of the city engineer and any other pertinent information and either accept, reject, or modify the tree removal and/or replacement proposal made by the property owner under this chapter. A decision made by a city officer may be appealed to the City Manager. The City Manager or designee shall hear the appeal and issue a decision, which shall be final and not appealable to the City Council.
-148-

Page 9 of 18 ends

GD. The developer of the property shall, as a condition to the final approval of the subdivision map or division of land, agree in writing to comply with such conditions imposed under this chapter and secure the performance of such agreement in the same manner required by the "Subdivision Map Act" of the state of California for the installation of any improvement on the property involved. The agreement shall contain any conditions imposed by the town in regards to maintenance of existing protected trees and replacement of removed protected trees.

HE. The developer shall be required, as a part of the agreement, to submit a tree protection plan and establish a tree protection zone prior to the commencement of site development for any mark with paint theprotected trees and/or groves finally agreed to be retained. The tree protection zone will extend 5 feet from a tree’s dripline, or 15 feet from the trunk (whichever is greater), and shall be clearly delineated with protect the same by fencing or other appropriate means in order to clearly identify the area where no work is to take place. The developer tree protection plan shall also make adequate provisionsclearly define the steps to protect the root systems of such protected trees and/or groves during all periods of construction of improvements and/or grading operations.

IF. Final approval of a map by the town shall constitute a permit to remove any protected trees and/or groves designated on the tentative map as approved. Any changes in the protected trees and/or groves to be removed as so designated and approved by the town shall require an application for a new permit under the provisions of this chapter.

JG. The city council shall consider the following matters in determining conditions to be imposed under this chapter:

1. The type of trees, their desirability in the neighborhood, and the condition of the trees with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interferences with utility services;

2. Necessity to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements to allow reasonable economic enjoyment of the property upon which trees are located. The following should be considered in this context:
a. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the adverse impact; b. Alternative plans for development which will lessen the adverse impact on the removal; c. Assessment of the relationship between local short term benefit and detriment to the long term benefit and detriment (e.g., replacing open space with housing);

3. Topography of land and the effect of tree removal on erosion, soil retention, and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters;

4. Number of trees existing in the neighborhood on improved property and the effect of the tree removal on the neighborhood;

5. Good urban forestry practices, including, but not necessarily limited to, the number of healthy trees that a parcel of land will supportimplementing tree protection and mitigation measures to ensure no net loss canopy cover will occur.

HK. The city council may, upon motion, exclude any subdivision from the operation of this article which is subject to site or architectural control sufficient to accomplish the purpose of this chapter. (Ord. 618 § 11 (part), 2001; Ord. 608 § 3 (part), 2000: Ord. 322 § 1, 1973; prior code § 100.7.30) -149-

Page 10 of 18 ends

14.04.040 Procedure—Improved land other than subdivisions.

A. All protected tree removals require review and approval from the Building & Planning Department (by the Architecture and Design Review Board or administratively at the staff level). A tree removal permit must be obtained from the Building & Planning Official, or designee. No clearing for the construction of any improvement on lands other than for subdivision or division of lands shall be permitted or building permit issued without the site plan having first been approved by the city engineer or his authorized representative. Tree removal shall be planned and accomplished so as to preserve trees and other desirable plant life native to the area. Trees shall not be destroyed or removed solely for the sake of ease of construction. Only those trees may be removed which the city engineer deems necessary or desirable for the construction of improvements and the economic enjoyment of the property and the preservation of its natural setting.

B. Protected Ttree removal on improved land, not described in subsection A of this section, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 17.56.

C. A tree removal permit, issued by the Building & Planning Department, must include the following:

1. A site plan showing the location, species, and size of the tree(s);

2. An arborist report, which shall include a discussion of those matters city council shall consider in determining conditions to be imposed under this chapter as outlined in item F. of section

14.04.040;

3. A letter indicating why removal is requested,

4. A statement indicating the number of replacement trees to be replanted and associated maintenance.

D. Within three business days of submitting an application for a tree removal permit, under this section, the property owner shall mail written notice to all the owners of record of each of the adjacent residential parcels, utilizing the mail notice template provided by the town, which shall include the following information:

1. Notice that a tree removal permit application has been submitted;

2. The anticipated start and end dates for removal;

3. Contact information for the town planning division; and

4. Contact information for the property owner.

1.5.Within one business day of completion of mailing, the property owner shall submit to the building division a completed and signed affidavit of mailing, utilizing the affidavit of mailing template provided by the town.
-150-

Page 11 of 18 ends

C. Any additional planting proposed or required by the city engineer shall meet all the provisions of this code.

ED. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of Section 17.56.050, the city engineerBuilding & Planning Official, or designee, may issue a permit for the removal of a protected tree described in such subsection A, without review by the architecture and design review board, if the owner or occupant of the real property on which the protected tree is located presents a written opinion from a certified arborist that, because of disease or damage or danger to persons or property, the protected tree needs to be removed within the next thirty days. All written opinions presented to the town shall be reviewed by a town‐qualified arborist to verify the accuracy and assessment of the subject tree(s) identified for removal prior to approval of the Building & Planning Department.

F. The Building & Planning Department shall consider the following in determining their approval or denial:

1. Type of tree;

2. Desirability in the neighborhood;

3. Condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of falling, or interference with utility services;

4. Effect on erosion, soil retention, and the diversion or increased flow of surface water;

5. Good forestry practices;

6. Number of existing trees to remain;

7. Alternatives available.
(Ord. 654 §§ 16 (part), 17, 2004; Ord. 618 § 11 (part), 2001; Ord. 608 § 3 (part), 2000: Ord. 346 § 3, 1977; Ord. 322 § 1, 1973; prior code § 100.7.33)

14.04.050 Procedure—Unimproved land other than subdivisions.

A. No protected tree removal shall be permitted on any vacant unimproved land without first obtaining approval from the city engineer or his authorized representativea tree removal permit.

