Agenda, study session, second session — Hillsborough City Council, October 12, 2026

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
Sophie Cole, Mayor Town Hall
Leslie Marden Ragsdale, Vice Mayor 1600 Floribunda Avenue Laurie Davies Adams, Councilmember Hillsborough, CA 94010 Marie Chuang, Councilmember www.hillsborough.net
Christine Krolik, Councilmember 650-375-7400

A G E N D A
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2026
4:00 PM STUDY SESSION
5:15 PM CLOSED SESSION
6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers and Zoom
To attend the meeting in person: 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010 To provide Public Comment in person: Members of the public wishing to speak on the agenda item are requested to complete a yellow speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk. Speakers may speak for up to three minutes.

To participate in the meeting via Zoom:
• Log in to the meeting at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82348995267?pwd=XvrNS8TiSkzVtgZRrVq9J9pHY2oiwA.1 • Dial-in via phone:
+1 669 444 9171 US
Meeting ID: 823 4899 5267
Passcode: 829303
To provide Public Comment via Zoom: 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 for up to three minutes.

STUDY SESSION (4:00 p.m.)

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
A. Study Session: Tobin Clark Housing Site

ADJOURN STUDY SESSION
CLOSED SESSION (5:15 p.m.)

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) This portion of the agenda is for Councilmembers to disclose any conflict of interest related to the item(s) on the Closed Session agenda. Any Councilmember who has confirmed a conflict of interest or has reason to believe they have a conflict of interest should disclose the conflict for the record and abide by the disqualification requirements contained in FPPC regulations.

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiator: Glenn Berkheimer
Employee Organization: Hillsborough Police Officers Association

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

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION IN ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM

ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (6:00 p.m.)
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
V. PRESENTATIONS
• Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation
• United Against Hate Week Proclamation – October 18-24, 2026 • Hillsborough Beautification Foundation Update
VI. TOWN UPDATE
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter not on the agenda.

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

Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

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

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

1. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2026

2. Monthly Claims: September 1 through September 30, 2026

3. Resolution Implementing Previously Authorized Increases to Solid Waste Rates Effective January 2027

4. Quarterly Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2026

5. Receive September 2026 Legislative Update

6. Resolution Accepting as Complete the Contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the Shady Lane Storm Drain Replacement Project in the Amount of $792,331.53, Under CEQA Guideline 15301

7. Review and Approve the Town’s Response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
X. PUBLIC HEARING

8. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.06, Section 17.16.015 and Section

17.16.020 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating to the Conduct of Home Businesses and the Issuance of Permits for Home Businesses and Finding the Action to be Exempt from CEQA
XI. OLD BUSINESS

9. Telecommunications Needs Assessment Update
XII. NEW BUSINESS

10. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Presentation of the San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan Update
XIII. DISCUSSION

11. Mayor/Vice Mayor Selection and Rotation; and Mayoral and Councilmember Term Limits Agenda – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, October 12, 2026

Page 4 ends

XIV. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
This section of the agenda provides the City Council an opportunity to report their participation in activities related to any intergovernmental committee assignments.

XV. ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS:

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in the City Council meeting, or if you need an agenda in an alternate form, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-375-7412 at least 24 hours before the scheduled City Council meeting.

ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL:

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

STUDY SESSION

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Study Session: Tobin Clark Housing Site
SUMMARY: This study session will provide an overview of the Tobin Clark housing project, including project history, alignment with the Town’s Housing Element, development project overview, and next steps.

Background
The Town’s adopted Housing Element was developed over two years of detailed planning efforts and community participation. A key priority for the community was to maintain current zoning standards on all private properties. In order to meet the state’s required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandates for the Town, the Town rezoned two Town-owned sites to allow for multi-family housing at a variety of income levels, as per Housing Element law. No project approvals have been granted as a result of the Housing Element approval and certification, specific development proposals would be subject to future discussions and approvals.

Housing Element – Development Concept Plan, Units and Affordability, and Environmental Analysis
The Town of Hillsborough owns a 50-acre site located in the former Tobin Clark estate, along the Town’s southern border adjacent to the College of San Mateo (CSM). The Town’s Housing Element identifies 20-acres of this site as an opportunity for multi-family housing. The other 30- acres are designated to remain as open space.

During the drafting of the Housing Element, the Town had high-level discussions with members of the development community to identify potential concepts to determine feasibility. At the time of the Housing Element, the Town had identified four to six building pads of approximately 20,000 to 25,000 square feet each. The building pads could accommodate different building types, from middensity to high-density, depending on further development analyses.

In order to address the various income levels, the Housing Element had planned for a total of 100 housing units at the Tobin Clark site with the intention of prioritizing the units for teachers, faculty, municipal employees, and healthcare workers under the following income categories:
- 44 units – Very Low Income (0-50% Average Median Income) - 6 units – Moderate Income (80 – 119% Average Median Income) - 50 units – Above Moderate Income (120%+ Average Median Income) As part of the Housing Element, the Town prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Housing Element and associated updates. As part of this, a preliminary review of -1-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

the programmed housing at the Tobin Clark site was reviewed. However, for any development proposal or conceptual plan, additional environmental analysis would be required. This would include additional review of traffic impacts, construction impacts, etc.

Site Development Process
On July 1, 2025, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to invite proposals to secure the services of a consultant to support the Town with the development of the Tobin Clark site and assist with site analysis and assessment, master planning, conceptual design development, environmental review, community engagement, and funding feasibility. The Town received proposals from five firms and identified Harmonie Park Development as the top-rated firm based on their project approach, project team, qualifications, and relevant experience. On October 13, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Harmonie Park Development. On June 8, 2026, Harmonie Park presented an update for the City Council on the current status of the project, including the analyses conducted on the site development as proposed in the Housing Element and other options considered, as summarized below.

Housing
Element
Option A Option B Option C
Affordable
Units
- 44 very lowincome
($105,050 for
family of 4)
- 6 moderate
income
($240,950 for
family of 4)
Housing Type:

Not specified
- 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Podium-style structure
(multi-family)
4-stories and one half-story
over two levels of parking*
- 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Podium-style structure
(multi-family)
4-stories and one halfstory over two levels of
parking*
- 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Podium-style structure
(multi-family)
4-stories and one halfstory over two levels of
parking*
Market Rate
Units
50 market-rate
Housing Type:

Not specified
50 for sale condos
Housing Type:
- Podium-style structure
(multi-family)
- 5-stories over two levels
of parking
59 rental units
Housing Type:
- Podium-style structure
(multi-family)
- 5-stories over two levels
of parking
34 for-sale units
Housing Type:
- 24 3-story townhomes
- 10 single-family homes
(1/2 acre in size) + 7
ADUs
Total Units 100 100 100 92
Financially
Feasible
(Yes/No)
Not specified No No Yes
Community
Benefits Not specified No No
Yes – to be studied
further in Phase 2. Plan
retains 12 acres of open
space.
*Contains 50 affordable units with one manager’s unit; unit mix emphasizes family housing, with a significant proportion of two- and three-bedroom units.
-2-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

Based on the site adjacencies and in consideration of market demands, the current iteration is considering a version of Option C, rather than the podium style that was presented in the Housing Element. Staff and the consultant team determined that a mix of townhomes, single-family homes, and podium would improve the financial feasibility as well as be more consistent with the Town’s existing land use.

One of the major constraints of this site is its utilities and infrastructure needs, including site access. The project team looked at various alternatives to accessing utilities at various points throughout the site, what, if any, coordination is required with adjacent parcels. The existing plan and financial viability considers these limitations. The team will continue to refine these points as the project progresses.

Harmonie Park will provide an overview of the project status and activities of phase two of the project, in Attachment 1, summarized below.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this update; as part of the original approval, the project budget of $539,100.00 was approved for a term through March 24, 2028. To date, the project has been on time and under budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The City Council’s discussion of the Tobin Clark Housing Element site was previously analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City Council adopted on December 20, 2023 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, the City Council’s discussion of the Tobin Clark Housing Element site, at this stage in the process, is also exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guideline 15306 as information collection that may lead to a future project at the Tobin Clark site. If additional environmental review beyond that already analyzed in the EIR is required, that additional -3-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 4 ends

environmental analysis will be presented in future public meetings for potential consideration prior to the approval of any project at the Tobin Clark site.

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Memo - Summary of Phase 2

2. Presentation
PREPARED BY: Mandy Brown, Assistant City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Receive presentation and public input, provide any comments or direction to staff and the consulting team.
-4-
1 Tobin Clark Property – Phase 2A Summary
Hillsborough, California
Executive Summary
The Tobin Clark Property was identified by the Town of Hillsborough as a key housing opportunity site during preparation of its 2023-2031 Housing Element. Following more than two years of public outreach, planning commission review, and public hearings, the Town adopted a Housing Element that designated the approximately 20-acre Town-owned property for the future development of up to 100 mixed-income housing units. The site was identified because of its unique location, public ownership, and ability to contribute toward the Town's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations while supporting local and regional housing goals.

To advance implementation of the Housing Element, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in July 2025 seeking professional project management services to evaluate, plan, and guide development of the site. The RFP recognized both the opportunities and challenges associated with the property, including constrained access, utility limitations, environmental considerations, interagency coordination requirements, and the need for meaningful community engagement. Harmonie Park was tasked with evaluating development alternatives, developing a master plan, identifying infrastructure solutions, evaluating financial feasibility, and advancing a feasible housing program consistent with Town objectives.

The RFP established a comprehensive planning framework intended to move the Tobin Clark Property from a Housing Element opportunity site to an implementable development strategy. The work completed under Phases 1A, 1B, and 2A represents the Town's ongoing effort to responsibly assess housing opportunities on the site while balancing housing objectives, infrastructure constraints, environmental considerations, community benefits, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Background: Phase 1A and 1B
Harmonie Park’s RFP included multiple check-in phases. The work completed as a part of Phase 1A and 1B were presented to the Public and Town Council in June 2026. Phase 1A and 1B focused on evaluating the feasibility of residential development on the Town-owned Tobin Clark Property. The work included environmental due diligence, infrastructure analysis, site planning, market analysis, financial modeling, and coordination with technical consultants and public agencies. Multiple development concepts were evaluated to identify an approach that could help the Town meet its Housing Element objectives while responding to the site's environmental, topographic, and infrastructure constraints.

Through this process, the project team determined that larger market-rate multifamily buildings were not financially feasible due to construction costs, parking requirements, and market conditions.

Alternative development concepts were evaluated, including affordable housing, townhomes, custom residential lots, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The result was a preliminary Master Plan that balanced affordable housing objectives, infrastructure requirements, open space preservation, and overall project feasibility.

The work completed during Phases 1A and 1B established the foundation for the more detailed planning effort undertaken during Phase 2A.
-5-
ATTACHMENT 1
2 Phase 2A Overview
Following completion of Phases IA and IB, Harmonie Park advanced into Phase 2A Master Planning, focused on refining the preferred development framework, community benefit program opportunities, infrastructure strategy, and implementation considerations. This work was undertaken over approximately 120 days, from mid-June through the end of October 2026, and represents the transition from conceptual feasibility planning to a more detailed and coordinated Master Plan suitable for future environmental review, public outreach, and developer solicitation activities.

The Phase 2A effort was characterized by continued collaboration with Town staff and the Ad Hoc committee, consultants, and agency representatives. The Phase 2A effort concludes with two public community meetings on October 12th and October 26th, which will include a brief update by the Harmonie Park team and solicit feedback from the public. The Phase 2A objective was to further validate the viability of the mixed-income neighborhood concept while refining the following:
• Site design
• Community space opportunities
• Access strategies
• Grading
• Infrastructure requirements
• Housing product concepts
The resulting Master Plan reflects a more detailed understanding of the property and incorporates space for community-oriented amenities intended to strengthen the relationship between the future neighborhood and the broader Hillsborough community.

While most of the Phase 2A tasks have been completed, some remain in process as Phase 2A will conclude at the end of October 2026 per the original schedule. The team will continue to coordinate these efforts as we concurrently prepare for the two October community meetings. Phase 2B will commence thereafter, in November 2026.

Site Environmental Review Process and Preliminary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Budget
Phase 2A included refinement of the anticipated environmental review process and preparation of a preliminary budget for the technical studies required to support a future development application on the Tobin Clark Property. To inform this effort, the project team consulted with MIG, the environmental consultant that prepared the Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), to better understand the likely environmental review pathway and associated costs. Additional technical consultants were also contacted to develop planning-level cost estimates for studies that may need to be updated or supplemented based on the current site plan and previously completed environmental analysis.

The purpose of this effort was twofold. First, the information will be used during Phase 2B to further refine the project's financial feasibility analysis and development proforma. Second, it provides the Town, community members, and prospective developers with a realistic understanding of the environmental review requirements and associated costs that would likely apply to any future development proposal.

Because no formal development application has been submitted, the Town is not conducting environmental review as part of this planning process. Environmental review would occur only after a future developer submits a specific development proposal. At that time, the developer would typically -6-
3 fund the environmental review process, while the Town would oversee preparation of the environmental document and ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Based on discussions with MIG, the environmental review process would likely begin with preparation of an Initial Study to evaluate the proposed development against the environmental analysis previously completed for the Town's Housing Element, which included the Tobin Clark Property.

The Initial Study would determine the scope of any additional environmental review required. Based on the current planning assumptions, MIG anticipates that a Focused Environmental Impact Report (Focused EIR) would likely be prepared to evaluate project-specific impacts and updated technical studies while relying on the broader environmental analysis already completed as part of the Housing Element EIR. This process would include multiple opportunities for public review and comment and is expected to require approximately 12 to 24 months to complete.

The preliminary environmental review budget, including a 15% contingency, is estimated at approximately $971,750. While substantial, this estimate is consistent with the anticipated scope of work and the environmental complexity of the site. Actual costs may vary depending on the final development proposal, future regulatory requirements, market conditions, and other factors. A preliminary breakdown of estimated CEQA-related costs is provided below. -7-
4 These budgeting efforts establish a clearer Environmental Review roadmap and provide future development partners with a more comprehensive understanding of environmental review requirements.

The Continued Challenges
The site itself presents a unique set of challenges that were central to shaping the preliminary plan and refined Master plan. The approximately 20-acre Tobin Clark property spans a largely undeveloped and topographically complex landscape, including slopes ranging from approximately 8% to over 60%, limited buildable areas, and biological constraints requiring avoidance or mitigation. Infrastructure is not currently in place, necessitating coordinated extension of utilities, roadway improvements, and the creation of a looped water system—conditions that significantly influence both cost and site design. All potential access locations for primary ingress/egress, emergency vehicle access, and utility connections have been explored. Phase I established that although a main loop road at the College of San Mateo (“CSM”) was initially considered during the Housing Element process as a potential primary ingress and egress to Tobin Clark, utilities would need to be routed within the Tobin Clark site to connect to existing Town of Hillsborough utilities which serve the property, which may modify ingress/egress routes as well.

Steps to Refine the Site Plan
A principal outcome of Phase 2A was preparation of a refined illustrative site plan that further organizes the site into an integrated residential community comprised of affordable housing, townhomes, custom home sites, open space, and community gathering areas. After further communication with the Town Staff and the Central County Fire Department, it was determined that as much as possible of the street network serving the property should be public. The site plan was modified to include these public street standards.

Coordination was undertaken with fire officials regarding site access, emergency response requirements, roadway design considerations, and overall fire safety planning. This coordination represents a critical component of ensuring the project can satisfy applicable life-safety requirements while respecting site constraints.

Topics evaluated included:
• Primary access and secondary emergency access opportunities • Fire apparatus circulation, street radius requirements, and aerial access requirements • Emergency vehicle access standards
• Potential fire protection and infrastructure requirements • Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) considerations and requirements were discussed with the Central County Fire Department, and the need to provide a Fire Protection Plan (a WUI requirement) during the application process
The refined plan maintains the project's commitment to preserving significant portions of the property as open space while creating a cohesive neighborhood framework that responds to the site's challenging topography and environmental constraints. The land plan now incorporates a centralized community space and recreation area, pedestrian connections, and a clearer hierarchy of vehicular circulation.

Housing clusters, roadway alignments, and open space areas were adjusted to improve functionality, reduce grading impacts where possible, meet fire and emergency standards, and enhance compatibility with the natural setting.
-8-
5 The refined layout continues to balance the Town's affordable housing objectives with market-rate housing types that contribute to overall project feasibility and infrastructure delivery.

Site Plan Summary
The updated land plan continues to organize the site into three integrated residential components that balance density, feasibility, and neighborhood compatibility. This update included refined grading considerations, the integration of a stormwater detention basin, the potential locations of community spaces and related parking to serve these locations, and the inclusion of two additional custom lots to get closer to the targeted 50 market rate homes. The new public roadways and public utilities will then compose approximately 3.2 acres of the property. While the roadway alignment did shift based on evolving grading considerations and site planning, the increased right-of-way acreage was primarily a result of utilizing the Town public right-of-way standard in lieu of a private street standard, which was the preferred approach by both the fire department and the Town.

