Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 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
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2023
2:00 PM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hillsborough Town Hall and Zoom Video Conference
Meetings of the City Council are held in-person in Council Chambers. As a courtesy and technology permitting, the meeting will also be held virtually via Zoom Video Conference. However, the Town cannot guarantee that the public’s access to the Zoom virtual platform will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. In those instances, so long as the public may still attend the meeting in person, the meeting will continue.

In the event a Councilmember is participating remotely under the requirements of Government Code Section 54953 with regard to “just cause” or an “emergency” situation as those terms are defined in the Brown Act, the Town will stop the meeting if there is any technology disruption until such time that the public is reconnected to the live in person meeting and able to provide comment.

To attend the meeting in person:
1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010.

To provide Public Comment on the special meeting agenda items in person:

Members of the public wishing to speak on any special meeting agenda item 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/81328480598?pwd=asUSxOyuesueXS1Vkl6bwX6jJpjrKC.1 • 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: 813 2848 0598
Passcode: 525312
To provide Public Comment on the special meeting agenda items 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 close of the public comment period for the item. In response, the Town will unmute the speaker and allow them to speak up to three minutes.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING (2:00 pm)
I. CALL TO ORDER
Special Meeting Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Wednesday, December 20, 2023

II. ROLL CALL
III. 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 special meeting 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.

IV. 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. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ASSOCIATED COMPENSATION

ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 350, I.B.T. – PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS UNIT EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
V. PUBLIC HEARING

2. RESOLUTIONS CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING

THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE TOWN OWNED LAND:
(A) RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2023060305);

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
(B) RESOLUTION REPEALING THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH’S 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE

HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
(C) ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.12, AND 17.16 OF THE

HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING ZONING AND USES PERMITTED AND REZONING TWO TOWN OWNED PROPERTIES, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN’S HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2023-2031)
VI. 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.

Special Meeting Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Wednesday, December 20, 2023

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. During the meeting, members of the public may provide public comments on the special meeting agenda items during the general public comment portions of the meeting. All members of the public will be limited to one comment per item. All oral comments made at public meetings, including a speaker’s name, are recorded and included as part of the public record in the meeting minutes. Meeting minutes are publicly accessible via the Town website and via various internet search engines. Written comments, including a commenter’s name, are a public record and subject to disclosure on the Town website and/or upon request pursuant to the California Public Records Act (with personal contact information including personal email addresses and personal phone numbers redacted).

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.

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 2023

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

EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ASSOCIATED COMPENSATION

ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 350, I.B.T. – PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS UNIT EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
SUMMARY: The Town has completed negotiations for a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Public Works Supervisor Unit, represented by the Teamsters Local No. 350 union. The MOU provides a one-time wage increase and carries over the benefit structure from the prior MOU with the intent of negotiating another agreement in 2024. A copy of the agreement is included in the City Council agenda packet.

FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated fiscal impact is approximately $29,000 for the one-year agreement, which represents a $5,000 increase to the assumption used in the adopted budget for FY 2023-24.

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Memorandum of Understanding – January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 PREPARED BY: Doug Davis, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Hillsborough and the Teamsters Local No. 350 I.B.T. – Public Works Supervisors Unit.
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ASSOCIATED

COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 350, I.B.T. – PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORS UNIT EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) has recognized Teamsters Local No. 350 I.B.T. (Union) as the representative for employees in the Public Works Supervisors unit; and
WHEREAS, the Town has completed bargaining in good faith with the Union resulting in a one-year Memorandum of Understanding (attached hereto as Exhibit A) which outlines the salary change; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to provide a competitive compensation package to the employees of the Public Works Supervisors unit.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the Teamsters Local No. 350 I.B.T. and authorizes the following changes to the Town’s compensation plan effective the first full pay period in January 2024:

Salaries for all positions in the unit shall be increased by 5.0% Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at a special meeting held on the 20th day of December 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

ATTACHMENT 1
-2-
1 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) and Teamsters Union Local NO. 350, I.B.T. (“Union”) representing the Public Works Supervisors Unit for the period of January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 shall read as follows:
1) The parties have entered into a current Memorandum of Understanding (“Contract”), which is in full force and effect until midnight, December 31, 2023. A true and correct copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2) Section 13 within Article II Compensation and Appendix A of the Contract, shall be amended (replaced) in their entirety to read as follows:

Salaries for the unit employees are as follows:

Effective with the first full pay period in January 2024, the above-listed salaries of unit employees shall be increased by 5.0%.

New employees will be appointed at Step A. With the approval of the City Manager, the Department Head can recommend that candidates be appointed to a position at any step within the range.

Upon the employee's successful completion of the probationary period, the Department Head shall recommend to the City Manager the advancement of the employee's salary to Step B. Every 12 months thereafter following a performance evaluation, the Department Head shall make a recommendation regarding the employee's advancement to the next step in the salary range.

In recognition of an exemplary performance evaluation, a Department Head can recommend that an employee's salary be adjusted to the next step in the range at any time.

If a vacancy occurs in the Public Works Superintendent classification, employees in the classification of Public Works Supervisor shall have the opportunity to compete in an internal promotional examination for the position prior to the Town opening recruitment to the outside.

ATTACHMENT 2
-3-
2 3) Article V Term of the Contract, shall be amended (replaced) in its entirety to read as follows:

This MOU shall be in full force and effect until midnight, December 31, 2024.

The Union shall submit its written initial proposal for a new MOU to the Town by September 1, 2023. The Town shall make a written counterproposal within 30 days of receipt of the Union's initial proposal. These deadlines may be changed by the parties’ mutual written agreement. 4) Except as expressly changed above, the parties agree that all other terms and conditions of the current Contract are to be considered as current contract language and will remain as-is under this MOU, which will be effective until midnight December 31, 2024. For the avoidance of doubt, other than the above language which replaces Article II.13, Article V, and Appendix A, all other Articles or parts of Articles of the Contract shall be incorporated herein by this reference and be part of this MOU.
5) This MOU is not meant to extend any side agreement that sunsets/ends on its own terms and any such agreement, if any, shall end on its own terms. Other than the newly agreed upon, one-time salary increase of 5.0%, there will be no other wage increases through December 31, 2024. Moreover, the parties understand and agree that this one-time increase was/is made on a non-precedential and non-binding basis.
6) This MOU may be signed in counterparts and electronic signatures have the same efficacy as originals.

For the Town of Hillsborough: ________________________ Dated: _________________ For Teamsters Local 350, IBT: ________________________ Dated: _________________ -4-

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
AND
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 350 I.B.T.

January 1, 2021- December 31, 2023

EXHIBIT A
-5-
Section
I.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15.

16. 17.

18. 19.

20. 21.

22. 23 .

24. 25 .

26. 27.

28. 29.

30. 31.

32. 33.

Public Works Supervisor Unit
Memorandum of Understanding 2021 - 2023
Subject
I. GENERAL
Bargaining Unit
Management Rights
Union Rights
Table of Contents
Maintenance of Membership
Union Representatives
Town Communication to Unit Employees concerning
Union rights
Personnel Files
Separability
Maintenance of Benefits
Sole and Entire Agreement
No Discrimination
New Work
II. COMPENSATION
Salary
On Call Vehicle
Uniforms
Out-of-Class Pay
Incentive Pay
Emergency Health Crisis
Training Time
Emergency Response
III. BENEFITS
Health Insurance
Employee Wellness
Retiree Medical Savings Account
Post Retirement Payments
Disability Income Protection
Dental and Orthodontia Plan
Vision Plan
Life Insurance
Retirement
Military Leave
Leave of Absence without Pay
Jury Duty
Sick Leave
Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
Page
4 4
4 6
6 7
7 7
7 7
8 8
8 9
9 9
9 10
10 10
11 12
13 13
14 14
14 14
14 15
15 15
15

-6-

34. Death or Critical Illness Leave 17

35. Industrial Disability Leave 17

36. Family Medical Leave 17

37. Vacation 18

38. Vacation Buy-Back 19

39. Holidays 19

40. Paid Administrative Leave 20

41. Tuition Reimbursement 20

42. Mileage Reimbursement 21
IV. EMPLOYMENT

43. Notification of Vacant Positions 21

44. Probation 21

45. Attendance 21

46. Hours of Work 21

47. Discipline 22

48. Grievance and Arbitration 23

49. No Strike Clause 25

50. Safety 25

51. Layoff 25

52. Reinstatement 26
V. TERM
Term 26
Appendix A 27

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-7-
The Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the
Town of Hillsborough ("Town") and Teamsters Union Local No. 350, I.B.T. ("Union") representing the Public Works Supervisors Unit for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 shall read as follows:

I. GENERAL

1. Bargaining Unit
The bargaining unit shall include all allocated positions of:
• Public Works Supervisor
• Assistant Superintendent

2. Management Rights
Except as modified by this MOU, it is understood and agreed that the Town retains all of its rights, power and authority to direct, manage and control the Town to the full extent of the law.

The exercise of powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities by the Town, the adoption of policies, rules, regulations and practices in furtherance thereof, the use of judgment and practices in furtherance thereof, and the use of judgment and discretion in connection therewith shall be limited only by the specific and express terms of this MOU and then only to the extent such specific and express terms are in conformance with the law.

Any of the rights, powers, authority and functions that the Town possessed prior to the execution of this MOU are retained by the Town except as specifically limited by this MOU.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to excuse the Town from its obligation to meet and confer with the Union regarding any subject or matter not set forth in this section where required to do so by statute.

3. Union Rights
Communications with Employees
The Union shall be provided suitable space on a bulletin board at the work location for posting notices concerning official Union business.

Advance Notice
Except in cases of emergency as provided below in this subsection, the Union, if affected, shall be given reasonable advance written notice of any ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the Town and shall be given the opportunity to meet and confer with the appropriate management representatives prior to adoption.

In cases of emergency when the foregoing procedure is not practical or in the best public interest, the Town may adopt or put into practice immediately such measures as are required. At the

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-8-
earliest practicable date thereafter, the Union shall be provided with the notice described in the preceding paragraph and be given the opportunity to meet and confer with the appropriate management representatives. As used herein, "emergency" shall mean any situation in which proper management of the Town requires immediate action, or in which immediate action is necessary for the preservation of life or property.

Notification & Access
A. The Town will notify the Union, in wntmg, via fax, no less than IO business days in advance of any new employee orientation, (same as first day of work at the Town) who joins the bargaining unit. Email notification may also be made but will not substitute notification by fax.

The I 0-business day advance notice for new employee orientation may be shortened only when there is an urgent need critical to the Town's operations that was not reasonably foreseeable in which case the Town will provide as much advance notice as practicable.

B. During the IO-business days' notice, one Union representative shall schedule, through the Town's Human Resources representative, a day and time to meet with the new employee(s) at the Town Office whether during new employee orientation or shortly thereafter. It is anticipated that this meeting would require approximately I hour and would be scheduled following the Town's Human Resources representative providing the new employee(s) with information on benefits and Town's policies. It is understood that employees attending such Union orientation shall be held during paid time schedule. Management representatives will excuse themselves during the Union portion of the orientation.

C. The Town agrees that it will not disclose the date, time, or place of any such employee orientation described in B and C above to anyone other than the employees who are to attend the orientation, the employee's supervisor and/or Department Head, the Union, or a vendor that is contracted to provide a service for purposes of the orientation.

The Union will be responsible for providing a copy of the current MOU and any Union information to the new employee.

List of Unit Employees
A. Pursuant to AB 119, the Town will provide the Union by fax a list including the name, job title, department, work location, work phone number, home phone number, and home address of any newly hired employee within 30 days of the date of hire or by the first pay period of the month following the employee joining the bargaining unit, whichever is sooner. The Town will also provide cellular phone numbers and personal email address if on file with the Town. An employee may request in writing to the Town that the Town not disclose their home address, home telephone number, personal cellular number, or personal email address.

The Town agrees that personal contact information of unit employees (e.g., home address, personal phone number, personal email address) is private information not to be disclosed except in the manner authorized by law, to any private (non-governmental) person or entity,

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-9-
other than the Union. The Town further agrees to give the Union notice of receiving the information of request(s) from any such person or entity.

B. The Town will provide the same information to the Union in the same format, outlined above in section A, regarding all employees within the classifications covered by the MOU, every 120 days, which will be established as every September, January and May. Any contact information updates provided to the Town, since the last Employee Data sheet was sent, will be reflected in the next scheduled update.

4. Maintenance of Membership
The Town agrees that it shall deduct dues and fees from unit employee paychecks per employee authorizations employees provide to the Union. The authorizations need only be in a form acceptable to the Union. The Union shall not be obligated to provide the Town with a copy of an employee's dues deduction authorization unless a dispute arises about the existence or terms of the authorization.

Any request to begin dues deductions or cancel dues deductions must be made to the Union.

The Union shall notify the Town of the designated amount of dues and fees to be deducted for each employee, and the Town shall deduct the amounts so designated. The Town shall not be required to collect any special assessments or similar short-term changes in rate. Initiation fees will not be considered a special assessment.

The Union shall indemnify and hold the Town, its officers and employee harmless from any cost of liability resulting from any and all claims, demands, suits or any other action arising from the operation of this provision or from the use of the moneys remitted to the Union, including the costs of defending against any such actions or claims. The Union agrees to refund to the Town any amounts paid to it in error.

5. Union Representatives
Union representatives may visit work locations where bargaining unit members are performing work provided, however, they shall not interfere with the normal conduct of work or duties of the employees as determined by the City Manager or his or her designee. The Union representative shall first advise the City Manager or his or her designated representative of his or her presence on the premises before contacting any employee covered by this MOU.

Activities such as the soliciting of membership, collection of dues, holding membership meetings, campaigning for office, conducting elections and distributing literature are strictly prohibited during working hours without the prior approval of the City Manager or his or her representative.

Except for the purpose of meeting and conferring for a new MOU, only one on-duty unit member designated as a steward shall be permitted to represent unit members or otherwise engage in activities on behalf of the unit at any time.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-10-
In the event the Town believes that the Union representatives are abusing the provisions of this Section, it shall contact the Union in writing to arrange a mutually acceptable time and place to investigate the Town's complaint and to assure full compliance by the Union representative.

6. Town Communications to Unit Employees concerning Union Rights If the Town chooses to disseminate a communication to unit employees or applicants to be unit employees concerning public employees' rights to join or support an employee organization, or to refrain from joining or supporting an employee organization, the Town shall meet and confer with the Union concerning the content of communication before dissemination.

If the Town and the Union cannot reach agreement and the Town elects to proceed with its proposed mass communication, the Town must include with its own communication, a communication ofreasonable length provided by the Union.

7. Personnel Files
An employee, or on presentation of written authorization from the employee an employee's representative, shall have specific access to the employee's personnel file upon request and reasonable convenience of the City Manager's Office. Documentation in the personnel file relating to the investigation of a possible criminal offense, background information on the employee and letters of reference may be specifically excluded from the inspection and review by the employee and/or the employee's representative. Information which would be privileged under State law pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine may also be excluded. Personnel files may only be reviewed in the presence of a designated employee of the City Manager's Office. The Town will provide employees with copies of their personnel evaluations and warning letters, if any. Upon request, the employee may at his or her expense copy those portions of his or her personnel file not specifically excluded from review by this section.

8. Separability
If any section of the MOU should be found invalid, unlawful or unenforceable by reason of any existing or subsequently enacted legislation or by judicial authority, all other articles and sections of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the MOU. In the event of invalidation of any article or section, the Town and the Union agree to meet within 30 days for the purpose of renegotiating said article or section.

9. Maintenance of Benefits
All rights, privileges and terms and conditions of employment in full force and effect prior to this MOU and not in conflict herewith shall become a part hereby and remain until thereby mutually modified by the parties hereto.

10. Sole and Entire Agreement
The parties acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this MOU each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject or matter not removed by law from this area of meeting and conferring, and that the understandings and agreements arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that right and opportunity are set

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-11-
forth in this MOU. Except as provided below, for the life of this MOU each party voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to, and each agrees that the other shall not be obligated to, meet and confer with respect to any subject or matter referred to or covered by this MOU.

11. No Discrimination
There shall be no discrimination by either Union or Town on any basis prohibited by State or Federal law or on account of any legitimate Union activity.

12. New Work
The Town agrees to meet and confer if required by State statutory or case law concerning the impact of new equipment or machinery on the bargaining unit.

II. COMPENSATION

13. Salary
Salaries for the unit are displayed in Appendix A. Appendix A will be available on the Town's website.

Effective with the first full pay period in January 2021, salaries of unit employees shall be increased by 2.0%.

Effective with the first full pay period in January 2022, salaries of unit employees shall be increased by 3.0 %
Effective with the first full pay period in January 2023, salaries of unit employees shall be increased by 3. 0%
New employees will be appointed at Step A. With the approval of the City Manager, the Department Head can recommend that candidates be appointed to a position at any step within the range.

Upon the employee 's successful completion of the probationary period, the Department Head shall recommend to the City Manager the advancement of the employee's salary to Step B.

Every 12 months thereafter following a performance evaluation, the Department Head shall make a recommendation regarding the employee's advancement to the next step in the salary range.

In recognition of an exemplary performance evaluation, a Department Head can recommend that an employee 's salary be adjusted to the next step in the range at any time.

If a vacancy occurs in the Public Works Superintendent classification, employees in the classification of Public Works Supervisor shall have the opportunity to compete in an internal promotional examination for the position prior to the Town opening recruitment to the outside.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-12-

14. On-Call Vehicle
Employees who respond to a call will pick up the marked utility truck at the Municipal Services Center.

The Town reserves its right to assign equipment and vehicles.

Employees who are assigned on-call shifts for weekends and holidays, at the employee's discretion, may take home a Town utility truck in order to respond to calls.

15. Uniforms
The Town will continue to provide special work clothing as needed and to repair and replace such clothing as needed with the approval of the Department Head, per the department policy.

16. Out-of-Class Pay
Public Works employees assigned the duties of a higher position by the Director or his/her designee shall be eligible for out-of-class pay commencing on a full-day basis immediately on the third day. The assignment must extend a minimum of forty hours for the covering employee to be eligible for out-of-class pay. Assignments shall be based on seniority provided the senior employee's performance is evaluated as average or above average performance.

Out of class pay shall equal 10% of the employee's regular hourly rate, not to exceed the maximum of the higher position's salary range.

17. Incentive pay
Employees who are assigned by the Director to duties where specialized trainings or certifications are mandated to perform the job are eligible to receive premium pay after completing the training/receiving certification as follows:

Current Program Current Requirements/Incentives
D-1 Required
D-2 Required
D-3 $ 50 per month
D-4 Additional $75 per month
Current Requirements/ Incentives
Pro2ram
CW-1 Required
CW-2 Required
CW-3 $ 50 per month
CW-4 Additional $75 per month

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-13-
Current Program Incentives
T-1 $50 per month
T-2 Additional $75 per month
Note: Maximum of$ 250 per month incentive pay for the above certifications.

Effective upon the implementation of the new certification pay program the monthly salaries of the Public Works Supervisor and the Assistant Superintendent classifications shall be increased by $100 per month, due to the elimination of the compensation for the D2 and CW2 certificate pays.

Class A/B driver's licenses
Current employees Requirements/ Incentives
Class B License w/ $100/month
Tanker Endorsement
Class A License w/ Additional $50 - total of $150/month Tanker Endorsement
Future employees Requirements/ Incentives
Class B License w/ $100/month-Required with 24 months
Tanker Endorsement
Class A License w/ Additional $ 50 - total of $150/month Tanker Endorsement
No maximum number of staff for the Class B or Class A licenses.

The Town will meet with Local 350, if the Town determines to add the General Contractor or Facilities Department certifications to the minimum qualifications to either of the classifications in the bargaining unit.

18. Emergency Health Crisis
The Town proposes that if follows all appropriate Federal, State, or Local statutes, polices and procedures regarding the declaration of an emergency health crisis.

Any employee with extenuating circumstances may discuss those directly with their Department Head or the City Manager.

19. Training Time
During the term of this MOU, the Department will meet with Local 350 to discuss the following regarding Continuing Education courses:
• The best way for employees to participate in the CE courses without interruption; • Taking CE courses at home
• Preparing the staff for the employee's absence during a CE course

20. Emergency Response
The Director of Public Works, as designated by the City Manager, may authorize compensation up to $500 per day to Public Works Supervisors who, at the request of the Director, provide services on a day when not regularly scheduled to work in response to extreme emergency

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supeivisors Unit 2021-2023
-14-
situations. Whether a situation constitutes an "extreme emergency" and whether compensation is payable is within the exclusive discretion of the City Manager and is not subject to any appeal process.

An employee, at his/her option, may decline the Emergency Response cash payment and receive instead 9 hours of paid time off, which will be added to the employee's time off bank.

An employee's time off bank cannot exceed 100 hours (which includes emergency response hours as well as holiday time off hours). If an employee's time off bank would exceed 100 hours with the deposited hours, the employee must take cash for their emergency response or holiday time off.

III. BENEFITS

21. Health Insurance
Active Employees
The Town's contribution towards the employee's medical coverage shall be determined by the coverage level the employee selects. The Town's contribution shall be as follows:
• Employee only - shall not exceed the Blue Shield Access + Region 1 Health Plan Employee only
• Employee plus one - shall not exceed the Blue Shield Access+ Region 1 Health Plan Employee plus one
• Employee plus 2 or more - shall not exceed the Blue Shield Access+ Region 1 Health Plan Family
If, during the term of this MOU, the Blue Shield Access + plan is not available in CalPERS Region 1, then the Town's medical premium contribution shall be set at the 2nd highest HMO offered in CalPERS Region 1.

Each January 1, during the term of this MOU, the Town's medical contribution shall increase by up to 15% of the appropriate coverage level of Blue Shield rate. The 15% increase shall be applied to the current Town's monthly contribution rate. Any increase over 15% would be the responsibility of the employee, to a maximum of $100 per month.

If, during the term of this MOU, the 2nd highest HMO becomes the Town's medical premium contribution, then future year increases shall be subject to the 15% increase cap as defined above.

Under no circumstances shall the Town's increased monthly contribution be used to offset the employee's contribution rate effective on December 151 of the previous year.

In addition, if an employee selects a plan that exceeds the Town's medical premium contribution, then the employee shall be responsible to pay the amount that exceeds the Town's medical premium contribution via payroll deductions.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-15-
Employees who have alternate coverage such as coverage through a spouse's employer's plan (NOT individual coverage) are eligible to receive cash in lieu of medical insurance at the employee's actual enrollment level (single, employee + 1 or employee + 2 or more). Employees will be required to show proof of alternate coverage every year during open enrollment. Effective January 1, 2021, employees who have alternate coverage as of December 31, 2020 as described above are eligible to receive cash in lieu of medical insurance in the following amounts:

Employee only
Employee+ 1
Employee + 2 or more
$384.13 per month
$768.25 per month
$998.73 per month
Employees who receive the cash in lieu of medical benefit and who opt out of the program will be treated as employees hired after January 1, 2021 for future cash in lieu benefits.

Employees who enroll in the cash in lieu of medical benefit after January 1, 2021, who have alternate coverage as described above, are eligible to receive a contribution to the employee's deferred compensation account in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300) per month in lieu of receiving medical benefits.

An employee who retires after January 1, 2014, and who is eligible for retiree medical contributions, shall continue to be subject to the 15% maximum increase described above. Any amounts over the 15% cap that occurred while said employee was still active shall continue to be paid by the employee in retirement, to a maximum of $100 per month.

PERS Contribution
In accordance with Resolution 02-01, the Town's contribution to PERS is set at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 22825 of the Public Employee's Medical and Hospital Care Act. PERS will determine the contribution amount annually.

Retirees
The Town does not provide post-retirement health benefits to employees hired after January 1, 2002.

22. Employee Wellness
Employees can be reimbursed up to $300 per year for the following qualifying wellness activities:

Gym fees
- Nutritional counseling
Lifestyle assessments
Chiropractic services
Acupuncture service
Smoking cessation programs
Weight loss programs

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-16-
Town approved Parks and Recreation sponsored fitness programs Equipment (home gym equipment): Bowflex, Peloton, etc.; equipment for various classes: yoga mat, boxing gloves, etc. No clothing or shoes are eligible for reimbursement.

23. Retiree Health Savings Accounts
Employees hired after January 1, 2002 are eligible to receive a contribution to a Retiree Health Savings Account of $75 per month. Employees must meet vesting requirements of the plan as follows:

Year 1 20%
Year 2 40%
Year 3 60%
Year 4 80%
Year 5 100%
Beginning January 1, 2021, employees who are receiving a contribution to the Retiree Health Savings Account with more than 60 months of service will receive $150 per month. Current employees who qualify for the $150 contribution shall begin receiving that monthly amount upon adoption of this MOU. No retroactive payments shall be made.