B. As part of the permit process, the following documents must be submitted:

1. A site plan showing the location, species, size of the tree(s);

2. An arborist report, which shall include a discussion of those matters city council shall consider in determining conditions to be imposed under this chapter as outlined in item F. of section

14.04.040;

3. A letter indicating why removal is requested,

4. A proposal for replanting and maintenance.

C. Within three business days of submitting an application for tree removal, under this section, the property owner shall mail written notice to all the owners of record of each of the adjacent -151-

Page 12 of 18 ends

residential parcels, utilizing the mail notice template provided by the town, which shall include the following information:

1. Notice that a tree removal permit application has been submitted;

2. The anticipated start and end dates for removal;

3. Contact information for the town planning division; and

4. Contact information for the property owner.

5. Within one business day of completion of mailing, the property owner shall submit to the building division a completed and signed affidavit of mailing, utilizing the affidavit of mailing template provided by the town.

DB. The city engineerBuilding & Planning Department shall consider the following in determining his their approval or denial:

1. Type of tree;

2. Desirability in the neighborhood;

3. Condition of the tree with respect to disease, danger of falling, or interference with utility services;

4. Effect on erosion, soil retention, and the diversion or increased flow of surface water;

5. Good forestry practices;

6. Number of existing trees to remain;

7. Alternatives available.
(Ord. 654 § 16 (part), 2004; Ord. 618 § 11 (part), 2001; Ord. 608 § 3 (part), 2000: Ord. 346 § 4, 1977; Ord. 322 § 1, 1973; prior code § 100.7.37)

14.04.055 Replacement
A. Protected trees approved for removal shall be replaced, unless the finding is made at the time of granting an application that the site is inadequate to support the required number of replacement trees, as follows:

1. Protected trees that prevent reasonable development shall be replaced within one year of removal by a minimum of one tree recommended or approved by the town qualified arborist.

Minimum replacement tree size shall be twenty four inch box. In the event that the replacement tree dies, continuing responsibility on the part of the property owner to replace the tree with one of comparable size, within six months of the replacement tree's demise, shall exist;

2. Continuing maintenance of required replacement trees by the property owner(s) or their successors shall be required.
-152-

Page 13 of 18 ends

B. In cases where a site cannot support all of the trees required for replacement purposes, the applicant may instead pay in‐lieu fees to the Town’s tree replacement fund according to a fee schedule established by resolution of the Building & Planning Department.

14.04.060 Violation—Penalty.

A. Any person who damages or destroys a tree, in violation of this chapter or any agreement entered into pursuant thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, if any tree has been so damaged or destroyed, the city engineerBuilding & Planning Official may require that such tree be restored to its former condition under the direction of, and to the approval of, the city engineer or,a Town qualified arborist.

B. iIf the tree is not capable of being restored to its former condition, or has been destroyed, a penalty will be assessed of either $150 per inch of trunk diameter of the removed tree, or the appraised value of the removed tree as determined by the 10th Edition International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Guide for Plan Appraisal, whichever is greater. An additional fee may be assessed to mitigate damages caused during the tree removal. In addition, a replacement tree will be required that is a minimum of 36‐inch box size and of a species approved by the Town, and that it be replaced within one yearsix months. after a determination by the city engineer that the tree is not able to be restored to its former condition, or within one year after the destruction of the tree, with a tree that has been approved by the city engineer.

CB. The city engineerBuilding & Planning Official shall base his their approval upon the similarity of size and species of the replacement tree to the tree which was destroyed unless such a replacement would create great hardship to such person subject to the requirements of this title.

D. The Building & Planning Official shall be responsible for making any necessary factual determination under this section and shall put such determination in writing and mail it to the person alleged to have caused the violation.

E. Whenever the person in receipt of a penalty for a violation of this Chapter disagrees with the determination of the Building & Planning Official regarding the tree(s) in question, that person may file a written request with the Building & Planning Official for reconsideration of their decision.

Such request must be filed within ten (10) days after the City has mailed to the applicant a written notice of the Building & Planning Official’s initial determination. Upon receipt of the request for reconsideration, the Building & Planning Official shall schedule a hearing to address the appellant’s responsibility for the death of the tree and/or the value of the replacement tree, whichever ground(s) the appellant has cited in their request for reconsideration. The Building & Planning Official shall consider the evidence submitted at the hearing and shall issue their final decision in writing and mail it to the appellant. The appellant may then appeal this decision to the city council if such appeal is filed in writing within ten (10) days after the Building & Planning Official’s decision was mailed. The city council shall issue a notice to the appellant, which notice shall state that the applicant or permittee may submit any evidence it deems relevant on this matter and that a hearing will be held on a date specified, no earlier than 20 days after the date of the mailing of the notice. The appellant shall be notified in writing of the city council's determination within 30 days of the hearing. The decision of the city council shall be final. Once the decision is final, any penalties and assessments may be collected by the Building & Planning Official. (Ord. 618 § 11 (part), 2001; Ord. 608 § 3 (part), 2000: Ord. 322 § 1, 1973; prior code § 100.7.40) -153-