Overall, the development area of the site is over 10 acres, leaving the remaining 10.1 acres plus the 3.2- acre right-of-way under Town control. The remaining 10.1 acres may include public open space, community spaces, or other public benefits. A summary of the updated Phase 2 Master Plan as compared with the Phase 1 preliminary plan is as follows:

Townhomes: The townhome parcels, consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, contain 24 three-story, 2,500 square foot residences that step with the hillside with concept plans focused on:
• Family-oriented three- and four-bedroom layouts
• Efficient building footprints responsive to hillside conditions • Opportunities for private open space and outdoor living • Building massing approaches that reduce apparent scale -9-
6 While the architecture will be developed by a future developer, the current site design enables articulated massing and careful response to grade transitions. Structures may be partially embedded into the slope, reducing perceived scale while maintaining strong indoor-outdoor connections. These units are expected to tier with the slope, with an estimated height from the street under 35’.

Custom Lots: 12 half-acre custom estate lots have been further refined to reflect the prevailing development pattern of Hillsborough and respond directly to market analysis conducted during the due diligence process. Additional planning and design analysis was undertaken for the custom estate lot component of the project, including:
• Building pad placement and potential overall square footage of each 2-story home • Vehicular access considerations
• Lot configuration and orientation
• Site-specific development opportunities
• Integration of potential accessory dwelling units
The custom lot program continues to represent an important component of the overall financial framework while maintaining compatibility with Hillsborough's established residential character.

Including these custom lots is critical to offsetting substantial infrastructure costs that are necessary for unlocking the affordable housing portion of the design. These lots also provide long-term optionality for high-value custom homes and the potential integration of up to 12 accessory dwelling units. The overall expected acreage for the custom lots is approximately 6 acres. As each lot will be custom, no architecture has been designed. However, overall buildable square footage for each home was estimated for each lot, with pads ranging from approximately 2,600 -to over 3,000 square feet, which would enable the development of a 5,000 – 6,000 square foot custom home and ADU.

Affordable Homes: The third component is a 50-unit affordable multifamily building, plus one manager’s unit (total of 51 units) located on an approximately 1.3-acre parcel, which includes designated space for fire access. The project team continued evaluating conceptual site planning, access, infrastructure servicing requirements, and future development considerations necessary to support a competitive affordable housing development process. Further refinement in the placement of this building and how to achieve successful fire access was explored and discussed with the Fire Department. A flat pad has been included for truck staging. Height was also discussed with the fire department. The plan currently reflects a 4 – 5 story building over parking. The building should measure at approximately 85’. However, no architecture has yet been developed for the building.

This building has been designed as a podium-style structure, efficiently concentrating density in the most suitable portion of the site. The design is configured to be competitive for the current 9% LowIncome Housing Tax Credit program. The unit mix emphasizes family housing, with a significant proportion of two- and three-bedroom units, serving households earning between 30% and 60% of area median income, satisfying the Town’s objective for very low-income homes. Other potential funding programs include San Mateo County’s measure K grants which may be able to give residents of the County preference for units. The affordable housing component directly advances the Town’s Housing Element obligations and fulfills the RFP’s objective of integrating meaningful affordable housing within a feasible development framework.

The affordable housing parcel remains strategically positioned within the site to maximize development efficiency, infrastructure access, and long-term feasibility for affordable housing funding programs. -10-
7 Additional Affordable Home Development Capacity: The Harmonie Park and consultant team were recently tasked with exploring the opportunity for additional affordable homes at the Tobin Clark property. The site planning effort and balancing the financial fundamentals has been very challenging to date. Any expansion of the affordable housing program will have to consider the site constraints and limitations. As this was only recently identified as a potential Town priority, we have maintained the above development program as the baseline Tobin Clark program and will be providing an update regarding the viability of expansion of the affordable housing program at the property in by the end of 2026.

Identifying Community Space for All of Hillsborough
A major focus of Phase 2A was identifying opportunities to preserve meaningful public open space and community benefit areas while concentrating housing development within defined portions of the property. Through site planning exercises and stakeholder discussions, the project team evaluated strategies to maintain substantial portions of the site's natural landscape, protect existing tree canopy, and create outdoor spaces that enhance both the development and the broader community.

The current Master Plan concept includes approximately 10 acres of community benefit and open space areas organized around a central community green and gathering space, supplemented by larger preserved natural areas throughout the property. These areas are intended to provide opportunities for passive recreation, community gathering, and enjoyment of the site's natural environment, while also serving as visual buffers between development areas and surrounding properties.

In addition to supporting recreational and community uses, the open space network is intended to preserve the hillside and woodland character of the property, protect environmentally sensitive areas where appropriate, and ensure that a significant portion of the site remains undeveloped and owned by the Town of Hillsborough, ensuring the long-term benefit for both future residents and the Hillsborough community. Specific amenities and programming will continue to be refined through future planning efforts and community input.

Conceptual planning discussions included exploration of identifying spaces that may include:
• A centrally located community gathering space
• Recreation and passive open space opportunities
• Flexible community concepts such as an outdoor pavilion • Enhanced landscape treatments and outdoor gathering areas • Potential play and family-oriented activity spaces
• Potential satellite safety station to serve the greater Tobin Clark community While not yet designed, these concepts are intended to serve both future residents and the broader Hillsborough community while maintaining flexibility for future refinement based on community feedback, environmental constraints, and project economics.

Engineering and Infrastructure Refinement
Significant technical work was completed during Phase 2A to advance the engineering framework supporting the Master Plan.
-11-
8 Grading and Utility Planning: Civil engineering efforts focused on preparation of a refined grading and utility plan that responds to site topography while supporting the updated development program, including a public rather than private right-of-way.

Key areas of refinement included:
• Preliminary roadway geometry and an adjustment from private to public streets • Utility system coordination.
• Water, sewer, and preliminary dry utility planning
• Site grading optimization
• Identification of key engineering constraints.

Stormwater Planning: The project team advanced stormwater management concepts and refined drainage strategies intended to support future entitlement and environmental review processes. These efforts included evaluation of potential stormwater treatment approaches and integration with open space and landscape planning.

Utility Layout and Access: Together with input from the Town’s Public Works Department, the Central County Fire Department, and Town Staff, several potential utility and roadway access locations have been assessed. Public ingress/egress locations have been considered, as well as alternative locations dedicated to more limited Emergency Vehicle Access only. Location considerations include maximum roadway slopes, utility tie ins, minimizing environmental disturbance, existing fire road alignment, and property ownership. Balancing the many access complexities will continue to be assessed.

Next Step - Engineer's Cost Estimate: With the above adjustments, a revised engineer's estimate will be completed during Phase 2B to reflect the refined site plan, infrastructure assumptions, and updated design considerations. This effort will provide a more accurate foundation for financial modeling and implementation planning, also a part of Phase 2B.

Community Outreach
An important milestone during Phase 2A was transitioning from the Ad Hoc committee to a public subcommittee, as well as scheduling two public neighborhood meetings on October 12th and October 26th. The transition to the public subcommittee occurred on Monday September 14th by a majority of Council votes. The October public neighborhood meetings have been scheduled and publicly noticed.

These meetings will provide an opportunity for:
• Presenting the evolving Master Plan
• Receiving preliminary community feedback
• Discussion on housing, open space, and community benefit concepts • Identifying key questions and concerns for further study • Informing ongoing planning and refinement activities
• Providing an update on the CEQA process for future development proposals Community input received during this phase will continue to inform future iterations of the Master Plan and associated outreach efforts.

Next Steps – Phase 2B and Beyond
-12-
9 Phase 2A represents a significant advancement of the Tobin Clark Master Plan from a feasibility-based framework to a substantially more refined development concept. Through continued engineering analysis, community engagement, residential product planning, agency coordination, and infrastructure refinement, the project now possesses a stronger technical and planning foundation for future environmental review, community outreach, developer solicitation, and implementation efforts.

The refined Master Plan continues to support the Town's housing objectives while preserving substantial open space, enhancing community amenities, improving infrastructure definition, and advancing a development framework that remains both responsive to site constraints and aligned with Hillsborough's long-term Housing Element goals.

The next phase of work, 2B, continues further refinement, including the updated financial modeling.

There will need to be a proforma update based to ensure the Master Plan remains in-line with financial viability. Ultimately, a formal solicitation process to secure a developer/partner or team of developers to build the housing remains the ultimate goal.

If the Town is satisfied with the refined Master Plan at the conclusion of Phase 2A and 2B, the project will proceed into a modified Phase 3A – Developer RFP Development Process, which represents a critical transition from planning to execution. During this phase, a comprehensive Request for Proposals will be prepared to solicit qualified development partners capable of delivering the project. The RFP will clearly articulate the Town’s objectives, the approved site plan, development requirements, and evaluation criteria, ensuring alignment with both financial feasibility and community goals. A structured pre-bid process will provide transparency and clarity to potential respondents, including informational meetings and formalized responses to developer inquiries. Proposals will be collected and evaluated based on experience, financial capacity, design approach, alignment with the Town’s vision, and in compliance with the State Surplus Lands Act and other relevant laws governing public lands.

The subsequent Phase 3B – RFP Response Review and Developer Selection will focus on advancing from preferred proposal to formalized partnership. This phase includes detailed review and negotiation of term sheets, refinement of development responsibilities, and preparation of a binding development or purchase agreement. Key considerations will include allocation of risk, infrastructure responsibilities, delivery of the affordable housing component, and long-term project phasing.

Together, these next steps reflect a logical and disciplined progression from concept to implementation.

They maintain the RFP’s emphasis on transparency, competitive selection, and strategic alignment while ensuring that the Town retains flexibility and control throughout the process. By structuring the project to enter the market with a clear, financially tested, and entitlement-ready plan, Hillsborough will be well-positioned to attract high-quality development partners and successfully deliver the affordable homes as identified in the Housing Element.
-13-
Study Session:

Tobin Clark Housing Site
October 12, 2026
1 -14-
ATTACHMENT 2
2 Background
The Town’s adopted Housing Element was developed over two years of detailed planning efforts, community participation and community participation. A key priority for the community was to maintain current zoning standards on all private properties.

In order to meet the state’s required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) mandates for the Town, the Town rezoned two Town-owned sites to allow for multi-family housing at a variety of income levels, as per Housing Element law.
-15-
3 The Site
The Town of Hillsborough owns a 50-acre site located in the former Tobin Clark estate, along the Town’s southern border adjacent to the College of San Mateo (CSM). The Town’s Housing Element identifies 20-acres of this site as an opportunity for multi-family housing. The other 30-acres are designated to remain as open space.
-16-
4 Housing Element –
Development Concept Plan
The Town had high-level discussions with members of the development community to identify potential concepts to determine feasibility. At the time of the Housing Element, the Town had identified four to six building pads of
approximately 20,000 to 25,000 square feet each. The
building pads could accommodate different building types, from mid-density to high-density, depending on further
development analyses.
-17-
5 Housing Element –
Units and Affordability
In order to address the various income levels, the
Housing Element had planned for a total of 100
housing units at the Tobin Clark site with the
intention of prioritizing the units for teachers,
faculty, municipal employees, and healthcare
workers under the following income categories:
- 44 units – Very Low Income (0-50% Average
Median Income)
- 6 units – Moderate Income (80 – 119% Average
Median Income)
- 50 units – Above Moderate Income (120%+
Average Median Income)
-18-
6 Housing Element –
Environmental Analysis
As part of the Housing Element, the Town prepared a
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed Housing Element and associated updates. As
part of this, a preliminary review of the programmed
housing at the Tobin Clark site was reviewed. However, for any development proposal or conceptual plan, additional environmental analysis would be required. This would
include additional review of traffic impacts, construction impacts, etc.
-19-
7 Site Development Process
On July 1, 2025, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to invite proposals to secure the services of a consultant to support the Town with the development of the Tobin Clark site:
• assist with site analysis and assessment,
• master planning, conceptual design development,
• environmental review,
• community engagement,
• and funding feasibility.

The Town received proposals from five firms and selected Harmonie Park Development based on their project approach, project team, qualifications, and relevant experience. -20-
8 Previous Project Update
*Contains 50 affordable units with one manager’s unit; unit mix emphasizes family housing, with a significant proportion of two- and three-bedroom units.

Housing Element Option A Option B Option C
Affordable Units - 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Not specified
- 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Podium-style structure (multi-family)
4-stories and one half-story over two levels
of parking*
- 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Podium-style structure (multi-family)
4-stories and one half-story over two
levels of parking*
- 44 very low-income
($105,050 for family of 4)
- 6 moderate income
($240,950 for family of 4)
Housing Type:

Podium-style structure (multi-family)
4-stories and one half-story over two
levels of parking*
Market Rate Units 50 market-rate
Housing Type:

Plan retains 12 acres of open space.
-21-
Wendi Baker, Principal
Don Capobres, Principal
Town of Hillsborough
Public Meeting – Phase 2A Community Update for the Tobin Clark Site Harmonie Park Development
Town Council Presentation October 12, 2026
Harmonie Park Development
Town Council Presentation
October 12, 2026
-22-
Presentation
• Overall progress, including Phase 2A work
• Update on site planning and development program
• Community amenity concepts
• Environmental Review Strategy
• Next Steps – Phase 2B and beyond
Receive Community Input
• Questions and Comments from the Public
Meeting Purpose
Meeting Purpose
-23-
The Tobin Clark Property was identified in the Housing Element as an opportunity site capable of addressing housing needs, including 50 affordable and 50 market rate homes. Simultaneously, we sought to explore the preservation of the 20+ acre site and create the opportunity for community serving amenities.

Discussion Topics
• Housing element requirements
• Site opportunities
• Community benefit objectives
• Create a viable planning vision for the property
Project Background
Project Background
-24-
Phase 1A 1B
Phase 1A & 1B
Work completed as a part of these initial phases,
completed from late 2025 through mid-2026
• Existing conditions assessment
• Site opportunities and constraints analysis
• Housing feasibility assessment
• Preliminary infrastructure review
• Access and circulation analysis
• Initial financial feasibility review
-25-
Phase 2A Objectives
Phase 2A Objectives
Work completed as a part of Phase 2A was completed
from July 2026 through October 2026.
• Site planning and land use
• Housing program refinement
• Community space opportunities
• Infrastructure planning including public vs. private
streets
• Emergency Vehicle Access evaluation and coordination
with Central County Fire and Public Works
• Preliminary CEQA strategy and budget
-26-
Refined Master Plan
Refined Master Plan
Phase 2A further refined the balance between affordable and market rate housing, necessary infrastructure, and public community uses.

A market rate townhome and custom lot plan supports the infrastructure costs needed for the affordable housing property to proceed.
-27-
Refined Master Plan (contd.)
Refined Master Plan (contd.)
• Affordable housing area and fire access pad
• Market Rate townhomes
• Increased total custom lot opportunities and related ADUs • Established potential community amenity areas
• Refined (increased) the roadways to a public section
• Established multiple opportunities for access locations including emergency vehicle access, which will continue to be studied • Heights: Up to 85’ for the multifamily affordable building, ~35’ for the market rate townhomes and custom lots (from street level) -Tucking into the slopes as much as feasible
-28-
Development Program
Development Program
-29-
Community Spaces
Community Spaces
Objective: Maintain maximum area possible to remain
publicly owned and accessible. The refined Master Plan
identifies areas for preservation and public use through the opportunity for a varied community space program.

Potential community space program components could
include:
• Centralized community green
• Spaces for scenic lookouts
• Pavilion area
• Walking areas
• Family recreation
• Existing woodland preservation
-30-
Community Green
Community Green
Objective: Provide an opportunity for a flexible, centralized space that could accommodate a variety of community uses.

Potential uses could include approximately 1.75 acres of:
• Informal recreation
• Community gatherings, seasonal events
• Pavilion space
• Passive space
• Family recreation
• Stormwater control measures / basin
-31-
The revised Tobin Clark Master Plan works to balance many potential public benefits, including:
• Housing
Affordable housing for families
Diverse housing choices
A mixed income neighborhood
• Open Spaces
Approximately 10 acres of public land
Woodland preservation
Hillside character retention
• Community Amenities
Gathering spaces
Recreational opportunities
Community programming potential
Potential satellite safety station
Balancing Public Benefits
Balancing Public Benefits
-32-
Opportunities Challenges Remain
Opportunities &
Challenges Remain
Opportunities:

Compliance with Housing Element
Affordable housing delivery
Hillside character retention
Long-term community spaces
10+ acres of remaining public lands
Challenges:

High infrastructure costs
Topography and site constraints, including access
Affordable housing funding complexity
Smaller developer pool who take on complex,smaller projects Environmental sensitivities
CEQA cost and process
-33-
Environmental Review
Environmental Review
Anticipated Environmental Review & CEQA Process
Once a development application is submitted:
• Preparation of Initial Study to establish potential changes from the Housing Element EIR
• Likely a Focused Environmental Impact Review (FEIR) that tiers off the Housing Element EIR with new studies
• Technical studies specific to application, including traffic analysis, construction impacts, biological constraints
• Public input throughout the process
• 12 to 24 months to complete
• Preliminary CEQA budget estimated at approximately
$1M - to be financial responsibility of a future developer -34-
Next Steps (Phase 2B)
Next Steps (Phase 2B)
From November through February 2027, Harmonie Park will be working on Phase 2B, which includes the financial update of the refined Phase 2A plan, with the intent to prepare a final plan for a future RFP for a developer(s). Upcoming tasks include:
• Refining the plan
• Incorporating public feedback received in October
• Complete additional sub committee check ins (public) as appropriate
• Update cost and feasibility analysis
• Continue access discussions
• Further refine community benefit opportunities
• Create draft project description for future RFP and
Environmental Review
• Study the opportunity for additional affordable housing units at the Tobin Clark Property, to take pressure off other Housing Element properties
-35-
Public Comment and Questions
Public Comment and Questions
• Community Amenities
Which amenities appeal to you?
How should community gathering spaces be prioritized?
What open space features are most important?
• Project Planning
What information will be the most helpful as we move forward? Feedback on the site plan or process overall?
-36-
Site
Plans
-37-
Recommendation
• Receive presentation and public input
• Provide any comments or direction to staff and the consulting team -38-
Appendix
Appendix
-39-
Original Housing
Element Plan
Original Housing
Element Plan
-40-
Two podium multifamily buildingsincluding:

Building 1:50 - 58 unit market rate for sale or rental
buildingstested
Building 2: Affordable housing component of 51 units

4.5 - 5 stories over 2 levels of parking
Most minimal developmentfootprint in thisinitial concept Initial Concepts Tested
Initial Concepts
Tested
-41-
Very high construction costs for
building and podium parking High
infrastructure costs due to looped
watersystem requirements and
location of tie-ins
Market limitations with rental
competition and limited stacked
condominum comparables
Conclusion:

Podium market rate program not
financially feasible Affordable building
has potential to attract various capital
sources – making the affordable
building worth pursuit but only if
infrastructure and site costs could be
covered through a financially viable
market rate program.