Employees hired on or after January 1, 2021 shall receive a monthly contribution to a Retiree Health Savings Account in the following amounts:

Months of Service Monthly Contribution
Hire to 60 months $75 per month
61 months & thereafter $150 per month
Employees must meet vesting requirements of the plan as follows:

Completion of Year 5 100% vested

24. Post-Retirement Payments
To compensate those retirees and their survivors who were promised health benefits upon retirement and those employees hired prior to January 1, 2002 who bargained in good faith to eliminate the post-retirement health benefit in favor of implementing an improved retirement pension plan (PERS 3% @ 60), the Town shall provide post-retirement payments in lieu of health insurance as set forth below.

The actual amount of the payments will be equal to the retired employee's actual cost for health coverage up to a maximum of the one-party, two-party or three-party Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) basic rate for the Blue Shield HMO health plan, subject to the conditions listed in Section 21 - Active Employees above.

Employees must be enrolled in a PERS health plan at the time ofretirement to be eligible for this benefit. Former employees who enroll in PERS health plans during an open enrollment period after separation from the Town's service are not eligible for this benefit.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-17-
Payments will continue until the retiree or survivor is no longer enrolled in the PERS health plan with the following exception: Retirees and survivors who were receiving retirement health benefits prior to January 1, 2002 will be permitted to select a health plan outside of PERS health plans if PERS rules do not permit their continued participation in the health plans.

Employees terminated as the result of disciplinary action or forced to resign as a result of a criminal conviction or plea of no contest are not eligible for the post-retirement payments.

Retirees are responsible for keeping the Town notified of their current address. If payments are discontinued because no forwarding address is available, the Town will not be liable to provide retroactive payments. The Town will resume payments upon notification of an updated address if the former employee is otherwise qualified to receive the payments.

25. Disability Income Protection
The Town will provide Long Term Disability (LTD) Insurance which will provide 66 2/3% of salary to a maximum of $6,000 monthly and which will begin sixty calendar days after the first day of disability. The Town shall pay the entire premium for LTD.

26. Dental and Orthodontia Plan
Employees shall be included in the Town's self-funded dental and orthodontia plans. The benefit maximum is $2,000 per person per year. Plan year is from January 1 - December 31.

27. Vision Plan
Employees shall be included in the Town's self-funded vision plan. The maximum benefit shall be $350 per person per year. Plan year is from January 1 - December 31 .

28. Life Insurance
The Town shall provide a group life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 of coverage to each probationary and regular employee during the term of this MOU.

29. Retirement
Employees hired prior to 7/1/2012:

Employees receive the 3% @ 60 retirement formula with a single highest year method of calculation. Employees will pay the Employee's Contribution (8% of salary) to PERS, plus 1 % of the employer's cost.

Employees hired between 7/1/12 and 12/31/12:

Employees hired during this period receive the 2% @ 60 retirement formula with a three-year final average method of calculation. Employees will pay the Employee's Contribution (7% of salary) to PERS.

Employees hired 1/1/13 or after:

If an employee is considered a "classic member" with PERS, the employee will receive the retirement formula in place as of 12/31/12.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-18-
If an employee is considered a "new member" with PERS, the employee will receive the PEPRA mandated retirement plan of 2% @ 62 with a three-year final average method of calculation.

Employees will pay the Employee's Contribution of 50% of the normal cost, as determined by PERS.

Employees' PERS contributions, although designated as employee contributions, are being paid by the Town in lieu of contributions by the employee in accordance with §4 l 4(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.

30. Military Leave
Military Leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal law. All employees entitled to military leave shall give the City Manager an opportunity within the limits of military regulations to determine when such leave shall be taken.

31. Leave of Absence Without Pay
The City Manager may, at his or her discretion, grant a regular or probationary employee Leave of Absence without pay or seniority for a period not to exceed six months for medical reasons, and three months for other types of leaves. No such leave shall be granted except upon written request of the employee setting forth the reason for the request, and the approval will be in writing.

Upon expiration of an approved leave or within a reasonable period of time after notice to return to duty, the employee shall be reinstated in the position held at the time leave was granted.

Failure on the part of an employee on leave to report promptly at its expiration or within a reasonable time after receiving notice to return to duty shall be cause for discharge. The depositing in the United States mail of a first-class letter postage paid and addressed to the employee's last known place of address shall be reasonable notice.

32. Jury Duty
Employees who are called or required to serve as trial jurors shall be entitled to be absent from their duties with the Town during the period of such service or while necessarily being present in court as a result of such call. Employees shall be paid their full salary for such duty.

33. Sick Leave
Sick leave with pay shall be granted to all probationary and regular employees who are assigned to allocated positions. An employee may only use sick leave in cases of actual sickness, medical/dental/vision appointments or disability.

In order to receive compensation while absent on sick leave, the employee shall notify the Superintendent or designee prior to or within four hours after the time set for beginning his or her daily duties, or as may be specified by the Department Head.

When absence is for more than three (3) workdays, the employee may be required to file a physician's certificate or a personal affidavit with the City Manager's Office, excusing the employee from work.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supeivisors Unit 2021-2023
-19-
Sick leave shall be earned by full-time employees at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period. This accrual shall be prorated for part-time personnel in allocated positions. There is no maximum accrual limit for sick leave.

Sick leave will not be accrued while an employee is on non-industrial disability or unpaid leave.

No person shall be entitled to sick leave with pay while absent from duty on account of any of the following causes:
• Sickness or disability sustained while on leave of absence, other than his or her regular vacation or holiday;
• Disability received as a result of engaging in a gainful occupation outside Town employ.

Not more than 56 hours of sick leave each calendar year may be taken in case an employee's presence is required elsewhere because of sickness or disability of members of his or her immediate family. The immediate family shall consist of the spouse, children, parents, siblings, domestic partner or other individuals whose relationship to the employee is that of a dependent or near dependent. In each such case the City Manager shall grant such sick leave only when, in his or her opinion, the relationship of the sick or disabled person to the employee warrants such use of sick leave.

Employees who have exhausted said 56 hours of family sick leave may be permitted to use remaining accrued sick days with the approval of the Director, provided they have used their balance of Compensatory Time Off first.

Annual Sick Leave Payouts
All employees in this bargaining unit have the ability to cash out up to 25% of their unused annual sick leave accrual for the previous calendar year. Payment will be made generally in the first full pay period in January. Employees must have a minimum sick leave balance of 300 hours in order to eligible for the annual sick leave payout. The Annual Sick Leave Payout provision will be suspended until the City Council reinstates it for Unrepresented employees.

Unused Sick Leave Upon Retirement
Any full-time employee in the Unit with ten years of continuous service at the time of retirement can choose to be paid in cash for accumulated sick leave, up to the equivalent of one month's pay upon separation from service with the Town of Hillsborough.

Retirement, for the purpose of this rule, shall be construed to mean the termination of employment in order to accept service or disability retirement under PERS.

All remaining sick leave shall be converted to service credit under PERS.

Employees terminated as the result of disciplinary action or forced to resign as a result of a criminal conviction or plea of no contest are not eligible for this benefit.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-20-

34. Death or Critical Illness Leave
With the consent of the Department Head or his/her designee, a regular employee may be allowed to be absent from the duties of his or her position and to receive full compensation during such absence for a period not to exceed five (5) scheduled shifts in the case of death or of critical illness where death appears imminent of the employee's spouse, children, parents, siblings, in-laws, grandparents, domestic partner or other individuals whose relationship to the employee is that of a dependent or near dependent within 120 calendar days of the event. Where such a death or critical illness has occurred, the employee shall furnish satisfactory evidence of such death or critical illness to his or her Department Head or designee. The Department Head may allow an employee to take accrued vacation, floating holiday, non-compensated time off or CTO in order to provide additional bereavement time off.

35. Industrial Disability Leave
Any regular employee of the Town who has suffered any disability arising out of or in the course of employment as defined by the Workers' Compensation laws of the State of California may be entitled to disability leave while disabled without loss of compensation for the period of such disability to a maximum of ninety (90) days. Such disability with pay may be extended at the discretion the City Manager not to exceed one year.

The Town may call for medical examinations as frequently as would be reasonably necessary given the nature and extent of the injury and the degree of change of condition within a given period of time but shall not schedule examinations so frequently as to constitute harassment of the employee.

The Town may terminate industrial disability leave if a disability retirement is initiated.

36. Family Medical Leave
The Town will grant Family Medical Leave in accordance with the requirements of applicable State and Federal laws in effect at the time the leave is granted. No greater or lesser leave benefits will be granted than those set forth in such State or Federal laws. In certain situations, the Federal law requires that provisions of State law apply. Employees will be eligible for the most liberal benefits available under either law.

Family Medical Leave is unpaid. In a case where an employee is taking leave for his or her own health condition or to take care of a spouse, child or parent who has a serious health condition, the employee may elect, or the Town may require the employee, to substitute any of the employee's vacation, holiday, CTO or sick leave for an unpaid period of leave.

In a case where an employee is taking leave for birth or placement of a child, the employee may elect, or the Town may require the employee, to substitute any of the employee's vacation leave for an unpaid period of leave.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-21-

37. Vacation
The purpose of vacation leave is to enable each eligible employee annually to return to his or her work refreshed. All regular and probationary employees shall be entitled to vacation leave with pay.

The progressive vacation accrual schedule is as follows:

Years of Service Bi-Weekly Hours per
Completed Accrual Rate Year
Less than 4 3.08 80
4-9 4.62 120
10 4.92 128
11 5.23 136
12 5.54 144
13 5.85 152
14-15 6.15 160
16 6.46 168
17 6.77 176
18 7.08 184
19 7.38 192
20 7.69 200
This schedule shall be prorated for part-time employees in allocated positions.

If the requirements of the service are such that an employee is not allowed to take part or all of his or her accrued vacation in a particular calendar year, such vacation either shall be taken during the following calendar year or paid for at the discretion of the employee.

Vacation may be taken in increments as determined by the employee. Employees will give 48 hours' notice of intent to take 3 days or less of vacation, and seven (7) days' notice of intent to take 4 days or more of vacation to their Department Head. The Department Head shall approve the scheduling of the vacation prior to the employee taking the time off. In exigent circumstances, an employee can request 4 days or more of vacation with less than 7 days' notice at the discretion and approval of the Department Head.

The maximum accumulation of vacation leave may not exceed 2 times annual accrual. Once the maximum vacation accumulation is reached vacation leave will cease to accrue.

In the event one or more municipal holidays fall within a vacation leave, such holidays shall not be charged as vacation leave.

Employees who terminate employment shall be paid in a lump sum for all accrued vacation leave earned prior to the effective date of termination.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-22-
An employee who is placed on a re-employment list due to their layoff from Town employment, and who is reinstated to Town employment, shall have his/her years of service with the Town prior to the layoff used when determining years of service for vacation accrual.

38. Vacation Buy-Back
An employee in this unit may elect to convert vacation hours to cash. The requirements to participate in the program are:

A. Must have used 40 hours of vacation in the current year B. Must have a balance of 300 hours as of December I of the current year Election forms must be filled out by each member of the unit between December I and IO of each year. An employee may elect between 40 and 80 hours to cash out. Vacation hours cashed out applies only to hours earned in the year following the election. Payment of vacation hours elected for cash out will be made on the first pay period in August of the year following the election. Vacation that is used is understood to be on a first-earned basis. Elections are irrevocable.

39. Holidays
A holiday equals eight (8) hours leave. Thus employees shall receive a total of 96 hours of leave for twelve eight-hour holidays.

If a holiday falls on an employee's scheduled day off, the employee will have the option of receiving eight hours compensatory time off or eight hours of compensation, paid at the regular hourly rate.

The recognized holidays to be observed by the Town for unit employees are as follows:

Date Holiday
January First New Year's Day
Third Monday in January Martin Luther King's birthday
Third Monday in February Presidents' Day
Last Monday in May Memorial Day
July Fourth Independence Day
First Monday in September Labor Day
November Eleventh Veteran's Day
Fourth Thursday in November Thanksgiving Holiday
Friday after Thanksgiving Friday after Thanksgiving
December Twenty-fourth Christmas Eve
December Twenty-fifth Christmas Day
Additionally, employees will accrue eight hours of floating holiday leave on January I st of each year. If a new employee's hire date is prior to June 30, that employee will receive eight hours of floating holiday. If a new employee's hire date is July I or later, that employee will receive no

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-23-
floating holiday hours for that calendar year. Thereafter, accrual shall be consistent with continuing employees.

Every day appointed by the President of the United States or the Governor of this State for a public fast, Thanksgiving or holiday and every day pronounced as a National Day of Mourning is a holiday when also approved by the City Council.

Regular and probationary employees shall not be required to be on duty on holidays unless the employee's services are required in the interests of the public health, safety or general welfare.

When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed.

Floating holiday hours may be taken in any increment with the advance approval of the Department Head.

40. Paid Administrative Leave
Beginning January 1, 2017, Administrative Leave with pay shall be granted to all regular employees in this unit who are assigned to allocated positions. Employees shall be provided with 40 hours of Administrative Leave on January 1st of each year. Administrative Leave must be taken in the year that it is earned and cannot be carried over from one year to the next.

41. Tuition Reimbursement
College Reimbursement
Subject to budget constraints, the Town will reimburse an employee's tuition dependent on the following conditions:

1. Employees should attain approval for reimbursement from their Department Head prior to the beginning of the semester.

2. Tuition reimbursement will be based on local community college or California State University fee structures and limited to $1,500 per employee per calendar year. The City Manager may approve additional reimbursement for expenses when an employee participates in an accelerated college degree program.

3. Employees must attain a grade of C or better in order to be eligible for reimbursement as follows:

Grade % of Reimbursement
A 100%
B 80%
C 50%

4. Reimbursement will be approved after the employee submits proof of payment and receives his or her grade.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-24-
Licenses and Certifications
The Town will reimburse employees for their costs to take approved examinations for professional licenses or certifications.

42. Mileage Reimbursement
Employees responding to a call can request reimbursement for mileage to work at the current federal approved rate, and bridge tolls, if applicable.

Employees are eligible for mileage reimbursement when driving their personal vehicle to Town approved trainings.

IV. EMPLOYMENT

43. Notification of Vacant Positions
All openings for full-time or part-time allocated positions in this unit shall be sent out to all Town employees via email.

44. Probation
All unit employees shall serve a probationary period of 12 months. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, an employee shall attain a regular employment status.

Anyone serving in a probationary period may be rejected at any time without cause and without notice. Rejection during a probationary period will not be subject to the grievance procedure. If serving an initial probation with the Town, rejection during a probationary period will result in termination.

If an employee is rejected during probation as a result of a promotion, they will have bumping rights to their former classification where they attained regular status.

45. Attendance
Employees shall be in attendance at their work in accordance with the rules regarding hours of work, holidays and leaves. Failure on the part of an employee, absent without authorized leave, to return to duty within 24 hours after receiving notice to return shall be cause for immediate discharge and such employee automatically waives all rights under the personnel ordinance and these rules. The depositing in the United States mail of a first-class letter postage paid, addressed to the employee's last known place of address, shall be reasonable notice.

46. Hours of Work
Subject to the needs of Town, employees may be assigned to one of the following working shifts:
• 5 days per week, 10 days per pay period
• 9 days per pay period

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-25-
Variations of schedules will be permitted by agreement between the Department Head and employees.

The Town will notice the Union and confer with the Union prior to making any permanent work schedule changes. The Town will give employees a minimum of 60 calendar days' notice prior to the implementation of the schedule change.

47. Discipline
The Town may discharge, suspend, demote, reduce salary or otherwise discipline any employee for cause including, but not limited to:
• Dishonesty
• Insubordination
• Use, possession or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs • Incompetence
• Willful negligence
• Inability to meet minimum licensing or bonding requirements of the employee's regularly assigned position
• Fighting
• Discourteous treatment of coworkers or residents
• Unexcused absenteeism
• Tardiness when reporting to work or returning from breaks • Misuse of Town property
• Failure to perform work as required or
• Failure to comply with or violation of the Town's reasonable rules regarding safety conduct and operations
• Willful damage to public property
• The commitment or conviction of any criminal act that would directly affect work duties Any regular employee who has been subject to such discipline shall be notified of the reasons for such action in writing with a copy of such letter furnished to the Union. A letter sent by firstclass mail to the employee's last known address shall be considered adequate notice.

A progressive discipline process shall be followed, except when the safety and well-being of the employee, co-workers, members of the public or public property is endangered.

Pre-Disciplinary Hearings
No regular employee shall be demoted, suspended or discharged for a disciplinary purpose except in accordance with the provisions of this section; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to suspensions of less than 40 hours.

Whenever the Town proposes to demote, suspend or discharge a regular employee in a case in which this section is applicable, the Town shall provide the employee with written notice of the proposed action. The notice shall state the proposed disciplinary action and the reasons for it.

The notice shall also include a copy of the charges and materials upon which the proposed action is based.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-26-
The employee shall have the right to present an oral or written response to the proposed action.

Thereafter the Town shall determine, based upon such response and the materials upon which the proposed action was based, whether to impose the action initially proposed, a lesser action or to take no action. The Town shall promptly notify the employee in writing of such decision.

48. Grievance and Arbitration Procedure
Grievances subject to arbitration shall be only such grievances which involve the interpretation, application, or compliance with the provisions of this Memorandum or Departmental policies, or a dispute or disagreement concerning whether or not discipline, including discharge, was for just cause.

Step I - Informal Level
An employee who has a grievance shall first discuss the grievance on an informal basis with his or her supervisor within fifteen (15) calendar days of the alleged violation of the Memorandum or within fifteen ( 15) calendar days of the time the grievant knew of or could have reasonably discovered such action or occurrence. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the grievance, the supervisor shall investigate the matter, if necessary. Every effort will be made by the parties to resolve the grievance at this level and may include a conference among the Union, supervisor or other administrative staff. The supervisor will provide the employee with a written response to the grievance.

Grievances by the Town shall be discussed with the Union within fifteen (15) calendar days of the alleged violation of the Memorandum. If the parties are not able to resolve the issue, within fifteen (15) days after the last communication with the Union the Town may submit a request for arbitration pursuant to Step 4.

Step 2 - Department Level
If the grievance is not resolved at Step 1, the employee may submit the grievance in writing to the Department Head within fifteen (15) calendar days after the presentation of the supervisor's reply. The written grievance shall:
• Fully describe the grievance and how the grievant was adversely affected • Set forth the section(s) of this Memorandum allegedly violated • Indicate the date(s) of the incident grieved
• Specify the remedy or solution to the grievance sought It shall be the responsibility of the employee to submit a copy of the grievance to the Union. The Department Head or his/her designee, if necessary, may investigate the matter. The Department Head or his/her designee shall also schedule a meeting with the grievant and shall provide a written response to the grievant after holding the meeting with the grievant. The meeting and provision of the written response shall occur within fifteen ( 15) calendar days after receipt of the grievance.

Whenever the immediate supervisor and the Department Head is one and the same person, this step in the procedure shall be omitted.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supeivisors Unit 2021-2023
-27-
Step 3 - City Manager Review
If the grievance is not resolved at Step 2 a written grievance may be filed with the City Manager or his or her designee within fifteen (15) business days after the presentation of the Department Head's reply.

The City Manager or his/her designee will review the written grievance and may, at his/her discretion, meet with the employee to discuss the grievance. The City Manager shall reply in writing to the grievance within fifteen (15) calendar days of the meeting with the employee or, if no meeting occurs, within his/her receipt of the Step 2 grievance; provided, however, that in the event that the City Manager is away from the Town during this period, his/her time to reply shall be extended by and equal number of days that he/she is absent to a maximum of twenty (20) days.

Step 4 - Arbitration
If the grievance is unresolved at Step 3, either the Union or the Town may, within fifteen (15) calendar days, request in writing arbitration and the parties shall attempt to mutually agree upon an arbitrator. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, after thirty (30) days either party may request a list of nine (9) names from the California Conciliation and Mediation Service. Each party shall alternately strike one (I) name until an arbitrator is selected. The right to strike the first name shall be determined by lot and the parties shall alternately strike one (1) name from the list until only one (1) name remains. The remaining panel member shall be the arbitrator.

The arbitrator shall conduct a hearing at which he/she will hear evidence and render a decision on the issue or issues submitted to him/her. If the parties cannot agree on the issue to submit, the arbitrator shall determine the issues.

The Town and the Union agree that the jurisdiction and authority of the arbitrator so selected and the opinions the arbitrator expresses will be confined exclusively to the interpretation of the express provisions or provision of this Memorandum at issue between the parties. The arbitrator shall have no authority to add to, subtract from, alter, amend, or modify any provisions of this Memorandum or impose any limitations or obligations not specifically provided for under the terms of this Memorandum. The arbitrator shall be without power or authority to make any decision that requires the Town to do an act prohibited by law.

After a hearing and after both parties have had an opportunity to make written arguments, the arbitrator shall submit in writing to all parties his/her finding and recommended award. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties and on any affected bargaining unit employee.

Either party may elect to have representation by legal counsel for the arbitration hearing.

Arbitration Costs
All expenses for the arbitration shall be paid equally by the Town and the Union, except that each party shall be responsible for the expenses of its own attorney, witnesses and transcripts.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-28-
Timeliness
All grievances must be presented at the proper steps in accordance with the time limitations herein and unless such grievances are so presented, the right to file such grievances shall be waived. Any grievance not appealed to the next succeeding step within the time limits specified will be considered withdrawn and not eligible for further appeal. If the Town fails to respond within the prescribed time limits of any one step, the last Town response shall be deemed to be the Town's position for the next succeeding steps. Time limits can be extended by mutual consent, however that any mutual agreements to extend deadlines are not precedential.

49. No-Strike Clause
Both parties of this memorandum recognize the obligation of the Union and of the employees to refrain from engaging in any strike or slowdown of work. In fulfillment of that obligation, the parties recognize that there will be no strike, sympathy strike, slowdown, sick-ins, curtailment of work or interference with the Town's operations on the part of either the Union or employees during the term of this Memorandum or anytime this Memorandum is continued by the express mutual consent of the parties. It is recognized that violation of this clause will result in discipline up to and including terminations.

50. Safety
Observance of Safety Rules and Regulations
Both the Town and the Union shall expend a reasonable effort to ensure that work is performed with a maximum degree of safety, consistent with the requirement to conduct efficient operations.

Each employee covered by this MOU agrees to comply with all safety rules and regulations in effect and any subsequent rules and regulations that may be adopted. Employees further agree they will report all accidents and safety hazards to the appropriate management official immediately. Any employee having knowledge of or who is a witness to an accident shall give full and truthful testimony as to same.

Safety Program
The Town has established a Safety and Risk Management Committee. The Department may appoint up to one (1) employee representatives on the Committee.

51. Layoff
Whenever, in the judgment of the Town, it becomes necessary to abolish positions, the Town may abolish any position included in the bargaining unit and the employee holding such position may be laid off subject to any bumping rights he or she may have. The Town may lay off employees due to lack of work or funds.

In a reduction in force, employees with the least length of service in the classification shall be laid off first provided that, in the determination of the City Manager, the skill and qualifications of the remaining employees are equal to that of the laid off employee. Employees to be laid off from a classification shall have a right to bump employees in a lower classification in accordance with seniority with the Town provided that, in the determination of the City Manager, they possess superior skill and qualifications.

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-29-
Employees affected by a layoff shall retain employment rights in a position previously held in a lower classification and shall revert back to said position with full seniority rights and be : .... + ..... --... +.-....J ..... ; .. L +L ...... ..., __ : ___ ;..._._...,_, .. ; ___ _ .,c ____ , __ ··---!._LI--'-·-·--- _1 ___ :,c: __ .1..~--- lUL\.,Ol Ql,..\.,U VV lLll Ul\.,, ;:)\,,,lJlUl u.y 1 GUll\,,111!, VJ. ~aup1uy~\;~ 111 LUC lV W~l \.,lQ.~:)lUl,,.,a.UUll.

52. Reinstatement
A regular employee who has resigned in good standing may be reinstated to a vacant position of the same classification as the previous position within a period of two (2) years from the effective date of resignation. Reinstatement wiil be made at the sa1ary step determined by the City Manager. A reinstated employee will not be entitled to prior service credit in calculating Town benefits.