Page 14 of 18 ends

14.04.070 Withholding or Revocation of Building Permits for Illegal Removal or Relocation of Protected Trees
A. The Building & Planning Department may suspend any permit processing or issue a stop work notice pending city council review, and shall have the authority to request the city council to withhold issuance of building permits, for up to a maximum of six months, and to revoke any building permit issued for which construction has not commenced, with respect to any property on which any protected tree or grove has been removed or relocated in violation of this Chapter

14.04. B. The request to withhold issuance of a building permit shall be made in writing by a staff representative of the Building & Planning Department and shall specifically state the start date and end date of the period of time for which staff has deemed the withholding to be necessary pursuant to Subsection D of this section. The period shall commence on the date the city council first becomes aware of the removal of the tree or grove; provided, however, the authority of the city council to act shall not apply to a purchaser, or to their agent, who in good faith and for valuable consideration has acquired title to the property subsequent to the illegal removal or relocation of any protected trees and prior to the recordation of the notice of intent as provided for in Subsection C of this section.

C. The city council shall notify the applicant or permittee in writing of its intent to act pursuant to this section. The notice shall state that the applicant or permittee may submit any evidence it deems relevant on this matter,. A hearing will be held on a date specified in the notice. A copy of the notice shall also be mailed to the owner of the property, if different from the applicant or permittee, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to any person holding a deed of trust, mortgage, or other security interest in the property as revealed by a title search with respect to the property. A copy of the notice shall also be recorded by the city council.

D. The city council hearing shall be set on a date no earlier than 20 days after the date of the mailing of the notice provided for in Subsection C above. At the hearing, if the facts indicate, the city council shall make a finding that the applicant or permittee is not a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration who acquired title to the property subsequent to the illegal removal or relocation of the protected tree or grove and prior to the recordation of the notice of intent as provided for in Subsection C above. In the event the city council finds that a protected tree or grove was removed or relocated in violation of Chapter 14.04 of this Code, it shall specify the length of time the issuance of building permits shall be withheld and whether building permits for which construction has not commenced shall be revoked. In making its determination, the city council shall consider the following factors:

1. The number of trees and/or groves removed or relocated;

2. The size and age of the trees or groves removed or relocated;

3. The knowledge and intent of the owners of the property with respect to the removal or relocation; and

4. Prior violations of law with respect to removal or relocation of protected trees and groves. -154-

Page 15 of 18 ends

The applicant or permittee shall be notified in writing of the city council's determination within 30 days of the hearing.

Chapter 16.44. Urban Lots Splits

16.44.050 Requirements.

8. Landscaping.
a. Protected Tree Removal.
i. No protected tree may be removed on a lot with any development under this chapter unless removal is necessary to constructing a dwelling unit that must be allowed under state law. All protected tree removal will be completed in accordance with Chapter 14.04. ii. "Tree" means any woody plant which has a trunk with a diameter of twelve inches or more measured at four feet, six inches above natural grade.

Protected tree. “Protected Tree” means:
a. Any tree species, which measures 18 inches or more in cumulative diameter, measured at four feet six inches above natural grade.
b. Any tree planted as a requirement tree for site development, tree permit condition, landscape plan removal replacement, or other designated condition by the city.
c. “Protected tree” does not include any tree grown or held for sale by a licensed nursery.
iii. A protected tree may only be removed under subsection J.8.a. above if it is completed in accordance with Chapter 14.04 and any associated tree replacement requirements. replaced with at least two mature trees of the same type and with a trunk diameter that is the same or larger than that of the removed tree.
b. Evergreen landscape screening must be planted and maintained between each dwelling and adjacent lots (but not rights of way) as follows:
i. At least one fifteen‐gallon size plant shall be provided for every five linear feet of exterior wall. Alternatively, at least one twenty‐four‐inch box size plant shall be provided for every ten linear feet of exterior wall.

In Town‐designated Wildland‐Urban Interface areas, trees used for screening must comply with Chapter 15.21.
ii. Plant specimens must be at least six feet tall when installed. As an alternative, a solid fence of at least six feet in height may be installed. In Town‐designated Wildland‐Urban Interface areas, trees used for screening must comply with Chapter 15.21.
iii. All landscaping must be drought‐tolerant.
-155-

Page 16 of 18 ends

Chapter 17.56 LANDSCAPING

17.56.010 Purpose.

A. The general purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by facilitating the proper and timely landscaping of all properties in keeping with the character of the Ttown and by insuring that substantial changes in existing landscaping are appropriate to the needs and standards of the community.

B. Additional, specific purposes of this chapter are (i) to reduce fire hazards caused by uncleared wild grasses, undergrowth, and dead growth, (ii) to mitigate erosion and storm water run‐off and to protect water quality, and (iii) to encourage efficient water use through proper landscape design and appropriate plant selection for the local climate. (However, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to mean that property developed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter is entitled to water in excess of that allocated for such property during periods of water rationing.) (Ord. 639 § 26 (part), 2003)
(Ord. No. 757, § 17, 10‐14‐2019)

17.56.020 Definitions.

For the purpose of this chapter:

Certified Arborist. “Certified Arborist” means an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) with current certification standing, meeting all current renewal requirements and continuing education requirements; or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) consulting arborist with current membership standing, meeting all continuing education requirements. "Grove" means a group of at least five woody plants of the same type with a diameter of six inches or more measured at four feet, six inches above natural grade. "Landscaped" means having had landscaping installed.
"Landscaping" means any one or combination of the following:

1. Installing or planting trees, shrubs, grass, or ornamental or other vegetation;

2. Installing or constructing decks, fences, walls, arbors, lighting fixtures, statuary, fountains, ponds, or other ornamental structures;

3. Arranging the land and the elements thereon by grading (which includes, but is not limited to, moving, altering, scarifying, excavating, digging, leveling, filling, tunneling, or scraping the natural topography);

4. Removing any tree (which includes, but is not limited to, major surgery to the trunk or major limbs of the treeany pruning, cutting, or damage to any portion of a tree which in the opinion of a Town qualified arborist, shall in effect permanently compromise the health and safety of a tree);

5. Demolishing any swimming pool;

6. Altering or potentially altering drainage or creating or potentially creating a soil erosion problem.
-156-

Page 17 of 18 ends

7. Installing or constructing green infrastructure measures, including, but not limited to, rain gardens and pervious pavement.