Critical Findings on Podium Buildings
Critical Findings on
Podium
Buildings
-42-
Townhomes have lower persquare foot building costs and
higher persquare foot outsale prices
Custom lots would generate additionalrevenue with limited costs, as utilities will exist andmake these lots utility ready forsale
Market rate portion of project supportsthe high
infrastructure costs
Affordable housing component viable with various capital sources and the market rate subsidizing the infrastructure costs
Financial Strategy
Financial
Strategy
-43-
Ensuring Readiness by 2031
Ensuring Readiness by 2031
Aligning with Housing Element milestones
CEQA compliance strategy
Infrastructure coordination
Developer engagement timeline
Adaptive planning with off-ramps
-44-
Who is Harmonie Park
Who is Harmonie Park
60+ years of combined experience
Deep Bay Area expertise
Proven success on constrained, multi-agency sites
Trusted by Townslike Los Gatos, Tiburon, Danville, Moraga -45-
-46-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2026 -48-

UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026
5:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers and Zoom

CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Cole called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Adams, Chuang, Krolik, Ragsdale, Cole

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
Mayor Cole announced the item for Closed Session:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
One or More Potential Cases
Consideration of Waiving the Attorney-Client Privilege over a Personnel Investigation Report

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
There were no speakers.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION IN ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM The City Council adjourned to Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:01 p.m.

The Closed Session adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Cole called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Present: Adams, Chuang, Krolik, Ragsdale, Cole
III. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Christopher Diaz reported the City Council met in Closed Session to consider one item; direction was given to staff but there was no reportable action under the Brown Act.

IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Cole led the Pledge of Allegiance.

V. PRESENTATIONS
• Childhood Cancer and Rare Childhood Disease Awareness Month Proclamation -49-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 14, 2026

Page 2 ends

Councilmembers shared in the reading of the proclamation. • Suicide Prevention Awareness Month Proclamation
Councilmember Krolik read the proclamation. Mayor Cole provided brief comments. • National Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Week Proclamation – September 20-26, 2026
Central County Fire Department (CCFD) CERT Coordinator Kaz Chiao provided information regarding the CERT program and responded to City Council questions.

Councilmember Chuang read the proclamation in recognition of National CERT Week. • Hillsborough Neighborhood Network (HNN) Update and Receipt of National Preparedness Month Proclamation
HNN Chair and Volunteer CERT Coordinator Mike Chuang and CCFD CERT Coordinator Kaz Chiao provided the presentation and responded to City Council questions. Councilmember Adams read the proclamation in recognition of September as National Preparedness Month.
• Mayor’s Applause
Mayor Cole recognized Code Compliance Coordinator II Marcel Stevenson with Mayor’s Applause for his approach to recent code enforcement cases related to vegetation management. Code Compliance Coordinator Stevenson provided brief comments.

Councilmembers provided comments.

VI. TOWN UPDATE
Assistant City Manager Mandy Brown provided an update on events and activities in the town.

Regarding the slide on upcoming agenda items, Councilmember Adams requested the issue of Mayor/Vice Mayor rotation procedures and terms that was to be brought back to the City Council for discussion be agendized at an upcoming City Council meeting prior to Councilmember Chuang’s departure in December. Mayor Cole stated that would be discussed.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no speakers.

VIII. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mayor Cole stated she would recuse herself from participation in Item 7. City Attorney Diaz confirmed Mayor Cole’s recusal is due to her real property interest in proximity of the project site.

IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Krolik requested to remove Item 1 from the Consent Calendar.

Councilmember Adams requested to remove Item 6 from the Consent Calendar.

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

On motion by Councilmember Chuang, seconded by Councilmember Krolik and unanimous by roll call vote, Consent Calendar Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were approved.

1. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2026, August 10, 2026 and August 20, 2026
Councilmember Krolik requested an amendment to the minutes of the July 13, 2026 City Council meeting under Item XIII, City Council Items, in her report related to 40 Baywood to add, “by the state” after “40 Baywood was granted tax exempt status…,” and -50-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 14, 2026

Page 3 ends

regarding the August 20, 2026 City Council meeting minutes, to amend the minutes to reflect Mayor Cole’s dissenting vote was due to a concern with whether or not the Town called an election, and not a reflection of lack of support for the candidates. Mayor Cole concurred.

Mayor Cole requested that additional comments be added to the discussion in Item 14, Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 17.32.030 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code to Reduce the Minimum Dwelling Size Requirement and Eliminate the Recordation Requirement for Limited Remaining Floor Area in the August 10, 2026 City Council Meeting minutes to reflect the concepts to come back for further discussion of the proposed ordinance.

City Clerk Lisa Natusch stated she would re-listen to Item 14 in the August 10th meeting in order to provide more detail on what was discussed. City Manager Davis provided comments.

On motion by Councilmember Krolik, seconded by Vice Mayor Ragsdale and unanimous by roll call vote, the City Council Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2026 were approved with an amendment to Item XIII, City Council Items, under Councilmember Krolik’s report related to 40 Baywood to add, “by the state” after “40 Baywood was granted tax exempt status…,” the August 20, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes were approved with an amendment to add language to reflect that Mayor Cole’s dissenting vote on Item 1 was due to a concern with whether or not the Town called an election and not a reflection of lack of support for the candidates, and the City Council Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2026 were to be brought back to Council for future approval following additional review of the discussion in Item 14.

2. Monthly Claims: August 1 through August 31, 2026
The monthly claims for August 2026 were approved as submitted.

3. Receive August 2026 Legislative Update
The August 2026 Legislative Update was received.

4. Resolution Adopting the Classification Specification for the Position of Financial Services Manager
The resolution adopting the classification specification for the position of Financial Services Manager was adopted.

5. Resolution Adopting the 2026 Salary Schedule for the Town of Hillsborough The resolution adopting the 2026 Salary Schedule for the Town of Hillsborough was adopted.

6. Reformulation of the City Council Subcommittee for the Tobin Clark Site from an Ad Hoc City Council Subcommittee to a Standing City Council Subcommittee Councilmember Adams spoke in support of the item but proposed tabling it until October after the October 12, 2026 Study Session regarding the Tobin Clark Site in the interest of timing to finalize the presentation details. City Attorney Christopher Diaz and City Manager Doug Davis provided comments.

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

Councilmember Chuang moved and Councilmember Krolik seconded the motion to reformulate the City Council Subcommittee for the Tobin Clark Site from an Ad Hoc City Council Subcommittee to a Standing City Council Subcommittee. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

YES: Chuang, Krolik, Ragsdale, Cole
NO: Adams
-51-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 14, 2026

Page 4 ends

X. PUBLIC HEARING

7. Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Subdivision of APN 038- 110-160 and APN 038-121-160 (Meadowood Estates) into Two Parcels under a Previously Adopted Environmental Impact Report
Mayor Cole announced her recusal from participation in the item per her earlier announcement under Item VIII and left the room at 7:31 p.m. Vice Mayor Ragsdale presided over the item.

Deputy Director of Public Works Natalie Gribben provided the staff report.

Vice Mayor Ragsdale opened the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. There were no speakers.

Vice Mayor Ragsdale closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m.

Councilmember Chuang moved and Councilmember Krolik seconded the motion to adopt the resolution approving, pursuant to the previously certified Meadowood Estates Subdivision Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 20170702036), the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of APN 038-110-160 and APN 038-121-160 (Meadowood Estates) into two parcels. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

YES: Adams, Chuang, Krolik, Ragsdale
NO: None
RECUSED: Cole
Mayor Cole returned to the room at 7:38 p.m., took her seat at the dais, and presided over the remainder of the meeting.

XI. DISCUSSION

8. Discussion of Town-Owned Property and Surplus Land Act Assistant City Manager Mandy Brown and Billy Shephard, Associate Attorney, BB&K, provided the report. City Attorney Christopher Diaz, Director of Public Works Paul Willis and City Manager Doug Davis provided additional information.

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

Councilmembers individually provided input on the report: that any future staff report on this topic include information outlining the Town’s procurement process; support for the criteria for procedures for determining whether a property should be designated as surplus or no longer necessary for Town use; when fair market value is obtained for any property, whether that number is impacted by any remediation that needs to be done; continue to look into practicalities of potentially selling the Orange Court and Reservoir Road properties; and interest in a tour of the properties.

9. Discussion of Potential Modifications to the Town’s Soliciting and Peddling Guidelines Assistant City Manager Mandy Brown provided the staff report. Chief of Police Melissa Colla and City Attorney Christopher Diaz provided additional information.

Councilmembers individually provided comments on the potential modifications to the code: clarification on the requirements for insurance coverage; clarification on whether the renewal process might be abbreviated; the addition of language that specifies that identification must be clearly visible; a limitation on soliciting and peddling hours if information is available from the Police Department regarding crimes committed during specific hours; clarification regarding sidewalk vending; extension of the length of time that a permit is valid from 90 days to 6 months; and a request to staff to look into the ability to require that a solicitor comply with a resident’s “no soliciting” sign.

Mayor Cole opened public comment. There were no speakers. Mayor Cole closed public comment.
-52-
Unapproved Minutes – Hillsborough City Council
Monday, September 14, 2026

Page 5 ends

10. Discussion of Potential Modifications to the Municipal Code Related to Regulation of Special Events in the Town
Assistant City Attorney Mark Hudak provided the presentation. Assistant City Manager Mandy Brown, City Manager Doug Davis and City Clerk Lisa Natusch provided additional information.

Mayor Cole opened public comment.

Kim Oliff provided comments regarding the events she has hosted for the community over the past 12 months and stated that under the proposed regulations she would be over the four-event limit. Ms. Oliff urged a more impact-based approach rather than 100 people per event and a maximum of four events per year.

Tirzah Lassahn provided comments regarding Item 9 in support of requiring solicitors to comply with a “no soliciting” sign. Ms. Lassahn requested leniency for permit fees for charitable events that directly benefit the town.

Mayor Cole closed public comment.

Councilmembers discussed the issues raised during public comment. Following discussion, without objection, the City Council expressed support for preparation of an ordinance for introduction at a future meeting.

XII. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Chuang reported her attendance at the National CERT Association Conference in which she presented a session called “Reaching the Unreached: Lessons from Northern California’s Mandarin Chinese CERT Program,” and instructed a “Stop the Bleed” training course in English and Mandarin, and a meeting of the CCFD Board of Directors in which three Captains were recognized on their retirement.

Councilmember Adams provided a presentation and reported her attendance at a meeting of the San Mateo County Council of Cities hosted by San Mateo County in which a presentation by Bay Area Housing Financing Authority (BAHFA) was heard. Councilmember Adams provided comments on the Police Department speed limit enforcement campaign, the continuing work on Tartan Trail bridge, presented photos of go-bags, announced two upcoming study sessions on the Tobin Clark project site, provided an update on the telecommunications survey, announced an upcoming meeting of the Hillsborough Beautification Foundation Board and their upcoming Harvest Garden Dinner.

Councilmember Krolik welcomed Senior Field Representative Sarah Phelps from Assemblymember Diane Papan’s office to the meeting. Councilmember Krolik reported her attendance at a meeting of the San Mateo County Council of Cities hosted by San Mateo County, reported her attendance at a meeting of the Architecture and Design Review Board, and a tour of 40 Baywood with the City of San Mateo City Manager’s Office and Mayor Cole.

Councilmember Krolik provided comments regarding the life and tragic loss of Alex Ferguson, son of former Financial Advisory Commissioner Rod Ferguson and former Architecture and Design Review Board Member Kathleen Egan, and Planning Commissioner for the City of Pacifica, and offered sympathy to his family for their loss.

Vice Mayor Ragsdale provided a presentation on e-bike legislation.

Mayor Cole expressed appreciation to Vice Mayor Ragsdale for her work on the e-bike issue.

XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Cole provided comments of support for the Ferguson family and adjourned the meeting in honor of the memory of Alex Ferguson at 9:53 p.m.
-53-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Monthly Claims: September 1 through September 30, 2026 SUMMARY: The monthly claims for the month of September 2026 in the amount of $5,615.421.26 are submitted for approval.

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

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

ATTACHMENT(S): Monthly Claims Listing
PREPARED BY: Rich Santiago, Assistant Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the monthly claims for September 2026 as submitted. -54-
-55-
-56-
-57-
-58-
-59-
-60-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Resolution Implementing Previously Authorized Increases to Solid Waste Rates Effective January 2027
SUMMARY: The Town reviews potential solid waste rate increases annually or as needed to ensure that revenues are sufficient to cover the costs of the solid waste function. In 2025, the town adopted a five-year schedule of increases to maximum authorized rates. To review the need for potential rate increases in January 2027, the Town contracted with HF&H Consultants, LLC. (“HF&H”) to prepare an updated analysis of the Town’s solid waste rate model using data and projections. The last rate increase was effective January 1, 2026.

Background
Solid waste, recyclable material, and organic collection services are provided to residential and business customers through a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County (“Recology”). The franchise agreement expires December 31, 2035.

The Town is a member of RethinkWaste - South Bayside Waste Management Authority (“RethinkWaste”), and a party to the RethinkWaste Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”). Under the Agreement, each member agency sets its solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 11 RethinkWaste member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for collection of residential and commercial solid waste, recycling, and green waste. In addition, the Shoreway Environmental Center is owned by RethinkWaste and operated by contract with South Bayside Industries. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for receiving, handling, and transferring refuse, recyclable, and organic materials.

The cost for collection and disposal of solid waste, recyclables, and organic materials in a manner that complies with State law is paid through the rates by the customers receiving the services. The City Council approves the rates to be charged for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection sufficient to cover the costs of the program.

The total annual revenue requirement for the solid waste and recycling program is calculated based on the following components:

1. Collection Costs (Recology Compensation) – This category includes the costs of solid waste, recyclable, and organic materials collection by Recology, taken to the Shoreway facility for processing, staging, and shipment. The franchise agreement with Recology is a “fixed cost” contract where future costs are adjusted based on contractually approved indices. -61-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

2. Disposal and Processing Fees (also known as “tipping fees”) - This category includes the cost of processing at the Shoreway facility, disposal, commodity sales, and organics processing.

3. Franchise Fees - Fees are charged by the Town to Recology for the cost the Town incurs to grant the franchise to Recology, as well as compensation for physical, tangible government property used by Recology to provide solid waste service. Recology has determined to meet this obligation by billing Hillsborough customers directly.

Analysis
On November 10, 2025, the Town adopted Resolution No. 25-81, approving maximum rates for the Town’s solid waste rates for a five-year period and adopting the first year of the rate series effective January 1, 2026.

HF&H Consultants prepared an updated analysis of the Town’s solid waste rate model using updated financial data and projections. The attached technical memorandum provides an analysis for a five-year timeframe for context only. If approved by the City Council, the proposed resolution only covers the proposed rates effective January 1, 2027.

The overall 2027 costs are projected at $4.642 million, a 4.3% increase over the 2026 projection. It is recommended by consultants and staff that the maximum adopted rate increase of 6% for residential and commercial accounts be approved effective January 1, 2027. The proposed rate increase is the second year of a five-year series. While the updated future projections are indicating a potential improved reserve status based on current operations, the RethinkWaste board is in the process of studying a major revisioning of the Shoreway Environmental Center. The current timeline for Board approval of a site plan is March/April 2027, with financing and phasing.

Given there are additional future financial needs on the horizon, adopting the maximum rates for year two is prudent.