V. TERM
This MOU shall be in full force and effect until midnight, December 31, 2023.

The Union shall submit its written initial proposal for a new MOU to the Town by September 1, 2023. The Town shall make a written counterproposal within 30 days of receipt of the Union's fnit;,:.I nt"f'\nn.C"'=III •••.a .. ._.....,._ t'& Vt''--'""-•• Town of Hillsborough
///3/Z/
Dated

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-30-
Appendix A - Salary Schedule - Effective January 2021
Jan-21
BiPublic Works weekly 3,993 4,193 4,403 4,623 4,854
Supervisor Monthly 8,652 9,085 9,540 10,017 10,517
Annually 103,818 109,018 114,478 120,198 126,204
Public Works BiAsst. weekly 4,405 4,625 4,856 5,099 5,354 Superintendent Monthly 9,544 10,021 10,521 11,048 11,600 Annually 114,530 120,250 126,256 132,574 139,204
Jan-22
BiPublic Works weekly 4,113 4,319 4,535 4,762 5,000
Supervisor Monthly 8,912 9,358 9,826 10,318 10,833
Annually 106,938 112,294 117,910 123,812 130,000
Public Works BiAsst. weekly 4,537 4,764 5,002 5,252 5,515 Superintendent Monthly 9,830 10,322 10,838 11,379 11,949 Annually 117,962 123,864 130,052 136,552 143,390
Jan-23
BiPublic Works weekly 4,237 4,449 4,671 4,905 5,150
Supervisor Monthly 9,180 9,640 10,121 10,628 11,158
Annually 110,162 115,674 121,446 127,530 133,900
Public Works BiAsst. weekly 4,673 4,907 5,152 5,410 5,681 Superintendent Monthly 10,125 10,632 11,163 11,722 12,309 Annually 121,498 127,582 133,952 140,660 147,706

Memorandum of Understanding
Public Works Supervisors Unit 2021-2023
-31-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 20, 2023

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE TOWN OWNED LAND:

A. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2023060305); ADOPTING

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND

A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
B. RESOLUTION REPEALING THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH’S 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
C. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04, 17.12, AND 17.16 OF THE HILLSBOROUGH

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING AND USES PERMITTED AND REZONING TWO TOWN OWNED PROPERTIES, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN’S HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (2023-2031)
BACKGROUND:

State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the Town of Hillsborough adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the Town’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 554 housing units, comprised of 155 very-low income units, 89 low-income units, 87 moderate-income units, and 223 above moderate-income units.

To comply with State Housing Element Law, the Town has prepared the 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the Town’s RHNA allocation.

Public review and input has been a critical component of this 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and the Town conducted extensive community outreach over the course of the two year Housing Element preparation period. The Town’s Housing Element 2023-2031 was prepared with the benefit of input and discussion with the community at 25 public meetings on the Housing Element.

Public Meetings and community visioning workshops involved the Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC), Architecture and Design Review Board (ADRB), Citizen Communications Advisory Committee (CCAC), the City Council, and 21 Elements of San Mateo County. Guidance -33-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 2023

was also provided by State Housing and Community Development (HCD) and other stakeholders throughout the process.

The content of the Housing Element is structured for consistency with the requirements set forth in state law. In addition to responding to requirements of state law, the Housing Element also demonstrates the Town’s strategy to meeting the Town’s locally determined housing needs, and that these needs are addressed through policies and programs outlined within the Housing Element.

Between August 4, 2022 when the Town posted the first draft Housing Element and November 21, 2023, Town staff submitted three formal draft versions of the Town’s Housing Element to HCD, met with HCD staff six times, and submitted one informal revision to HCD.

On November 30, 2023 the Town received a letter from HCD stating that the draft Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law, and will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the Town of Hillsborough in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines to describe the potential environmental consequences, also known as impacts, from implementation of the proposed 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Update, associated amendments to other elements in the General Plan as necessary to ensure consistency; and amendments to the Hillsborough Municipal Code to provide for effective implementation of the Housing Element Update, collectively the “Project”.

The scope of the environmental review considers the maximum build-out allowed by the Housing Element, related General Plan amendments, and related ordinances over the course of the 2023- 2031 6th Cycle term. It was determined that a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will provide environmental clearance for the project. Specific development projects would be addressed under subsequent CEQA review, tiering off the EIR.

The Program EIR is structured to minimize the environmental review needed for future development proposals by describing anticipated impacts of housing development on the sites identified in the Housing Element within the 8-year planning period of the Housing Element, including the Town Hall and Tobin Clark sites, and presenting programmatic level mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the anticipated impacts.

Below is a summary timeline of the preparation of the EIR in order to comply with State CEQA Guidelines:
• June 9, 2023 - The Town issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR, which was sent to each responsible agency, trustee agency, the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), and interested parties, including members of the public who had requested such notice.
• June 21, 2023 - The Town held a public scoping meeting (in-person and virtual) on to further solicit comments on the scope of the Draft EIR.
-34-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 2023

• October 19, 2023 - The Town initiated a 45-day public review and comment period of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and comment. The Town received one comment during the 45-day public review and comment period; one additional comment was received 10 days after the close of the review and comment period and is included in Attachment 4.
• November 13, 2023 - The City Council held a public hearing to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR on, and no comments were received.

The Town has prepared a Final EIR, which includes the written comment received on the Draft EIR, and the Town’s response to the comment. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR to substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

All the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Town's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the Town in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated.

Before the Housing Element 2023-2031 can be adopted; the City Council must first take action on the EIR pursuant to CEQA by adopting a resolution that; (1) certifies the EIR, (2) adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and (3) adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1).
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031
The Housing Element Update creates a policy framework that will facilitate housing solutions to satisfy the Town’s Cycle 6 (2023 – 2031) housing unit assignments as mandated by State Planning and Zoning Law via the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The Town of Hillsborough has a RHNA assignment of 554 new housing units for the 2023 – 2031 planning period. This is broken down into 155 very low-income units, 89 low-income units, 87 moderate-income units, and 223 above moderate-income units. Because the Housing Element must plan for or have policies in place to accommodate the RHNA assignment plus “buffer” units as required by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Town is planning for and evaluating a total of 605 units (554 RHNA + 51 buffer units).

Housing Element 2023-2031 Strategy
After extensive discussion and community outreach, the Town has determined five approaches to produce the number of sites to meet the RHNA assignment:
• Approach 1: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs, • Approach 2: Pipeline projects (projects in varying stages of the approval process), • Approach 3: Vacant opportunity sites (single vacant parcels that could be suitable for development),
• Approach 4: Subdivision/lot split opportunity sites (larger sites that could allow for subdivision or lot splits); and
• Approach 5: Multi-family opportunity sites (sites that could be suitable for multi-family development, either based on property owner interest or Town owned land). -35-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 2023

Required Components of a Housing Element
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, local governments are required to include the below items as components within their Housing Elements, and subsequent updates:
• Housing Needs Assessment. Examine demographic, employment and housing trends and conditions and identify existing and projected housing needs of the community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., large families, persons with disabilities). This section includes a community’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as determined by a community’s regional planning body in partnership with HCD. • Evaluation of Past Performance. Review the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs.
• Housing Sites Inventory. Identify locations of available sites for housing development or redevelopment to demonstrate there is enough land zoned for housing to meet future need at all income levels.
• Community Engagement. Implement a robust community engagement program that includes reaching out to individuals and families at all economic levels of the community plus historically underrepresented groups.
• Constraints Analysis. Analyze and recommend remedies for existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development. • Policies and Programs. Establish policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023- 2031 planning period to fulfill the identified housing needs. • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Analyze and address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity by proposing housing goals, objectives, and policies that aid in replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
At the City Council meeting on January 23, 2023, the City Council provided direction to staff on the allocation of housing units and opportunity sites to be included in the Housing Element, including rezoning two Town owned properties to allow for multi-family residential. This allocation of units is reflected in the Housing Element 2023-2031 Strategy.
-36-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 2023

Amendments to the Municipal Code relating to zoning and uses permitted are necessary in order to maintain consistency with the strategy, policies, goals, and actions outlined in Town’s Housing Element Update 2023-2031 that were deemed in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law by HCD.

The amendments to the Municipal Code are consistent with and implement the Housing Element 2023-2031 Policies, Goals, and Actions including:
• Goal 1.4: Amend the Town’s zoning regulations to comply with all recently adopted state legislation.
• Goal 1.5: Amend the Town’s zoning regulations to accommodate a variety of housing types. • Policy 3: Facilitate Housing Development on Public, Commercial, Nonprofit, and Institutionally Owned Sites
• Goal 3.3: Facilitate the development of housing at the Town Hall Campus. • Action 3.3 (d): Amend the zoning for the Town Hall Campus to permit development of housing ‘by right’ within the time limits required by State law. The Town commits to rezoning this site pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h) and (i). • Goal 3.4: Facilitate the development of housing at the Tobin Clark housing opportunity site. • Action 3.4 (d): Amend the zoning for the Tobin Clark property to permit development of housing ‘by right’ within the time limits required by State law. The Town commits to rezoning this site pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h) and (i).

The amendments to the Municipal Code Chapters 17.04, 17.12, and 17.16 establish the zoning districts of the Town and outline the permitted uses.

Chapter 17.04 – Purpose and Zoning Map
Updates reflect that the purpose of this Chapter is to establish the zoning districts of the Town and that the Town shall adopt a zoning map, delineating the boundaries of each district within the Town. All development and use of lands within the Town’s jurisdiction shall comply with this Chapter, based on the zoning district classification specified on the Zoning Map (Attachment 3).

Chapter 17.12 – Zoning Districts
To date, there has been one zone within the Town, namely, the residence district ("RD"), which consists of all of the land within the boundaries of the Town. This amendment establishes three zoning districts, as follows:

1. Traditional Residential (RD-1). The Traditional Residential district (previously known as “RD”) allows for the development of single-family dwellings in a manner that is consistent with the existing character of the community and subject to all existing development standards. The maximum allowed density is one single-family dwelling per ½ acre, exclusive of accessory dwelling units.

2. Mixed Residential (RD-2). The Mixed Residential district is established to accommodate the development of townhomes and multifamily buildings on Town owned land. The minimum allowed density is 20 units per acre.

3. Governmental and Residential Mixed Use (RD-3). The Governmental and Residential Mixed-Use district is established to accommodate the development of Town of -37-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 2023

Hillsborough facilities as well as limited residential units on Town owned land. A maximum of 16 dwelling units may be accommodated on the land zoned in this district.

The Zoning Map shows that the Traditional Residential district (previously known as “RD”) still applies to the majority of Town and does not involve any changes to the development standards currently in place for the development of single-family dwellings. There are no changes proposed to density, lot size, lot width, etc.

The Mixed Residential (RD-2) is only applicable to the Tobin Clark property and Governmental and Residential Mixed Use (RD-3) is only applicable to the Town Hall Complex, both of which are owned and controlled by the Town.

Chapter 17.16 - Allowed Uses
The amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 include clarification of the permitted uses through a table outlining permitted uses, uses that require a special permit, and uses that are prohibited in a district.

The notable changes are that Multi-family Housing is now an allowed use in the two newly established zoning districts applied to the Tobin Clark Site and Town Hall Complex.

A public notice was mailed in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Town’s Municipal Code, which includes all owners of property located within 500 feet (within 300 feet, for properties situated outside of the town jurisdiction) of the property that is subject to the public hearing. The Town included tenants in this mailing in addition to property owners. Written public comments received by 5 p.m. on Thursday, December 14, 2023 are included in Attachment 4.

Additional changes include updated language related to Emergency Shelters, Family Day Care Homes, Residential Care Facilities, and Transitional and Supportive Housing. These changes are limited to language that is required to comply with State Law.

NEXT STEPS
As part of the comprehensive implementation of the Housing Element, the Town will need to make minor amendments to other General Plan Elements to reflect and support the updated 2023 – 2031 Housing Element. Other amendments include the Land Use Element and Land Use Map, Open Space and Conservation Element, and Circulation Element. Updates will be limited to those necessary to achieve consistency with the Housing Element.

The Town is preparing a comprehensive update to the Public Safety Element, which will address climate change resiliency and wildfire planning as required by SB 379 and CGC section 65302[g].

FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this project have been included in the previously approved budget for the General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The Town has prepared this EIR pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon adoption of the resolution certifying the EIR, the Town will have complied with CEQA.
-38-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
December 20, 2023

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR):
a. Exhibit A: CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) - available online at:
8 (19035) Geology _MIG revs (Screencheck) - TLG edits (00210843).DOC (hillsborough.net)
c. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - available online at:
hillsborough.net/DocumentCenter/View/5575/Hillsborough-Focused-GPU_FEIR_12-13- 2023

2. Resolution Adopting the Town of Hillsborough the 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031:
a. Exhibit A: Town of Hillsborough Housing Element (2023-2031) - available online at:
hillsborough.net/DocumentCenter/View/5577/20231214_Hillsborough-Housing-ElementFINAL b. Exhibit B: HCD Finding Letter, dated November 30, 2023

3. Ordinance amending Chapters 17.04, 17.12, and 17.16 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code, relating to zoning and uses permitted, pursuant to the Town’s Certified Final EIR and the Town’s updated Housing Element (2023-2031):
a. Exhibit A: Ordinance amending Chapters 17.04, 17.12, and 17.16 – Redline and clean versions
b. Exhibit B: Zoning Map

4. Public Comment received by 5 p.m. on Thursday, December 14, 2023 PREPARED BY: Liz Ruess, Assistant Director of Building and Planning RECOMMENDATION:

1. Conduct a public hearing.

2. Adopt the Resolution Certifying the Focused General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2023060305); Adopting Environmental Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3. Adopt the Resolution Repealing the 2015-2023 Housing Element and Adopting the Town of Hillsborough’s 6th Cycle Housing Element of the General Plan for the Period of 2023-2031, in Compliance with State Housing Element Law.

4. Introduce and waive further reading of the ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough Amending Chapters 17.04, 17.12, and 17.16 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating to Zoning and Uses Permitted and Rezoning Two Town Owned Properties, pursuant to the Town’s Housing Element Update (2023-2031).” -39-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

CERTIFYING THE FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2023060305); ADOPTING

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) has prepared an update to the Housing Element (“6th Cycle Housing Element Update”) for the planning period 2023 through 2031; and
WHEREAS, once the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update is approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the updated 2023 – 2031 Housing Element will be incorporated into the 2005 General Plan, and minor amendments to the Land Use Element and General Plan Land Use Map, Open Space and Conservation Element, and Public Safety Element, will be made to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element (collectively, the “Focused General Plan Update” or “Project”); and WHEREAS, the adoption and implementation of the Project is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the Town's Local CEQA Guidelines, the Town is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Town determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Town issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR on June 9, 2023, which was sent to each responsible agency, trustee agency, the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), and interested parties, including members of the public who had requested such notice; and WHEREAS, the Town held a public scoping meeting (in-person and virtual) on June 21, 2023 to further solicit comments on the scope of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2023, the Town initiated a 45-day public review and comment period of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and comment; and
ATTACHMENT 1
-40-
2 WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the Town consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the Town received one comment during the 45-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a publicly noticed hearing to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR on November 13, 2023, and no comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the Town has prepared a Final EIR, which includes the written comment received on the Draft EIR, and the Town’s response to the comment. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Town has prepared certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 3 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of feasible mitigation are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project, identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the project will not result in any significant growth-inducing impacts as set forth in the EIR and further discussed in Section 6 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, an analysis of alternatives to the proposed Project as set forth in the EIR is further discussed in Section 7 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR to substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and -41-
3 WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings relating to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Town has not received any comments or additional information that constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Town's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the Town in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on the Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the Town after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council considers and adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, both of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, and make implementation of the Mitigation -42-
4 Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council approves the proposed Project for submission to HCD.

SECTION 6. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. City Council directs Town staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of approval of the Project.

Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough

Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at a special meeting held on the 20th day of December 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-43-
1 EXHIBIT “A”

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) provides that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the Town of Hillsborough, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Focused General Plan Update (“Project”), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the Project.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR for a project determines that the project will have one or more significant environmental impacts, a public agency may only approve or carry out the project if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final EIR.

While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into -44-
2 account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility.” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000; see also Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible].) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.)
SECTION 2. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT

REQUIRING MITIGATION
Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the Town hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas:

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-7 through 4.1-8.) Explanation: The Town does not have any formally recognized scenic vistas but residents enjoy and highly value views of San Francisco Bay on the eastern side of the -45-
3 Town and the Santa Cruz Mountains west of the Town. While the General Plan does not provide a description of scenic vistas or scenic resources in the Town, the views of the San Francisco Bay largely visible from some, but not all, higher elevation locations in the Hillsborough hills and the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains provided from parts of the Planning Area can be considered views of scenic vistas, as these geographical features form a significant part of the scenic backdrop of the Planning Area and the larger region. The Hillsborough hills themselves can also be considered a scenic vista visible from some parts of the Planning Area, though views from parts of the Town with flatter topography may be partially obstructed by intervening buildings and structures.

Residential development projects that may be facilitated by implementation of the Project could change the visual quality of currently vacant, undeveloped land.

Redevelopment projects could change the visual character of existing developed sites, particularly if said redevelopment increases the density of on-site uses, incorporates design features that are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and environment, or does not incorporate adequate screening. However, the visual impacts, if any, of the somewhat more intensive and higher density uses that may be facilitated by the Project on scenic vistas would be minimal given that these views of the San Francisco Bay, Santa Cruz Mountains, and Hillsborough hills are already affected by the existing built environment, and the Town is already largely built out.

Additionally, except for the Tobin Clark site discussed below, the housing development that may occur through the implementation of the Project would not significantly contrast in visual character with the surrounding existing (largely residential) uses in the Planning Area. All new single-family development that may be facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines and is subject to review and approval by the Town’s Architecture Design and Review Board per Municipal Code Section 2.12.070 (Design review process). New ADUs would be required to comply with the Municipal Code’s objective standards for size, height, and setback requirements (“Building-permit Only” ADUs) or size, height, setback, lot coverage, architecture, and landscaping (“ADU Planning Permit” ADUs). New multi-family development would be subject to the Town’s anticipated Objective Design Standards, which will be created through community input to ensure the architectural detail and massing of new multi-family buildings is consistent with and complementary to the character of the Town and surrounding buildings.

As such, the potential development of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Housing Opportunity Sites would not substantially alter the overall views of the San Francisco Bay, Santa Cruz Mountains, and Hillsborough hills. Potential Focused GPU impacts with respect to scenic vistas would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-7 through 4.1-8.)

2. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
-46-
4 Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.) Explanation: There are no designated state scenic highways within the Town limits. However, I-280, an officially designated State Scenic Highway borders the Town immediately to the west. Only limited views of neighborhoods within the Town are provided via I-280 because of the topography and dense tree cover. The Nueva Private School Housing Opportunity Site would be located directly off Skyline Boulevard and may be visible from I-280. ADUs may be constructed on lots visible from I-280; however, due to the maximum size and height requirements for ADUs outlined in the Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 17.52.020, ADUs would likely not be readily visible from I-280. In the case an ADU is constructed in such a way that it is visible from I-280, the relatively smaller mass of an ADU in comparison to surrounding single-family residential buildings would ensure the ADU does not significantly contrast with the surrounding environment when viewed from I-280.

The Nueva Private School Housing Opportunity Site, if developed, would be developed according to the Nueva Private School’s 1996 Master Plan. The 1996 Master Plan for the housing site includes a proposed ten-foot-high sound wall and new trees between the proposed housing and Skyline Boulevard, which would effectively screen the new housing from view from Skyline Boulevard and I-280.

The remaining Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element would not likely be visible from I-280 due to physical distance and intervening topography and existing structures. Further, much of the length of I-280 that borders the Town is planted with trees that screen existing views of the Town. New development that may occur in those lengths of I-280 that are not screened with existing trees and vegetation would not likely be readily noticeable as a substantial change in the existing landscape by motorists driving vehicles at relatively high speeds.

For these reasons and the required conformance of new residential development with the Land Use Element goals, polices, and actions listed in Section 4.1.2 of the Draft EIR relating to the protection of visual resources, and with the Town’s Municipal Code requirements for tree removal, landscaping, and exterior lighting, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9.)

3. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-18 through 4.1-19.) Explanation: The Project would result in the intensification of residential densities on properties throughout the Planning Area and, specifically, on properties that are proposed for redevelopment for multi-family housing or that are currently vacant and would be developed with either single-family or multi-family residential -47-
5 development. As a result, the Project could potentially increase the amount of light and glare at these sites and in the surrounding areas.

Existing lighting within the Planning Area is typical for urbanized areas during nighttime hours and includes streetlights, traffic signals (along Alameda de las Pulgas, El Camino Real), sports field lighting, school campus lighting, landscaping lighting, security lighting around homes, and automobile headlights.

General Plan Policy LU-1.4 would ensure that “lighting on private and public property is designed to avoid illuminating adjacent properties and public rights-of-way and does not contribute to an overall increase in the ambient lighting level of the community.” Conformance with this General Plan policy would reduce potential impacts of new lighting associated with residential development that may be facilitated by implementation of the Project.

Additionally, Town’s Residential Design Guidelines currently contain guidelines for lighting on private property. These guidelines state that exterior lighting should not be directed toward the street, the sky or neighboring parcels, and exterior lighting should be designed to subtly highlight key features of the landscape design, such as walkways or paths, and augment architectural features of the residence.

New uses and development may result in an increase in the number of lighting sources currently within the Planning Area; however, given the Planning Area is already heavily developed, such increases are expected to be minimal in nature relative to the existing ambient lighting in the Planning Area. Potentially significant lighting and glare impacts, if any, would be reduced in severity through conformance with General Plan Policy LU-1.4, the Town’s design review process, and future CEQA review of potential new development or redevelopment. As such, future development allowed under the proposed Focused GPU would be designed in such a manner that it would not negatively impact surrounding properties or negatively affect the night sky, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-18 through 4.1-19.) B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. Conversion of Farmland
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2.)
Explanation: The Planning Area contains mostly residential land uses, with some institutional uses and open space. The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) -48-
6 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the Town as predominantly Urban and Built-up Land (over 75 percent) with the remainder identified as Other Land (“other land” includes land uses that are not included in any other farmland mapping category, such as low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; and vacant and non-agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres) (CDOC 2023). These Other Land areas occur in pockets along the western foothills of the Town near the Town’s western boundary, with some areas near the Burlingame Country Club, along Robin Road between Chateau Drive and Hayne Road, along portions of Hayne Road east of Denise Drive, and in the southern part of the Town around Crystal Springs Road (both to the north and the south). There is no land in the Planning Area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. As such, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2.)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2.)
Explanation: There is no land within the Planning Area designated for agricultural use, and the Town does not contain parcels under a Williamson Act contract (San Mateo County 2023). As such, the Project would have no impact related to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract lands, and no conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2.)

3. Conversion of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2.)
Explanation: The Town does not contain lands zoned as forest land nor does the Project identify sites zoned for forest land. Because there are no lands zoned as timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production areas (as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] 12220(g) and PRC 4526 or Government Code 51104(g)) within the Town, the Project would therefore not affect forest land or timberland or conflict with existing zoning for forest land. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2.) C. AIR QUALITY

1. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? -49-
7 Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-31 through 4.2-32.) Explanation: According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Construction occurring within the Town could produce odors from fuel combustion and/or the use of solvents and paints. These odors would be temporary, quickly disperse, and would not affect a substantial number of people. The Project does not directly authorize any new, major land uses identified in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as a source of potential odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plant). This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.2-31 through 4.2-32.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-44.)
Explanation: No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans are present in Hillsborough. Therefore, there is no impact related to conflicts with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other conservation plans. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-44.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-14 through 4.4-15.) Explanation: Future residential development facilitated by the Project may result in direct or indirect impacts to both prehistoric and historic buried archaeological resources. Construction activities such as grading and excavation may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of archaeological sites. Additionally, development may draw the public to gather in areas with visible archaeological resources, resulting in destruction, illicit collection, or prospecting by unauthorized persons.

Actions OSC-5.2 and OSC-5.3 of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element require the evaluation and protection of uncovered cultural resources. Action OSC-5.2 requires compliance with CEQA provisions in relation to -50-
8 cultural resources, including the incorporation of mitigation to reduce adverse impacts to identified cultural resources. Action OSC-5.3 includes provisions to stop project construction activities if archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered, and to assess and mitigate impacts to said resources per State law.

Implementation of General Plan actions identified in the EIR, as well as compliance with federal and State law would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-14 through 4.4-15.) F. ENERGY RESOURCES

1. Conflict with Energy Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-24 through 4.5-25.) Explanation: The Focused GPU would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Title 24 Building Code contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. These standards address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and roofs, etc.) on energy consumption. The 2019 Title 24 Building Code required the installation of solar panels on new residential development under three stories. The latest update to these standards, codified in 2022, extends solar requirements and introduces battery storage requirements to additional building types, including high-rise multifamily buildings, office buildings, and retail buildings. The Town would enforce the 2022 Title 24 Building Code, as well as the Town’s Reach Code contained in Chapter 5.10 of the Town’s Code of Ordinances, which expand upon the 2022 Title 24 Building Code requirements, during design review and project approval processes. Other state plans, such as increasing the RPS portfolio, and increasing fuel efficiency and the number of electric vehicles on the road, would be implemented at the state level.