Protected Tree. “Protected Tree” means:

1. Any tree species, which measures 18 inches or more in cumulative diameter, measured at four feet six inches above natural grade.

2. Any tree planted as a requirement tree for site development, tree permit condition, landscape plan removal replacement, or other designated condition by the city.

3. “Protected tree” does not include any tree grown or held for sale by a licensed nursery.

Tree. "Tree" means any woody plant which has a trunk with a diameter of six inches or more measured at four feet, six inches above natural grade.

Town‐qualified arborist. “Town‐qualified arborist” means any certified arborist authorized to work on behalf of the Town of Hillsborough.

The foregoing notwithstanding, nothing in these definitions shall be deemed to preclude leaving the land in its natural state (if kept clear of dead vegetation) so long as that is consistent with the purposes set forth in Section 17.56.010.
(Ord. 639 § 26 (part), 2003)
(Ord. No. 757, § 18, 10‐14‐2019; Ord. No. 761, § 18, 1‐13‐2020)

17.56.040 Water conservation.

Landscaping shall comply with the town’s Town’s water conservation landscaping requirements as outlined in Chapter 15.29 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code. (Ord. 640 § 5 (part), 2003; Ord. 639 § 26 (part), 2003) (Ord. No. 689, § 4, 6‐14‐2010)

17.56.050 Landscaping projects subject to review and permitting.

Landscaping projects subject to the review and permit procedures of this chapter are the following:

A. Removing a protected tree as defined in this chapter.that has a trunk (or multiple trunks) with a total diameter of thirty‐six inches or more measured at four feet, six inches above natural grade. (Such tree removal shall also comply with Title 14.) B. Adding or moving fifty cubic yards or more of dirt or soil.

C. Rehabilitating more than ten thousand square feet of landscaped area.

D. Installing landscaping for a residence being newly constructed (either on a previously unimproved lot or on a lot whose previous residence has been torn down).

E. Synthetic grass in areas visible from the public right‐of‐way.

F. Removal of a grove of trees.
-157-

Page 18 of 18 ends

(Ord. 683 § 11, 2008: Ord. 654 § 26, 2004; Ord. 640 § 5 (part), 2003; Ord. 644 § 1, 2003; Ord. 639 § 26 (part), 2003)
(Ord. No. 715, § 11, 6‐9‐2014; Ord. No. 761, § 19, 1‐13‐2020) -158-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
10 OLD BUSINESS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2023 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
SUMMARY: An updated salary schedule, reflecting contractual obligations effective January 2023 was approved by the City Council at the January 9, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff discovered a mathematical error in the Communications Manager position salary calculation. The attached salary schedule has been corrected and is submitted for City Council approval.

The California Public Employees Retirement System requires the pay scheduled to be adopted at a public meeting of the governing body.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Salary Schedule
PREPARED BY: Kristin Armbruster, Human Resources Manager RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution adopting the 2023 Salary Schedule for the Town of Hillsborough pursuant to CEQA guideline 15378.
-159-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ADOPTING THE 2023 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough has established compensation rates for all positions in the Town of Hillsborough; and
WHEREAS, California Public Employees Retirement System requires a salary schedule to be adopted by the governing body of the agency at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, a mathematical error was discovered in the salary schedule that was submitted at the January 9, 2023 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the error has been corrected and the revised salary schedule (Exhibit A) is submitted for approval by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough adopts the Salary Schedule with changes effective for the positions noted effective January 2, 2023.