FISCAL IMPACT: The rate increases will produce sufficient revenue to cover the costs of the 2027 solid waste services.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the increases in the solid waste service charges are exempt from CEQA under Section 15378 and Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) because (i) the increase charges are for the purpose of meeting operational and maintenance expenses of the aforementioned services and (ii) the charges constitute the creation of a funding mechanism/other governmental fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in potential significant physical impact on the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Resolution

2. HF&H Report
PREPARED BY: Jan Cooke, Finance Director
-62-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution implementing previously authorized increases to solid waste rates effective January 2027.
-63-
RESOLUTION NO. 26-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

IMPLEMENTING PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED INCREASES TO SOLID WASTE RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2027
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-81 approving maximum solid waste rates for the next five years; and WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) may implement solid waste rates up to the adopted maximum rate and charges in the intervening years; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved changes to the solid waste rates effective January 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to implement changes to solid waste rates that will take effect on January 1, 2027, until amended, as authorized by Resolution No. 25-81. Such increased rates for solid waste shall not exceed the maximum rates adopted in 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby implements the following solid waste rates effective January 1, 2027 to be in effect until amended:

Residential Monthly Solid Waste Rates
1/1/2027
Flat Fee Per Parcel1 $35.53
Service Level2
20-Gallon-Cart $37.42
32-Gallon-Cart $44.13
64-Gallon-Cart $67.17
96-Gallon-Cart $97.27
Extra Organics Cart $27.04
1 Collected on property tax roll
2 Billed quarterly by Recology based on solid waste cart size. Rates include weekly service of solid waste containers, recycling containers, and organics containers.
-64-
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 26-
October 12, 2026
2 Container Size 1/ week 2/ week 3/ week 4/ week 5/ week 6/ week 32 Gallons $64.35 $94.03 $123.72 $153.40 $183.08 $212.76 64 Gallons $79.43 $124.20 $168.96 $213.72 $258.49 $303.25 96 Gallons $94.48 $154.29 $214.10 $273.91 $333.71 $393.52 1 Cubic Yards $153.07 $281.21 $409.35 $537.49 $665.63 $793.77 2 Cubic Yards $292.62 $560.31 $828.01 $1,095.70 $1,363.40 $1,631.09 3 Cubic Yards $464.52 $904.11 $1,343.70 $1,783.29 $2,222.88 $2,662.47 6 Cubic Yards $1,159.05 $2,293.17 $3,427.29 $4,561.41 $5,695.53 $6,829.65 Additional Container
32 Gallons $15.47 $45.15 $74.83 $104.52 $134.20 $163.88 64 Gallons $30.62 $75.38 $120.15 $164.91 $209.67 $254.44 96 Gallons $45.74 $105.55 $165.35 $225.16 $284.97 $344.78 1 Cubic Yards $108.64 $236.78 $364.92 $493.06 $621.20 $749.34 2 Cubic Yards $248.90 $516.59 $784.28 $1,051.98 $1,319.67 $1,587.37 3 Cubic Yards $421.41 $861.00 $1,300.59 $1,740.18 $2,179.77 $2,619.36 6 Cubic Yards $1,118.59 $2,252.71 $3,386.83 $4,520.95 $5,655.07 $6,789.19 Monthly Commercial Solid Waste Rates (eff. 1/1/2027)
FrequenCubic Yards
Monthly Commercial Organics Rates (eff. 1/1/2027)
Container Size 1/ week 2/ week 3/ week 4/ week 5/ week 6/ week 32 Gallons $69.89 $105.11 $140.33 $175.54 $210.76 $245.98 64 Gallons $90.51 $146.34 $202.18 $258.01 $313.85 $369.69 96 Gallons $111.09 $187.51 $263.92 $340.34 $416.76 $493.18 1 Cubic Yards $188.01 $351.10 $514.19 $677.28 $840.37 $1,003.46 2 Cubic Yards $362.52 $700.11 $1,037.70 $1,375.29 $1,712.88 $2,050.47 3 Cubic Yards $569.36 $1,113.79 $1,658.23 $2,202.66 $2,747.10 $3,291.53 6 Cubic Yards $1,368.74 $2,712.55 $4,056.35 $5,400.16 $6,743.97 $8,087.78 Additional Container
32 Gallons $21.01 $56.22 $91.44 $126.66 $161.88 $197.10 64 Gallons $41.69 $97.53 $153.37 $209.20 $265.04 $320.87 96 Gallons $62.35 $138.76 $215.18 $291.60 $368.02 $444.43 1 Cubic Yards $143.58 $306.67 $469.76 $632.85 $795.94 $959.03 2 Cubic Yards $318.79 $656.38 $993.97 $1,331.56 $1,669.16 $2,006.75 3 Cubic Yards $526.25 $1,070.69 $1,615.12 $2,159.56 $2,703.99 $3,248.43 6 Cubic Yards $1,328.28 $2,672.09 $4,015.90 $5,359.71 $6,703.52 $8,047.33 FrequenCubic Yards

Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough

Attest: City Clerk
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of October 2026, by the following vote of the members thereof:

YESES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
-65-
Resolution No. 26-
October 12, 2026
3 ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-66-

FOR MEMORANDUM
To: Jan Cooke, Finance Director, Town of Hillsborough
Rich Santiago, Assistant Finance Director, Town of Hillsborough From: Rick Simonson, Senior Vice President, HF&H
Gabe Sasser, Project Manager, HF&H
Date: October 2, 2026
Subject: Solid Waste Rate Confirmation Study – Review Previously Adopted Solid Waste Rate Adjustment (effective January 1, 2027)
This technical memorandum reports the results of our analysis to update the Town of Hillsborough’s (Town’s) solid waste rate model using updated financial projections.

I. Background
HF&H Consultants (HF&H) completed a solid waste rate study for the Town in August 2025.

At a public hearing on November 10, 2025, the City Council adopted the proposed rates from the study. The study projected the Town’s solid waste collection and disposal expense projections, for a five-year planning period, and recommended restructuring the Town’s rates to align more closely with the cost of service. Five annual rate increases were recommended to set rates from 2026-2030, with rate increases occurring January 1 of each year. The rate increases were planned as follows (and implemented where noted):
• January 1, 2026 – various rate changes; 6% overall increase in rate revenue (implemented)
• January 1, 2027 – 6% rate increase (under consideration and addressed in this study)
• January 1, 2028 – 5% rate increase (to be reviewed in late 2027 before implementation)
• January 1, 2029 –5% rate increase (to be reviewed in late 2028 before implementation)
• January 1, 2030 – 5% rate increase (to be reviewed in late 2029 before implementation)
The objective of this solid waste rate update is to review the adequacy of the Council-approved rates for 2027, to ensure revenues generated through previously adopted rate increases are still projected to meet the Town’s updated projected expenses for the next five-year planning period of 2027-2031. The following sections present the findings, trends, and assumptions from our review and re-projection of revenues, expenses, and the Town’s fund balance through 2031. Our recommendations to adjust the Town’s solid waste rates are detailed at the end of this memorandum.

ATTACHMENT 2
-67-

MEMORANDUM
Jan Cooke
October 2, 2026

Page 2 of 6 ends

II. Analysis
A spreadsheet model was developed to calculate the revenue requirements for 2027-2031.

The revenue requirements represent the costs that must be covered by revenue from rates and other sources. For this study, we have relied on Recology’s (the Town’s solid waste contractor’s) 2027 Compensation Application1, tonnages from Recology’s 2025 Annual Report, and Rethink Waste’s estimated 2027 tip fees at the Shoreway Environmental Center (SEC) to estimate the revenue requirements during the five-year planning period. Recology’s 2025 Revenue Reconciliation and the Gross Revenues and Fees July 2026 monthly report, provided by Recology, informed revenue projections. HF&H worked with Town staff to project expenses for additional years where approved budgets were not available.

The application of these projections to O&M and capital expenses are summarized graphically in Figure 1 and are described below in more detail.

Figure 1. Total Annual Projected FY Revenue Requirements 1Revenue at 2026 rates.

EXPENSE PROJECTIONS
Recology's Collection costs summarize the annual collection compensation due each year. This compensation is calculated in accordance with the franchise agreement with the Town. 1 Recology’s collection costs for 2027 are based on the Compensation Application as reviewed and revised by RethinkWaste in September 2026. The Compensation Application originally submitted was edited to remove electric vehicle purchases and their associated depreciation for 2027. These costs were moved to 2028 based on RethinkWaste’s revision. -68-

MEMORANDUM
Jan Cooke
October 2, 2026

Page 3 of 6 ends

Recology’s 2027 compensation calculation is being audited by RethinkWaste, and the final compensation approval is planned for RethinkWaste’s September Board meeting.

Recology’s Collection costs have increased by slightly more than the planned amount from the 2026 solid waste rate study. During the 2026 solid waste rate study, collection costs were projected to increase 4% annually to $2,558,241. Instead, collection costs for 2027 will increase to $2,571,732, a nominal increase of $13,491 over the original forecast. This small variance from the prior projection indicates that the Consumer Price Indices used in the 2027 Compensation application increased as anticipated. Since 2019, year-over-year adjustments to Recology’s compensation have ranged from a reduction of 2.4% to an increase of 6.6%.

Conservatively, Recology’s collection costs are assumed to increase 5% annually from 2028- 2031.

Disposal and processing fees summarize the annual tipping fees paid by Recology for the processing of material collected from the Town’s ratepayers and delivered to the RethinkWaste-owned Shoreway Environmental Center (SEC). These costs include the administrative costs required by RethinkWaste, as well as their projected 2027 tipping fees to process (i.e., recyclables and organics) and dispose (i.e., solid waste) of the materials.

Under the previous study, Rethink Waste’s 2026-30 tipping fees were projected to increase by 5.0% annually. This assumption has been maintained in this study through 2031.

Agency franchise and other fees summarize the franchise fees levied by the Town on Recology pursuant to the franchise agreement. The franchise fee is an obligation of Recology’s, paid out of the total amount imposed on ratepayers. The fee will increase commensurate with rate revenue increases, and reimburses the Town for costs incurred and use of Town property.

Collectively, 2027 expenses are increasing 4.3% from 2026, growing from $4,452,928 to $4,642,792. By 2031, expenses are projected to be $5,607,277. To fund increasing expenses, the Town will require additional rate revenue to supplement its projected revenue at current rates of $4,574,619.

REVENUE PROJECTIONS
The Town receives revenue from three sources governed by the rates adopted via the Proposition 218 process: 1) a flat annual charge on the tax roll for residential accounts 2) a monthly charge, billed quarterly, by Recology, based on the size of solid waste container placed for residential collection; and, 3) Commercial customers are billed monthly in arrears by Recology based on the size of container placed for collection and the frequency of collection. These revenue sources are termed “solid waste rates,” for the purposes of discussion in this memorandum.

In addition, the Town receives approximately $119,000 in supplemental revenues, included as Attachment Q in the franchise agreement. Primarily, these revenues are due to backyard service collection provided by Recology. Since Attachment Q rates are increased by the Consumer Price Index each year, further increases to these rates were not considered in this solid waste rate update.

Previously, the Town adopted solid waste rates to align with the cost of service as shown in Figure 2. In Figure 3, the revenue with the previously adopted rate increases is compared -69-

MEMORANDUM
Jan Cooke
October 2, 2026

Page 4 of 6 ends

to the expense projections modeled in Figure 1. Note, the incremental revenue increase in revenues for 2031, shown in Figure 3, is attributable to the flat fee per parcel charge increase in 2030. Although no rate increase is assumed for 2031, the Town does not collect tax roll revenue from the flat fee per parcel charge increase in January 2030 until fall collections arrive in 2030 and spring collections arrive in 2031. The timing between when the tax roll rate increases go into effect and when the revenues are collected accounts for this small revenue increase despite no formal rate increase for 2031.

Figure 2. Adopted Annual Solid Waste Rates 2026-2030
1Reflects monthly equivalent of annual charge via San Mateo County tax roll. 2Reflects monthly equivalent of quarterly charge billed by Recology.

Figure 3. Annual Revenue Increases with Previously Adopted Rates With rate increases previously adopted through 2030, the Town projects to have an annual surplus ranging between approximately $32,000 and $229,000. In the event of larger expense increases that result in a shortfall, the Town can make use of its balancing account with Recology to reduce the immediate rate increases placed on its ratepayers. The Town should continue to monitor its expenses to see whether the year-over-year surplus remains or is reduced.

BALANCING ACCOUNT
The franchise agreement with Recology includes an annual revenue reconciliation process where actual revenues billed are compared to Recology’s approved compensation. If there is a positive balancing account, the Town may keep rates flat or increase rates to a lower than necessary level, which draws down the balancing account. Excess revenues are accumulated and tracked by Recology on an annual basis and audited by RethinkWaste. As of December 31, 2025, the Town has a positive balance account of $339,415. This balancing account is available to keep future rate increases lower than they otherwise would need to be or cover unexpected cost increases that were not known at the time rates were set.

The projections of 2026 revenue and the 2027 balancing account relied on actual revenues collected in 2026 and Rethink Waste tip fee increases provided in July. The projected 2026 surplus of $121,691 will increase the estimated December 31, 2026 balancing account to $461,106. The positive balance projected for the planning period provides an opportunity for the Town to monitor their previously adopted 2026-2030 rates. In future years, the Town may choose to reduce previously adopted rate increases if the balancing account continues to grow.

Residential Adopted Rates as of 2025
Monthly Rates eff.1/1/2026 eff.1/1/2027 eff.1/1/2028 eff.1/1/2029 eff.1/1/2030 Annual rate increase 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%
Flat fee per Parcel1 $33.52 $35.53 $37.31 $39.18 $41.14 Service Level2
20-Gallon Cart $35.31 $37.42 $39.29 $41.25 $43.31
32-Gallon Cart $41.63 $44.13 $46.34 $48.66 $51.09
64-Gallon Cart $63.37 $67.17 $70.53 $74.06 $77.76
96-Gallon Cart $91.76 $97.27 $102.13 $107.24 $112.60
Extra Organics Cart $27.04 $27.04 $27.04 $27.04 $27.04
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Effective Annual Revenue Increases 5.1% 5.8% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 0.8% Revenue with Previously Adopted Rates $4,574,619 $4,840,423 $5,084,400 $5,332,854 $5,593,673 $5,639,596 Expense Projections $4,452,928 $4,642,792 $4,872,024 $5,111,981 $5,363,975 $5,607,277 Surplus/(Shortfall) $121,691 $197,632 $212,376 $220,874 $229,698 $32,319 -70-

MEMORANDUM
Jan Cooke
October 2, 2026

Page 5 of 6 ends

RATE ADJUSTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The balancing account can temporarily help to offset the Town increasing solid waste costs.

Currently, the balancing account is projecting to grow from $461,106 in 2026 to more than $1.3 million by 2031 as shown in Figure 4 with rate increases previously adopted through 2030. The growing balancing account warrants consideration as the Town forgoes earning interest with a positive balancing account instead of investing the money through its own reserves. However, 2027 is only the second year of an adopted five-year schedule of rates.

The Town may proceed with implementing the previously adopted rates for 2027 with the expectation of future increases, including those beyond the original scope of the previous rate study. The net balancing account should continue to be monitored for growth to weigh future revenue increases.

Figure 4. Balancing Account Projections with Projected Rates 1Annual revenue reflects rate increases specified in Figure 3. 2Initial balancing account value reflects net balancing account value from prior year.

RethinkWaste is contemplating large scale capital improvements which may require future tip fee increases exceeding present annual growth projections of 5%. Increasing rates, at the previously adopted 6% increase in 2027, provides a buffer to uncertainty related to these disposal expenses. The Town should continue to monitor revenues, expenses, and its balancing account to assess whether future increases are still required. Figures 5 and 6 identify the adopted and proposed residential rates and commercial rate increases that would provide additional revenues to the Town to ensure a positive balancing account through 2031.

With increases in 2027-2030, current projections in Figure 4 demonstrate that the Town could forgo an increase in 2031.

Figure 5. Proposed Annual Residential Solid Waste Rates 2027-2031 1Reflects monthly equivalent of annual charge via San Mateo County tax roll. 2Reflects monthly equivalent of quarterly charge billed by Recology. 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Revenue with Projected Rates1 $4,574,619 $4,840,423 $5,084,400 $5,332,854 $5,593,673 $5,639,596 Expense Projections $4,452,928 $4,642,792 $4,872,024 $5,111,981 $5,363,975 $5,607,277 Suprlus/(Shortfall) with Figure 5 rates $121,691 $197,632 $212,376 $220,874 $229,698 $32,319 Initial Balancing Account2 $339,415 $461,106 $658,737 $871,113 $1,091,986 $1,321,684 Net Balancing Account Projection $461,106 $658,737 $871,113 $1,091,986 $1,321,684 $1,354,003 Residential Adopted Rates as of 2025 Proposed Rate
Monthly Rates eff.1/1/2026 eff.1/1/2027 eff.1/1/2028 eff.1/1/2029 eff.1/1/2030 eff. 1/1/2031 Annual rate increase 6.0% 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Flat fee per Parcel1 $33.52 $35.53 $37.31 $39.18 $41.14 $41.14 Service Level2
20-Gallon Cart $35.31 $37.42 $39.29 $41.25 $43.31 $43.31 32-Gallon Cart $41.63 $44.13 $46.34 $48.66 $51.09 $51.09 64-Gallon Cart $63.37 $67.17 $70.53 $74.06 $77.76 $77.76 96-Gallon Cart $91.76 $97.27 $102.13 $107.24 $112.60 $112.60 Extra Organics Cart $27.04 $27.04 $27.04 $27.04 $27.04 $27.04 -71-

MEMORANDUM
Jan Cooke
October 2, 2026

Page 6 of 6 ends

Figure 6. Proposed Annual Commercial Solid Waste and Organics Rates 2027-2031 Based on our evaluation of currently projected expenses and revenues for the next five-year period, the Town could continue with the previously adopted 6.0% rate increase for 2027.

III. Recommendations
Our recommendation of rate increases will allow the Town to meet the growing collection, disposal, and processing expenses. The recommendations weigh future rate increases while preserving the Town’s balancing account to avoid incurring interest in the event of a deficit.

Our recommendations include the following actions.
1) We recommend the Town implement the rates previously adopted for 2027.