The Focused GPU would implement mitigation measures that would support renewable energy and energy efficiency, and further reduce a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure GHG-1b would require the Town to consider the adoption of a ZNE ordinance and Mitigation Measures GHG-1d/ENG-1a would require the installation of EV parking infrastructure, which would assist the state in transiting to electric vehicles.

For the reasons listed above, the Focused GPU would comply with applicable State standards and would not conflict with, obstruct, or impede the implementation of any plan related to increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project would have a less-than- significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-24 through 4.5-25.) -51-
9 G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Rupture of an Earthquake Fault
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, or involving strong seismic ground shaking? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp.4.6-15 through 4.6-17.) Explanation: Due to the Town’s location and physical conditions, future development in the Planning Area would be subject to geologic and seismic constraints, which may represent a potentially significant impact on future structures. The most serious constraints would be related to the Town’s proximity to major earthquake faults and the steeply sloping terrain in the western portion of the Town. Strong groundshaking could be expected to occur in the western portion of the Town, closer to the active San Andreas fault system, which is located approximately 0.35 miles west of Town at the nearest point. Housing Opportunity Sites are distributed throughout the Town. Approach 1 ADUs could be developed on any residential parcel in Town, barring parcels where existing Municipal Code requirements could not mitigate geologic and seismic hazards to California Building Code (CBC) standards. New housing construction facilitated by the proposed Project would be subject to strong ground shaking during a seismic event.

The liquefaction risk increases from Very Low in the western and central portions of the Town to Moderate in several residential neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the Town approaching El Camino Real and surrounding San Mateo Creek and Borel Creek. The liquefaction susceptibility level is rated Very High for some of the narrow creek corridors in the eastern portion of the Town. Because most of the Town is mapped as having Very Low liquefaction susceptibility potential, the majority of increased residential density resulting from the Project, including the Subdivision/Lot Split Opportunity Sites, Multi-Family Opportunity Sites, Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), would be expected in areas with Very Low liquefaction susceptibility rating. Some housing opportunity sites may be located in or adjacent to Moderate liquefaction susceptibility areas or Very High liquefaction susceptibility areas if the site is located within or adjacent to a creek corridor. The Town Hall Multi-Family Opportunity Site, for example, may be located in or adjacent to a Moderate liquefaction susceptibility area.

Future residential development facilitated by the Project would be subject to existing General Plan Public Safety Element goals, policies, and actions related to seismic safety. In addition to the General Plan Public Safety Element, the Town’s Municipal Code incorporates the CBC, which has guidelines on building design and construction based on seismic constraints and expected groundshaking throughout California. The Town's existing Municipal Code requirements would prevent an ADU -52-
10 from being developed in a geologic hazard area where the hazard could not be mitigated to CBC standards.

Site-specific geotechnical analyses for future residential construction will be required to accurately assess potential seismic and geologic hazards at any specific project location. In addition, stringent Town grading and building codes and landscaping requirements to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff (Hillsborough Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 – Landscaping) are in place to address landslide potential, and soils studies and remediation measures for any problems are required prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.

With implementation of the existing Public Safety Element goals, policies, and actions, CBC requirements, and Town grading and building permit requirements, potential impacts related to geologic and seismic constraints on future development within the Planning Area would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.4.6-15 through

4.6-17.)

2. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through 4.6-18.) Explanation: The western and central portions of the Town contain steep slopes that would be subject to erosion. Creek banks within the Town would also be subject to erosion. The flatter portions of the Town are also subject to erosion by wind and water where native soils are left exposed during periods of high wind or strong storms. Local soils may be subject to erosion or loss of topsoil as future development facilitated by implementation of the proposed Project occurs on vacant land or where re development occurs.

The Town’s existing General Plan Public Safety Element contains policies and actions related to erosion, including Policy PS-2.2, which requires application of proper development engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements to reduce geologic and seismic hazards, Policy PS-2.3, which requires Town review of new building plans for proper foundation and supports in areas with slope gradients greater than 10 percent and requires property owners to provide minimal slope stabilization on properties at risk of slope failure, Policy PS-2.4, which requires regular inspection of slope improvements in hazardous slope areas, and Policy PS-2.5, which states, “review drainage plans for new development to determine areas susceptible to poor drainage and compare with areas susceptible to slope failure.” Additionally, Action PS-2.1 requires continued implementation of the Town’s Hillside Lot Size Ordinance which limits the density of development on steep slopes to reduce slope failure risk, runoff, and erosion.
-53-
11 In addition to these policies and actions, future development projects must comply with the regulatory permitting requirements of multiple regional and state agencies. Project proponents must also comply with the Town’s grading permit requirements (contained within Chapter 15.24 – Grading), which include the preparation of a grading plan and an erosion sediment control plan to control soil erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction phases of new or redevelopment projects.

With implementation of existing General Plan policies and actions, water quality regulatory permitting requirements, Town grading permit and Municipal Code grading requirements, potential impacts related to erosion from future development within the Planning Area would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through 4.6-18.)

3. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-21.) Explanation: It is not anticipated that future new or redevelopment projects within the Planning Area would require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Wastewater generated by such projects would be conveyed to the municipal sanitary sewer system that is maintained and operated by the Town of Hillsborough Public Works Department.

With implementation of General Plan policies, the CBC, and San Mateo County Health Department requirements, potential impacts related to soil constraints, including soils not capable of accommodating septic systems where proposed for future development within the Planning Area, would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-

21.)
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-13 through 4.8-14.) Explanation: Hazardous materials include substances that are flammable, corrosive, explosive, radioactive, infectious, thermally unstable, and poisonous. The hazardous materials transport, use, storage, and disposal discussion that follows would apply to all proposed housing sites.

Future residential development facilitated by the Project (e.g., construction and routine -54-
12 household maintenance) would not be expected to include the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of these types of hazardous materials although construction of residential units as well as ongoing maintenance over time may involve their intermittent transport, use, and disposal. These materials typically include petroleum-based fuels and lubricants for equipment, wet concrete and asphalt, paints, solvents, and other hazardous materials commonly used in construction and maintenance. With regard to future household maintenance, the types of materials expected to be used would typically include household hazardous substances such as cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers, but on a smaller scale than during construction.

All hazardous substances associated with future residential construction and operations (including maintenance) would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of in conformance with applicable regulations, including:

The Resource Conservation Recovery Act, which provides the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes;
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which regulates closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on US roadways;
The International Fire Code, which creates procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials; California Code of Regulations Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste; and The California Code of Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid wastes.

Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-13 through 4.8-14.)

2. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-21.) Explanation: All proposed housing sites (e.g., the entire Town) are located in Influence Area “A” of either airport and would be required to inform residents of the -55-
13 presence of the relevant airport (a standard real estate disclosure). Future housing proposed for sites located in Influence Area “B” of San Francisco Airport would require review by the SFO ALUC. This ALUC review of future individual development applications for sites within the Referral Area Boundary would ensure compatibility with airport land use and safety policies. Compliance with these airport land use policies and protocols would reduce potential safety hazards and the Project would have a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-21.)

3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-21 through 4.8-22.) Explanation: Project compliance with General Plan policies and actions and with State and local standards would ensure that potential impacts on adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans associated with future development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-21 through

4.8-22.)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-15.) Explanation: The Town’s implementation of State, regional, and local stormwater regulations, and development project compliance with said regulations, would ensure potential Project impacts on surface water quality would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-15.)

2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15.)
Explanation: There are nine groundwater basins with boundaries –either partial or whole—within San Mateo County. The Town lies immediately adjacent to the western edge of the approximately 60,000-acre San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin, except for the northerly end of the Brewer Subdivision, which lies inside the basin boundary. The -56-
14 San Mateo Plain Subbasin underlies the bayside of San Mateo County from approximately the City of San Mateo on the north, to approximately the County boundary at San Francisquito Creek on the south. Currently, there is no entity actively managing the basin.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in water demand compared to existing conditions. However, groundwater is not used for municipal supply in Hillsborough. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) would provide potable water for new development in the Town. SFPUC does not use groundwater supplies to meet demand. Since the Project would not develop or increase the use of groundwater supplies, implementation of the Project would not impact groundwater supplies. Further, new or redevelopment projects would include the installation of LID-based runoff treatment controls in conformance with the MRP, which would also increase the amount of pervious area on the (non-vacant) Housing Opportunity Sites and allow for greater groundwater recharge at the sites compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15.)

3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15 through 4.9-17.) Explanation: Potential future residential development facilitated by the Project would occur in existing developed areas, primarily on opportunity sites that are currently vacant. This potential future development would be required to comply with State (MRP) and County (SMCWPPP) stormwater management standards, including construction period requirements and post-construction site design requirements for new development projects that create 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. This category includes development projects on public or private land that fall under the planning and building authority of a Permittee. MRP Regulated Projects are required to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility, meaning a stormwater treatment facility built to treat the combined runoff from two or more Regulated Projects. Standard construction period requirements applicable to potential residential development facilitated by the Project include preparation of an Erosion Sediment Control Plan to reduce on-site erosion and off-site siltation (Hillsborough Municipal Code Section 15.24.040), and if disturbing more than one acre of ground, State General Construction Permit requirements including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Standard post-construction period requirements as established by the MRP include (1) site design measures to minimize impervious surfaces, or reduce runoff by dispersing it to landscaping or using -57-
15 pervious pavements; and (2) use of low-impact development techniques to result in no net increase in drainage off-site compared to pre-project site hydrology. All these stormwater management measures and techniques are designed to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater and allow water to infiltrate the underlying soil naturally, or capture water for reuse such as a rain barrel or cistern for irrigation purposes. These measures would reduce the effects of new or replaced impervious surfaces due to potential future development facilitated by the Project.

Future residential projects located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) would also be subject to FEMA restrictions and applicable provisions of the Town’s Municipal Code and General Plan related to floodplain management. As previously stated, Chapter 15.44 of the Municipal Code (Floodplain Management) establishes construction requirements for development that would minimize flood hazard risks, including building material selection, building and structure elevation, building and site flood-proofing, and standards for utilities, subdivisions, and residential construction.

Project compliance with State and County stormwater management measures and existing Town General Plan policies and Municipal Code regulations would ensure that impacts on drainage and related effects on erosion or siltation, on- or off-site flooding, redirecting of flood flows, creating substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or exceeding stormwater drainage system capacity from future development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15 through

4.9-17.)

4. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20.) Explanation: The Project, which would allow increases in the number of housing units to be built in the City, would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. Conformance with regulatory requirements for surface water quality protection and reducing flooding risks, as described under Impact HYD-4, would be required of all new or redevelopment projects in the Town. As such, Project impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact HYD-2, the Project would not impact existing groundwater supplies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20.)
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Divide an Established Community
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? -58-
16 Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-11 through 4.10-12.) Explanation: Implementation of the Project would result in the construction of additional residential units on a variety of Housing Opportunity Sites (undeveloped single lots, undeveloped large lots, and sites with existing public infrastructure such as the Town Hall site, the Burlingame Country Club, and the Nueva School site) but no major infrastructure or circulation changes are proposed as part of this Project. The Tobin Clark site conceptual plans call for access to the site to be through the College of San Mateo so any new roads providing access to the Tobin Clark site would not divide the Town of Hillsborough. Even if access to the Tobin Clark site would have to be provided by a new road(s), the local road would not divide the community. Residential housing construction facilitated by the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.10-11 through 4.10-12.)

2. Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-12 through 4.10-21.) Explanation: Future housing projects facilitated by the proposed Project would be reviewed for adherence to the General Plan and applicable zoning regulations. The General Plan contains many policies, some of which may compete with each other. The City Council, in deciding whether to approve a proposed development project, would decide whether, on balance, a project is consistent with the General Plan. For the reasons listed above, the Project would not conflict with General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, and this impact would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is intended to update the Town’s Housing Element according to State law, and to update other portions of the General Plan for internal consistency. The Municipal Code will be updated to reflect the new General Plan Land Use designations and Housing Element polices. The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-12 through 4.10-21.) K. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Known Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? And, would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? -59-
17 Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) Explanation: The Town of Hillsborough is developed primarily with single-family residences built on large parcels that are intermixed with mature woodland and forest communities, and dense vegetation. There are no mines or known mineral resources in the Town (CDOC 2023). In addition, Hillsborough does not have a history of quarrying or mineral extraction. In addition, there are no active or closed mining operations in Town.

The Town does not have mineral resource areas as noted in the Open Space & Conservation Element of the General Plan. According to the State mineral land classification maps, the Town is mostly classified MRZ-1 and MRZ-4, though there are two areas classified MRZ-3. MRZ-1 areas contain adequate geologic information indicating no significant mineral deposits, and the information for MRZ-4 areas is inadequate to assign the area to any of the other MRZs. For the two areas of the town with MRZ-3 classification, though there may be some suitable mineral resource material, these areas lack data on rock quality, distribution, or overburden thickness or other test data. Therefore, because none of the proposed Project sites are located in an area with known mineral deposits, there would be no impact related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state as a result of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-3.) L. NOISE

1. Local Noise Level StandardsThreshold: Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-20 through 4.11-34.) Explanation: Future residential development facilitated by the proposed Project would result in construction activities that could temporarily increase ambient noise levels near construction sites; however, the City's existing Municipal Code and General Plan requirements would ensure construction activities do not occur during the most sensitive time periods (e.g., evening and nighttime periods) or otherwise result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that exceeds the City’s Municipal Code Standards.

Traffic noise levels with the proposed Project would continue to be low in the Town on most roadway segments, and the proposed Project would not contribute to a significant increase in modeled traffic noise levels on any key collector, arterial, or highway segment. In addition, the continued implementation of the General Plan would serve to further minimize potential increase in traffic noise levels in the Town.

The Town’s General Plan policies and programs would protect existing and future residents from excessive noise levels by ensuring new development projects -60-
18 meet Town noise standards through appropriate, project-specific evaluation and design considerations. Thus, stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by the General Plan goals and policies, and the Municipal Code, which limits allowable noise levels at adjacent properties. For these reasons, the Project would not expose existing or future noise sensitive land uses to substantial permanent increases in stationary and other on-site noise levels.

Noise levels throughout the Town are generally low; however, the Project includes Housing Opportunity Sites in the vicinity of El Camino Real and I-280 that could be exposed to traffic noise levels above normally acceptable and normally unacceptable levels, respectively, depending on the site’s final distance from the modeled road center and the final design of the project. The General Plan establishes the Town’s intent to provide protection from excessive noise levels and ensure that the existing noise environment is compatible with proposed housing projects. It also includes policies and programs to protect existing and future residents from excessive noise levels by ensuring new development projects meet Town noise standards through appropriate, project-specific evaluation and design considerations. For these reasons, the Project would not expose existing or future noise sensitive land uses to unacceptable environmental noise levels. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-20 through 4.11-34.)

2. Groundborne VibrationThreshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-34 through 4.11-37.) Explanation: Although neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code establish specific vibration standards for construction activities, the analysis demonstrates the future development of potential housing sites is not anticipated to have the potential to result in structural damage to buildings. With regards to annoyance, although typical construction activities may generate perceptible groundborne vibration levels at structures within approximately 150 feet of work areas, these levels would not be excessive because they would be intermittent (would not occur every day), limited in duration (equipment would move throughout work areas and not operate in the same location for a prolonged amount of time), and occur during the daytime only (when receptors would not be sleeping and, therefore, are considered less sensitive to vibration levels). For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary increase in groundborne vibration or noise levels. This impact would be less than significant.

The proposed Project could facilitate the construction of single- and multi-family residential dwelling units throughout the Town, which would not result in the development of new stationary or mobile sources that could generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-34 through 4.11-37.)
-61-
19 3. Private/Public AirportsThreshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-37.)
Explanation: The Town boundary is generally located within approximately two to five miles of SFO and San Carlos Airport. Although no part of the Town is located within an airport noise impact zone, parts of the Town are located within SFO Airport Influence Area B and San Carlos Airport Influence Area A, and real estate transactions occurring in the Town are subject to disclosures that notify purchasers the subject property is in proximity of an airport. Monitoring of SFO noise levels have indicated airport noise levels in Hillsborough are less than 47 dBA CNEL, which is not excessive.

Pursuant to General Plan Policy N-2.1, Policy N-2.2, Action N-2.1 and Action N-2.2, the Town will continue to advocate for SFO noise reduction efforts, participate in regional airport planning efforts, and cooperate with C/CAG ALUP review and real estate notification requirements. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Town to excessive airport-related noise levels.

Therefore, there would be no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-37.) M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Induce Substantial Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-10 through 4.12-11.)

2. Explanation: The Housing Element Update is intended to accommodate the Town’s RHNA share determined by ABAG for the 2023 – 2031 planning period. As such, the population growth associated with the Housing Element Update would not be unplanned as the document includes the identification of sites for future housing development. The population growth would also be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, a regional plan intended to guide the regional population growth anticipated by 2050.

Therefore, the impact on population growth would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-10 through 4.12-11.)Displacing Housing and People
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-11 through 4.12-12.) -62-
20 Explanation: Implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the net increase of units within the Town and would not result in displacement of population or housing. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12- 11 through 4.12-12.)
N. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 through 4.3-16.) Explanation: Implementation of the Project is estimated to result in an increase of approximately 605 dwelling units in the Planning Area (RHNA + buffer units) in the next eight years. This increase in development is likely to result in an increase in demand for fire protection services. Compliance with the policies and actions in the General Plan Land Use and Public Safety Elements will ensure that adequate CCFD equipment and staffing would be available to serve future development associated with implementation of the Project and would ensure this potential impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 through 4.3-16.)

2. Police Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18.) Explanation: The Project could result in an increased demand for up to 3.1 sworn police officers during the eight-year duration of the next housing cycle. This would represent an increase of approximately 11 percent over the current number of sworn officers, or approximately 1.4 percent per year during this period. Because of the requirements for development review and additional environmental review for the construction of any required future police facilities, and the relatively small number of additional police officers that could be required as a result of the Project, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18.) -63-
21 3. Schools
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-18 through 4.13-21.) Explanation: Through the payment of associated development fees, compliance with applicable State and local regulations, adherence to policies and actions included in the General Plan, and with 3,228 projected open seats at SMUHSD in 2024, the impacts of the Project on school facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.13-18 through 4.13-21.)

4. Parks
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-21 through 4.13-22.) Explanation: New development anticipated by implementation of the Project has the potential to add 1,274 new residents to the Town’s population, which would increase the demand for park and recreational facilities in the Planning Area. The Town has approximately 1.72 acres of developed public parkland, which equates to about

0.15 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (Town of Hillsborough 2005). While this parkland ratio is far below the recommended parkland ratio (3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents per the Quimby Act) for communities, most residents in Hillsborough live on large private lots with private recreational facilities. Per the 2005 General Plan, the Town has a goal of providing an additional three acres of parkland for every new 1,000 residents. New residents to the Town because of the Project would result in approximately 0.135 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. To meet the Town’s parkland ratio of three acres per every 1,000 residents during the planning period of the proposed Housing Element (2023 – 2031), the Town would need to add 36.1 acres of new parkland in addition to the existing two acres of developed parkland in the Town.

The specific environmental impact of constructing new individual park or recreation facilities would be evaluated at the time that new development projects potentially resulting in the demand for such facilities are proposed. As future new development proposals are evaluated, specific park and recreation facility requirements will be identified through the environmental review process and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented that could include the dedication of parkland, construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing facilities, and/or the payment of -64-
22 in-lieu fees. Therefore, the Project’s potential impact on parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-21 through 4.13-22.)

5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-21.) Explanation: Implementation of the Project has the potential to add 1,274 new residents to the Town’s population, which could result in increased demand for library services. As Hillsborough residents are able to access library services through the Peninsula Library System and are able to borrow materials from any of the Peninsula Library System’s member library branches, it is unlikely that the increase in population in Hillsborough as a result of the Project would adversely impact the Peninsula Library System given its size. Any remodeled or new library facility would be subject to environmental review under CEQA. Environmental review would identify site-specific conditions and physical changes resulting from library expansion or construction. New residential development within the Planning Area would result in an increase in the tax base of the Town and could be used to offset the incremental demand for library services. Therefore, the impact of the Project on library services would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-21.)
O. RECREATION

1. Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-21 through 4.13-22.) Explanation: Existing General Plan Actions and Policies and Municipal Code requirements (General Plan Action OSC-1.2, Policy OSC-1.3, Policy LU-2.5, Policy OSC-1.1, Policy LU-4.7, and Action LU-4.1 and Municipal Code Chapter 16.18) help the Town meet the parkland ratio goal and would make sure that existing facilities are not negatively impacted by future growth. The specific environmental impact of constructing new individual park or recreation facilities would be evaluated at the time that new development projects potentially resulting in the demand for such facilities are proposed. As future new development proposals are evaluated, specific park and recreation facility requirements will be identified through the environmental review -65-
23 process and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented that could include the dedication of parkland, construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing facilities, and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on parks and recreational facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-21 through 4.13-22.)

2. New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-22 through 4.13-23.) Explanation: The Project does not specially propose or authorize the construction of any new recreational facilities or expansion of existing recreational facilities. As stated previously, the environmental impacts of future new parks or recreational facilities, and expansion of existing parks or recreational facilities would be evaluated at the time that the new development projects potentially resulting in the demand for such facilities are proposed. As future new development proposals are evaluated, specific park and recreation facility requirements will be identified through the environmental review process and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented that could include the dedication of parkland, construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing facilities, and/or the payment of in-lieu fees. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on parks and recreational facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-22 through 4.13-23.)
P. TRANSPORTATION

1. Consistency with Circulation Performance Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-17 through 4.14-18.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and public transit, and individual developments will be reviewed as part of the project level development review to determine necessary transportation improvements. Therefore, with respect to potential conflicts with circulation system policies, the impact of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-17 through 4.14-18.) -66-
24 2. Transportation Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-22.) Explanation: Housing development projects that include infrastructure improvements such as new streets, driveways, or pedestrian and bicycle facilities would undergo project-level review, and potential hazards would be identified as part of the review process. Potential safety concerns to be evaluated include the adequacy of sight lines at project access points and visibility issues that result from project-related vehicle queues. Based on the design requirements for new projects and the analysis that would be included as part of project-level review, the impact of the proposed Project with respect to the introduction of hazardous design features would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-22.)

3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-22 through 4.14-23.) Explanation: The implementation of the housing units proposed as part of the Focused GPU would not be expected to result in inadequate emergency access. At the project level, each project would be required to meet Town and County standards and requirements and would be reviewed by public safety officials as part of the approval process. Safety, Fire, and Building Codes would be adhered to for all proposed developments included in the updated Housing Element. These requirements include providing two points of ingress/egress for residential projects in high fire hazard areas and roadway and driveway widths and lengths that meet current Fire Code requirements. Further, complying with these standards and requirements is consistent with General Plan Policy C-1.5, which requires maintenance of adequate emergency access.

For any roadways that would be modified as part of the implementation of the proposed housing units, any reduction in vehicular roadway capacity would require an analysis of traffic operations to identify potential impacts to emergency vehicle access; in the event that any such impacts are identified, mitigation measures would be developed to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.

Compliance with the Town policies and the Fire Code would ensure that future development associated with implementation of the Project would ensure this potential impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-22 through 4.14-23.) -67-
25 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Sufficient Water Supplies
Threshold: Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-30 through 4.15-32.) Explanation: The Town has an individual supply guarantee with SFPUC for 4,585 acre-feet (AF) per year during normal water years. With Project buildout, the Town would be expected to require a total of 3,738 AF by 2030 (approximate full buildout year), decreasing to 3,669 AF by 2045 (due largely to anticipated infrastructure improvements reducing losses from water system leaks) and therefore would have a sufficient water supply. However, for a single dry year and for multiple dry year conditions, the UWMP notes that SFPUC used conservative future dry year planning projections based on implementation of the Bay Delta Plan amendment, which could have serious effects on SFPUC water supplies. Therefore, the Town also incorporated these conservative water supply assumptions to be consistent with SFPUC.

During the first two years of Bay Delta Plan amendment implementation, Hillsborough would have sufficient water supply to meet its water demand. However, by the third year of implementation, the Town could experience a significant water supply shortfall, which would necessitate the Town to implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to reduce demand and meet the water supply shortage. As explained in the UWMP (p. 110): “It should be noted that during the 2014-2017 drought, Hillsborough was compelled to reduce water use by 36% as compared to 2013 water use, and ultimately achieved a 41% water use reduction.” As a note, during 2020 (also a drought year), the Town reduced its water demand to 234 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd).

The Town’s WSCP addresses potential water supply deficiencies (“shortfalls”) by designating six water shortage levels (or “stages”) that are determined by the water supplier, based on water supply conditions, consistent with State law. The six stages range from up to 10 percent to greater than 50 percent supply reductions. The Town intends that this system of water use reductions from the WSCP will address any projected supply shortfalls.