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-160-
ATTACHMENT 1
Merit positions
salary effective date Step A B C D E MOU
Accountant Bi-weekly 3,903 4,098 4,303 4,518 4,744 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,456 8,879 9,323 9,789 10,279
Annually 101,475 106,549 111,877 117,470 123,344
Accounting Technician Bi-weekly 3,101 3,256 3,419 3,590 3,769 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 6,719 7,055 7,408 7,778 8,166
Annually 80,626 84,656 88,894 93,340 97,994
Administrative Assistant Bi-weekly 2,768 2,906 3,051 3,204 3,364 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 5,997 6,296 6,611 6,942 7,289
Annually 71,968 75,556 79,326 83,304 87,464
Assistant City Manager Bi-weekly 7,516 7,892 8,287 8,701 9,137 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 16,285 17,099 17,955 18,852 19,796
Annually 195,416 205,192 215,462 226,226 237,550
Assistant Director of Building & Planning Bi-weekly 6,296 6,611 6,942 7,289 7,653 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 13,641 14,324 15,041 15,793 16,582
Annually 163,696 171,886 180,492 189,514 198,978
Assistant Director of Finance Bi-weekly 5,401 5,671 5,955 6,253 6,566 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 11,702 12,287 12,903 13,548 14,226
Annually 140,426 147,446 154,830 162,578 170,716
Assistant Engineer I Bi-weekly 3,579 3,758 3,946 4,143 4,350 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,755 8,142 8,550 8,977 9,425
Annually 93,054 97,708 102,596 107,718 113,100
Assistant Engineer II Bi-weekly 3,946 4,143 4,350 4,568 4,796 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,550 8,977 9,425 9,897 7,890
Annually 102,596 107,718 113,100 118,768 124,696
Assistant Planner Bi-weekly 3,670 3,853 4,046 4,248 4,461 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,952 8,348 8,766 9,204 9,665
Annually 95,420 100,178 105,196 110,448 115,983
Associate Civil Engineer Bi-weekly 4,665 4,898 5,143 5,400 5,670 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 10,108 10,612 11,143 11,700 12,285
Annually 121,290 127,348 133,718 140,400 147,420
Associate Planner Bi-weekly 4,220 4,431 4,653 4,886 5,130 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,143 9,601 10,082 10,586 11,115
Annually 109,720 115,206 120,978 127,036 133,380
Budget Analyst Bi-weekly 4,293 4,508 4,733 4,970 5,218 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,302 9,767 10,255 10,768 11,306
Annually 111,618 117,208 123,058 129,220 135,668
Town of Hillsborough Salary Schedule
Adopted 1/09/2023
-161-
ATTACHMENT 2
Building Attendant Hourly 15.50 20.00 Unrep
1/3/2022
Building Inspector I Bi-weekly 3,530 3,698 3,883 4,077 4,281 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,648 8,012 8,413 8,834 9,276
Annually 91,780 96,148 100,958 106,002 111,306
Building Inspector II Bi-weekly 3,883 4,077 4,281 4,495 4,720 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,413 8,834 9,276 9,739 10,227
Annually 100,958 106,002 111,306 116,870 122,720
Building Official Bi-weekly 5,336 5,603 5,883 6,177 6,486 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 11,561 12,140 12,747 13,384 14,053
Annually 138,736 145,678 152,958 160,602 168,636
Building and Planning Technician I Bi-weekly 2,768 2,906 3,051 3,204 3,365 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 5,997 6,296 6,611 6,942 7,290
Annually 71,968 75,556 79,326 83,304 87,478
Building and Planning Technician II Bi-weekly 3,045 3,197 3,357 3,525 3,701 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 6,598 6,927 7,274 7,638 8,019
Annually 79,170 83,122 87,282 91,650 96,226
Chief Building Official Bi-weekly 5,870 6,163 6,471 6,795 7,135 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 12,718 13,353 14,021 14,723 15,458
Annually 152,620 160,238 168,246 176,670 185,500
Chief of Police Bi-weekly 8,076 8,480 8,904 9,349 9,816 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 17,498 18,373 19,292 20,256 21,268
Annually 209,976 220,480 231,504 243,074 255,216
City Clerk Bi-weekly 4,827 5,068 5,321 5,587 5,866 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 10,459 10,981 11,529 12,105 12,710
Annually 125,502 131,768 138,346 145,262 152,516
City Manager Bi-weekly 10,507 Unrep
1/2/2023 Monthly 22,765
Annually 273,182
Code Enforcement Officer I Bi-weekly 3,362 3,530 3,706 3,891 4,086 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,284 7,648 8,030 8,431 8,853
Annually 87,412 91,780 96,356 101,166 106,236
Code Enforcement Officer II Bi-weekly 3,706 3,891 4,086 4,290 4,505 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,030 8,431 8,853 9,295 9,761
Annually 96,356 101,166 106,236 111,540 117,130
-162-
Communications Manager Bi-weekly 4,929 5,175 5,434 5,706 5,991 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 10,680 11,213 11,774 12,363 12,981
Annually 128,154 134,550 141,284 148,356 155,766
Communications Officer I Bi-weekly 3,303 3,460 3,633 3,815 4,006 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,157 7,497 7,872 8,266 8,680
Annually 85,878 89,960 94,458 99,190 104,156
Communications Officer II Bi-weekly 3,633 3,815 4,006 4,206 4,416 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,872 8,266 8,680 9,113 9,568
Annually 94,458 99,190 104,156 109,356 114,816
Community Service Officer Bi-weekly 2,690 2,824 2,965 3,113 3,269 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 5,828 6,119 6,424 6,745 7,083
Annually 69,940 73,424 77,090 80,938 84,994
Deputy Director of Public Works Bi-weekly 5,833 6,125 6,431 6,753 7,091 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 12,638 13,271 13,934 14,632 15,364
Annually 151,658 159,250 167,206 175,578 184,366
Director of Building and Planning Bi-weekly 7,488 7,862 8,255 8,668 9,101 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 16,224 17,034 17,886 18,781 19,719
Annually 194,688 204,412 214,630 225,368 236,626
Director of Finance Bi-weekly 7,488 7,862 8,255 8,668 9,101 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 16,224 17,034 17,886 18,781 19,719
Annually 194,688 204,412 214,630 225,368 236,626
Director of Public Works - City Engineer Bi-weekly 8,002 8,402 8,822 9,263 9,726 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 17,338 18,204 19,114 20,070 21,073
Annually 208,052 218,452 229,372 240,838 252,876
GIS Coordinator Bi-weekly 4,062 4,265 4,478 4,702 4,937 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,800 9,240 9,702 10,187 10,697
Annually 105,604 110,884 116,428 122,250 128,362
GIS Technician Bi-weekly 3,692 3,877 4,071 4,274 4,488 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,000 8,400 8,820 9,261 9,724