Implementing these increases would not require the Town to conduct a new Proposition 218 process.
2) We recommend the Town continue to re-visit recommended rate increases on an annual basis to update projections and assess whether approved increases should be implemented.

Commercial Current Adopted Increase Proposed Increase
Monthly Rates Rates eff.1/1/2027 eff.1/1/2028 eff.1/1/2029 eff.1/1/2030 eff. 1/1/2031 Commercial Solid Waste See 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0%
Commercial Organics Town website 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% -72-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Quarterly Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2026 SUMMARY: Government Code Section 53646(b) requires that the Quarterly Investment Report be rendered to the City Council during public session within 45 days of the quarter's end.

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

ATTACHMENT(S): Quarterly Treasurer's Report
PREPARED BY: Rich Santiago, Assistant Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending September 30, 2026.
-73-
-74-
-75-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Receive September 2026 Legislative Update SUMMARY: The Town’s legislative consultant, California Public Policy Group (CPPG), has provided a Legislative Summary for September 2026. With the Governor's sign/veto deadline having passed on September 30th, this will be the final legislative summary from CPPG for the year.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S): September 2026 CPPG Legislative Summary
PREPARED BY: Lisa Natusch, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the September 2026 Legislative Update. -76-
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 1 Date: October 6, 2026
To: Doug Davis, City Manager
Town of Hillsborough
From: Dane Hutchings
Founder + CEO
California Public Policy Group
Re: CPPG Legislative Summary: September 2026

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Governor’s Final Legislative Actions
September 30 marked the deadline for Governor Gavin Newsom to act on all pending legislation. Of the 2,230 bills introduced in 2026, together with several hundred two-year bills carried over from 2025, 1,160 reached the Governor’s desk. The Governor signed 1,040 of those bills into law and vetoed 120, reflecting a signature rate of approximately 90 percent and a veto rate of approximately 10 percent—considerably lower than his average veto rate of 13.5 percent over the course of his tenure. Notably, the Legislature has not overridden a gubernatorial veto since 1980. All chaptered bills go into effect on January 1, 2027, unless stated otherwise.

On September 30, the Governor signed the final bill of his tenure atop the Golden Gate Bridge and issued an accompanying press release. The bill, SB 895 (Wiener), enacts the California Science and Health Research Bond Act, which, if approved by the voters at the March 7, 2028, election, would authorize the issuance of $7.5 billion in bonds to finance grants and loans for research into a wide range of topics, including wildfire prevention, climate, water, behavioral health, and disease prevention, among others.

Over the course of his eight years in office, the Governor acted on a total of 7,803 bills, exercising his constitutional authority to sign or veto every measure presented to him. In each instance, the bill received a formal decision; none was left without action. Of the 7,803 bills, he signed 6,752 into law, representing 86.5 percent of the total, and vetoed 1,051, representing the remaining 13.5 percent.

The Legislature remains on Final Recess and will next convene on December 7 for a single-day Organizational Session, during which newly elected members will be sworn into office, before recessing until January 4, 2027. With the business of the 2025-26 session effectively concluded, the attention of most legislators has now officially shifted to the November 3 General Election.

Press Release on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Oversight On September 18, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order directing the Government Operations Agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), to deliver recommendations by November 16, 2026, on strengthening the state’s AI safety laws. The recommendations are to address onsite independent verification at frontier AI laboratories, independent review of company safety frameworks and risk assessments, an emergency “kill switch” for frontier models, and expanded definitions of the critical safety incidents that companies must report. The order also accelerates implementation of two bills the Governor signed in -77-
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 2 September: SB 813 (McNerney), which creates a framework for independent verification organizations to assess AI systems’ compliance with state law, and AB 1405 (Bauer-Kahan), which establishes a state registry of AI auditors. Both measures build upon SB 53 (Wiener, 2025), the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act. In the accompanying press release, the Governor stated: “We’re not waiting to act. We’re going to speed up our work on substantial and responsible AI oversight before it’s too late.”
On September 23, the Governor named four national experts to advise on the recommendations:

Jason Goldman, the first White House Chief Digital Officer; Gillian Hadfield of Johns Hopkins University; Alondra Nelson, former Acting Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Rob Reich of Stanford University. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in New York the same day, the Governor criticized the Trump Administration for allowing AI to “rip” without guardrails and urged Congress to adopt California’s framework as a national minimum standard (KPBS/AP). Separately, on September 16, the Governor signed SB 1050 (Ashby), which requires advertisements to disclose the use of AI-generated performers.

Additional legislation addressing artificial intelligence is highly likely to be introduced during the next legislative session, continuing the Legislature’s focus on establishing oversight mechanisms and guardrails for the technology.

Data Center Bills
The Legislature closed the session by passing a seven-bill package aimed at California’s fastgrowing data center industry, sending all seven measures to the Governor. Three bills address utility rates and cost allocation: SB 886 (Padilla) and AB 2383 (Zbur), both substantially amended in a latesession compromise, requires the CPUC and investor-owned utilities to establish new tariffs so data centers cover the grid, transmission, and related costs they trigger rather than shifting them to other ratepayers, and SB 1168 (McNerney) directs the CPUC to study those cost shifts and map where facilities can interconnect without costly upgrades.

The remaining four add environmental review and disclosure: SB 887 (Padilla) eliminates categorical CEQA exemptions for data centers while offering a fast-track for projects that meet clean energy and water standards, AB 1577 (Bauer-Kahan) requires monthly energy and water reporting to the Energy Commission, and AB 2469 and AB 2619 (both Papan) add water use disclosures, with AB 2469 conditioning local permit approvals on that information. All seven bills were signed into law by the Governor in September.

Bills of Interest Signed into Law (Chaptered) or Vetoed by the Governor • AB 1383 (McKinnor) Public employees’ retirement benefits. o This bill makes prospective changes to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) of 2013. Specifically, the bill:
▪ Increases the pensionable compensation cap for all PEPRA employees; ▪ Reduces the retirement age for public safety (fire and police) from 57 to 55; ▪ Adds a 4th safety tier that is 3% @ 55, subject to bargaining; ▪ Allows local agencies to adjust their local formula.
o Status: Vetoed
• AB 2346 (Wilson) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits. -78-
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 3 o This bill sets speed limits for e-bikes and bicycle paths, requires certain disclosures when selling an e-bike, and requires some e-bikes to have a speedometer and lights. o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1167 (Blakespear) Vehicles: electric bicycles.
o This bill updates the labeling and disclosure requirements for manufacturers and sellers of these devices, and prohibits noncompliant vehicles from being advertised as e-bikes. The bill also establishes new operational and safety requirements and imposes additional reporting requirements on law enforcement. The bill also extends the definition of “off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification” to include mopeds and off-highway electric motorcycles.
o Status: Chaptered
• AB 1821 (Pacheco) California Public Records Act: agency response time. o This bill extends the deadlines for public agencies to provide an initial response to a California Public Records Act request by converting the current “calendar day” deadlines to a “business day” standard.
o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1159 (Cabaldon) Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance. o This bill clarifies that for the California Public Records Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act, that the terms “person,” “interested person,” “participant,” and “member of the public” do not include artificial intelligence systems, autonomous agents, robots, or other nonhuman entities, whether physical or digital.
o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1187 (Durazo) Open meetings.
o This bill repeals the language access provisions in SB 707 (Durazo, 2025). o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1164 (Cervantes) Elections.
o This bill prohibits a political subdivision or state agency from implementing, imposing, or enforcing any election policy or practice that results, or is likely to result, in voter suppression. A violation is established when an election policy or practice disproportionately makes it harder for protected classes to vote or participate politically, unless the government can show the policy is necessary and that a less discriminatory alternative is not reasonably available. o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1360 (Cervantes) Elections: translation of election materials. o This bill requires the Secretary of State, on or before December 15, 2031, and on or before December 15 in every year ending in 1 or 7 thereafter, to identify the counties where at least 10,000 voting age citizens, or 5% of voting age citizens, are limited English proficient and either members of a single language minority group or speak a shared language. The bill requires the elections official in an identified political subdivision to provide translated election materials in any language that meets those criteria.
o Status: Chaptered
• SB 922 (Laird) Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways. o This bill authorizes an existing fee, charge, or surcharge imposed by or for a local agency upon the provider of, or ratepayer for, public services in order to recover the -79-
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 4 costs associated with the use of the agency’s streets, roads, or highways in the provision of those public services.
o Status: Chaptered
• AB 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing Accountability Act.
o This bill prohibits a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than two plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit. The bill authorizes a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following two plan check and specification reviews.
o Status: Chaptered
• AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. o This bill requires local agencies to ministerially approve two detached, new construction Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.
o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1117 (Cervantes) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. o This bill requires impact fees for ADUs to be calculated only on the portion of the unit exceeding 750 square feet, rather than on its total square footage, for up to two ADUs on a single lot.
o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1014 (Grayson) Development projects: preliminary estimate of required improvements:
onsite and offsite improvements.
o This bill allows development proponents to request and receive additional information on offsite and onsite improvements at the preliminary application phase, and when processing post-entitlement permits.
o Status: Chaptered
• SB 1005 (Caballero) Local agency: payment: rounding amount. o This bill allows local agencies to round payments or refunds made wholly or partly in cash to the nearest five cents if that agency passes a resolution by majority vote. o Status: Chaptered

POSITIONED BILLS
• AB 1569 (Davies) Pupil safety: electric bicycle: safety and training program. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 1614 (Dixon) Vehicles: bicycles.
o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 1621 (Wilson) Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing Accountability Act.
o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Watch
• AB 1761 (Rogers) Electricity: calculation methodology: nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.
o Location: Assembly Vetoed
-80-
1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 5 o Position: Support
• AB 1821 (Pacheco) California Public Records Act: agency response time. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 2111 (Papan) Electricity: transmission planning and transmission facilities. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 2180 (Ward) Local government: Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act:
proportional cost of service.
o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 2296 (Papan) Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 2346 (Wilson) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• AB 2433 (Alvarez) Housing development: density bonus. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Watch
• AB 2595 (Papan) San Mateo Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program. o Location: Assembly Chaptered
o Position: Support
• SB 968 (Becker) Community colleges: San Mateo County Community College District. o Location: Senate Chaptered
o Position: Support

LOOKING FORWARD
• December 7, 2026: Legislature convenes for Organizational Session. • January 1, 2027: All bills signed into law in 2026, unless otherwise stated, go into effect. • January 4, 2027: Legislature convenes for the first year of the 2027-28 legislative session. -81-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting as Complete the Contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the Shady Lane Storm Drain Replacement Project in the Amount of $792,331.53, Under CEQA Guideline 15301
SUMMARY: This project consisted of replacing, realigning, and upsizing approximately 900 linear feet of storm drain pipe and associated structures on Shady Lane, a private street. Portions of the existing storm drain were located within backyards and beneath private property improvements, making access for maintenance difficult. The existing undersized catch basins and storm drain pipes in the streets also required frequent maintenance to remove debris and prevent localized flooding. The Town-maintained storm drain infrastructure has now been relocated into a new Public Utility Easement within Shady Lane, providing improved access for future maintenance. The new storm drain system increases conveyance capacity, reduces the potential for localized flooding, improves system accessibility, and is expected to reduce ongoing maintenance requirements.

Because Shady Lane is a private street, a share of the paving costs for the area beyond the new storm drain easement was collected from the Shady Lane’s residents.

FISCAL IMPACT: The contract was awarded to Casey Construction, Inc. (“Casey”) in the amount of $668,414.00, with a 20% contingency in the amount of $133,682.80, for a total amount of $802,096.80. The project was successfully completed in the amount of $792,331.53, which is below the authorized budget with contingency. Funding was allocated from the approved budgets for the Shady Lane Storm Drain Improvement project (CIP #810) and the Storm Drain Improvements – MP High Priority (CIP #801).

As Shady Lane is a private street, $45,000.00 was reimbursed to the Town by the Shady Lane residents, for paving costs.

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

ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution
PREPARED BY: Alexander Yuen, Senior Civil Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution accepting as complete the contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the Shady Lane Storm Drain Replacement Project in the Amount of $792,331.53, Under CEQA Guideline 15301 and authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion for the project and release withheld retention in accordance with state prompt payment laws. -82-
RESOLUTION NO. 26-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ACCEPTING AS COMPLETE THE CONTRACT WITH CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.

FOR THE SHADY LANE STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $792,331.53, UNDER CEQA GUIDELINE 15301
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough (“Town”) maintains the Town’s storm drain system; and
WHEREAS, the capital improvement budget identified a project to evaluate and replace deficient storm drain pipe near Shady Lane; and WHEREAS, the Shady Lane Storm Drain Replacement Project (“Project”) consisted of replacing, realigning, and upsizing approximately 900 linear feet of storm drain pipe and associated catch basins, manholes, and an outfall; and WHEREAS, plans and specifications were developed for improvements to the Town’s storm drain system to address the deficient pipe segments; and WHEREAS, the Project was publicly bid and advertised in accordance with the Public Contract Code and the Town received twelve bids for the Project; and WHEREAS, Casey Construction, Inc. (“Casey”) was the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid in the amount of $668,414.00; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an analysis of the bid and verified that Casey Construction, Inc.’s qualifications and experience levels were satisfactory; and
WHEREAS the construction contract for the Project was awarded to Casey Construction, Inc. on September 8, 2025, in the amount of $668,414.00 with a 20% contingency in the amount of $133,682.80, for a total amount of $802,096.80; and
WHEREAS, Funding for the Project was allocated from the Shady Lane Storm Drain Improvement Project (Capital Improvement Plan #810) and the Storm Drain Improvements – MP High Priority Project (Capital Improvement Plan #801); and
WHEREAS, a Notice to Proceed was issued to Casey and the Project progressed as anticipated until completed for a total contract amount of $792,331.53.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough hereby accepts as complete the contract with Casey Construction, Inc. for the Shady Lane Storm Drain Replacement Project, the final amount of which is $792,331.53, and authorizes staff to file a Notice of Completion for the project and release withheld retention in accordance with state prompt payment. -83-
Resolution No. 26-
October 12, 2026
2 Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough

YESES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-84-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Review and Approve the Town’s Response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” SUMMARY: On August 4, 2026, the San Mateo County Grand Jury released a report titled “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” The report generally examines whether Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) operators in San Mateo County (SMC) are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies.

The Grand Jury’s report includes nine findings (Findings F1 through F9) and nine recommendations (Recommendations R1 through R9). The Grand Jury requested a response from the Town to Findings F1-F8 and Recommendations R1-R8.

The Town’s response to each Finding and Recommendation must conform to the requirements detailed in the California Penal Code.
• For Findings, the Town’s response must express either agreement or disagreement (wholly or partially) with the finding and provide an explanation in instances where the Town indicates that it does not agree.
• For recommendations, the Town’s response must indicate whether the recommended action has been implemented, is planned for implementation, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented. If not implemented, the Town is required to provide an explanation for its response.

Staff prepared a draft response letter (Attachment 1) for the Council’s review and approval. The response must be submitted to the Grand Jury no later than November 2, 2026.

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

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Grand Jury Report titled, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”

2. Draft response to Grand Jury Report

3. Flock Group, Inc. Agreement - Town of Hillsborough Supplemental Conditions Addendum PREPARED BY: Melissa Colla, Chief of Police
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
-85-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 1
Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras
Properly Tended?
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
2025-2026
Release Date: August 3, 2026
-86-
ATTACHMENT 1
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 2
ISSUE | SUMMARY | BACKGROUND | METHODOLOGY | DISCUSSION | FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS | REQUEST FOR RESPONSES | RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | BIBLIOGRAPHY | APPENDIX
ISSUE
Over the past year, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have come under increasing public scrutiny. This report examines whether ALPR operators in San Mateo County (SMC) are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies.

SUMMARY
Automated License Plate Readers have become widely deployed in SMC, with more than 500 cameras now in operation by law enforcement agencies (LEAs) within the County. The rapid increase in ALPR deployment has been accompanied by California legislation governing ALPR use, and also by increased media coverage of alleged violations. Over the past year, SMC LEAs have made notable operational improvements, particularly with respect to out-of-state data sharing. Most changes were driven by stronger default compliance made by Flock Safety (Flock), now the dominant ALPR platform among the SMC operators reviewed. But SMC ALPR operators continue to have many of the same operational deficiencies identified by a 2019 California State Audit that investigated four operators elsewhere in California. Many of the required policy documents are deficient or need significant revision to accurately reflect current operations, and audit materials produced were inconsistent in scope and rigor. Although the materials reviewed did not identify current sharing by SMC operators with out-of-state entities, most operators did not document criteria, process, or controls governing in-state sharing in a manner sufficient to demonstrate compliance with law. This report presents findings and recommendations to promote transparent operation of ALPR systems consistent with public safety, privacy, and applicable law.

BACKGROUND
Automated License Plate Readers
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are camera-based systems that automatically capture and analyze license plates on passing vehicles. Cameras are typically located at fixed roadside locations along high-traffic corridors, major intersections, city entry/exit routes, areas with high crime rates, and transportation infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, freeways). These systems combine high-speed cameras, infrared illumination, and optical character recognition software to convert license plate images into searchable digital data. Law enforcement agencies use ALPR systems to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to criminal investigations, generate investigative leads, and assist in locating missing persons. When connected through regional or national networks, ALPR systems allow investigators to reconstruct vehicle movements across jurisdictions.