In addition, the Land Use Element includes one policy and one action related to water conservation: Policy LU-4.6 calls for continuing to maximize the efficiency of water use throughout the Town, and Action LU-1.2 states the Town’s intention of enforcing its Residential Landscaping requirements to promote water conservation. The Open Space and Conservation Element also includes one action, Action OSC-4.3, addressing the Town’s desire that property owners incorporate water conservation techniques into their landscaping to reduce water usage. Municipal Code Chapter 15.29 establishes requirements and standards for water conservation in landscape projects. -68-
26 Furthermore, as specific projects are proposed within the Planning Area, potential water-related impacts would be evaluated and identified, along with measures to mitigate any significant impacts, as part of the CEQA compliance process for future project-specific proposals. Compliance with Town Municipal Code and General Plan policies would ensure impacts of the Project on water supply would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-30 through 4.15-32.)

2. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-32 through 4.15-33.) Explanation: For the San Mateo WWTP, the Town’s portion (60 percent) of this Project-generated increase of 0.11 mgd (0.066 mgd) would represent an approximately

2.2 percent increase in total average dry weather flow at the San Mateo WTTP (and an approximately 1.2 percent increase in WWTP design capacity). Because these increases in wastewater flow would not represent substantial increases or exceed the design capacity of either WWTP, Project-related wastewater generation impacts on treatment facilities would be considered less than significant.

It should be noted that these two wastewater facilities serve other jurisdictions as well, and it is possible that incremental increases in demand, as anticipated under the Project, in conjunction with increased demand for other communities could result in the need for future new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. As noted previously, although the San Mateo WWTP is currently undergoing planning for an expansion of existing facilities (including its own CEQA review), any other future expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. This potential impact would therefore be considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-32 through 4.15-33.)

3. Landfill Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-33.) Explanation: According to CalRecycle, the Town of Hillsborough disposed of approximately 8,928 tons of solid waste in 2019, which would be about 13.05 pounds per day per household. Implementation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in a population increase of approximately 1,274 residents (554 households), and the net -69-
27 new waste generated associated with the increase in residents would be 7,229.7 pounds per day or 1,319 tons per year (approximately 3.61 tons per day).

The Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) currently has a throughput limit of 3,598 tons per day and is expected to remain operational through 2034. The increase in solid waste associated with implementation of the Project would be less than one percent of the landfill’s daily capacity. As this facility does provide service to other jurisdictions, there is a possibility of exceeding the landfill’s current permitted capacity.

Any proposed new or expanded solid waste facility would need to comply with adopted mandatory environmental regulations, including CEQA. This potential impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-33.)

4. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-33.) Explanation: Any individual future project completed under the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste management and reduction (minimization and recycling). This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-33.) R. WILDFIRES

1. Exacerbation of Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-27 through 4.16-29.) Explanation: Compliance with the existing General Plan policies and actions, Housing Action Plan policies, goals, and actions, State regulatory requirements described in this section and in Section 4.16.2, and the applicable CCFD development review process for new development in the Town, the WUI Program inspections and requirements, would help minimize the potential for impacts related to wildfires and subsequent downhill or downstream impacts, including exposure to air pollutants.

Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbating wildfire risks, and thereby exposing Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-27 through

4.16-29.)
-70-
28 2. Infrastructure-Related Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-29 through 4.16-31.) Explanation: Development of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Opportunity Sites would involve the placement of new development within previously undeveloped areas and require the installation of or maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, emergency vehicle turn arounds, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, powerlines, or other utilities.

While existing infrastructure is located in the vicinity of the 2260 Redington Road Subdivision Site, the conceptual plan for the Strawberry Hill subdivision includes a new internal site roadway that would connect to Macadamia Drive and Redington Road and build-out of the subdivision would likely involve new utility mains throughout the site to serve up to 35 new homes, potential fuel breaks between new homes and the existing vegetation that would be left in place, and potential new emergency water supplies to serve the development.

Development of the Hayne Road and 50 Brooke Court Subdivision Sites would not involve the development of internal access roads that travel through the entire site, but new driveways would be required to provide access from existing roads to the new single-family residences. New utility mains would not likely be required for these subdivision sites as existing utility mains are located in the adjacent roadways, but the installation of new on-site private utility lines and utility tie-ins would be required. Fuel breaks may be required for most if not all housing developed in the Hayne Road and 50 Brooke Court Subdivisions considering the sections of the currently heavily vegetated parcels may be left in place following home construction. Lastly, new emergency water sources would not likely be required as water mains currently exist in these areas, though new private fire hydrant(s) may be necessary.

Development of the Nueva School, Burlingame Country Club, and Town Hall Complex Opportunity Sites would not require the installation of extensive new infrastructure as these developments would be located on sites that are already developed and already served by existing access roads and utility mains.

Development of the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site, however, would require the installation of extensive new infrastructure, including a new internal access road throughout the site, potentially new utility mains along with the new access road, fuel break(s), and emergency water supplies considering the site is vacant, undeveloped and would not likely be able to tie into any existing utility mains as the new housing as it is currently conceptualized would not be located near existing buildings or facilities. -71-
29 The development of the Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites may require the extension of utility infrastructure onto vacant housing sites, but because the Vacant Opportunity Sites are single lots in built-out neighborhoods intended for single-family residences, the construction of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water supplies (though new fire hydrants may be required), and new utility mains would not likely be required.

The development of new ADUs would not likely involve extensive, if any, infrastructure improvements because existing infrastructure was most likely constructed previously to serve the single-family residence on the lots within which the ADUs would be located.

Chapter 33 of the 2022 CFC addresses fire safety during construction and demolition, mandating fire safety procedures for the construction and demolition of structures (Section 3301-3317) and Chapter 49 of the 2022 CFC addresses requirements for construction within wildland-urban interface fire areas and establishes minimum standards related to defensible space, requiring that property owners in a VHFHSZ manage vegetation within a 100-foot radius of a building. Future development in Hillsborough would also be subject to the existing General Plan goals, policies, and actions and new Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element goals and actions that address potential wildfire impacts Townwide. The compliance of new housing development that may be facilitated by the Project with Chapters 33 and 49 of the 2022 CFC, which is required of all new housing development that takes place in the Town, and General Plan and Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element goals, policies, and actions would ensure construction-period installation of new roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities associated with the potential development of the Housing Opportunity Sites would not exacerbate fire risk or temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16- 29 through 4.16-31.)
SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO

A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Town hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

A. AIR QUALITY

1. Construction criteria air pollutant emissions
Threshold: Would construction of the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. -72-
30 Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-31.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The adoption of the proposed Project would not directly result in construction of any residential development or infrastructure; however, future residential development facilitated by the Project would result in short-term construction-emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants emissions that would have the potential to adversely affect air quality.

Although unlikely, there is the potential for future residential development projects facilitated by the Project to exceed BAAQMD project-level construction thresholds of significance. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Accordingly, the Town will incorporate Mitigation Measures AIR-2a and AIR-2b into future residential development projects facilitated by the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-31.) Mitigation Measure AIR-2a. The Town shall require new residential development facilitated by the proposed Project to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Best Management Practices for construction-related fugitive dust emissions. These practices include:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour.

7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
-73-
31 9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2b. The Town shall require new residential development projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update to submit a project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis as part of the project’s application materials. The project-level construction emissions analysis shall be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the start of construction activities, demonstrating that project construction activities would not exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds of significance. The Town shall require the project-level construction emissions analysis for both ministerial and discretionary projects.

The project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis may rely on BAAQMD construction screening criteria to demonstrate that a detailed assessment of criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant construction emissions is not required for the project. If the project does not satisfy all BAAQMD construction screening criteria, the analysis shall estimate and compare construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions against the project-level thresholds of significance maintained by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, implement measures to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:

Limiting the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and grounddisturbing construction activities; Installing wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity;
Planting vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established;
Installing sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent; Minimizing the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site;
Hydroseeding or applying non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days; -74-
32 Use of late engine model years, such as equipment meeting U.S. EPA / CARB certified Tier IV emission standards; and/or
Other on- or off-site construction emission control measures deemed necessary to reduce construction emissions to levels below the BAAQMD's latest recommended CEQA thresholds.

2. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-31.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The exposure of sensitive receptors near construction sites to DPM could have an adverse health risk impact if project construction activities were of sufficient intensity and duration to result in prolonged exposure to DPM emissions.

Although unlikely, the potential for future residential development projects facilitated by the proposed Project to exceed BAAQMD project-level construction thresholds of significance is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2a requires future development projects that may be facilitated by the Project to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Measures to control fugitive dust emissions generated during construction activities. Mitigation Measure AIR-2b requires projects implemented under the Focused GPU that cannot meet construction screening criteria to prepare a detailed construction air quality impact assessment to: 1) estimate potential project construction emissions; 2) compare potential project construction emissions against BAAQMD project-level construction thresholds of significance; and 3) incorporate measures to reduce construction emission impacts to levels below the BAAQMD’s construction thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants and TACs. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-31.) B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Special Status Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 35 through 4.3-38.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, -75-
33 the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: There are housing opportunity sites on or adjacent to natural habitat, such as riparian corridors, buckeye groves, and oak woodlands. Development of housing sites (e.g., Tobin Clark, Burlingame Country Club, Nueva School, 2260 Redington Rd., 275 Robin Rd., and 50 Brooke Ct.) on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat (i.e., streams, wetlands, etc.) may result in significant impacts to special-status species with the potential to occur in Hillsborough (see Figure 4.3-2:

National Wetland Inventory Map and Figure 4.3-3 in Section 4.3.2 Existing Setting above), such as mortality or injury during construction and/or loss of habitat due to housing development. Indirect impacts due to noise, lighting, and disturbance from construction activities and later housing occupancy could also occur, resulting in stress or mortality to special-status species, local extirpation (plants), or causing them to move (animals). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requiring the preparation of a project specific biological resource survey is recommended. Future residential project applications would be reviewed according to the Town’s policies and Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Any future project with the potential to impact special-status species would require additional CEQA review, project level mitigation, and potentially permitting from the resource agencies. BIO-1 supports the 2005 GP Policy OSC-3.12 that requires proponents of projects to complete biological surveys necessary to ensure compliance with all local, regional, State, and federal regulations regarding biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, in combination with implementing the biology mitigation measures from the project-specific biological resources assessment and compliance with regulatory requirements would prevent significant impacts to special-status species from new housing on sites containing or adjacent to natural habitat.

Developed areas in Hillsborough may contain buildings, paved areas, landscaping, trees, other vegetation, and structures that provide habitat for nesting birds, in addition to nesting habitat available on undeveloped lots. All native birds and their nests are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. No significant long-term impacts to nesting birds are expected from the Project. Loss of nesting habitat due to construction-related removal of trees and other vegetation could occur but would be largely offset by the Hillsborough Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 789) and the Town's landscaping requirements for the new housing.

However, short-term impacts to nesting birds could occur during construction of new housing. If construction of new housing occurs during the bird nesting season, it could directly impact nesting birds through the accidental removal of nests during tree removal, demolition, and site preparation activities. In addition, indirect impacts from construction noise and activity could result in nest failure or abandonment. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would prevent significant impacts to nesting birds during construction of new housing.

Trees and vacant buildings can provide roosting habitat for bats, particularly near creeks or other freshwater habitat and away from significant human activity. Bats are -76-
34 protected by the California Fish and Game Code as nongame mammals. No significant long-term impacts to roosting bats are expected from the proposed updated Housing Element. The Hillsborough Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 789) and other policies would help to protect bat roosting habitat in Hillsborough. Mitigation Measure BIO-3a and 3b would prevent significant impacts to roosting bat habitat in areas with natural vegetation or aquatic habitat.

Short-term impacts to roosting bats could occur during construction of new housing. Removal of trees or structures for new housing could directly impact roosting bats by accidentally killing them or forcibly evicting them in daylight hours, resulting in severe stress or mortality. Indirect impacts could also occur if construction noise and activity occur adjacent to roosting bats. Special-status bats and maternity roosts are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would prevent significant impacts to roosting bats during construction of new housing.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-35 through 4.3-38.)
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Project-Specific Biological Resources Evaluation: Prior to the construction of new housing on sites that are on or adjacent to undeveloped land containing natural habitat (e.g., oak woodland, mixed woodland, and/or grassland) or aquatic habitat (i.e., from dripline of vegetation at top of creek bank), a project-specific biological resources evaluation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall utilize relevant resources such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) as well as a field survey covering the project site and adjacent areas. A biological resources report or memo shall be prepared documenting the results of the evaluation. At a minimum, the report or memo shall include a description of existing vegetation, habitats, and aquatic features on the project site; an evaluation of special-status species and sensitive habitats that could occur on the site; and suitable mitigation measures as needed to avoid project-related significant impacts to biological resources. Mitigation measures for impacts on special status species may include:
• Best Management Practices (BMP’s) such as erosion control devises (e.g., straw wattles, silt fence),
• installation of temporary wildlife exclusion fencing along the limits of disturbance,
• worker environmental awareness training on special status species and sensitive habitat including avoidance and minimization measures for the project,
• preconstruction surveys and biological monitoring if sensitive species or an active nest / burrow is found,
• minimizing the development footprint (e.g., clustered development) or avoiding sensitive biological resources, and
-77-
35 • compensatory mitigation for impacts to special status species or their habitat such as habitat restoration, contributing to an established mitigation bank, incorporating a conservation easement on the property, or preserving suitable habitat in perpetuity off site.

Mitigation measures from the biological resources’ evaluation shall be incorporated into the CEQA document for the project and/or adopted as project conditions of approval.

Applies To: New housing development on sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat (i.e., from the dripline of vegetation at the top of creek bank).

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Nesting Birds: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and avoid potential violation of state and federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction of new housing (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, fence installation, demolition, grading, and creation of fuel breaks) must occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after September 15) If site disturbance (i.e., mobilization, ground and vegetation disturbance) occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to September 15), all suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance including staging and storage areas plus a 250-foot (passerines) and 1,000-foot (raptor nests) buffer around these areas shall be thoroughly surveyed, for the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented.

If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), shall take place within 250 feet of non-raptor nests and 1,000 feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.

Applies To: All housing construction (including ADUs) during the nesting bird season (February 1 through September 15).

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a. Bat Habitat Assessment: Prior to removal of trees or structures for housing development, a qualified biologist shall conduct a bat habitat assessment of trees and structures to be removed, as well as within 50 feet of surrounding trees and structures, if accessible. The biologist shall search -78-
36 for large cavities and crevices in trees and structures that could support maternity roosts as well as habitat for special-status bat species. Signs of bats such as guano or the smell of bats shall also be noted. Results of the bat habitat assessment shall be documented.

If no suitable roosting habitat or signs of bats are found, then no further action is required, and the project may proceed as planned. If suitable roosting habitat or signs of bats are found, then Mitigation Measure 3b shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3b. Dusk Emergence Bat Survey: If suitable roosting habitat or signs of bats are found in trees or structures to be removed on a new housing site a qualified biologist shall conduct a dusk emergence survey for roosting bats within 14 days prior to the removal of the tree(s) or structure(s). The biologist shall monitor all suitable roosting trees and structures at dusk for emerging bats, using acoustic equipment to identify the species. Results of the survey shall be documented. If no roosting bats are found during the survey, then no further action is required, and the project may proceed as planned.

If roosting bats are found during the survey, a disturbance-free buffer zone shall be established around the roost site during the maternity season (April 15- September 15), as determined by a qualified biologist until the maternity season is over. Outside the maternity season, roosting bats may be excluded from the tree(s) or structure(s) prior to their removal as directed by a qualified biologist.

During this period, exclusion shall only occur between September 15 and October 15, during warm (i.e., evening temperatures > 50° F) and dry weather when bats are active. The exact materials and methods for exclusion will depend on the type of roost (e.g., crevice, open building) but may include use of one-way doors or two-step tree removal process (removal of tree parts containing nonroost features on day 1 and full removal of the tree on day 2). If one-way doors are used, they shall be left in place for a minimum of 7 days or as long as necessary to allow all bats to exit the roost before sealing or removal of the tree/structure. The exact materials and methods of exclusion shall be determined by a qualified biologist who has knowledge of bat biology and behavior, and prior experience with bat habitat assessments, mitigation, and exclusion. If a maternity colony of a special-status bat species or non-special-status bat species is found during the maternity season, the roosting site shall be preserved, and a disturbance-free buffer shall be maintained around the roost. Disturbance-free buffers for bat maternity colonies of special-status and non-special-status bats may range from 50 feet to 300 feet. The disturbance-free buffer distance will be dependent on the type of disturbance and the species of bat present.

Disturbance-free buffers shall be periodically monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure that such buffers are adequately protecting maternity colonies. Following the maternity season, any bats remaining in the roost may be excluded following the procedures described above. Once all bats have been excluded from the roost site, the roost may be removed.
-79-
37 Applies To: Any housing project that requires removal of trees or structures that may affect special status species.

2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 39 through 4.3-40.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).).) Explanation: Generally, a riparian area is vegetation adjacent to surface water such as ponds/lakes, streams, or creeks. The Town contains riparian habitat and natural communities that may be classified by CDFW as sensitive. Many of the candidate housing sites are in proximity to these resources. The Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element would not directly develop any of the candidate housing sites; however, it would promote and facilitate the development of these sites. Such development could potentially impact sensitive resources on sites that contain natural conditions or are in proximity to undeveloped sites containing natural conditions.

Hillsborough’s creeks may support riparian habitat and more information can be found on each housing opportunity site in the previous section on “Biological Resources in the Housing Element Opportunity Sites”. Creeks are also protected by the federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Act, and California Fish and Game Code.

Because site-specific impacts related to biological resources at the Housing Opportunity Sites are unknown at this time, and because habitat conditions or the list of special-status species can change over time, development of housing projects subject to discretionary review by the Town, if or when applied for, would require site-specific assessments (i.e., BIO-1) to determine what biological resources are or may be present.

The proposed Draft 2023 - 2031 Housing Element would not significantly impact riparian or other sensitive habitat with compliance with General Plan policies referenced above, and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-4. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-39 through 4.3-

40.)
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 – Stream Protection Ordinance. The Town of Hillsborough shall codify General Plan Policy OSC 3.1 that protects streams to assure protection is provided uniformly to streams and creeks, regardless of the type of housing application. The Town shall adopt an Ordinance implementing the requirements of General Plan policy OSC 3.1, ensuring it applies to all residential development projects uniformly and shall include amendments to the zoning ordinance (Development Code) that would establish setbacks which -80-
38 range from 20 feet (General Plan policy OSC 3.1) to 100 feet or more upland from the top of stream banks depending on the size of the lot, slope, nature and quality of riparian and stream resources, and species present, the standards for development within the setbacks, and review procedures and permit requirements. Setback requirements in areas where special-status species associated with the stream and surrounding habitat should ensure the long-term protection of those species and their habitats. Construction of main or accessory structures, earthmoving activity, land clearing, or agricultural uses shall be set back 50 feet from delineated wetland boundaries. The setback shall be 100 feet or more in areas with slopes greater than 50% unless additional measures are installed to protect the stream from erosion. This measure will further minimize impacts to steams by providing a greater distance to reduce runoff, erosion, and sediment from entering the creek. In limited circumstances, the setback may be reduced or increased if recommended by a qualified biologist and approved by the Town.

3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 40 through 4.3-42.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Residential development facilitated by the Project could occur on undeveloped or partially developed sites in proximity to wetlands. This could have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands by directly removing them or changing the water regime that supports them and is therefore considered a potentially significant impact.

Hillsborough’s creeks may support wetlands, and more information can be found on each housing opportunity site in the previous section on “Biological Resources in the Housing Element Opportunity Sites”. Wetland and aquatic resources are also protected by the federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Act, and California Fish and Game Code. The current General Plan policy OSC 3.1 setback of 20 feet does not adequately take into consideration steep slopes, the extent of riparian vegetation, or special status species that may be present in the creek. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-40 through 4.3-42.) -81-
39 4. Wildlife Movement and Nesting/Migratory Birds
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 42 through 4.3-43.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).).) Explanation: Development facilitated by the proposed Project could interfere with the movement of wildlife or result in the loss or reduction of undeveloped or underutilized land that provides movement corridors for wildlife species. In addition, development activities could impair or destroy breeding sites, including the taking of active bird nests and bat maternity roosts. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

None of the proposed housing opportunity sites are expected to support nursery sites, and the properties are dispersed enough that wildlife can move through or around them. Hillsborough General Plan policy OSC 3.1 prohibits most development within 20 feet of a stream, including housing, which would protect movement corridors for aquatic species. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a project specific biological resources evaluation for sites that are on or adjacent to natural vegetation or aquatic habitat. The biological resources evaluation would address wildlife movement and nursery sites if applicable and include site-specific mitigation as needed. The proposed updated Housing Element would not significantly impact wildlife movement and nursery sites with compliance with the General Plan policies and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would work to protect nursery sites and wildlife movement corridors. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts of the Project on wildlife corridors and nursery sites to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-42 through 4.3-43.)

5. Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 43 through 4.3-44.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Residential development facilitated by the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element could conflict with adopted plans, policies and ordinances protecting biological resources if future residential projects impact sensitive biological resources. -82-
40 For example, adoption of the Draft 2023 - 2031 Housing Element would make feasible new housing development and activities that could result in impacts on up to 1,282.2 acres of native forest and woodland (based on mapping by GGNPC 2022, and not based on site-specific surveys), if all lots are fully developed. Direct impacts to forest, such as grading (cut and fill) and vegetation removal, and indirect impacts to aquatic land cover types, such as erosion or runoff, would be considered potentially significant under CEQA.

Compliance with the Hillsborough tree ordinance, General Plan policies, and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, would allow the proposed Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element to avoid conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-43 through 4.3-44.)
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 through 4.4-16.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The disturbance or destruction of a significant Native American resource is considered a significant impact. Although not anticipated, human remains may be identified during site preparation and grading activities, which could result in a potentially significant impact to Native American cultural resources.

The Town’s General Plan does not contain policies or actions geared specifically toward the protection of human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 below would reduce potential impacts to undiscovered human remains and would be applicable to all future development facilitated by implementation of the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and the Town’s development review process would reduce potential impacts to human remains to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-15 through 4.4-16.)
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Procedures if Human Remains are Encountered.

For future development of individual projects within the Planning Area, if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities within specific project sites, the project contractor and/or on-site supervisor shall provide certification to the Town Planning Division that work within 50 feet of the discovery is stopped. The project contractor shall immediately notify the San Mateo County Coroner (Coroner) upon the discovery of any human remains. -83-
41 At the same time, a qualified archaeologist meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61 shall be contacted by the project applicant(s) and project contractor, in coordination with the Town Planning Division, to assess the situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

The NAHC will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the remains and any associated grave goods.

Upon completion of the assessment, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the background to the finds and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the Town Planning Division, and the NWIC. Once the report is reviewed and approved by the Town Planning Division, and any appropriate treatment completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours the project applicant(s) shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the project applicant(s) does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the applicant(s) or the MLD may request mediation by the NAHC.

2. Resources of Significance to a California Native American Tribe
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 in applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 through 4.4-17.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Development facilitated by the Project could disturb unrecorded sensitive archaeological resources or TCRs in the Planning Area. Contact with such resources during construction activities could result in a significant impact.

While implementation of the Town’s development review process, including application of relevant General Plan policies, may reduce the significance of potential TCR impacts to a certain extent, the nature of the potential TCR impacts of any future discretionary -84-
42 development is currently unknown and, as such, the ability of the Town’s development review process and General Plan policies to fully reduce impacts is not guaranteed. As such, mitigation is required to reduce the Project’s potentially significant TCR impacts.

Mitigation Measure TRIB-1 is included below to reduce any potential impacts to TCRs to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 through 4.4-17.) Mitigation Measure TRIB-1: Procedures for Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes.

Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place. • Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
• Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken.

Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

D. ENERGY RESOURCES

1. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
Threshold: Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
-85-
43 Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-19 through 4.5-24.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Project would have the potential to conflict with the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, and result in GHG emissions that are inconsistent with future state-wide GHG reduction goals. These impacts are directly attributable to VMT generated by petroleum-powered vehicles. Due to these impacts, and because petroleum is a non-renewable form of energy, the consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by housing units proposed by the Project are considered to be potentially significant. Accordingly, the Town would implement Mitigation Measures ENG-1a and ENG-1b.