Annually 96,003 100,804 105,844 111,136 116,693
HR Manager Bi-weekly 5,130 5,386 5,655 5,938 6,235 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 11,115 11,670 12,253 12,866 13,509
Annually 133,380 140,036 147,030 154,388 162,110
Lead Communications Officer Bi-weekly 3,815 4,006 4,206 4,416 4,637 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,266 8,680 9,113 9,568 10,046
Annually 99,190 104,156 109,356 114,816 120,557
Lead Facilities Worker Bi-weekly 3,427 3,598 3,778 3,967 4,165 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,425 7,796 8,186 8,595 9,024
Annually 89,102 93,548 98,228 103,142 108,290
Lead Maintenance Worker Bi-weekly 3,264 3,427 3,598 3,778 3,967 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,072 7,425 7,796 8,186 8,595
Annually 84,864 89,102 93,548 98,228 103,142
-163-
Maintenance Worker I Bi-weekly 2,515 2,635 2,767 2,905 3,050 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 5,449 5,709 5,995 6,294 6,608
Annually 65,390 68,510 71,942 75,530 79,300
Maintenance Worker II Bi-weekly 2,767 2,905 3,050 3,202 3,362 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 5,995 6,294 6,608 6,938 7,284
Annually 71,942 75,530 79,300 83,252 87,412
Management Analyst I Bi-weekly 3,764 3,952 4,150 4,358 4,575 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,155 8,563 8,992 9,442 9,914
Annually 97,864 102,752 107,900 113,308 118,962
Management Analyst II Bi-weekly 4,141 4,348 4,565 4,793 5,033 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 8,972 9,421 9,891 10,385 10,905
Annually 107,666 113,048 118,690 124,618 130,858
Management Assistant Bi-weekly 3,421 3,592 3,772 3,961 4,159 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,412 7,783 8,173 8,582 9,011
Annually 88,946 93,392 98,072 102,986 108,134
Office Assistant Bi-weekly 2,535 2,662 2,795 2,935 3,082 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 5,493 5,768 6,056 6,359 6,678
Annually 65,910 69,212 72,670 76,310 80,132
Planning Manager Bi-weekly 5,710 5,996 6,296 6,611 6,942 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 12,372 12,991 13,641 14,324 15,041
Annually 148,460 155,896 163,696 171,886 180,492
Police Captain Bi-weekly 7,087 7,441 7,813 8,204 8,614 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 15,355 16,122 16,928 17,775 18,664
Annually 184,262 193,466 203,138 213,304 223,964
Police Corporal Bi-weekly 4,570 4,798 5,038 5,290 5,555 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,902 10,396 10,916 11,462 12,036
Annually 118,820 124,748 130,988 137,540 144,430
Police Lieutenant Bi-weekly 6,031 6,333 6,650 6,983 7,332 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 13,067 13,722 14,408 15,130 15,886
Annually 156,806 164,658 172,900 181,558 190,632
Police Officer Bi-weekly 4,326 4,542 4,769 5,007 5,257 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,373 9,841 10,333 10,849 11,390
Annually 112,476 118,092 123,994 130,182 136,682
Police Officer Trainee Bi-weekly 3,471 Police
1/2/2023 Monthly 7,521
Annually 90,246
Police Sergeant Bi-weekly 5,272 5,536 5,813 6,104 6,409 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 11,423 11,995 12,595 13,225 13,886
Annually 137,072 143,936 151,138 158,704 166,634
Property Officer Bi-weekly 2,959 3,107 3,262 3,425 3,596 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 6,411 6,732 7,068 7,421 7,791
Annually 76,934 80,782 84,812 89,050 93,493
Public Works Asst. Superintendent Bi-weekly 4,673 4,907 5,152 5,410 5,680 PW Supe 1/2/2023 Monthly 10,125 10,632 11,163 11,722 12,307
Annually 121,498 127,582 133,952 140,660 147,680
Public Works Inspector I Bi-weekly 3,264 3,427 3,598 3,778 3,967 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,072 7,425 7,796 8,186 8,595
Annually 84,864 89,102 93,548 98,228 103,142
-164-
Public Works Inspector II Bi-weekly 3,590 3,770 3,958 4,156 4,364 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,778 8,168 8,576 9,005 9,455
Annually 93,340 98,020 102,908 108,056 113,456
Public Works Superintendent Bi-weekly 5,921 6,217 6,528 6,854 7,197 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 12,829 13,470 14,144 14,850 15,594
Annually 153,946 161,642 169,728 178,204 187,122
Public Works Supervisor Bi-weekly 4,237 4,449 4,671 4,905 5,150 PW Supe 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,180 9,640 10,121 10,628 11,158
Annually 110,162 115,674 121,446 127,530 133,900
Records Clerk II Bi-weekly 3,225 3,386 3,555 3,733 3,920 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 6,988 7,336 7,703 8,088 8,493
Annually 83,850 88,036 92,430 97,058 101,920
Records Supervisor Bi-weekly 3,548 3,725 3,911 4,107 4,312 Police 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,687 8,071 8,474 8,899 9,343
Annually 92,248 96,850 101,686 106,782 112,112
Senior Accountant Bi-weekly 4,293 4,508 4,733 4,970 5,218 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,302 9,767 10,255 10,768 11,306
Annually 111,618 117,208 123,058 129,220 135,668
Senior Accounting Technician Bi-weekly 3,410 3,581 3,760 3,948 4,146 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,388 7,759 8,147 8,554 8,983
Annually 88,660 93,106 97,760 102,648 107,793
Senior Building and Planning Technician Bi-weekly 3,501 3,676 3,860 4,053 4,256 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 7,586 7,965 8,363 8,782 9,222
Annually 91,026 95,576 100,360 105,378 110,660
Senior Building Inspector/Plan Checker Bi-weekly 4,380 4,599 4,829 5,070 5,323 PW&C 1/2/2023 Monthly 9,490 9,965 10,463 10,985 11,533
Annually 113,880 119,574 125,554 131,820 138,398
Senior Civil Engineer Bi-weekly 5,364 5,632 5,914 6,210 6,520 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 11,622 12,203 12,814 13,455 14,127
Annually 139,464 146,432 153,764 161,460 169,520
Senior Management Analyst Bi-weekly 4,762 5,000 5,250 5,512 5,788 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 10,318 10,833 11,375 11,943 12,541
Annually 123,812 130,000 136,500 143,312 150,487
Senior Planner Bi-weekly 4,853 5,096 5,351 5,619 5,900 Unrep 1/2/2023 Monthly 10,515 11,041 11,594 12,175 12,782
Annually 126,178 132,496 139,126 146,094 153,387
-165-
Hourly positions
1/3/2022
Laborer - Temporary Hourly 30.00 40.00
Intern I - Temporary Hourly 20.00 30.00
Intern II - Temporary Hourly 25.00 35.00
Intern III - Temporary Hourly 30.00 40.00
Clerical - Temporary Hourly 15.50 35.00
Technician - Temporary Hourly 30.00 40.00
Communications Officer - Temporary Hourly 55
-166-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: PRESENTATION REGARDING AB 2449 AND OPTIONS FOR CONTINUED