Digital imaging, optical character recognition, and large-scale data storage allow ALPR systems to process large numbers of license plates quickly and automatically. Modern systems can read thousands of plates per hour and store the results in databases that investigators can search later.

When a motor vehicle is detected by an ALPR as it passes through the camera's field of view, a digital record is generated recording the vehicle's license plate number, an image of the plate, a -87-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 3
contextual image of the vehicle (make, model, color, etc.), the date and time of the scan, the location of the camera, and the identification number of the camera device. Once the image is captured, the digital record is immediately transmitted to a cloud-based database that compares the scanned license plate and other vehicle data against law enforcement watch lists, often referred to as “hot lists,” that may include information on vehicles that have been reported stolen, those associated with criminal investigations, outstanding warrants, or connected to missing persons or Amber Alerts.

When a match occurs, the system can send an alert to officers or dispatch centers in real time.

ALPR cameras are usually deployed as part of a network such that when the same vehicle is detected by multiple cameras, investigators can analyze those detections to determine travel routes and timelines. By default, only data captured by cameras within that local jurisdiction are available.

LEAs typically elect to contribute their data to regional databases or multi-jurisdictional systems that allow sharing across multiple cities, counties, or states. The ability to share data among multiple jurisdictions is more effective in assisting law enforcement in their investigations as suspects rarely limit their travel within a single jurisdiction.

As of March 30, 2026, more than 582 ALPR cameras were deployed across SMC. These cameras are operated by municipal police departments within their respective jurisdictions and by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO) in unincorporated areas and in jurisdictions where the Sheriff provides contracted law enforcement services. The only police department in SMC with no ALPR cameras is Broadmoor.

Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
Atherton 53 Earliest in SMC, 2020.

Belmont 10
Brisbane 16
Burlingame 18
Colma 11
Daly City 44
East Palo Alto 25
Foster City 20
Half Moon Bay 14 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO.

Hillsborough 22
Menlo Park 32
Pacifica 10
Redwood City 25
San Bruno 54
San Mateo 66
-88-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 4
Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
San Mateo County Sheriff's
Office
109 Includes unincorporated SMC (except
Broadmoor), Portola Valley, San Carlos
and Millbrae.

South San Francisco 37
Woodside 26 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO
Key Issue
ALPRs and the sharing of image data across jurisdictional lines have created controversy with respect to issues of privacy. While not the focus of this report, some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that vehicle tracking could affect freedom of association if it reveals attendance at protests, political meetings, or religious gatherings (First Amendment).

Others, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) question whether large-scale tracking of vehicle locations over time could constitute a search under constitutional law (Fourth Amendment).

While the focus of this report is not to investigate the constitutional issues surrounding ALPRs, data sharing among law enforcement agencies has become a significant public concern and has, in some communities, resulted in the suspension or termination of ALPR programs. Although no such actions have occurred in SMC, several Bay Area jurisdictions—including Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz—have discontinued their use of ALPR systems.

This report evaluates, based on records obtained during the investigation, whether SMC LEAs satisfy California law governing the use of ALPR systems and the sharing of ALPR data. Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires APLR operators to implement and publicly post a usage and privacy policy. This report also evaluates whether the policies produced accurately describe actual operations.

Legislative Framework
California has enacted legislation governing the use of ALPR systems, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and limitations on data sharing. The primary statutory framework was enacted by Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) (Stats. 2015, Ch. 532), codified at Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55.

Effective January 1, 2016, SB 34 imposes requirements governing the collection, storage, access, and sharing of ALPR data. SB 34 applies to both operators of ALPR systems and entities that access ALPR data. Among other requirements, ALPR operators must adopt written usage policies, maintain detailed audit logs, implement reasonable security measures, and provide an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing an ALPR program. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance on SB 34 in Information Bulletin No. 2023-DLE-06.

In addition to SB 34, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54) (Stats. 2017, Ch. 495), known as the California Values Act (Gov. Code § 7284 et seq.) restricts the use of state and local law enforcement resources for -89-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 5
federal immigration enforcement purposes. SB 54 limits the sharing of certain information with federal immigration authorities and reinforces the principle that local law enforcement data systems, including ALPR databases, must not be used in a manner inconsistent with California law. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance clarifying these restrictions in Information Bulletin No. 2025-DLE-08.

In 2025, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 274, which would have imposed additional restrictions and oversight. The bill proposed limiting retention periods for non-matching records and expanding state-level review of ALPR use. However, SB 274 was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who concluded that SB 274 did “not strike the delicate balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety,... particularly with respect to cold cases.” Collectively, these statutes establish a legal framework that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and restricted data sharing, while placing primary responsibility for compliance on individual law enforcement agencies.

Data Sharing and Side-Sharing
The effectiveness of ALPR systems depends in large part on the ability of LEAs to share data across jurisdictions. Within most ALPR platforms, each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks that govern both system configuration and data sharing. Agencies may control which other agencies can discover their networks and whether access requests are automatically approved or require explicit authorization. Once access is granted, authorized users from another agency may query shared ALPR data without further approval.

While this model enhances investigative capability—particularly in cases involving vehicles that travel across jurisdictional boundaries—it also places responsibility on each agency to ensure that data sharing practices comply with California law. Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b) provides that a public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. The SMCCGJ found that data sharing practices vary widely among agencies, with some limiting access to nearby jurisdictions and others permitting broad sharing within the state. The decentralized nature of these sharing controls creates a structural risk:
compliance with California law depends not on system-enforced restrictions, but on how individual agencies configure and manage their networks. As a result, even where written policies are compliant, system configurations may permit data sharing practices that are inconsistent with statutory requirements. In general, as the size of a network increases and more law enforcement agencies are granted access, the risk of misuse correspondingly increases.

A related concern is the practice commonly referred to as “side-sharing.” For purposes of this report, “side-sharing” refers to the practice in which a California ALPR operator conducts a network query on behalf of an organization that is not authorized to access the data directly—typically an out-ofstate or federal agency—and then provides the results outside of the ALPR system. In such cases, audit records reflect that the query was initiated and used by a California agency, when in fact the request originated from, and the results were delivered to, an external entity.

Because the ALPR audit logs reviewed by the SMCCGJ record only the identity of the querying agency and do not capture the ultimate recipient of the data, side-sharing is inherently difficult to detect. Activity that appears compliant on its face may, in fact, circumvent the restrictions imposed by California law, including limitations on sharing ALPR data with entities outside the state. -90-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 6
Side-sharing may involve attempts to access ALPR data outside of established sharing arrangements, including by law enforcement personnel who do not have authorized access. For example, a federal immigration agency may seek to obtain ALPR data from a California jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the restrictions imposed by SB 54. Such access could be facilitated by directly contacting personnel within a California LEA and requesting that they conduct an ALPR query on behalf of the external agency.

This issue has been the subject of media reporting and public concern, although verification in specific instances is challenging due to the limitations of available audit data. Media coverage of public statements by certain law enforcement officials has further highlighted the potential risk.

The SMCCGJ found that existing controls to prevent or detect improper data sharing, including sidesharing, are limited. While the ALPR platform provides audit logs, role-based access controls, and, more recently, anomaly detection tools, these features rely on agency-level oversight and do not provide a comprehensive or system-enforced safeguard. There is no centralized mechanism to prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of an unauthorized entity or to ensure that query results are used solely for authorized purposes.

As a result, compliance with California law in this area depends largely on the policies, training, and oversight practices of individual agencies. In the absence of stronger technical controls or more robust audit capabilities, the risk of unauthorized data access—whether through misconfiguration or side-sharing—remains a significant concern.

Flock Safety
Flock Safety is the largest provider of ALPR systems in the United States and the primary provider of ALPR systems used by LEAs in SMC. The company provides both the physical camera infrastructure and a cloud-based software platform that enables agencies to collect, store, search, and share vehicle detection data. This represents a significant market shift from Vigilant Solutions, who was the most common provider in 2019.

Note that while nearly all ALPR cameras in SMC are provided by Flock, Pacifica also operates 4 Axon mobile cameras that were not investigated by SMCCGJ. Also, ALPR data collected by Flock cameras may also be forwarded to intelligence fusion systems that include other types of surveillance data. Some SMC LEAs use C3.ai, and SMC has recently funded a pilot with Peregrine Systems. These systems are capable of sharing data among agencies and across state boundaries but were not investigated by SMCCGJ and have not received wide media attention.

Flock cameras are typically installed at fixed locations such as major intersections, highways, and entry or exit points to a community. These cameras do not continuously track vehicles; rather, they capture individual “snapshots” or detections as vehicles pass through a camera’s field of view. Each detection includes a license plate number, vehicle characteristics (such as make, color, and body type), and metadata including the date, time, and location of the observation.

This information is transmitted to Flock’s cloud-based platform, where it is indexed and made searchable. Authorized users access the system through a web-based interface, allowing them to query historical detections or monitor real-time alerts. For example, agencies may create “hotlists” of vehicles of interest—such as stolen vehicles or those associated with criminal investigations— which trigger notifications when detected by any connected camera. -91-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 7
A key feature of the system is its ability to aggregate data across multiple cameras and jurisdictions.

While a single camera provides only a point-in-time observation, multiple detections across different locations can allow investigators to infer travel patterns or identify a vehicle’s movement over time.

All user activity—including searches, alerts, and administrative actions—is recorded in audit logs.

These logs are intended to support oversight and accountability by providing a record of how the system is used. Although Flock hosts the data and provides the technical infrastructure, each customer agency retains control over its own data and is responsible for determining who may access it and under what conditions.

Data Sharing Framework
A defining feature of the Flock platform is its ability to facilitate data sharing among law enforcement agencies. This capability is implemented through a system of configurable “Networks,” which function as both administrative groupings and sharing mechanisms. Each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks and determines whether those networks are visible to other agencies within the platform. When a network is made visible, other agencies may discover it— typically through a map-based interface—and request access.

These access requests are routed to a designated administrator within the owning agency. Depending on how the system is configured, the administrator may review and approve each request individually, or the system may automatically approve requests based on predefined criteria. Once access is granted, users from the approved agency can query the shared data directly, without needing to request permission for each individual search.

This model allows investigators to search for vehicles across jurisdictional boundaries, which can be particularly useful in cases involving regional travel or coordinated criminal activity. At the same time, it introduces complexity, as each agency must determine which other agencies should be granted access and under what conditions.

Agencies can limit sharing in several ways, including restricting access to specific agencies, geographic regions, or operational groupings. Importantly, sharing permissions are not transitive: if Agency A shares data with Agency B, and Agency B shares data with Agency C, Agency C does not automatically gain access to Agency A’s data.

Private entities, such as commercial businesses or homeowners’ associations, participate in the system differently. Their cameras are not visible within the shared network interface, and they do not independently request access to law enforcement data. Instead, data from private cameras is typically shared directly with local LEAs through arrangements managed with Flock outside the standard user interface.

While this network-based architecture enables collaboration and enhances investigative capabilities, it also places primary responsibility on each agency to manage its sharing relationships in a manner consistent with applicable laws and local policy.

Concerns
Beginning in 2025, a number of media reports and public records analyses brought increased attention to the use of ALPR systems, particularly with respect to how data was being shared among law enforcement agencies. These reports identified instances in which California agencies had configured their systems in a manner that allowed access to ALPR data by out-of-state entities, a practice inconsistent with California law.
-92-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 8
Within SMC, the Menlo Park Police Department acknowledged prior instances in which ALPR data had been shared across state lines. Similar issues were identified in other jurisdictions throughout California, suggesting that these were not isolated occurrences but rather reflected broader challenges in how the systems were configured and used.

In addition to concerns regarding system configuration, analysis of audit data highlighted issues related to how queries were conducted and documented. In some cases, users entered generalized descriptions such as “Investigation,”1 without specifying a particular law enforcement purpose.

While such entries are not necessarily improper, they limit the ability of agencies, auditors, and the public to determine whether queries were conducted for authorized purposes.

Taken together, these findings raised questions not only about compliance with legal requirements, but also about the adequacy of system controls and oversight mechanisms. They also underscored the degree to which proper use of the system depends on both technical configuration and user behavior.

System Controls and Vendor Response
In response to these concerns, Flock implemented a series of changes beginning in 2025, aimed at reducing the likelihood of improper data sharing and improving the ability of agencies to monitor system use. These changes reflect a shift from a system that relied heavily on user discretion to one that incorporates more structured controls and constraints.

One of the most significant changes involved restrictions on data sharing across state lines. Prior to 2025, agencies had broad discretion to configure sharing relationships, including the ability to enable “Nationwide” access or establish direct connections with out-of-state agencies. Although such configurations were inconsistent with California law, they were technically permitted within the system.

To address this issue, Flock implemented a phased set of changes. Nationwide sharing was first disabled by default in February 2025 and then permanently removed in March 2025, eliminating the ability for California agencies to broadly expose their data to agencies outside the state. In June 2025, Flock further restricted sharing by disabling the ability to create new out-of-state sharing relationships.

Importantly, these changes did not automatically terminate existing shared relationships. Instead, Flock undertook a process of customer outreach and education, encouraging agencies to review and modify their configurations. As a result, most agencies voluntarily discontinued such arrangements, although some pre-existing relationships remain subject to ongoing legal proceedings. As of this writing, the City of El Cajon is the only California agency with ALPR network sharing relationships extending outside the state. In October 2025, the California Attorney General filed an action against El Cajon alleging non-compliance with SB 34; the case is currently in litigation.

In addition to changes in sharing controls, Flock introduced enhancements aimed at improving how system use is documented and monitored. Historically, users were able to enter free-form text to 1 Analysis done by the SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the “Reason” for performing the query. -93-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 9
describe the purpose of a query in a “Reason” field. In practice, this resulted in inconsistent and often vague entries2, limiting the effectiveness of audit review.

In December 2025, Flock augmented this approach by requiring users to select an “Offense Type” from a standardized list3based on National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) codes.

Within California, categories inconsistent with SB 54 are disabled. This change provides a more consistent framework for documenting queries and enables more meaningful analysis of system use.

Many agencies have supplemented this requirement by mandating the entry of a case number, linking each query to a specific investigation. This case number is useful for auditing queries within a department but is ineffective for analysis of network queries as LEAs in California do not share a common case management system.

Flock also expanded its audit and monitoring capabilities. Audit logs continue to record all user activity, but additional tools have been introduced to support review. Activity logs track changes to system configuration, including modifications to sharing settings, while the Transparency Portal allows agencies to publish usage statistics and audit summaries.

In April 2026, Flock introduced “Audit Assistance,” an automated tool that analyzes system activity and identifies patterns that deviate from an agency’s typical usage. These alerts are intended to assist administrators in identifying potential misuse, including unusual query patterns or activity that may warrant further review (side-sharing).

Additional controls have been implemented to restrict system access and reinforce appropriate use.

These include limitations on “guest” users outside the agency’s domain and role-based access controls that allow agencies to tailor system permissions based on user responsibilities. Flock’s terms of service also prohibit use of the system on behalf of unauthorized individuals or agencies.

While these changes represent meaningful improvements, they are primarily designed to support and guide user behavior rather than to enforce compliance directly. As such, their effectiveness depends on how agencies configure and use the system.

Training and Compliance Support
Flock provides training on system operation, legal use, and compliance requirements as part of its onboarding process. Agencies may supplement this training with local policies, procedures, and internal controls tailored to their operational environment. While these resources support compliance, they do not substitute for agency responsibility to ensure that system use is consistent with applicable laws and policies.

Remaining Limitations
Notwithstanding these enhancements, important limitations remain in the system’s ability to prevent or detect improper use.

First, while audit logs provide a record of which agency conducted a query and when it occurred, they do not capture how the resulting information is ultimately used or shared. This means that even 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. Numeric strings typically correspond to sections of California penal code, but many LEA’s listed a crime category such as “theft” or “burglary”.

The SMCCGJ found no accepted usage of the “Reason” field across or even within LEAs. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. -94-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 10
where a query appears appropriate on its face, there is no direct way to determine whether the results were subsequently provided to an unauthorized party.

Second, the system does not technically prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of another individual or agency (side-sharing). Although such conduct may violate policy or law, it is not inherently detectable through system controls alone. As a result, certain forms of misuse— particularly those involving indirect access—are difficult to identify through audit data.

Finally, the effectiveness of audit and monitoring tools depend on active review by agency personnel. Identifying potential issues requires not only access to audit data but also the time, expertise, and judgment to interpret that data. This introduces variability in how different agencies monitor system use and respond to potential concerns.

These limitations illustrate that, while system-level controls can reduce risk, they cannot fully eliminate it. Effective oversight requires a combination of technical controls, clear policies, and consistent enforcement.

Conclusion
Flock has implemented a number of substantive changes to its platform in response to concerns regarding data sharing and legal compliance. These changes have improved transparency, standardized key aspects of system use, and provided agencies with additional tools to monitor activity.

At the same time, the system continues to rely heavily on agency-level decisions regarding configuration, access, and oversight. Certain risks—particularly those associated with indirect or unauthorized use—cannot be fully mitigated through system design alone.

As a result, responsibility for ensuring compliance with Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 ultimately rests with each individual law enforcement agency. The effectiveness of the system, therefore, depends not only on the capabilities of the technology but also on how it is implemented and governed at the local level.

METHODOLOGY
To determine whether ALPR operators in SMC comply with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies, the SMCCGJ began by reviewing the content available on the public websites of each LEA in the County. Most LEA websites include information regarding ALPR usage and transparency, often with a link to the agency’s Flock Transparency Portal, which is maintained by Flock on behalf of its customers.