The Project would result in greater energy consumption under proposed conditions than without it. Overall electricity energy consumption would increase, as would per capita electricity consumption, but this increase would be attributable to energy sources shifting from natural gas to electricity. Natural gas consumption, on average, would decrease under Project conditions due to the Town’s Reach Code, which prohibits natural gas use for space and water heating. The use of gasoline and diesel fuels used for new vehicle trips, however, is considered an inefficient form of energy since it comes from non-renewable sources and is not otherwise being abated by existing Town policies, programs, and/or other requirements. Accordingly, the Town would implement Mitigation Measures ENG-1a and ENG-1b, which would require new development further prepare for a transition to electric vehicles. In addition, Mitigation Measure ENG-1b would require VMT reductions that would result in reduced consumption of petroleum by new residents. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures ENG-1a and ENG-1b, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-19 through 4.5-24.) Mitigation Measure ENG-1a: Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements. Future residential development facilitated by the Project that includes new or additional parking facilities must conform with the Tier 2 electric vehicle charging requirements in the latest edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) in effect at the time that building permit applications are submitted to the Town. Currently, the 2022 CalGreen code, Section A4.106.8, Electric Vehicle Charging for New Construction, requires the following measures to facilitate the future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers:
• New one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages include a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit rated at 40 amperes minimum.
• New multi-family dwellings provide 40 percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site be electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply equipment. -86-
44 Mitigation Measure ENG-1b: VMT Reduction. Future residential development facilitated by the Project shall be required to achieve a VMT reduction of 15 percent below the countywide average residential VMT per capita. For individual development projects that do not achieve VMT significance thresholds, applicants shall submit documentation that demonstrates how the necessary VMT reductions will be achieved (see Mitigation Measure TRANS-1).

E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Potential Ground Instability Impacts
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides? Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-18 through 4.6-20.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Planning Area contains steep topography, primarily in the western and central portions of the Town. These areas are mapped as having Moderate to Very High susceptibility to deep-seated landslide susceptibility, according to the San Mateo County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is possible that future events, including earthquakes and severe storms, could trigger landslides in these areas. Future residential growth anticipated by the Project, including the Vacant Housing Opportunity Sites, the Nueva School Opportunity Site, the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site, the Burlingame Country Club Opportunity Site (partial), the Subdivision/Lot Split Opportunity Sites, is expected to occur in portions of the Town that have Moderate, High, or Very High deep-seated landslide susceptibility. The ADU Opportunity Sites may also be located in Moderate, High, or Very High deep-seated landslide areas as many residential parcels in the Town are mapped as such.

Future residential development on hillside properties within the Planning Area could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, caused by unstable soils encountered during future construction projects in areas susceptible to deep-seated landslides. Seismic activity, severe weather events, and wildfires could also cause or exacerbate landslides and debris flows in these areas. Existing General Plan policies and actions, including Action PS-2.1, and conformance with CBC requirements would reduce impacts to an extent; however, the inclusion of Action 1.1 (b) in the Project’s proposed Housing Plan necessitates additional measures to ensure the more intensive hillside development that -87-
45 could be constructed adequately accounts for the increasing risk of climate-change induced landslides, debris flows, and post-fire debris flows in the absence of updated Public Safety Element policies addressing these issues. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is included below to ensure the potential impacts of new hillside subdivision housing facilitated by modifications to Municipal Code Title 16 on surrounding residents and the environment are properly assessed appropriate measures are included in future hillside subdivision project design and implementation to reduce potential impacts related to ground instability both influence and not influenced by climate change impacts.

In addition to compliance with the Town’s General Plan and conformance with CBC requirements, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential Project impacts related to ground instability to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-18 through 4.6-20.) Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Conduct Geotechnical Analysis. Any changes to the existing Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) shall not result in an increase in geologic or seismic hazards to the public. Prior to adoption of any changes to Hillsborough Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) made as a result of implementation of Housing Element Action 1.1 (b), the Town shall include within the modifications to Municipal Code Title 16 the following requirements:
• The Town shall develop and incorporate into Municipal Code Title 16 Stability Report requirements for all new proposed hillside subdivisions. • The soils/geotechnical report required for a new hillside subdivision must evaluate the risks of more intensive housing development on steep and potentially unstable slopes due to increased landslide, debris flows, and post-fire debris flow hazards resulting from climate change impacts. A sitespecific geotechnical report must also be prepared for the development of each lot created by a hillside subdivision. Lot-specific geotechnical reports must also analyze site-specific impacts related to landslide, debris flows, and post-fire debris flows, including the potential for the development of the lot to exacerbate ground instability impacts. Further, it must be demonstrated that new hillside subdivision lots would meet the Town’s Stability Report requirements.
• New subdivisions in landslide areas and on landslide-prone deposits on steep slopes where it cannot be demonstrated through the required geotechnical report that appropriate mitigation measures can stabilize the site for construction will be prohibited.
• Any work or construction undertaken to correct slope instability or mitigate other geologic hazard conditions to be supervised and certified by a geotechnical engineer and/or an engineering geologist.

2. Paleontological Resources and Geologic Features
-88-
46 Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-21 through 4.6-22.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)

Explanation: Future residential development facilitated by the proposed Project may involve earth moving activities, including excavation into previously undisturbed native soils. The Planning Area is not known to have paleontological resources but could potentially have unknown resources. In general, most fossils in the Peninsula and San Francisco Regions are found along the immediate Pacific Ocean coastline, and in locations within the outcropping marine units in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Planning Area may contain isolated geologic features in some of the steeper, less accessible areas. This would be especially important for proposed development on previously undisturbed land that contains steep slopes, rocky outcroppings, or unique geological features. Therefore, there is a low potential of encountering unique paleontological resources in the Planning Area.

Action OSC-5.3 of the General Plan requires construction projects to stop if paleontological resources are uncovered during grading or other on-site excavation activities. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 below would ensure that, if discovered, paleontological resources would be protected. Implementation of General Plan Action OSC-5.3 and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-21 through 4.6-22.)
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Procedures for Protection of Paleontological Resources. For future residential development facilitated by the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, the following measures shall be implemented:
(3) Construction Personnel Training. For residential housing projects involving deep excavation activities that are ten feet or greater in depth, the project applicant/designated representative shall organize construction personnel training for all excavation-related construction activities. The training shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The construction training shall be provided prior to the start of construction. The qualified paleontologist shall provide documentation of the training to the Town. (4) Procedures for Resources Encountered. For all residential housing projects in the Planning Area, if subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt within a buffer area of at least 50 feet around the find. Construction activities will not be allowed to continue within the 50-foot buffer area until a paleontologist who meets the -89-
47 Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards evaluates the significance of the resource and its stratigraphic context in light of professional paleontological standards. Work can resume within the 50- foot buffer area at the discretion of the project paleontologist. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area; however, the paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities if additional paleontological resources are found. If the project paleontologist identifies significant paleontological resources, the paleontologist shall prepare a treatment and recovery plan for the identified resources. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations shall be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and current professional standards.

The project paleontologist shall provide the collected materials to an appropriate museum repository for paleontological specimens for permanent curatorship and storage. The project paleontologist shall also prepare a report documenting the results of treatment and recovery activities and the significance of the fossils and submit the report to the Town. The report, when submitted to the Town, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.

F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Release of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-14 through 4.8-18.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: There is always a possibility that during new construction facilitated by the Project construction workers, visitors, and/or other passers-by could encounter contamination or be exposed to existing spilled, leaked, or otherwise discharged hazardous materials or wastes. Typically, a lending institution requires an environmental survey or records search of the site prior to a commercial loan to determine potential risk as part of the due diligence. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) is a tool used to investigate and report the current and past history and uses of a property; if any usage has contaminated the soil or groundwater; and related areas of investigation. The American Society for Testing and Materials standards for conducting Phase I ESAs are designed within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to identify potential contamination that may impact a property and present an environmental risk or pose a liability for the current property owner or prospective purchaser. The Phase I ESA -90-
48 follows four steps: records review; site reconnaissance; interviews; and report preparation, including findings about the risk to human health or the environment associated with the proposed use of the property. The Phase I ESA may determine that additional investigation is necessary, in which case a Phase II ESA would likely be recommended. The Phase II ESA includes collecting environmental samples of soil, and sometimes soil vapor, groundwater, surface water for laboratory analysis.

Each future development proposal facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with all applicable, existing County-, regional-, and State-mandated site assessment, remediation, removal, and disposal requirements for soil, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination, as described in the “Regulatory Setting” (Section 4.8.2) above. Project compliance with these standard requirements would ensure that any potential upset conditions are addressed appropriately and impacts from future residential development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant.

Ensuring proper identification and removal of asbestos containing materials (ACM) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) requires development facilitated by the Project to comply with the requirements of applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, even if the project is ministerial. Project compliance with these standard State and BAAQMD procedures would ensure that any potential ACM and PCB exposure impacts from future development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant.

Redevelopment of the Town Hall site could result in the disturbance of surfaces painted with lead-based paint, resulting in airborne lead particles that could be released into the air. California OSHA (CalOSHA) regulations would apply, and each site-specific project would implement the standard, mandatory procedures in accordance with those CalOSHA regulations.

Lead abatement performance standards are included in the Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Accordingly, HEPA vacuums may be required for abrasive blasting, water blasting, scraping, or sanding. Burning, torching, and similar activities are prohibited. Following completion of lead-based paint abatement, all visible lead-based paint particles must be removed from the site.

The Town may inspect lead-based paint abatement activities at any time during construction. These personnel are also responsible for addressing citizen complaints related to lead-based paint abatement activities and may issue a Notice of Violation, a Stop Work order, or a fine.

Project compliance with these State procedures would ensure that any potential leadbased paint exposure impacts from future development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant.

One of the identified LUST sites is being considered for future multi-family housing – the Town Hall site on Floribunda Avenue. There are no LUST sites identified on the other three multi-family sites (Tobin Clark, Nueva Private School, and Burlingame Country -91-
49 Club). However, because the remaining LUST sites are all identified as private residences, which means they could be eligible to develop an ADU if so desired by the property owner, implementation of the Housing Element Update could include development of sites (or parts thereof) that may contain unrecorded or unknown hazardous materials from previous uses. Without knowledge of the existing conditions of any specific housing site, the Project could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through exposure from unintentional release or other foreseeable upset or accident conditions.

The General Plan includes Public Safety Element policies and actions focused on providing protection of the community from the use and transportation of hazardous materials. However these policies do not specifically address public safety or protect the public from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions associated with hazardous materials, Existing General Plan Policy PS-5.3 provides for cooperating with federal, State, and County agencies to minimize the risk to the community from the use and transportation of hazardous materials through and adjacent to Hillsborough, and Policy PS-5.4 promotes reducing the per capita production of household hazardous waste in Hillsborough. Action PS-5.4 calls for the Town to work with the County to offer a periodic drop-off program for household hazardous waste and distribute information on alternative non-toxic landscaping treatments. In addition, the BAAQMD regulates airborne pollutants resulting from the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures that may contain asbestos.

Together, these General Plan policies and BAAQMD regulations support the protection of the public from known hazardous materials, but additional measures are needed to ensure public safety from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions associated with hazardous materials. These impacts could be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended to provide Town policy that addresses risk of upset conditions and reduces the impact to less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-14 through 4.8-18.)
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Amend General Plan Public Safety Element. To protect the public and the environment from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions associated with hazardous materials, adopt new Public Safety Policy PS-5.5 and new Public Safety Action PS-5.5, and amend the Municipal Code to establish development standards specified in proposed Action PS-5.5.

Policy PS-5.5: Mitigate hazard exposure to and from new development projects through the environmental review process, design criteria, and standards enforcement, including, where deemed necessary and based on the history of land use, requiring site assessment for hazardous and toxic soil contamination prior, including preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to approving development project applications.

Action PS-5.5: Establish development standards for new development and redevelopment to identify and abate hazardous material releases from prior land -92-
50 uses that have the potential to affect future property owners or users. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment should be required where appropriate; a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, with environmental testing and/or remediation, may also be required based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

2. Acutely Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-19 through 4.8-20.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Almost all residential parcels in the Town would be eligible to develop ADUs, and there are residential parcels within one-quarter mile of each of the schools located in the Town in addition to two schools located immediately adjacent to the Town (Odyssey Middle School and the College of San Mateo). Other proposed housing sites are also located within one-quarter mile of schools in the Town, including approximately five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, two of the Subdivision/Lot Split Sites, and three of the Multi-Family Sites. (It should also be noted that one of the proposed multi-family housing sites is at Nueva School.) Therefore, there is potential for the Project to result in hazardous emissions during construction activities that may affect a school.

Compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require proper use, storage, and disposal of potentially risky materials and would further reduce risks from the Project related to existing or future proposed schools. In addition, with existing General Plan policies and federal, State and local regulations pertaining to hazardous materials, the potential impact of hazardous materials on schools from future development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-19 through 4.8-20.)

3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) -93-
51 Explanation: There are approximately 24 sites in the Planning Area that are included on the State’s “Cortese List.” Many of these sites are on residential properties.

All 24 sites have been remediated and their clean-up operations completed. There are no other sites in Hillsborough included on the Cortese list. In addition, the General Plan includes policies and an action addressing protection of the community from humancaused hazards such as hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce risks of encountering unrecorded hazardous materials during construction. Development project compliance with site-specific mitigation protocols administered by DTSC, RWQCB, and other jurisdictional agencies (including the San Mateo County CUPA) and with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that any potential contamination impacts from future development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-20.)
G. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Utilities Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-18 through 4.15-30.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The 1,400 feet of new pipeline potentially needed to provide a water supply connection to the Tobin Clark site would potentially require extensive vegetation removal including riparian vegetation, the crossing of one or more creeks, and potential disturbance of sensitive habitat, all of which would significantly adversely affect biological resources. Impacts on biological resources from this water pipeline would be uncertain without determination of the actual pipeline route, but considering the existing biological conditions and topography of the site and environs, and also considering the extent of work required (e.g., length of the pipeline), impacts would likely occur related to special-status species, nesting birds, roosting bats, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, state and/or federally protected wetlands, wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites, protected trees, and oak woodland. This would be considered a significant impact.

New infrastructure necessary to provide wastewater service connection to the Tobin Clark site could require extensive vegetation removal and may require removal of riparian vegetation, the crossing of one or more creeks, and potential disturbance of sensitive habitat, all of which would significantly adversely affect biological resources.

Impacts related to proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would be uncertain without specific information pertaining to capacity of existing facilities and projected needs based on specific project information. However, considering the -94-
52 existing biological conditions and topography of the site and environs and that new pipelines or pipeline extensions and/or connections would be necessary, this would be considered a significant impact.

New infrastructure necessary to provide stormwater drainage connection to the Tobin Clark site could require extensive vegetation removal and may require removal of riparian vegetation and the potential disturbance of sensitive habitat. In addition, and if not conveyed to a culvert, stormwater flows from a new development on the site could directly affect creeks. All of these would significantly adversely affect biological resources. Though there are storm drain pipelines in the general area around the Tobin Clark parcel, including within the College of San Mateo and in the Town’s streets below the site, a site development plan with specific stormwater flow calculations would be necessary to determine the potential effects of proposed development on that site to ensure compliance with Town or City of San Mateo development standards and the adequacy of storm drain infrastructure to serve the site. Impacts related to proposed stormwater infrastructure improvements would be uncertain without specific information pertaining to existing facilities and projected needs based on specific project information. However, considering the existing biological conditions and topography of the site and environs and that new pipelines or pipeline extensions and/or connections would be necessary, this would be considered a significant impact.

Implementation of UTS-1 through UTS-3 would reduce utility infrastructure construction impacts from the Tobin Clark site to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.15-18 through 4.15-30.)
Mitigation Measure UTS-1: New Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Infrastructure for the Tobin Clark Site. The Town shall work with the City of San Mateo, the College of San Mateo, and the future developer of the Tobin Clark site to obtain water supply through the City of San Mateo and the College of San Mateo, thus avoiding the construction of a potentially 1,400 foot-long pipeline through sensitive habitats.

If water supply through the City of San Mateo and the College of San Mateo is not possible and the approximately 1,400-foot pipeline from the Town to the Tobin Clark site must be constructed, mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 shall be implemented and the development application for the Tobin Clark site shall be evaluated for consistency with the certified Final EIR for the Project (e.g., compliance with the Final EIR mitigation measures for the Project).

Mitigation Measure UTS-2: Implement Mitigation Measure UTS-1.

Mitigation Measure UTS-3: Implement Mitigation Measure UTS-1. When a project proposal is submitted to the Town, the Tobin Clark proposal shall be evaluated for consistency with the certified Final EIR for the Project (e.g., compliance with the Final EIR mitigation measures for the Project). -95-
53 H. WILDFIRE

1. Impairment of Adopted Emergency Response Plan or
Emergency Evacuation Plan
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-21 through 4.16-27.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: The Town contains many roads with only one point of ingress/egress and that are steep, narrow, and/or winding, particularly in the hills. In addition, some segments of the CCFD-designated evacuation routes are at risk of damage or blockage before, during, and following wildfires due to extensive tree cover over the roadway and narrow, winding roadways constructed on steep terrain. These existing conditions can potentially impair evacuation and emergency response efforts.

Some of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Housing Opportunity Sites are located in the hilly, western portion of the Town where evacuation routes are prone to these conditions.

The Town of Hillsborough is not currently updating its General Plan Public Safety Element as part of this Focused GPU. As such, the Town has not yet completed Public Safety Element updates to respond to this recent State law. Further, while the existing General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed above, would help reduce evacuationrelated impacts of the Focused GPU to a certain extent, the existing goals, policies, and actions do not specifically respond to or fulfill the requirements of SB 99 and AB 747. As such, mitigation is required to ensure Public Safety Element policies, which would guide potential development of housing facilitated by the Project, is responsive to current State law. Mitigation Measure WILD-1 is included below to ensure the Town is responsive to recent State law evacuation requirements and new development is designed to reduce evacuation impacts accordingly. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure WILD-1, the implementation of the Focused GPU, except for the development of the Tobin Clark site, would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-21 through 4.16-27.) Mitigation Measure WILD-1: Emergency Response and Emergency Evacuation Planning. The Town shall develop and adopt General Plan Public Safety Element goals, policies, and actions that address the following:
• Undertake an assessment that uses visual risk assessment and risk factors to identify and prioritize existing deficient evacuation routes. Improve evacuation routes based on the prioritization ranking and in areas identified as having deficient evacuation -96-
54 routes affected by new development, but also in consideration of improvements required for a transportation network which is resilient to wildfire.
• Undertake an assessment that uses visual risk assessment and risk factors to identify and prioritize substandard segments of roadways and choke point intersections. For each identified substandard roadway segments and choke point intersection identify potential physical improvements that would improve road and intersection conditions, which may include pullouts for passing on narrow roads, improved intersection angles, solar-powered streetlights at key intersections, and intersection controls at uncontrolled intersections.
• Implement the findings of both the evacuation routes assessment and substandard and choke point intersections assessment. • Require new development to include adequate roadway
ingress/egress for emergency access and evacuation routes. Any future housing development must have at least two points of ingress/egress.
• Identify and construct additional local evacuation routes in areas of high hazard concern or limited mobility.
• Collaborate with CCFD in the identification and mapping of areas with only one point of ingress or egress and roads that do not meet current emergency access and evacuation standards and the preparation of a program that prioritizes corrective actions. • Commit funding for projects that enhance evacuation safety, spanning road improvement, signage, and notification systems.

Ensure identified improvements can be funded in areas identified as having deficient evacuation routes as new development occurs. • Track development of minimum standards for roads and evacuation routes and seek to adopt the standard. Apply any state standards for evacuation routes to new development.
• Update regularly and make available to the public maps depicting evacuation routes and areas prone to environmental hazards. • Conduct a Townwide evacuation modeling and analysis study that involves:
o Evaluation of the capacity of roadways to accommodate project and community evacuation and simultaneous emergency access.
-97-
55 o Assessment of the timing for evacuation.
o Identification of alternative plans for evacuation depending upon the location and dynamics of the emergency.
o Evaluation of the project’s impacts on existing evacuation plans.
o Consideration of the adequacy of emergency access,
including the project’s proximity to existing fire services and the capacity of existing services.
o Traffic modeling to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios.

In addition, require subdivision and multi-family housing developers to prepare project-specific evacuation and modeling analysis that includes the same evaluations as listed above.
• Develop a specific review application process for new subdivisions in the WUI for modeling impacts for evacuation.

2. Landslides and Slope Instability
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-31 through 4.16-32.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: Many of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Housing Opportunity Sites would be located in the Town’s hillside neighborhoods where there is elevated risk of wildfire and potential slope instability. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions listed above and discussed in Chapter 4.6 (Geology and Soils) and Chapter

4.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the EIR require existing and new development to be adequately protected from potential flooding, slope stability, or landslide hazards and avoid or reduce the potential for these hazards to occur through careful site planning and construction. Further, the existing General Plan Public Safety Element and Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Housing Action Plan include policies, goals, and actions and the CCFD’s WUI Program conducts regular vegetation management inspections of properties in Hillsborough that would reduce the risk of the ignition and spread of wildfire in the Town, thereby reducing the potential for post-fire impacts. Further, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 of this EIR requires the Town to adequately study and address the potential slope instability impacts of development that may be facilitated by -98-
56 the Project, including amending the Municipal Code to include stability report requirements in Title 16 Subdivisions. Chapter 4.6 (Geology and Soils) of this EIR provides further detail. Further, the Town requires through its Municipal Code geotechnical requirements, including the preparation of geotechnical reports, for development to address the geologic safety of development in areas prone to landslides. Compliance with and implementation of existing General Plan policies and actions, proposed Housing Action Plan policies and actions, the CCFD’s WUI Program, and Municipal Code requirements would ensure the Project does not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16- 31 through 4.16-32.)

3. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-32 through 4.16-33.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) Explanation: All new residential development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with fire safety standards. Compliance with existing General Plan policies and actions and Housing Action Plan policies and actions would reduce risks associated with the ignition and spread of wildfire. The proposed policies and actions include wildfire risk reduction measures that range from, for example, community wildfire education efforts, fuel reduction requirements and guidance, ensuring the continued provision of adequate fire response services, ensuring adequate emergency access for land uses and new development, requiring fire-resistant building design, collaborating with regional fire protection and emergency management service providers, and increasing overall levels of community preparedness. The applicable General Plan policies and actions that would reduce potential risk to people and structures from exposure to wildfire are listed in Section 4.16.2 of the Draft EIR.

While the Project would introduce new development that could potentially be impacted directly or indirectly by wildfire, existing General Plan policies and actions, the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element goals, policies, and actions, the Town’s Fire Code, and WUI Code, and the CCFD Hillsborough WUI Program would help reduce the potential for wildfire ignition and spread and reduce risks to people and structures from wildfire. Mitigation Measure WILD-1 would improve evacuation and emergency response, existing regulations and programs would reduce the potential for wildfire ignitions and uncontrolled spread of wildfire, and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and existing policies and regulations would reduce the potential for post-fire impacts (e.g., post-fire debris flow) to harm people or damage structures. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, -99-
57 injury, or death involving wildfires. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-32 through 4.16-33.) SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY

MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Town hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

A. AESTHETICS

1. Existing Visual Character of the Site and Surrounding Area Threshold: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through 4.1-

18.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).)
Explanation: Conformance with the existing Hillsborough General Plan policies and actions relating to aesthetics and the protection of visual quality and the Town’s design review process would ensure new residential development that may be facilitated by implementation of the Project, except the development of the Tobin Clark site, would not adversely affect existing visual quality and scenic resources within the Planning Area. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require the Town to develop new multifamily housing Objective Design Standards that would reduce the potential visual impacts of development of the Tobin Clark site. However, it cannot be determined to what extent the required Objective Design Standards would reduce the potential visual impacts of development of the Tobin Clark site because the Objective Design Standards have not yet been developed, and it is not guaranteed that the Objective Design Standards would be adopted prior to the submission of a development application for the Tobin Clark site. Therefore, the aesthetics impact of the potential development of the Tobin Clark site, even with Mitigation Measure AES-1, would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through 4.1-18.)
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Develop Objective Design Standards. Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site, the Town shall:
-100-
58 • Develop Objective Design Standards for multi-family residential buildings consistent with State law and amend the Zoning Ordinance and Planning Department application submittal checklist to require information and materials that accurately and sufficiently demonstrate a project’s compliance with architectural façade and site and building design policies contained within the new Objective Design Standards.
• Amend the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines to be consistent with the multi-family residential Objective Design Standards.
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include Objective Design Standards and transitional design standards for multi-family residential buildings adjacent to single-family homes, as appropriate. Standards may include height limitations, increased setbacks, landscaping requirements and density limitations.
• Ensure that new development sensitively transitions to the character of adjacent structures and the immediate neighborhood.
• Ensure residential structures are designed to be compatible with existing structures in the vicinity, minimize obstructing views from adjacent structures or views of community importance, and be consistent with the community design principles.
• Include within the new Objective Design Standards architectural façade and site and building design requirements related to building massing strategies, downward facing and fully shielded lighting, window glass types to reduce sun glare off windows and interior lighting escaping the building at night, screening of garbage areas and roof-top utility systems, and landscaping and revegetation planning for adequate screening.

B. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-15 through 4.2-

21.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).)
-101-
59 Explanation: The proposed project would be inconsistent with one of the control measures (TR10: Land Use Strategies) identified in the 2017 Clean Air Plan related to VMT from land use planning. Although the growth in trips and VMT attributable to the project would be less than the increase in population growth, the project could still obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan due to control measure inconsistency. Because of this, the project has the potential to generate a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutant emissions for which the region is nonattainment, including ozone precursors, PM2.5, and PM10, pursuant to BAAQMD planlevel assessment criteria.

This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would help to reduce VMT generated by the additional residential units proposed by Housing Element; however, it would not be enough to reduce this impact to less than significant, as the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measure the Project is inconsistent with is directly related to land use planning. This impact would be significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-15 through

4.2-21.)
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Reduce VMT. Residential development projects occurring on sites identified in Housing Element programs shall be required to achieve a VMT significance threshold of 15 percent below the countywide average residential VMT per capita. This is generally considered the maximum feasible mitigation that can be achieved in suburban contexts, according to Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021 (CAPCOA report). For individual development projects that do not achieve VMT significance thresholds, applicants shall submit documentation that demonstrates how the necessary VMT reductions will be achieved. See Mitigation Measure TRANS-1.

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-12 through 4.4-

14.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).)
Explanation: Under CEQA, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards would normally mitigate impacts on a historic resource to a less-than- -102-
60 significant level. The implementation of existing Town General Plan policies and actions relating to the protection of historic resources and conformance with federal and State requirements, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as outlined in Section 4.4.2 Regulatory Setting, would reduce potentially significant impacts of future discretionary development that may be facilitated by the Project to a certain extent. However, without a current, specific development proposal to evaluate, it cannot be guaranteed at this time that future discretionary development projects would fully adhere to the Standards for Rehabilitation, as changes to the eligibility, identification, and condition of historic resources and their surroundings between now and the time that individual development proposals are received for specific sites could affect potential impacts on historic resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 below is intended to mitigate the Project’s potential impacts on historic resources to a certain extent.

However, without knowing the characteristics of the potentially affected historic resource or of the future development proposal, it cannot be guaranteed with certainty that potentially significant impacts will be fully mitigated by the measures within CUL-1.

Therefore, the Focused GPU’s potential impacts to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-12 through 4.4-14.) Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prepare Historic Resource Evaluation. For any individual development project within the Planning Area that the Town determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource, the resource shall be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource.

If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the Town determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the Town shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Adhere to at least one of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
• Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or
• Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the Town as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the Town body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5).
-103-
61 (b) If measure (a) is not feasible, the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource is avoided. Implementation of measure (b) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

If neither measure (a) nor measure (b) is feasible, then the Town shall implement the following measures in the following order:
(c) Document the historic resource before any changes that would cause a loss of integrity and loss of continued eligibility. The documentation shall adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. The level of documentation shall be proportionate to the level of significance of the resource. The documentation shall be made available for inclusion in the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Collections in the Library of Congress, and the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), as well as local libraries and historical societies.
(d) Apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the retention and reuse of the historic resource and in all alterations, additions, and new construction. (e) Through careful methods of planned deconstruction to avoid damage and loss, salvage character-defining features and materials for educational and interpretive use on-site, or for reuse in new construction on the site in a way that commemorates their original use and significance. The deconstruction, salvage, and reuse shall be conducted according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. (f) Interpret the historical significance of the resource through a permanent exhibit or program in a publicly accessible location on the site or elsewhere within the Planning Area.

D. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-19 through 4.7-

28.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully -104-
62 mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).)
Explanation: Development of the new residential units facilitated by adoption of the Housing Element Update would generate GHG emissions that would have the potential to conflict with state-wide GHG reduction goals, including the State’s goal for becoming carbon neutral by 2045. The growth facilitated by adoption of the Housing Element Update would also result in GHG emissions that would conflict with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and MTC/ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050. Therefore, the Town would have to implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1a through GHG-1e in order to reduce GHG emissions associated with future development facilitated by adoption of the Housing Element Update. These measures, described below, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation and building energy use, two of the largest sources of potential GHG emissions associated with the additional land uses contained in the Housing Element Update.

It is not possible at this time to quantify the GHG emissions reductions that could be realized through the implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1a to GHG-1e for several reasons. First, it is unknown how many projects would be actually subject to Mitigation Measures GHG-1b to GHG-1e. Second, it is uncertain at this time if the ZNE provisions called out in Mitigation Measure GHG-1b would be adopted by the Town or what GHG emissions reductions. For example, with regard to adopting a ZNE ordinance, the electrification of homes will have to be coupled with grid harmonization strategies, such as consumer owned storage, which may not be cost effective at this time. In addition, the specific GHG emissions reduction measures associated with Mitigation Measures GHG-1c through GHG-1e would be dependent on factors that are not known at this time, including the number of projects subject to review, building types/intensities, and each individual project’s specific site and trip generation characteristics.

Finally, while it is anticipated that the Town would be able to identify a new / revised strategy for addressing the GHG emissions associated with residential growth facilitated by the project under the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1A, and align the Town’s emissions with state-wide and local targets for 2030 and 2045, it cannot be definitively known or stated at this time that such policy considerations would be able to achieve the intended targets. Additional consideration would likely need to be given to expand carbon sequestration efforts as a means to offset increases in GHG emissions associated with the growth proposed by the project. Since the GHG emissions associated with the implementation of the Housing Element would not meet State GHG reduction goals and could conflict with plans adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions (e.g., 2022 Scoping Plan), and since the GHG reductions attributable to Mitigation Measures GHG-1a to GHG-1e cannot be definitively assessed -105-
63 at this time, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-19 through 4.7-28.)
Mitigation Measure GHG-1a: Update Climate Action Plan. Within two years of adoption of the Project, the Town shall prepare an updated Climate Action Plan that:

1. Quantifies greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and proposed, over a specified time period. The time period forecasted shall be no less than the Year 2045. Additional, forecasted years (e.g., 2030, 2035, etc.) may be included. The existing greenhouse gas emission inventory shall include an evaluation of the Town’s Natural and Working Lands.

2. Identifies annual, community-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (i.e., in MTCO2e) and/or efficiency targets (i.e., in MTCO2e per service population and/or capita) that align the Town’s emissions with legislatively adopted State-wide greenhouse gas reduction targets (e.g., SB 32) for 2030 and goal of being carbon neutral by 2045, consistent with Executive Order B-55-18.

3. Specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified annual, community-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and/or efficiency targets. The Town’s strategy shall include strategies that address the carbon sources and sinks associated with the Town’s Natural and Working Lands.

4. Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving its community-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and/or efficiency targets, and require an amendment if the Climate Action Plan is not achieving specified levels.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1b: Consider Adoption of a Zero Net Energy Ordinance. Within one year of the adoption of the Focused GPU the Town shall complete an evaluation on the feasibility of adopting an ordinance that amends the Town’s Municipal Code to require all new residential development subject to Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Code to achieve Zero Net Energy (ZNE) standards. If the Town finds ZNE technology, programs, and/or other strategies are feasible and cost-effective, the Town shall adopt a ZNE ordinance as expeditiously as possible given Town resources. As defined by the California Energy Commission (CEC), ZNE standards require the value of the net energy produced by project renewable energy resources to equal the value of the energy consumed annually by the project, using the CEC’s Time Dependent Valuation.

In the event the Town adopts a ZNE ordinance, Mitigation Measure GHG-1c would no longer apply to housing site projects in the Town. This Mitigation Measure may no longer apply if, after adoption of an updated qualified Climate Action Plan as required by Mitigation Measure GHG-1a, a ZNE ordinance is found to be unnecessary for the Town to align its GHG emissions with future -106-
64 statewide greenhouse gas emissions goals, including being carbon neutral by 2045.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1c: Prohibit Natural Gas Plumbing and Appliances in New Housing Sites. The Town shall prohibit natural gas plumbing and the use of all natural gas appliances such as cook tops, water heaters, and space heaters in all new housing site developments, with the following exceptions:
• Newly constructed buildings with a valid planning entitlement or other development agreement approved prior to the date of certification of this EIR. • It can be demonstrated there is no commercially available technology capable of meeting the specific appliance or building system application due to specific economic, technical, logistical, or other factors associated with the development site.

Projects subject to the above exceptions shall provide the necessary infrastructure to support future electrification of appliances and building systems, consistent with the requirements identified in the Town of Hillsborough Municipal Code Chapter 15.10, as in effect September 6, 2023. This prohibition on natural gas plumbing and natural gas appliances shall cease if and when 1) the City adopts a ZNE ordinance per Mitigation Measure GHG-1b or 2) adopts an updated, qualified Climate Action Plan pursuant to Mitigation Measure GHG-1a and a natural gas prohibition on some or all appliances/uses is determined to be unnecessary for the purposes of aligning the Town’s emissions with the state’s long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1d: Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements
Future residential development facilitated by the Project that includes new or additional parking facilities must conform with the Tier 2 electric vehicle charging requirements in the latest edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted to the Town. Currently, the 2022 CalGreen code, Section A4.106.8, Electric Vehicle Charging for New Construction, require the following measures to facilitate the future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers:
• New one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages include a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit rated at 40 amperes minimum.
• New multi-family dwellings provide 40 percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site be electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply equipment.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1e: VMT Reduction Requirements
-107-
65 Future residential development facilitated by the Project shall be required to achieve a VMT significance threshold of 15 percent below the countywide average residential VMT per capita. For individual development projects that do not achieve VMT significance thresholds, applicants shall submit documentation that demonstrates how the necessary VMT reductions will be achieved.

E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Risks from Pollutant Release Due to Project Inundation Threshold: Would the Project be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.19-17 through

4.9-20.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).) Explanation: Existing General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, MRP requirements, and FEMA floodplain development standards would reduce potential Project-related flooding impacts to a certain extent; however, additional measures are needed to ensure new housing development that could be constructed adequately accounts for the increasing risk of climate-change induced flooding the absence of updated Public Safety Element policies addressing these issues. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is included to reduce potentially significant flooding and pollutant release impacts associated with future residential development that may be facilitated by the Focused GPU. The Town has not yet developed new or revised Public Safety Element goals, policies, or actions to implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1, and the exact language that would be used to implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is not known. As such, it cannot be guaranteed at this time that the forthcoming goals, policies, and/or actions to implement HYD-1 would reduce the effects of future residential development facilitated by the Project related to flooding and pollutant release sufficiently to reduce potential effects to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.19-17 through 4.9-20.)
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Update General Plan Public Safety Element.

Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for any of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Housing Opportunity Sites, the Town shall develop and adopt Geneal Plan Public Safety Element goals, policies, and actions consistent with the requirements of Government Code §65302(g) and as addressed in OneShoreline’s “Planning Policy Guidance to Protect and Enhance Bay Shoreline Areas of San Mateo County” that include the following:
-108-
66 • Review and use the best available science and projections of future conditions to identify the areas that are vulnerable to inland flooding exacerbated by sea level rise, shallow groundwater rise, and extreme precipitation events. Use this information to continue to develop or adjust planning and adaptation strategies.
• Integrate planning for future sea level rise, shallow groundwater rise, and extreme precipitation events and their potential effects on inland flooding into all relevant Town processes related to development, including zoning ordinance updates and entitlement of new and/or substantial construction. • Ensure that new and/or substantial construction is planned and designed to accommodate future conditions for the life of the development project.

F. TRANSPORTATION

1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) Impacts
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-18 through

4.14-22.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).) Explanation: The San Mateo countywide VMT per capita under Existing conditions (2020) is 15.5 miles. The VMT Significance Threshold used in this EIR is 15% below the San Mateo countywide Existing VMT per capita or 13.2 VMT per capita.

The Existing plus Project VMT per capita is estimated to be 21.4 miles, which is 62 percent above the countywide threshold. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Project with respect to VMT is significant and requires mitigation. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the VMT impacts associated with future development projects but would not fully mitigate these impacts due to several factors that are explained in the EIR.

Given the inability to assure that the residential VMT per capita associated with the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level despite required VMT reduction strategies, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-18 through 4.14-22.)
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: VMT Reduction. Residential development projects occurring on sites identified in Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element programs shall be required to achieve a VMT significance threshold of 15 percent -109-
67 below the countywide average residential VMT per capita. This is generally considered the maximum feasible mitigation that can be achieved in suburban contexts, according to Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021 (CAPCOA report). For individual development projects that do not achieve VMT significance thresholds, the Town shall develop a standard process where applicants shall submit documentation that demonstrates how the necessary VMT reductions will be achieved.

G. WILDFIRE

1. Impairment of Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-21 through

4.16-27.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).) Explanation: Because it is currently unknown exactly which routes new residents of the Tobin Clark site would take to evacuate the area as discussed above, and there is the potential for the Tobin Clark development to add a substantial number of new people to an area with potentially substandard roads, it is not possible to fully mitigate the potential impacts of the anticipated evacuation volumes from the Tobin Clark site.

Mitigation Measure WILD-1 may help reduce impacts to a certain extent, but there are currently too many unknowns related to site access, existing evacuation conditions, and the potential for the Tobin Clark development to exacerbate any existing deficiencies to reach a conclusion as to whether the implementation of Mitigation Measure WILD-1 would fully mitigate potential evacuation impacts. As such, the potential evacuationrelated impacts of development of the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site as it is currently conceptualized is significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-21 through 4.16-27.) SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. The Town hereby finds as follows:
-110-
68 A. AESTHETICS
Scenic Vistas
A cumulative impact to scenic vistas would occur if housing projects within the Planning Area, combined with other projects in the surrounding area, resulted in the substantial degradation of quality or obstruction of particularly scenic views available from a recognized scenic vista. Project specific impacts with respect to scenic vistas were determined to be less than significant. Since the Planning Area is almost entirely urbanized, incremental changes that would occur from implementation of the proposed Focused GPU would not result in cumulative impacts with respect to scenic vistas.

Thus, the Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
Scenic Highways
Most new housing would not be visible from I-280, which is a designated State scenic highway. The only housing development that may be visible from I-280 would be ADUs. Views of the Nueva School Opportunity Site would be adequately screened from view, as described in Impact AES-2. Housing development proposed by the Project would not result in impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway.

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a potential cumulative significant impact to scenic resources within a scenic highway. Thus, the Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) Degrade Visual Character
Construction and habitation of future housing development within the Planning Area would result in less than significant impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the Planning Area and to the surrounding area with mitigation incorporated.

Future housing projects, as well as other development allowed under the 2005 General Plan considered in the cumulative scenario would generally be subject to the Town’s underlying zoning standards that include regulations pertaining to permitted uses, minimum lot dimensions, and maximum building height. The proposed Focused GPU includes Zoning Ordinance revisions related to setbacks, FAR, parking, landscaping, and open space, among other provisions.

Future residential development projects within the Planning Area would be located where similar existing uses occur and, as such, would not entail a significant visual change such that the existing visual character or quality of project sites and their surroundings would be substantially degraded. However, as described under Impact AES-3, the buildout of the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site could result in potentially significant aesthetic impacts that require mitigation. The Project will require the Town to revise the Municipal Code, including design review criteria, and the General Plan to include Objective Design Standards for multi-family residential buildings through Mitigation Measure AES-1 (see Impact AES-3).

However, while the Town has initiated a planning effort to develop these -111-
69 Objective Design Standards, they have not yet been developed and it cannot be guaranteed if and when the Objective Design Standards would be adopted. Additionally, it is unknown at this time whether the Objective Design Standards would reduce the visual impacts of multi-family development on the Tobin Clark site to less than significant. Therefore, the potential development of the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site would make the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative aesthetics impacts significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.)
Light and Glare
Project related impacts with respect to light and glare were determined to be less than significant. Lighting and building materials associated with cumulative housing development would be subject to Municipal Code Section 2.12.070 and the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, which require exterior lighting to be directed away from the street, the sky or neighboring parcels and designed to subtly highlight key features of the landscape design, such as walkways or paths, and augment architectural features of the residence. If detailed information regarding proposed lighting and building materials are not known during preparation of necessary environmental documentation for cumulative projects, then the adoption of applicant-proposed measures or mitigation measures would likely be required by the Town to ensure that lighting and glare impacts are less than significant. Further, the Town’s new Objective Design Standards will contain standards for lighting and window glass to reduce glare in multi-family residential buildings. Therefore, cumulative lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.)
B. AIR QUALITY
The Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to Impact AIR-1, “conflicts with the local air quality plan and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment” and Impact AIR-2, “result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment.” These impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-6 through 6-7.) C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Future development of candidate housing sites, 400 ADU sites, and implementation of projects that would be facilitated by adoption of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, in conjunction with other types of private development and public projects occurring in the Town, could potentially result in cumulative impacts to biological resources (special-status species and their habitats, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife movement corridors, and wildlife nursery sites).

Development of candidate housing sites facilitated by adoption of the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element would increase housing development and human presence in developed and undeveloped areas and could result in cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources, for example through loss of vegetation, alteration of creeks and -112-
70 drainages, and disruption of wildlife movement corridors. Implementation of Housing Element programs that result in ground or vegetation disturbing activities or construction/rehabilitation of public or private infrastructure could also contribute to cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources. Potential development impacts on sensitive biological resources would be avoided or minimized through adopted 2005 General Plan policies and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4.

Additionally, housing development and all Housing Element related projects are subject to federal, State, regional, and local regulations protecting biological resources. These protections encourage site development to avoid impacting sensitive resources through project design, such as by clustering housing and protecting sensitive habitat with conservation easements.

Development of candidate housing sites and Housing Element projects that have the potential to impact biological resources would also require biological evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future projects are proposed, and each project requiring discretionary approvals would require evaluation under CEQA to determine if the analysis and measures in this Program EIR address the potential impacts to biological resources, or if additional review is necessary. The CEQA analysis would further evaluate the potential impacts on biological resources and would analyze the project’s contribution towards cumulative impacts on sensitive biological resources.

Projects that have potential impacts would be evaluated for consistency with Town ordinances and General Plan Policies. Through environmental review, implementation of existing and new implementing programs, consistency with existing and new policies and ordinances, mitigation measures herein (Mitigation Measures BIO1 through BIO-4), and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Investigations for historic resources and Native American tribal cultural and archaeological resources and sites in the built environment are not comprehensive for the Planning Area. The locations of buried resources are entirely unknown as they have yet to be identified since they are typically only uncovered during earth-moving activities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural, historic, or tribal cultural resource sites or resources are difficult to quantify and assess.

Cumulative impacts would occur when a series of actions leads to the loss of a substantial type of site, building, or resource. For example, while the loss of a single historic building may not be significant to the character of a neighborhood or streetscape, continued loss of such resources on a project-by-project basis could constitute a significant cumulative effect. This is most obvious in historic districts, where destruction or alteration of a percentage of the contributing elements may lead to a loss -113-
71 of integrity for the district overall. Changes to the setting or atmosphere of an area, for example, by adding modern structures on all sides of a historically significant building results in an altered streetscape and would create a significant impact. Destruction or relocation of historic buildings would also significantly impact the setting.

Individual residential project impacts with respect to archaeological and tribal cultural resources would be site-specific and would not be expected to combine with the impacts of other projects throughout the Planning Area.

Development in areas within the Planning Area would be subject to federal and State laws protecting cultural and tribal cultural resources. The goals and polices of the Open Space and Conservation Element protecting historic architectural resources and archaeological resources, as well as Mitigation Measure CUL-1 for the protection of human remains and mitigation in subsequent analyses to address site-specific conditions and records for known resources, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to cultural, and tribal cultural resources. The proposed Project has a significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources and would thus also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.) E. ENERGY RESOURCES
The analysis presented under Impacts ENG-1 and ENG-2 is cumulative in nature. As described in the analyses, the Focused GPU would result in a potentially significant impact regarding the use of energy in an unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful manner. Mitigation Measures ENG-1a and ENG-1b have been incorporated into the Project to reduce Impact ENG-1 to less than significant. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency and therefore result in a less-than-significant impact for Impact ENG-2. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Town of Hillsborough is located in a seismically active region of the state and within relative proximity to several major faults. An individual project’s impacts with respect to geology and soils would be site-specific and would not combine with the equally site-specific geology or soils impacts of other projects throughout the Planning Area and the surrounding jurisdictions. The magnitude of potential geologic and seismic hazards would be dependent on the site-specific conditions present at each location.

Regardless of the potential risk, any future projects within the Planning Area would be required to implement design and construction practices intended to reduce and or avoid site-specific geologic and soils risks (either through compliance with General Plan policies and the local building code, or through the implementation of site-specific mitigation measures developed as a result of required site investigations). The proposed Project does not allow any specific future development to occur. Mitigation in subsequent analyses to address site-specific geological conditions and site soils would render the site-specific risks posed by local and regional hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, and other soils and geologic-related conditions less than -114-
72 significant for each project and would prevent significant cumulative impacts from occurring. The cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant.

Although the Project, in combination with other future cumulative development, could increase potential paleontological resource impacts, development projects within the Planning Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources and comply with the same federal and State regulations as described in Section 4.6.2 regarding paleontological resources. Development projects within the Planning Area would also be required to comply with General Plan Action OSC-5.3.

Therefore, future potential development facilitated by the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils or paleontological resources. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8 through 6-9.)
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Global climate change is the result of GHG emissions worldwide; individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change.

Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. As described in Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gases, under Impact GHG-1, the proposed Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element would result in GHG emissions that do not meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction or 2045 carbon neutrality goals. The implementation of the Housing Element could also result in GHG emissions that conflict with plans adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emission, including the 2022 Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area 2050. The EIR recommends implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1a through GHG-1e; however, even with these mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are generally site-specific and not cumulative in nature because each project site has unique considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts is reduced. Potential Project impacts related to discovery of undocumented hazardous conditions (contaminated soils and/or groundwater) would be mitigated on a site-specific basis (EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ1) and would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative hazardous materials impact. Future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to existing and proposed General Plan policies, Zoning Code requirements, and federal, State, and county regulations ensuring that hazards and hazardous materials are managed appropriately. Additionally, any new project outside the Planning Area would also be required to comply with applicable laws, standards, and protocols, so no significant cumulative impact is anticipated. Therefore, Project -115-
73 cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-9 through 6-10.) I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The watershed is used as the geographic unit for cumulative hydrology and water quality analysis based on the concept that many water quality problems, like the accumulation of pollutants or nonpoint source pollution, are best addressed at the watershed level. In addition, California’s regulatory framework for protection of water quality focuses on the watershed.

Future projects within the watershed would incorporate BMPs, LID, retention, and treatment measures per NPDES requirements to control and/or treat stormwater runoff during construction and operation to prevent significant erosion, siltation, flooding, and other sources of pollution. As such, the cumulative impact of the Project related to surface water quality would be less than significant.

Because it cannot be guaranteed at this time that the forthcoming goals, policies, and/or actions required to implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce the effects of future residential development facilitated by the Project related to flooding and pollutant release to less than significant levels, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would also be significant and unavoidable.

Hillsborough does not utilize groundwater for potable water supplies; therefore, future development associated with the Project would have no effect on groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative groundwater supply, groundwater recharge, and groundwater quality impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-10.)
J. LAND USE
As described in Chapter 4.10 Land Use, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant land use impact by physically dividing an established community; therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an environmental impact related to physically dividing an established community.

The Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an adverse environmental effect. The Town would continue to review future development proposals to ensure compliance with the Town’s environmental policies and utilize its discretion to disapprove projects and/or general plan amendments that would cause significant cumulative impacts to the environment. However, no such conflicts, including those with Plan Bay Area 2050, have been identified for the Project. Implementation of the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to conflicts with land use plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an adverse environmental effect. This potential impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-10.) -116-
74 K. NOISE
For purposes of this cumulative noise and vibration analysis, the geographic context is limited to the extent of potential noise impacts caused by the proposed Project that could combine with other relevant cumulative developments. Although construction and stationary source noise may theoretically be audible far from the source, in practice ambient noise from wind, roadway traffic, and other land uses is substantially louder than equipment operating hundreds or thousands of feet away.

Therefore, the geographic context is limited to the area within approximately 1,000 feet of individual Housing Opportunity Sites and the roadways used to travel to and from these sites.

The Project could result in construction noise and vibration as individual development projects are constructed over time. Construction noise and vibration from the development of Housing Opportunity Sites could combine with other construction projects (within 1,000 feet of the Housing Opportunity Site). Each development project would be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal Code regulations regarding construction noise and vibration that would protect existing and future residents from potential substantial, temporary increases in ambient noise levels associated with construction activities. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative construction noise or vibration impacts at on- or off-site receptor locations near Housing Opportunity Sites.

The Project would result in long term increases in vehicle trips and traffic-related noise levels, as well as stationary and other operational noise activities and sources.