FUTURE REMOTE/HYBRID MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT
SUMMARY: Historically, the Brown Act has allowed “teleconference meetings” or remote meeting access with one or more Councilmembers attending from a remote telephone or videoconference location. In order for a councilmember to attend remotely under the historical teleconference rules, it required the following:
• that the Town include the address of the remote teleconference location on the agenda • posting of an agenda at the remote location; and
• public access to that remote location.

The above rules were relaxed during the COVID-19 pandemic with the Governor issuing an Executive Order to relax the rules, and then the State Legislature in September of 2021 adopting Assembly Bill (AB) 361 maintaining the relaxed rules invoked by the Governor. Those relaxed rules generally did not require compliance with the three prongs above with councilmembers able to attend remotely without having to include their home address on the agenda, post the agenda at their remote location, or make that location accessible to the public.

Effective January 1, 2023, AB 2449 provides additional remote access opportunities for Council meetings. AB 2449 maintains the historical teleconference rules, re-codifies AB 361 that can be used during a State of Emergency with some changes, and allows for new teleconference rules based on “just cause” (personal reasons) or an “emergency circumstance” (a personal or family medical emergency) as further detailed below.

Below is an in-depth summary of each type of teleconferencing option available to the Town as of January 1, 2023.

1. “Traditional” Teleconferencing.

AB 2449 maintains the traditional or historical teleconference rules contained at Government Code section 54953(b)(1) and authorizes remote attendance at Council meetings, subject to certain agenda-posting and public access requirements:
• The meeting agenda must identify each location from which a Councilmember will be calling in.
• An agenda must be posted at each remote location.
• Each teleconference location must be accessible to the public. -167-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

• At least a quorum of the Council must participate from locations within the Council’s jurisdiction.
• All votes during the meeting must be taken by roll call, and no secret ballots are permitted.

2. Updated Teleconferencing for States of Emergency – Recodification of AB 361 Under the new AB 2449 rules, if the Council meets during a proclaimed state of emergency, and while state or local officials are recommending social distancing measures for public safety reasons, certain traditional teleconference rules are relaxed or waived. This set of rules is nearly identical to the Governor’s Executive Order and AB 361. To qualify for these relaxed rules, one of these situations must be present:
• The Council is meeting during a state of emergency, and local officials are imposing or recommending social distancing measures.
• The Council is meeting during a state of emergency for the express purpose of determining by a majority vote of the Council whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
• The Council is meeting during a state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

If one of these criteria is present, Councilmembers may attend virtually subject to these relaxed requirements:
• The agenda need not identify each teleconference location or be posted at each Councilmember’s remote location. Public access to remote location(s) is not required. • The agenda must still provide the opportunity for public access and comment through some means – for instance, if the Council will be meeting via Zoom, the agenda must provide a call-in number or video access link for the public. The Council is not required to provide a physical location from which the public can attend or comment in person. • The rights of the public attending the meeting must be protected, meaning the public must be allowed to “access” the meeting (including by telephone or internet) and make public comments (in real time) on matters before the Council. • If a disruption occurs that prevents the public from accessing the meeting (i.e., the Zoom link stops working, or the public cannot hear the audio of the meeting, or the internet fails), the Council cannot further action on agendized items until access to the meeting is restored.
• When hearing and acting on agendized items, the Council must provide members of the public enough time to make comments (in practice, this means the Council should wait a minute or so each time it calls for public comment, to make sure anyone who wants to comment has time to raise their hand and/or unmute themselves). • All votes must be by roll call, and no secret ballots are permitted. • If the Council wants to continue to meet remotely, after the first meeting the Council must make certain findings by majority vote every 30 days for the duration of using this teleconference exception.
-168-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