The SMCCGJ issued document requests to all ALPR operators in SMC, seeking ALPR policies, recent audit reports, current Flock contracts, and any supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with California law and agency policy. Findings based on nonproduction reflect the absence of responsive records produced to the SMCCGJ, not a conclusive determination that no responsive record exists.

The SMCCGJ was able to identify an ALPR policy document for every SMC ALPR operator, which guided the examination of compliance with that policy. For some operators we were provided an organization audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated within that LEA. The organization audit was visually reviewed in a spreadsheet, which is feasible for what is at most a few hundred rows. Some operators provided a network audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated by -95-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 11
other Flock customers on that operator’s data. As the network audit report can be quite large (upwards of 25,000/month), analysis of this data was carried out by first loading it into a database.4 The SMCCGJ examined network sharing reports from the operators that provided them. This information is also publicly available through Flock Safety’s Transparency Portal. The network sharing reports identify the agencies and entities with which each operator shares ALPR data.

The SMCCGJ conducted interviews with several LEAs in SMC, with representatives of Flock, and with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC).The SMCCGJ collected media reports related to ALPR implementations in SMC, in the state of California, and nationwide.

DISCUSSION
Public Interest
Issues related to the use of ALPR systems have received significant public attention in both SMC and throughout California. Several communities within the County have debated canceling their ALPR contracts or exploring alternative provider. As of this date, all have decided to continue operations with Flock. An article on ALPR usage published by Palo Alto Online on December 29, 2025, was the publication’s most-downloaded article of the year.

For the general public, it can be difficult to determine the root cause of security breaches reported in the media. Coverage has variously attributed these incidents to product design limitations, accidental or intentional misconfiguration, and inadequate operator training. As discussed earlier in this report, ALPR system functionality has evolved in response to public concerns, with enhancements intended to facilitate compliance with applicable laws.

Sharing Within San Mateo County
This investigation found that the extent of data sharing among SMC ALPR operators varies significantly, with the number of network sharing relationships ranging from three in Woodside to 335 in San Bruno. During the course of this investigation, one SMC operator reduced the scope of their network sharing after evaluating the public safety value of broader data access against local privacy considerations. Some LEAs felt that broad access was valuable in addressing the pattern of crimes committed in their community. Others felt that sharing too broadly would not solve more crimes and could risk losing the support of their local community.

As of December 2025, no SMC operators were found to be sharing ALPR data with entities outside California. The investigation did identify instances in which SMC operators shared ALPR data with private organizations, specifically security agencies serving Stanford University and University of the Pacific. Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), a public agency may share ALPR information only with another “public agency” and only as otherwise permitted by law. The materials produced did not establish that the private university security recipients meet the definition of a “public agency” or that an applicable statutory exception authorizes the sharing. It remains the responsibility of each LEA to determine whether such entities qualify as public agencies under applicable law. If deemed public agencies, these entities would be subject to the same statutory and policy requirements governing ALPR use.
4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value format, was then bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and then queried using the Structured Query Language. -96-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 12
The table below summarizes these findings.

Operator Network
Shares
2/26/2026
Network
Shares
4/13/2026
Private University
Security Shares
4/13/2026
Apparent Sharing
Guideline
Atherton 315 317 2
Belmont 157 145 2 Adjacent Counties
Brisbane 93 92 1 50-mile radius
Burlingame Not available 357 2
Colma 321 326 2
Daly City Not available Not available not available Flock portal is not enabled.

East Palo Alto 303 308 2
Foster City Not available Not available Not available Flock portal excluded network sharing report.

Half Moon Bay Not available 290 0
Hillsborough 303 318 2
Menlo Park 247 242 1
Pacifica 276 283 2
Redwood City 102 100 1 Bay Area Counties
San Bruno 331 335 2
San Mateo 283 280 0
San Mateo County
Sheriff's Office
299 300 2 Reduced in February to
adjacent Counties.

South San Francisco 15 15 0 San Mateo County
Woodside 3 3 0 Adjacent towns
Public Commentary
Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(a), a public agency that operates an ALPR system must provide the opportunity for public comment. The SMCCGJ did not identify any instances in which ALPR cameras were deployed without the required public notice and discussion.

ALPR Policies
California law requires each ALPR operator to adopt a written ALPR policy and to post that policy in a conspicuous manner (Civ. Code, §§ 1798.90.53(a)–(b); 1798.90.51 (a)–(b)). The California Department of Justice provides a model ALPR policy template, which agencies may adopt or -97-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 13
modify. Some departments also utilize policy templates developed by Lexipol, a provider of standardized law enforcement policy materials.

The following section evaluates each SMC law enforcement agency’s ALPR policy, including whether it is conspicuously posted, and assesses whether the agency’s actual operations are consistent with its stated policy.

Summary Matrix of ALPR Policy and Operational Findings
Policy Posting and Currency. Most LEAs and police departments provided an ALPR policy in response to the SMCCGJ document request. The SMCGJ reviewed each policy for alignment with the policy templates and guidance provided by the State of California and Lexipol. The SMCCGJ also reviewed each department’s public website to determine whether the policy was conspicuously posted in accordance with California DOJ guidance 2023-DLE-06, and whether the publicly posted version matched the version provided in response to the document request.

Audit Practices. The SMCCGJ requested copies of recent audit reports from each LEA. Where an audit frequency was specified in an agency’s ALPR Policy, the SMCCGJ reviewed the materials provided to determine whether audits appeared to have been conducted at the stated intervals. The SMCCGJ also examined the contents and scope of each audit report.

For purposes of this investigation, a “strong” audit is one that substantiates compliance with both applicable California law and each material element of the LEA’s stated ALPR Policy. California law requires a policy to describe monitoring and “a process for periodic system audits,” but does not prescribe a uniform audit report format or methodology. The labels “strong,” “partial,” and “weak” are assessment terms used in this report and are not statutory classifications.

In the absence of meaningful audit controls, the public has limited assurance that an agency’s stated policies are being consistently implemented in practice. By contrast, a “weak” audit examines only selected legal or policy elements and does not comprehensively evaluate operational compliance.

Finally, the SMCCGJ reviewed whether audit reports were made available to the public or presented to the relevant city, town, or county governing body.

Data Retention. Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2)(D) requires each ALPR policy to specify a data retention period after which ALPR data will be deleted unless it is associated with an active investigation or otherwise retained pursuant to law. The SMCCGJ compared the retention period stated in each agency’s ALPR policy with the retention period displayed on Flock’s Transparency Portal and, where available, the retention provisions contained in the agency’s Flock contract.

Matching retention periods were classified as “consistent,” while differing retention periods were classified as “inconsistent.” We did not examine in detail the process by which Flock deletes data after the stated retention period, as this topic has been addressed by third-party audits.

Data Sharing Process. Each policy must describe criteria and a process for sharing ALPR data. We examined this statement to ensure that it prohibits the sale of ALPR data, out-of-state sharing, sharing to private parties, and usage for other than valid law enforcement purposes. We examined any written guidelines and processes for receiving and approving requests for sharing data, and for any documentary evidence supporting the implementation of that process. Most policies included the sharing process description and documented from templates, but our interviews and document requests did not find an LEA who followed the process described in this “Template.” Several LEAs described the sharing process provided by the Flock platform, which is what we heard described -98-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 14
during interviews as the adopted process. The LEAs with outdated policies described an outdated sharing process mediated by NCRIC. No LEA’s policy described guidelines for ALPR data sharing within California, though several outlined coherent criteria for what sharing requests to approve.

Contract Terms. The SMCCGJ reviewed the 14 Flock contracts provided in response to its document requests. One contract included an addendum with California compliance provisions (“CA terms”) requiring Flock to adhere to California law governing the protection, access, and disclosure of ALPR data maintained on behalf of California LEA customers, consistent with recommendations previously issued by the California State Auditor.

The absence of express contractual compliance terms does not itself establish a violation of California law, which applies regardless of contract language. In this report, the presence or absence of such terms is evaluated as an additional contractual compliance control.

The table below summarizes the SMCGJ’s assessment of ALPR policy compliance and operational alignment among LEAs in SMC.

Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Atherton Not conspicuous;
current, but with
multiple versions
Strong;
published in
Council
Minutes
Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Belmont Conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
Brisbane Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template No CA
terms
Burlingame Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided
Colma Not conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Template CA terms
included in
addendum
Daly City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong, regular
audit; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
East Palo Alto Conspicuous;
current
Partial; publicly
posted
Consistent Not
described
No CA
terms
-99-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 15
Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Foster City Conspicuous;
current, but broken
link to policy
Audit reports
not provided.

Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Hillsborough Not conspicuous;
Outdated (NCRIC
references)
Audit reports
not provided.

Consistent Outdated No CA
terms
Menlo Park Not conspicuous;
current
Weak;
published in
City Council
minutes.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Pacifica Conspicuous;
current
Brief, but
strong; not
published
Consistent Flock Contract
not
provided
Redwood City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
San Bruno Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
San Mateo Conspicuous;
current
Weak; not
published
Consistent Template No CA
terms
SMC Sheriff's
Office
Conspicuous;
current
Partial;
published in
BOS minutes.

No stated
retention
Template No CA
terms
South San
Francisco
Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Woodside Conspicuous (via
SMC SO) and
current
Strong;
published in
Town Council
minutes
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided.

As shown above, while several agencies demonstrate strong alignment between policy and operational practices, others exhibit deficiencies in audit procedures, inconsistencies in stated data retention practices, and incomplete or inaccurate documentation of data-sharing processes and decisions. These findings highlight the absence of standardized ALPR governance and oversight practices across SMC.
-100-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 16

FINDINGS
This section summarizes findings based on evidence produced or otherwise reviewed by the SMCCGJ. The accompanying table identifies the findings assigned to the governing body of each LEA based on the evidence described in this report.

F1. The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.

F2. The ALPR operator’s ALPR Policy appears to be outdated because it describes ALPR operations as mediated by NCRIC, a practice the investigation found was discontinued several years ago.

F3. The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).

F4. The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

F5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

F7. The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained.

F8. The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.

F9. The retention period specified in the operator’s ALPR Policy does not match the retention period as reported by the Flock transparency portal or Flock contract.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While the recommendations below are generally applicable to all LEAs in SMC, some recommendations have already been implemented by some LEAs. The accompanying table identifies the recommendations directed to the governing body of each LEA reviewed by the SMCCGJ.

R1. The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)–(b).

R2. The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.

R3. The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship. -101-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 17
R4. The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R6. Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

R8. The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.

R9. The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Respondent Findings Recommendations
Atherton Town Council F1, F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 Belmont City Council F3, F6, F8 R3, R6, R8
Brisbane City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Burlingame City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Colma City Council F1, F3, F5, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 Daly City City Council F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 East Palo Alto City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Foster City City Council F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Half Moon Bay Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Hillsborough Town Council F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Menlo Park City Council F1, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Millbrae City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Pacifica City Council F3, F5, F6, F8 R3, R5, R6, R8
Portola Valley Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Redwood City F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 San Bruno City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 San Carlos City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 -102-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 18
Respondent Findings Recommendations
Ken Binder, San Mateo County
Sheriff
F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9
San Mateo City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 South SF City Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8
Woodside Town Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8

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

Under Penal Code section 933(c), the governing body of a public agency must respond within 90 days after the grand jury submits its final report, and an elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility under Penal Code section 914.1 must respond within 60 days regarding matters under that officer’s or agency head’s control. -103-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Automated License Plate Readers, Report 2019-118, California State Auditor, February 2020.

California Automated License Plate Reader Data, 2023-DLE-06, California Department of Justice.

National Crime Information Center Administration of Warrants, 2025-DLE-08, California Department of Justice, April 7, 2025.

A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection, Report of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2016–2017.

FOOTNOTES
1 Analysis done by SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the Reason for performing the query. 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. 4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value (CSV) format, bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and analyzed using the Structured Query Language (SQL).
5 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2025/11/05/east-palo-alto-leaders-push-back-on-license-plate-readers-amid-privacyconcerns/ 6 https://www.coastsidenews.com/news/half-moon-bay-to-revisit-license-plate-reader-program-and-ice-policies/ 7 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2025/12/29/the-years-biggest-stories/ -104-
2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 20
Appendix A - Flock Safety Offense Types
-105-

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
California
Town Hall
Phone: 650-375-7400 | Fax: 650-375-7475 | 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010 | www.hillsborough.net October 12, 2026
Hon. Rachel Holt
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 8th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Re: Grand Jury Report: “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” Honorable Judge Holt:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the report titled, “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” Please find our response to the findings and recommendations below.

I. Responses to Findings
F1. The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.

The Town of Hillsborough agrees with this finding.

F2. The ALPR operator’s ALPR Policy appears to be outdated because it describes ALPR operations as mediated by NCRIC, a practice the investigation found was discontinued several years ago.

The Town of Hillsborough agrees with this finding.

F4. The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

The Town of Hillsborough agrees with this finding.

F5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

The Town of Hillsborough agrees with this finding.
-106-
ATTACHMENT 2
October 13, 2026
Page | 2 of 4
F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

The Town of Hillsborough disagrees partially with this finding. The Town’s agreement with Flock Group, Inc., executed June 21, 2023, includes a Town of Hillsborough Supplemental Conditions Addendum that controls over any conflicting term of the agreement. Section 1 of the Addendum requires Flock to comply with California Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 as applicable to an ALPR operator and to maintain specified data security practices, and Section 2 requires Flock to notify the Town of any security breach within 24 hours.

The Addendum may not have been included in the materials provided to the Grand Jury; a copy is enclosed.

The Town of Hillsborough agrees with this finding.

F8. The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.

The Town of Hillsborough agrees with this finding.

II. Responses to Recommendations
R1. The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)–(b).

This recommendation has been implemented. On September 23, 2026, the Town posted the current Hillsborough Police Department ALPR policy (Policy 426) as a standalone document on a dedicated Automated License Plate Readers page of the Town website, linked from the Police Department’s main page and its Transparency page. The Department’s Flock Safety transparency portal now links directly to the standalone policy. Policy 426 also requires the Department to maintain a public ALPR web page containing the policy, the number of cameras in use, the agencies with access to Department ALPR data, the number of vehicles detected, and the number of hot list hits.

R2. The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.

This recommendation has been implemented. The Police Department revised Policy 426 in September 2026.

The revised policy contains no reference to NCRIC and describes the Department’s current fixed-camera, vendor-hosted ALPR system, including data hosting, the one-year retention period, and the handling of evidentiary data. The prior NCRIC policy document has been removed from the Town website.

This recommendation has been implemented. On August 26, 2026, the Department terminated its networksharing relationships with private university security entities. Revised Policy 426, Section 426.8, limits the sharing -107-
October 13, 2026
Page | 3 of 4
of ALPR data to public agencies as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f) and expressly prohibits sharing with private entities, including private university security departments.

R4. The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

This recommendation has been implemented. The Department’s ALPR Administrator has maintained logs of ALPR audits since January 9, 2026. Revised Policy 426, Section 426.7, requires a monthly audit of ALPR search activity, documented in a memorandum to the Chief of Police and retained by the Custodian of Records, and the Department conducts audits at that frequency.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

This recommendation has been implemented. Each monthly audit under Section 426.7 randomly selects at least ten searches by Department members and at least ten searches by external agencies and tests each against Policy 426, including the requirement in Section 426.6(c) that every search be documented with a reason and an associated case, incident, or CAD event number. The audit memorandum identifies the searches reviewed, the results, and any deviations for correction.

This recommendation has been partially implemented. The requirements for Flock to comply with applicable California law have been part of the Town's agreement with Flock since the agreement was executed on June 21, 2023. Section 1 of the agreement's Supplemental Conditions Addendum requires Flock to comply with California Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 as applicable to an ALPR operator. The Town's agreement, including its Supplemental Conditions Addendum, is substantially the same as the Town of Colma's agreement with Flock cited in this recommendation, and the Town will retain these provisions upon renewal, and may explore any other relevant provisions in the Town of Colma agreement.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

This recommendation has been implemented. Revised Policy 426, Section 426.8, describes the process the Department uses for network-sharing relationships on the vendor platform: each relationship must meet the criteria in Section 426.9 and be approved in writing by the Chief of Police before it is enabled, and the ALPR Administrator maintains the file of approved relationships. Before the revision, relationships were enabled by the Department’s ALPR system administrator. On September 24, 2026, the Chief of Police reviewed all 294 existing relationships against Section 426.9, approved 286 in writing, and directed that the remaining eight be disabled.

The Department is also circulating its ALPR Data Sharing Acknowledgment Letter to each approved agency. To retain access, each approved agency must return a signed acknowledgment of the Department’s conditions of access by December 1, 2026; new agencies must provide it before access is enabled.

R8. The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.

This recommendation has been implemented. Revised Policy 426, Section 426.9, establishes written criteria for -108-
October 13, 2026
Page | 4 of 4
the approval, denial, annual review, and termination of in-state network-sharing relationships. Approval requires that the recipient be a California public agency as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f) that maintains an ALPR usage and privacy policy, and that the sharing serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Requests from federal or out-of-state agencies, private entities, or for immigration enforcement are denied.

This response to the Grand Jury was approved by the Town of Hillsborough City Council at a public meeting on October 12, 2026. If there are questions, contact City Manager Doug Davis at [email protected] or Chief of Police Melissa Colla at [email protected].