The Project’s vehicle trips would not substantially change existing or future without Project traffic noises levels, and would not contribute to more than a 1 dB change in modeled traffic noise levels in areas where traffic noise levels exceed the Town’s guidelines for normally unacceptable noise levels at residential land uses. The Project, therefore, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to existing or future traffic noise levels. In addition, the Project is not anticipated to result in land uses that involve substantial on-site noise generating sources or activities. The development of Housing Opportunity Sites as well other potential projects in the Town would be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal Code regulations regarding traffic and on-site operational noise that would protect existing and future residents from potential substantial, permanent increases in ambient noise levels associated with stationary and other noise sources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative noise impacts at on- or off-site receptor locations.

The Project does not propose or support any large vibration-inducing equipment or land use activities and would not result in excessive groundborne vibration levels that have the potential to combine with vibration levels from other projects within or outside of the Planning Area. No cumulative operational vibration impact would occur.

The Project would not expose people residing or working at Housing Opportunity Sites to excessive airport-related noise levels. This impact is Project-specific and would -117-
75 not combine with any other project. There would be no cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.)
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element would not result in substantial unplanned population growth or the displacement of housing units, requiring the construction of replacement housing. The potential growth in housing, and related population, identified in the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050 population projections. Other planning jurisdictions in the Bay Area are currently updating their housing elements to identify available sites to accommodate their designated RHNA share, as jurisdictions must accommodate more than 441,000 new housing units to meet the RHNA for the region during the 2023-2031 planning period. Other housing elements must also prepare for the population growth projected for the region and the associated need for new housing to accommodate that growth. As with the Town of Hillsborough Housing Element Update, the growth accommodated by the housing elements of other jurisdictions would be planned growth, not unplanned growth; implementation of the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a net increase in housing.

Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a regional impact related to a substantial displacement of housing or people. This cumulative impact would be considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Housing development that is facilitated by the Project, in combination with other cumulative development in the Planning Area, would increase the demand for all public services. Public services can be potentially impacted by increased population, especially when new infrastructure is not built to meet population increases or when existing facilities are not adequately maintained. Alternatively, impacts may also occur when new facilities are built, resulting in physical impacts to the environment. The General Plan contains policies and actions addressing levels of services, and new development would be required to pay school impact fees to address the need for new or expanded facilities. New development would result in increased property taxes, which would assist in paying for the incremental increases in demand for public services.

Further, should new public services facilities be required, environmental review would identify site-specific conditions and physical changes resulting from facility expansion.

Future regional growth would result in increased demand for park and recreational facilities throughout San Mateo County and surrounding jurisdictions. As a result, the Town of Hillsborough and other jurisdictions would need to expand and construct additional parks and other recreational facilities to meet the increased demand. State law allows jurisdictions to require additional development to fund park improvements, which would ensure the provision of adequate parklands. However, the -118-
76 location and size of additional facilities would be determined as part of future development activity. As specific parkland expansion or improvement projects are identified, additional project-specific, environmental analysis would be completed.

The Project’s cumulative impact related to public services and recreation would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.)
N. TRANSPORTATION
The proposed Housing Element’s VMT significance was determined by comparing Existing plus Project conditions to countywide VMT significance thresholds based on a VMT per capita performance metric. As the OPR Technical Advisory states, “A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.” While not used in this analysis for the purposes of establishing impact significance, the Cumulative 2040 plus Project VMT per capita associated with the 605 (RHNA + buffer) units in all candidate sites was projected using the C/CAG-VTA model. The results indicate that the 2040 plus Project residential VMT per capita in the Town would be 20.7 miles, which is lower than the 2020 plus Project level of 21.4 miles.

This suggests that residential VMT per capita in Hillsborough is anticipated to trend favorably and decrease over time. It would, however, remain well above the countywide significance threshold of 13.2 VMT per capita. This would be a significant cumulative impact.

The San Mateo countywide VMT per capita under Existing conditions (2020) is

15.5 miles. The VMT Significance Threshold used in this EIR is 15% below the San Mateo countywide Existing VMT per capita or 13.2 VMT per capita. The Existing plus Project VMT per capita is estimated to be 21.4 miles, which is 62 percent above the countywide threshold. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Housing Element with respect to VMT is significant and requires mitigation. Chapter 4.14 of the Draft EIR recommends Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 to reduce project-level VMT. However, given the uncertainty in achieving enough of a reduction in VMT that it would fall below the Significance Threshold, the impact is still considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 6-13.)
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Residential development facilitated by the proposed Project, in combination with other cumulative development in San Mateo County and its constituent cities, could increase the demand for utilities due to population increases. New or expanded utility infrastructure and facilities may result in physical impacts to existing resources. For Hillsborough, as with other jurisdictions, General Plan policies mitigating potential adverse environmental effects for new utility infrastructure would be anticipated to reduce impacts, and any projects requiring CEQA review would have site-specific mitigation measures. Typically, impacts associated with new or expanded utilities -119-
77 infrastructure include short-term construction effects related to air quality pollutant emissions, biological resources, stormwater runoff, temporary traffic detours, and noise.

Storm drain and wastewater facilities are included in multi-year Town-wide capital improvement programs and implemented based on Public Works Department prioritization. Similarly, the Town’s water supply is well-developed and maintained on a regular basis. Impacts related to new or expanded infrastructure necessary to meet Project needs for water supply and wastewater and stormwater collection and conveyance would generally be less-than-significant due to construction-period mitigation measures identified in this EIR (e.g., air quality, biological resources, traffic, noise). These utility infrastructure impacts would be project-specific and localized; they would not contribute substantially to a cumulative impact. This cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

With respect to future water supplies, the Town’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicates that future Town water demands, including buildout facilitated by the Project, would be within the Town’s independent supply guarantee (ISG) from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the water supplier, during normal years. Buildout facilitated by the Project would have an anticipated water demand in 2040 that is less than the Town’s ISG (2040 Hillsborough ISG = 4,585 acre-feet; 2040 Town water demand = 3,669 acre-feet). For dry years, the UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to address potential water shortage conditions, consistent with the SFPUC water shortage contingency plans. Depending on the extent of a future water shortage, the Town would implement one of the stages identified in the WSCP, among other actions, to reduce demand and conserve water. Although Project demands on water supplies could contribute to a cumulative regionwide water supply impact, the Project’s contribution would not be substantial and therefore the cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant.

With respect to wastewater treatment, the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the San Mateo WWTP serve other jurisdictions in addition to the Town of Hillsborough. It is possible that incremental increases in demand, as anticipated under the Project, in conjunction with increased demand from other communities could eventually result in the need for future new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. However, the San Mateo WTTP is in the process of a planned expansion program. The Burlingame WTTP, on the other hand, does not have the resources to expand its WTTP (principally it lacks available land). Therefore, it is possible that future Town contributions to wastewater treatment could make a contribution to a cumulative wastewater impact, however, the Project’s contribution would not be substantial, and therefore the cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant.

The geographic scope for cumulative electricity and natural gas impacts is the PG&E service area, which includes the Planning Area. PG&E is subject to the -120-
78 requirements set forth and/or enforced by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The need for electric and natural gas infrastructure would be addressed on a case-by-case basis for each cumulative project, and would be subject to CPUC requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electric power and natural gas transmission facilities would be less than significant.

All development projects in Hillsborough are required to be consistent with adopted solid waste and recycling regulations and programs, including those described in Chapter 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems. The solid waste disposal and recycling facilities used by the Town have sufficient capacity, and the applicable regulations and programs have been deliberately designed and adopted to avoid or reduce cumulative solid waste/recycling impacts to less-than-significant levels. The overall cumulative solid waste/recycling impact of cumulative development would be less than significant.

No cumulatively considerable Project contributions to significant cumulative impacts have been identified; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-13 through 6-14.)
P. WILDFIRE
The proposed Project could have a cumulative impact on the ability of local agencies to protect residents, workers, and structures from wildfires. Future residential development facilitated by the Housing Element Update could increase the population and/or increase activities and ignition sources and thereby increase the chances of a wildfire and the number of people and structures exposed to risk of loss, injury, or death. The potential cumulative impacts from individual projects in a specific area can also cause a decline in fire service response and must be analyzed for each project.

The existing General Plan and proposed Housing Action Plan contain policies and actions that would help protect residents and structures from wildfires. These policies and actions promote public education and awareness prior to fires, require fireresistant design and construction of buildings within the WUI, support collaboration with CCFD, and help protect downhill properties from potential landslides, runoff, or pollution associated with wildfires. The continued implementation of CCFD’s Hillsborough WUI Program would also serve to reduce wildfire risks associated with existing development in the WUI and the development of Housing Element Update Housing Opportunity Sites.

Development of any of the Housing Opportunity Sites, except the Tobin Clark Opportunity Site, alone would not likely exacerbate existing evacuation deficiencies.

However, the addition of up to 605 new housing units and approximately 12,716 new residents in the Planning Area in the next eight years would add a substantial number of new people to the Town, and many new residents would be located in the WUI where existing streets with only one point of ingress and egress are abundant and narrow, winding, steep roads can impact effective evacuation.

In addition, the State Attorney General notes new low-density development in the WUI and surrounded by open space, which applies to a number of the Project’s -121-
79 Housing Opportunity Sites, requires a relatively more intensive level of evacuation analysis. There is currently a dearth of information, including data on streets with one point of ingress/egress and substandard roads, and evacuation modeling and analysis that would evaluate the capacity of roadways to accommodate evacuation and simultaneous emergency access and estimated evacuation times based on traffic modeling under likely scenarios, all of which is necessary to properly assess the potential cumulative evacuation impacts of the Project, as stated in the State Attorney General’s Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act.

While the implementation of Mitigation Measure WILD-1 would mitigate the potential cumulative evacuation impacts of the Project to a certain extent by improving the General Plan policies and actions and the standards applicable to future residential development facilitated by the proposed Project, in the absence of evacuation modeling and analyses and specific site development plans that would better lay out the potential impacts of the development of the Housing Element Update Housing Opportunity Sites, there is currently not enough information available to conclude mitigation would reduce the significance of evacuation impacts of the Tobin Clark site to less than significant.

Therefore, the Project’s cumulative evacuation impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-14 through 6-15.)
SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(e), a project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would result in any of the following effects:
 Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;  Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);  Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or  Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

The Focused GPU would result in an allowable increase of up to 554 additional dwelling units. An estimated population increase of approximately 11 percent (approximately 1,274 residents) is projected for the 2040 horizon year (from 2020).

However, no substantial, detrimental, growth-inducing effect is expected. The goals, policies, and actions in the Focused GPU are designed to provide the framework for this future growth, one of the primary goals of which is to meet identified housing needs in the Town. No other future potential development is being contemplated in the Focused GPU. It is purposely designed to meet the Town’s RHNA. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.) -122-
80 State law requires the Town to promote the production of housing to meet its fair share of the regional housing needs distribution made by ABAG. The housing and employment growth in Hillsborough would generally have beneficial effects by allowing the Town to address its regional fair-share housing obligations. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.) The goals, policies, and actions contained in the proposed Focused GPU address the potentially negative aspects of growth and have been designed to facilitate development efficiently and effectively in an area where roads and infrastructure already exist. The potential growth-related impacts associated with the Focused GPU have also been evaluated in the topical chapters of this EIR (Aesthetics, Biological Resources, etc.) and, as appropriate, mitigation measures have been applied to address such impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.)
New residential development in the Town would consist of housing development located on remaining vacant sites or redevelopment of an already developed site (the Town Hall site). Since the infrastructure is largely in place, and since this residential growth would be required to comply with the Town’s standards for public services and utilities, secondary growth-inducing effects would not represent a significant environmental impact. Implementation of the proposed Focused GPU would not involve the extension of roads to undeveloped areas, major sewer or water lines, or the construction of other major infrastructure facilities that would induce growth in areas adjoining Hillsborough. Road work (including any extension or other modification) and infrastructure would be designed to facilitate the development envisioned in the Focused GPU, would be of a scale commensurate to the needs of the new development, and would not be “oversized” in a way that would lead to substantial indirect growth. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.)
SECTION 7. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The EIR analyzed two alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives.

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project:

1. Promote the preservation and improvement of existing housing and neighborhoods, and promote new housing growth to provide more affordable and market rate housing that meets the Town’s Cycle 6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

2. Meet housing needs by encouraging a variety of housing development affordable at all income levels, including construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), multi-family housing on Town owned land, subdivision/lot split opportunity sites, and other housing choices on vacant opportunity sites, private recreational sites, and institutionally owned sites.
-123-
81 3. Reduce, remove, and/or mitigate potential governmental constraints and barriers to housing development and promote equal housing opportunities for all people; incorporate best practices related to land use, racial equity, mobility, housing affordability, safety, environmental justice, community services, and healthy neighborhoods.

4. Affirmatively further fair housing, and take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, eliminate disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination.

5. Provide adequate housing for all segments of the population, within the Town’s constraints; promote and assist in the development of housing that meets the needs of special needs communities in Hillsborough while protecting the character of the Town.

6. Engage residents and stakeholders to generate ideas for potential Town-specific approaches to meet the Town’s Cycle 6 RHNA, gain insight on the greatest challenges and opportunities that face Hillsborough, and ensure equitable and inclusive processes, policies, investments, and service systems.

7. Expand and update technology and innovative practices to create smart, sustainable communities, and adaptable infrastructure systems.

8. Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildfire-related emergencies; reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to flooding, and seismic and geologic hazards.

B. ALTERNATIVE SITE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites be included in an EIR.

However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then an EIR may appropriately consider and analyze alternative sites.

An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible. Among the factors described under Section 15126.6(c) of the Guidelines in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are failure to meet most of the basic objectives of the project, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives, Section 15126.6(f)(1) states the following:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries ... and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
-124-
82 If no feasible alternative locations exist, the agency must disclose the reasons for this conclusion. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(2)(B).) The following alternatives were considered and rejected:

1. Rezone Single-Family Residential Sites to Multi-Family Residential in Proximity to El Camino Real (i.e., within ½ mile). This alternative would increase the number of multi-family units closer to a main transit corridor (El Camino Real) by rezoning parcels from single-family residential to allow development of higher density housing (similar to the proposed multi-family residential development for the Town Hall and Tobin Clark sites). However, limitations related to site suitability and other regulatory or jurisdictional considerations could not be reasonably ascertained; in addition, the ability to provide upgrades to existing infrastructure and public services to serve a large increase in high-density housing during the time period of the housing element appeared infeasible. Therefore, this alternative to rezone single-family parcels within ½ mile of El Camino Real to multi-family residential was considered and rejected.

2. Increased Multi-Family Housing on the Town Hall Site. This alternative would consider increasing the number of higher density multi-family housing on the Town Hall site, already identified in the Draft 2023 – 2031 Housing Element for 16 multifamily units, to take greater advantage of rezoning this site to allow multi-family uses (see Housing Element Appendix C). However, because the Town would like this site to provide housing for employees who may have families and need bigger units, the City Council chose to pursue a plan for a total of 16 housing units at the Town Hall Site, with additional units being allocated to the other Town owned opportunity site, Tobin Clark.

Therefore, this alternative that increases the number of units at the Town Hall housing opportunity site was considered and rejected.

3. Alternative Project Locations. The proposed Project (Focused GPU) involves updating the relevant elements of the 2005 Hillsborough General Plan to meet current State requirements for planning for new housing within Hillsborough. An alternative location for the proposed Project would not be feasible because the Project is to plan for housing and minimize environmental hazards within the Town of Hillsborough. None of the proposed Project objectives would be attained if locations outside Hillsborough were considered. Therefore, an alternative project location is not considered a feasible project alternative.

4. Reduced Size Project. The proposed Project (Focused GPU) consists of revising the Town’s current Housing Element to reflect the Town’s RHNA of 554 units.

In addition to the mandatory RHNA assignment, the Project also includes planning for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and density bonus units as allowed by State housing law, as well as buffer sites required by HCD. Thus, the total number of units planned for in the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element is 605 units
The proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, as well as impacts that are reduced to less than significant with mitigation. However, -125-
83 consideration of a reduced size project alternative with a smaller number of sites available for residential development accommodating a smaller number of housing units in order to reduce the significant impacts identified in the EIR is infeasible because it would not allow the Town to prepare a Housing Element Update that meets the RHNA requirements or State housing law. Thus, a reduced project alternative would not meet the Town’s project objectives for the Housing Element Update and is not a feasible project alternative.

C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR

1. Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Housing Element/2005 General Plan.

Description: The No Project Alternative (i.e., Existing Housing Element/2005 General Plan) assumes that housing development would occur within the Town as directed by the currently adopted 2014-2022 Housing Element and the 2005 General Plan. The No Project Alternative would generate less housing development within the Town because none of the proposed General Plan land use designations or Zoning Code amendments to facilitate greater housing development (changes to General Plan Land Use designations and Zoning designations to allow multi-family housing) within the Town would occur. However, single-family and ADU opportunities would reasonably continue to be developed without adoption of the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Update, although the number of ADUs developed would likely be less than the proposed Project because ADU development would not be enhanced, supported, or promoted as it would with implementation of the Focused GPU policies and actions. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10.)
Impacts: Impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be reduced under Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 would have similar impacts to cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and transportation as the proposed Project.

Alternative 1 would have greater impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as compared to the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-11 through 5-16.) Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 1 fails to meet six project objectives and partially meets two project objectives (Draft EIR, p. 5-16.) As a result, the No Project Alternative does not meet most of the project objectives and would mean the Town would not be in compliance with State laws regarding General Plan Housing Elements.

If this alternative was selected, the Town would be subject to the significant penalties for not adopting a Housing Element reflecting the 6th cycle RHNA assignment. (Draft EIR, p. 5-23.)
Finding: The Town rejects Alternative 1 on grounds that it fails to meet a majority of the project objectives. The Town rejects Alternative 1 on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the Town would be subject to the significant penalties for not adopting a Housing -126-
84 Element reflecting the 6th cycle RHNA assignment; and (2) this alternative fails to meet a majority of the Project objectives. Therefore, Alternative 2 is eliminated from further consideration.

2. Alternative 2: Reduced VMT Alternative
Description: Under the Reduced VMT Alternative, housing proposed in the Draft Housing Element (identified Housing Opportunity Sites) would be relocated from the Strawberry Hill site (high VMT TAZ) to the Town Hall and/or Tobin Clark sites (lower VMT TAZ) to achieve an overall reduction in Project VMT. (Draft EIR, p. 5-17.) Impacts: Impacts to energy would be reduced under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire as the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-19 through 5-22.) Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 2 would meet all project objectives, except for one, which would be partially met (Draft EIR, p. 5-23.) However, none of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 5-23.)
Finding: The Town rejects Alternative 2 on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact on the environment; and (2) this alternative meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 is eliminated from further consideration.

D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. The Reduced VMT Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

While the No Project Alternative would result in similar or reduced impacts compared to the Project due to the decreased amount of development proposed compared to the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would not meet State laws regarding both the Housing and Safety Elements.

The Reduced VMT alternative would be superior to the proposed Project because it would reduce the VMT impacts associated with the proposed Project while meeting the Town’s RHNA. Any other reduction in impacts would not be substantially different from the proposed Project, but the Reduced VMT alternative would comply with State law and would satisfy all but one of the Town’s objectives. Therefore, the Reduced VMT alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. (Draft -127-
85 EIR, p. 5-25.) Accordingly, the Town rejects the Reduced VMT Alternative and adopts the proposed Project.

SECTION 8. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project.

Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the proposed Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and this Resolution, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the Project’s potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:

A. The Project promotes the preservation and improvement of existing housing and neighborhoods, and promote new housing growth to provide more affordable and market rate housing that meets the Town’s Cycle 6 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

B. The Project meets housing needs by encouraging a variety of housing development affordable at all income levels, including construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), multi-family housing on Town owned land, subdivision/lot split opportunity sites, and other housing choices on vacant opportunity sites, private recreational sites, and institutionally owned sites.

C. The Project reduces, removes, and/or mitigates potential governmental constraints and barriers to housing development and promote equal housing opportunities for all people; incorporate best practices related to land use, racial equity, mobility, housing affordability, safety, environmental justice, community services, and healthy neighborhoods.

D. The Project affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, eliminate disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination.

E. The Project provides adequate housing for all segments of the population, within the Town’s constraints; promote and assist in the development of -128-
86 housing that meets the needs of special needs communities in Hillsborough while protecting the character of the Town.

F. The Project engages residents and stakeholders to generate ideas for potential Town-specific approaches to meet the Town’s Cycle 6 RHNA, gain insight on the greatest challenges and opportunities that face Hillsborough, and ensure equitable and inclusive processes, policies, investments, and service systems.

G. The Project expands and update technology and innovative practices to create smart, sustainable communities, and adaptable infrastructure systems.

H. The Project protects lives and property from risks associated with wildfirerelated emergencies; reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to flooding, and seismic and geologic hazards.

The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
-129-
87 EXHIBIT “B”

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Available online at: 8 (19035) Geology _MIG revs (Screencheck) - TLG edits (00210843).DOC (hillsborough.net)
-130-
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH REPEALING THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH’S 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HOUSING

ELEMENT LAW
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the Town of Hillsborough adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the Town’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 554 housing units, comprised of 155 very-low income units, 89 low-income units, 87 moderate-income units, and 223 above moderate-income units; and
WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, the Town has prepared the 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 (“Housing Element”) in compliance with State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the Town’s RHNA; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code sections 65352–65352.5 the Town mailed a public notice to all California Native American tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed; and WHEREAS, no California Native American tribe requested consultation; and WHEREAS, the Town conducted extensive community outreach over the last 26 months including twelve public workshops involving the Housing Element Advisory Committee, Architecture and Design Review Board, Citizen Communications Advisory Committee and Community Visioning Workshops; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on August 4, 2022, the Town posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 45-day review period, and on October 12, 2022, after responding to public comments, the Town submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2023, the Town received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2023, the Town published a revised second draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings, then resubmitted the revised draft ATTACHMENT 2
-131-
2 Housing Element to HCD on March 9, 2023, as per Government Code Section 65585; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2023, the Town received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element, and Town staff then met with HCD to discuss the adequacy of the draft Housing Element, and based upon this, Town staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and data; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2023, the Town published a revised third draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s findings, then resubmitted the draft Housing Element to HCD on October 2, 2023, as per Government Code Section 65585; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2023, Town staff met with HCD to discuss the adequacy of the draft Housing Element, and based upon HCD’s specific direction for minor administrative revisions, Town staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2023, the Town published a revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s specific direction for minor administrative revisions and requested public comment on the draft, then resubmitted the revised draft Housing Element to HCD on November 21, 2023, as per Government Code Section 65585; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, the Town received a letter from HCD stating that the draft Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law, and will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2023, the Town published the final draft Housing Element (determined to be in substantial compliance by HCD) on the Town’s website; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 23-____ certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#202306030); adopting environmental findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard, and reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including but not limited to HCD’s findings, the staff report and all attachments, and all oral and written public comments; and
-132-
3 WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. As required under Government Code Section 65358(a), the adoption of the proposed General Plan amendment is in the public interest, in that Housing Element adoption is required by state law.

SECTION 3. The Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq., as confirmed by HCD’s letter of November 30, 2023, finding the draft Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with state law, and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as shown in Exhibit B to this resolution, incorporated herein.

SECTION 4. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. 23-____ certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#202306030); adopting environmental findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

SECTION 5. The 2015-2023 Town of Hillsborough Housing Element is hereby repealed in its entirety, and the 2023-2031 Town of Hillsborough Housing Element, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution, incorporated herein, is hereby adopted.

SECTION 6. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. City Council directs Town staff to distribute copies of the Housing Element in the manner provided in Government Code Sections 65357 and 65589.7.

SECTION 8. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council.

Exhibit A: 2023-2031 Town of Hillsborough Housing Element Exhibit B: HCD Finding Letter, dated November 30, 2023

Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough

Attest: City Clerk
-133-
4 This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at a special meeting held on the 20th day of December 2023, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-134-
5 EXHIBIT “A”
2023-2031 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH HOUSING ELEMENT
Available online at:
hillsborough.net/DocumentCenter/View/5577/20231214_Hillsborough-Housing-ElementFINAL -135-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 30, 2023 *****CORRECTED COPY*****
Doug Davis, Town Manager
Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Doug Davis:

RE: Town of Hillsborough 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the Town of Hillsborough’s (Town) draft housing element received for review on October 2, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

The draft element, along with revisions, meets the statutory requirements that were described in HCD’s May 8, 2023 review. The housing element will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) when the revisions are adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD, pursuant to Government Code section 65585.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the Town failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), Action 3.3(d) and 3.4(d) to rezone Town owned land to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the Town fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.

EXHIBIT “B”
-136-
Doug Davis, Town Manager