3. Virtual Participation for Just Cause or Emergency Circumstance.

AB 2449 allows new virtual attendance for “just cause” or “emergency circumstances.” In these cases, the Council may hold a “hybrid” (i.e., part teleconference, part in-person) meeting without having to post agendas at teleconference locations, identify the remote locations, or open them open to the public. In all circumstances, a quorum must still be physically present at the in-person meeting. The general requirements that apply to both the “just cause” and “emergency circumstance” exceptions follow.
• A Councilmember may utilize AB 2449 to attend a meeting remotely (for just cause and/or emergency circumstances) for no more than three consecutive months or more than twenty percent of the regular meetings in any calendar year, whichever comes first. • If a Councilmember is attending remotely, they must do so with both audio and video enabled; it is not enough to call in on the phone, and Councilmembers may not turn off or be out of frame of their cameras.
• If a Councilmember is attending remotely, and someone 18 or older is in the same room, the Councilmember must, before any action is taken, disclose this fact and their general relationship with such individual(s).
• In addition to the above, the Council must ensure that during any hybrid meeting the public is provided with either (1) a two-way audiovisual platform or (2) a two-way telephonic service and live webcasting of the meeting. In either event, the public must be able to see and hear the meeting and remotely address the Council. • In the event of a disruption that interrupts the Council’s public broadcast, or another disruption within the Council’s control preventing the public from offering public comment, the Council cannot take any action until such service is restored. • Comments may not be required to be submitted in advance; the opportunity to comment and address the Council in real-time must be available to all participants, regardless of whether they are remote.

A. Just Cause
Councilmembers may participate virtually with “just cause” by providing the Council notice at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of the meeting if earlier notice is not possible, and providing a general description of the circumstances giving rise to their need to appear remotely.
• “Just cause” means childcare or family caregiving needs, contagious illness, physical or mental disability needs, or travel while on official public business. • As noted above, a Councilmember may rely on this remote attendance option for no more than two meetings per calendar year.

B. Emergency Circumstance
This virtual participation option is available by request to the Council and must be approved by the Council before activated. The request must be made as soon as possible, and a separate request must be made for each meeting.
-169-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 4 ends

• An “emergency” means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents in-person attendance.
• The request must be accompanied with a general description of approximately 20 words but does not require the disclosure of a medical diagnosis or disability, or personal medical information already exempt under existing law.
• The Council may take action on the request, and if insufficient time exists for the action to be placed on the agenda for the applicable meeting, the Council may take such action at the beginning of the meeting as a late-breaking item. Approval of the Council by formal vote is required to authorize remote attendance; if approval is denied, the remote Councilmember may not participate remotely.
• Councilmembers may participate remotely for no more than three consecutive months or more than twenty percent of the regular meetings in any calendar year, whichever comes first.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The City Council’s receipt of this information item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, as it can be seen with certainty that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3).

ATTACHMENTS: None
PREPARED BY: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Receive this informational item pertaining to continued options for meeting via remote or hybrid means under the Brown Act.
-170-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
12 INFORMATIONAL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: UPDATE ON POLICE STATION DAMAGE FROM WATER INTRUSION FROM

THE WINTER STORM
SUMMARY: This agenda item is to provide an update on the police station damage from water intrusion caused by the winter storm.

Background
The flooding and water damage from the New Year’s Eve storm has resulted in extensive work on the Police Department building. The significant storm event, a “160-year rated event”, resulted in flooding and physical damage to the Police Department building. Activities in the lower portion of the building will need to be relocated due to damage from water intrusion and the remediation and repair - removal of damaged materials, addressing foundation seepage and reconstruction of the facilities. The extent of the damage continues to be evaluated and will be further known once the walls are cut into and tested. Currently, the downstairs of the building experienced water intrusion.

Air monitoring and sampling indicates that the facility is safe, but work will need to be done to remove the damaged materials and reconstruct. A temporary location for these functions is being explored so the work can be completed in the downstairs portion of the building.

Response
The Police Department, Public Works Department, Building & Planning Department, City Attorney, Finance Department and the City Manager's Office have been developing plans for assessing the building and a plan for continued testing, monitoring and remediation.

We have submitted State/FEMA damage estimates ($500,000) and have met with our insurance pool (PLAN JPA) and filed an insurance claim. Generally, FEMA covers amounts that are not covered by insurance (25% cost share by the Town). Staff also conducted an on-site review of the damage with the insurance adjuster.

Servepro, a remediation/abatement vendor, has been on site actively deploying abatement procedures for removing the water, drying the space with commercial blowers, and assessing mold damage. They will continue to abate the downstairs space and open the walls for further assessment. Servepro has made recommendations for removal of the damaged materials, remediation, and restoration. The Public Works Department is preparing a work plan and identifying qualified companies that can do the work.

Procurement and Budget
-171-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

The City Manger declared a state of emergency for this event, which provides eligibility for the Town to seek FEMA/State reimbursement. As indicated above, the Town will have a claim with FEMA and the Town’s insurance carrier. However, the timing of reimbursement will likely be much later than the expenses that are needed now for abatement, temporary location, and eventually the re-construction of the damaged area of the building. Town staff will bring forward a budget amendment for the General Fund to account for these expenses at the mid-year review at the March 13, 2023 City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the Police Department building issues is currently broadly estimated at approximately $500,000 and will be better known once the evaluation is completed. A budget amendment will be provided to City Council for review and approval.

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

ATTACHMENTS: None
PREPARED BY: Ann Ritzma, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: No action is required. This item is for information only. -172-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
13 INFORMATIONAL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE
SUMMARY: The City Manager will provide an informational update related to Town projects, events and activities of interest to the community.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: This informational item is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS: None
PREPARED BY: Ann Ritzma, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: For information only; no action required. -173-

Hillsborough City CouncilFebruary 13, 2023

Hillsborough City Council
February 13, 2023