Respectfully,
Dr. Sophie Cole
Mayor
Enclosure: Flock Group, Inc. Agreement - Town of Hillsborough Supplemental Conditions Addendum -109-
-110-
ATTACHMENT 3
-111-
-112-
-113-
-114-
-115-
-116-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.06, Section 17.16.015 and Section 17.16.020 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating to the Conduct of Home Businesses and the Issuance of Permits for Home Businesses and Finding the Action to be Exempt from CEQA
SUMMARY: The City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Commercial Activity Regulations considered input provided by the City Council and community at a November 17, 2025 Study Session regarding regulations related to home-based businesses and large events and during further discussion at a City Council meeting on March 9, 2026. The Subcommittee recommends that the Municipal Code be updated to improve regulation of home businesses in Town in order to preserve the residential character of the Town while allowing home-based business activity that is consistent with the single-family residential zoning.1 The goal is to legitimize acceptable commercial uses, not to raise significant revenue.

BACKGROUND
Section 5.06.010 of the Municipal Code requires that all home businesses obtain an annual home business permit. “Home businesses” are defined in Section 17.16.015, including various “profitmaking” activities. Most commercial activity is prohibited in Section 17.16.020.

Chapter 5.04 of the Municipal Code sets forth the regulations for the business taxes to be paid by businesses operating within the Town. While these regulations appear to be working effectively for contractors and other service providers, the collection of the business tax from home businesses depends on the businesses obtaining permits under Chapter 5.06 and self-reporting income.

Chapter 5.04 was adopted by the Council in 1985 and Chapter 5.06 in 1999. Neither section has been amended since the initial adoptions.

FINDINGS
While the Town has long prided itself on being a single-family residential community with no commercial activity, times have changed. Advances in technology and the increased acceptance of remote work during the pandemic have led to more acceptance of the concept that a home can be used for some business purposes without losing the essential residential character of the property and without unduly impacting neighbors.

Further, a review of the regulations relating to home businesses have resulted in a desire to improve the clarity and process. The Subcommittee believes that, with clearer regulations, more home businesses will obtain permits and pay the taxes required by the Municipal Code, and enforcement will be enhanced.
1 Further discussion of regulations of large events will be presented at a future meeting. -117-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

A review of records maintained by the Secretary of State shows more than 1,100 businesses registered with Hillsborough addresses as their principal place of business. It is believed that the sole purpose of the majority of these limited liability companies and corporations is to hold title to the property (for privacy or limitation of liability). These entities do not impact neighboring properties in any way. In these circumstances, a business license would not be required.

The Town provides a variety of services that create a safe and serene setting for home businesses to operate in a respectful manner. Payment of the business license fee and gross receipts tax are appropriate for home businesses, and consistent with how like programs are administered in other jurisdictions.

Amendments to the business tax classifications or rates would require voter approval. Therefore, no such changes are recommended at this time. Improved compliance with and enforcement under the existing rates should provide appropriate revenue to support Town services and enforcement efforts.

PROPOSED CHANGES

1. General Authorization of Home Businesses. Unless specifically prohibited (parties with paid admissions) or regulated (movie productions), home businesses that obtain permits under Section 5.06.010 and comply with regulations would be permitted. (a) Entities holding title would be exempt. Many limited liability companies and corporations are registered with the Secretary of State using Hillsborough addresses as their principal place of business. Many of these companies are formed simply to hold title to the residence, for liability and/or privacy reasons, and do not conduct any other business activity. These entities would be exempt from the licensing and tax requirements.
(b) Entities located outside of Hillsborough would be exempt. Many residents have businesses with offices located outside of Hillsborough but may occasionally use their residence for limited business activity. “Limited business activity” would include phone calls, emails, virtual meetings, and occasional in-person meetings or dinners. In contrast, a resident that has a nominal office outside of Hillsborough but conducts substantial business activity from his/her home would be required to obtain the home business license and pay the gross receipts tax.

2. On-Site Employees and Deliveries. The guiding principle is that the business operations within a residence should not create impacts outside the property that exceed normal residential use. Accordingly, no more than one full-time equivalent employee may be allowed to work at the home business, provided that they park on the property itself. The regulation of business employees would be distinguished from other on-site employees (gardeners, nannies, etc.).

Further, residences receive many nonbusiness deliveries of groceries and products on a daily basis, so home businesses should be able to receive such deliveries as well, again subject to the proviso that the deliveries do not exceed what is reasonable for residential properties in Hillsborough. Occasional visits by customers/clients should be allowed to the same extent as those for residents who have businesses located outside Hillsborough. -118-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

3. General Application. The regulations would apply to all parts of the residential property, including ADUs and garages. The regulations would apply to tenants and sub-tenants.

4. Enforcement. The home business application will be simplified to focus on the nature of the business, where employees will park, the expected volume of deliveries, and similar information to assess impacts. Since home businesses will be legitimized and the process streamlined, it is hoped that more residents conducting these activities will comply with the license requirements and pay the business tax.

Enforcement would be through observations by the Code Compliance Officer and reports from residents. The recommended enforcement procedure would be for the Code Enforcement Officer to issue a warning with a 30-day period to comply and thereafter issue a citation for a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Panel. If the resident does not comply with an Order issued by the Administrative Hearing Panel, the Town would file an action for an injunction in the Superior Court, which the judge could enforce through fines or even imprisonment for contempt of court.

Failure to obtain a business license is currently classified as an infraction under Section 5.06.020.

This provision would remain as an alternative enforcement tool.

As a condition of the approval of a business license, the permit application will be submitted.

During this application process, the business will be required to obtain a business license and pay the gross receipts tax as set forth in Chapter 5.04. The Town and its vendor who administers the business license program will make the necessary adjustments to its processes following the adoption.

The City Clerk provided email notice regarding this item to individuals with a current home business license.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” and, if deemed to be a project, would be exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Ordinance and Exhibits

2. Presentation
PREPARED BY: Mark Hudak, Assistant City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and waive further reading of the ordinance entitled, “Ordinance of the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough Amending Chapter 5.06, Section 17.16.015 and Section 17.16.020 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating to the Conduct of Home Businesses and the Issuance of Permits for Home Businesses and Finding the Action to be Exempt from CEQA.”
-119-
ORDINANCE NO. ___

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AMENDING CHAPTER 5.06 AND SECTIONS 17.16.015 AND 17.16.020 OF THE

HILLSBOROUGH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF HOME

BUSINESSES AND THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR HOME BUSINESSES AND

FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough, California (the “Town”) historically has been a residential community that has prohibited most commercial activity within its municipal limits; and
WHEREAS, in 1999 and 2000, the Town adopted new regulations that allowed limited commercial activity within residences located within the Town by obtaining a home business permit; and
WHEREAS, advances in technology allow expanded commercial activities to be conducted within a residence without undue impact on neighboring properties; and WHEREAS, changing attitudes regarding permissible activities within their homes reflect a desire by some residents for more flexibility in the regulation of home businesses; and WHEREAS, the conduct of commercial activities at a residence must be balanced against the right of other residents to enjoy the peace, quiet, and security of their homes; and WHEREAS, the type, nature, and extent of commercial activities permitted within the Town should be clarified and expanded; and
WHEREAS, a process for obtaining a home business permit and for appealing the denial, suspension, or forfeiture of a home business permit should be established; and WHEREAS, existing law provides that home businesses are subject to the Town’s business license tax; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established a City Council subcommittee to research and evaluated modifications to the home business permit regulations and the desirable expansion of permitted commercial activities; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has held three public meetings to seek input on the nature and scope of the expansion of permitted commercial activities and home businesses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

Section 1. The recitals above are each incorporated by references and adopted as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately.

In the event the Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be said with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Chapter 5.06 and Sections 17.16.015 and 17.16.020 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code are hereby amended and restated, as set forth in Exhibits A, B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 5. Not less than five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance in accordance with Government Code section 36933. The City Clerk will certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough, and cause a summary to be published once within fifteen (15) days of its -120-
ATTACHMENT 1
passage in a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Government Code section 36933.

SECTION 6. The custodian of records for this Ordinance is the City Clerk, and the records comprising the administrative record are located at the Town Hall, 1600 Floribunda Avenue, Hillsborough, California 94010.

SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the facts that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid. _______________________________________
Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough
__________________________
Attest: City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the Town of Hillsborough introduced on ______________ , and adopted on__________________________ , by the following vote of the City Council:

YESES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
-121-
Chapter 5.06 HOME BUSINESS PERMIT
Sections:

5.06.010 Home business permit.

A. Any person conducting a home business as defined in Section 17.16.015 shall obtain a home business permit as set forth in this chapter and shall otherwise comply with such chapter. The home business permit shall be renewed annually as provided in Chapter 5.04.

B. Unless otherwise classified under section 5.04.340, all businesses conducted with a home business permit are classified as a Category G Business pursuant to section 5.04.340. (Ord. 591 § 3 (part), 1999)

5.06.020 Application process
A. Any person seeking a home business permit shall submit a verified application to the Finance Department. Said application shall include:

1. the name of the business entity or fictitious business name, if any;

2. the nature of the business;

3. the number of full-time equivalent employees;

4. a description of where employees and customers or clients will park; and

5. such other information as shall be reasonably required by the Finance Department.

B. The Finance Department shall have grounds to deny the application if:

1. the proposed business does not qualify for a license pursuant to Section 17.16.015;

2. the proposed activity is prohibited by any state or local law, rule, or regulation or requires a permit, inspection, or other approval from a state, county, or local authority which has not yet been obtained; or

3. the application contains false, misleading, or incomplete information.

C. The denial of an application by the Finance Department may be appealed by the applicant in writing. The appeal shall set forth the reasons why the denial, suspension, or revocation should be overturned. Any appeal shall be filed within 10 days of the date of the denial and shall be heard and determined by the Town’s Administrative Hearing Panel, which shall be authorized to determine such appeals. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 8.16.050 – 8.16.080. The hearing shall be held within 30 days of the date the appeal is filed.
(Ord. 591 § 3 (part), 1999)

5.06.030 Suspension or revocation of home business permit The City Manager or designee shall have grounds to suspend or revoke a home business permit when:

A. The business owner or his/her business entity has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of any crime, misdemeanor, or infraction which directly relates to the business activities allowed by the home business permit;
B. At least two verified police reports of a disturbance of the peace, disorderly conduct, or similar violations have been made regarding the business activities within a 12-month period.

C. The business owner has conducted commercial activities at the residence other than as set forth in the home business permit application.

D. The business owner has conducted activities that are prohibited by Section 17.16.015(E).

E. The business owner has violated the restrictions set forth in Section 17.16.015(F) on at least two occasions during the prior 12-month period.

F. The City Manager, in his/her sole discretion, shall have the authority to determine whether a suspension or revocation is appropriate in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare.

G. The decision to suspend or revoke a home business permit shall be considered a final administrative decision and is not appealable to the City Council. -122-

EXHIBIT A
2 of 2

5.06.040 Enforcement
A. The conduct of business activities without a home business permit and the violation of any provision in this chapter shall be an infraction, punishable as set forth in Section 1.09 of this code, which sets forth the schedule of fines for infractions.

B. In addition to any other consequence, the violation of any provision of this chapter shall be cause for immediate suspension or revocation of the home business permit by the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.

C. In addition to any other consequence, the violation of any provision in this chapter is a public nuisance, which may be subject to abatement in accordance with the provisions for Code Enforcement set forth in Chapter 8.16 of this code.

D. In addition to any other consequence, violation of any provision of this chapter may be enjoined by a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of San Mateo County.

E. The enforcement procedures set forth in this section are cumulative and nonexclusive and may be pursued in any order or combination as determined by the City Attorney. -123-

17.16.015 Home businesses.

A. Intent. Historically, the town has been an exclusively residential community which seeks to ensure a serene environment for its residents. In 1999 and 2000, the town adopted new regulations that permitted limited commercial activity within residences. With advances in modern technology, commercial activities now can be conducted within a residence without undue impact on neighboring properties. The provisions in this section will ensure home businesses are duly licensed and conducted in a manner that preserves the residential character of the town and fairly balances the rights and expectations of all residents.

B. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall be applied:

1. “Residence” means all residential properties within the town and includes all structures on a property including the main house, any accessory dwelling unit(s), and any garage, whether attached or detached.

2. “Resident” means the person or persons who are using the residence as their primary residence, including owners, tenants, and subtenants and their immediate families.

3. “Commercial Activity” includes all conduct that is intended ultimately to generate revenue or contribute to generating revenue including, without limitation, professional services rendered to customers or clients (such as financial advising, legal, accounting, architecture, engineering, and medical services), consulting, retail sales, promotional and marketing efforts, computer programming, coding, and software development, meetings with actual or potential clients, customers, or financial backers, and broadcasting. “Commercial activity” does not include strictly social gatherings or events such as weddings, parties, dinners, and similar congregations of individuals at which clients or customers might attend.

C. Home Business Permit Required. All residents engaged in commercial activity at a residence shall obtain a home business permit as required by Chapter 5.06.

D. Exemptions from Home Business Permit Requirements. The following activities and situations are exempt from the requirement of a home business permit:

1. All businesses classified under Sections 5.04.340(B), (C), (D), and (E).

2. A corporation, limited liability company, or other entity registered with the California Secretary of State, the primary purpose of which is to hold title to the residence.

3. Commercial activity incidental to a business that is located and primarily conducted at an office or premises outside of town limits.

4. Occasional retail sales such as home product parties and clothing showcases held at the residence, provided that such activities shall not be conducted for more than two consecutive days and for no more than six days per calendar year.

5. All businesses which are specifically regulated elsewhere in this Code, including film production, group residential homes licensed by the State of California, and cannabis cultivation and sales.

E. Prohibited Uses. The following commercial activities are not permitted to be conducted within the town as home businesses:

1. Food service, including restaurants, delicatessens, and bakeries and the preparation of food products for sale at or as customer take-out from the residence.

2. Medical offices, clinics, physical therapy, and consulting that include patients coming to the residence; medical services provided on a remote or telemedicine basis are not prohibited.

3. Professional offices such as legal, accounting, and bookkeeping which include clients coming to the residence. A home office that is auxiliary to a business office located in another jurisdiction is not prohibited.

4. Veterinary clinics that involve the animal being brought to the residence for treatment.

5. Pet grooming and pet boarding at the residence; provided, that grooming, pet-sitting, and pet exercising of the resident’s own pets are permitted.

6. Sports camps; individual or semi-private instruction provided at a residence is not prohibited.

7. Massage, personal training, yoga, and similar activities where the clients or attendees receive their services at the residence; trainers, masseuses, instructors, and other professionals may provide their services to residents at their residence. -124-

EXHIBIT B

Page 2 of 2 ends

8. Parties for commercial purposes, including parties or gatherings at a residence which are advertised or publicized by paid advertisements or on social media, for which an admission fee or similar is charged, or for which the resident or host receives some form of compensation. Fundraising events for registered charities, schools, political campaigns, or other community organizations are not subject to this prohibition but shall be subject to the town’s regulation of special events.

F. Regulation of Home Businesses. All home businesses shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes the impact on neighboring residences. All home businesses shall comply with the following standards:

1. Employees.
a. No more than one full-time equivalent employee of the home business may have their primary workstation located at the residence. This regulation shall not apply to the resident conducting the home business, the resident’s immediate family, or a house manager.
b. Any employee of the home business working at or from the residence must park within the residence itself and not on a public street or parking strip. c. Regardless of the number of residents or home businesses located at the residence, no more than one full-time equivalent employee total is permitted to be stationed at the residence, and all such employees must park within the residence and not on the public street or parking strip.
d. This subsection shall not apply to domestic workers (housekeepers, chefs, nannies, gardeners, and similar).

2. Clients, Customers, and Other Visitors. All clients, customers, and other persons visiting the home office must park within the residence and not on a public street or parking strip.

3. Incidental Use. The home business must be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the residence for residential purposes.

4. Visibility. All commercial activity of the home business shall be conducted within a residential structure located at the residence. There shall be no advertising, signage, or other evidence of the home business visible from the public right of way.

5. Traffic and Parking. Except for occasional deliveries, the home business shall not cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic or the parking of vehicles on the public right of way except (a) as provided in subsection F.1. and F.2. herein and (b) in accordance with the town’s regulation of special events.

6. Compliance with Other Laws. The home business must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
(Ord. 639 § 13, 2003: Ord 613 §§ 3, 4, 2000; Ord 591 § 2, 1999) (Ord. No. 746, § 6, 11-13-2017)
-125-

Page 1 of 1 ends

17.16.020 Use for the purpose of single-family dwelling—Defined.

A. Intent. It is the intent of this section to insure the preservation of the basic character of the residence district for residential purposes. Residential purposes include the use of the home for food and shelter and as a social institution for the private, religious, educational, cultural, and recreational advantages of the family.

B. Rule. Use of real property and improvements thereon for single-family dwellings, as set forth in subsection A of Section 17.16.010, shall be limited to use for residential purposes exclusively and not for commercial purposes, incidental or otherwise, except as allowed with a home business permit issued pursuant to Chapter 5.06.

C. Business Address. Use of the Hillsborough street address of a single-family dwelling in the town in conjunction with the name of any commercial or business entity, organization or operation ("enterprise") is allowed only when a valid home business permit under Chapter 5.06. Any other use of the Hillsborough street address of a single-family dwelling in the town in conjunction with the name of any commercial or business entity, organization or operation is prohibited. (Ord. 613 §§ 5—7, 2000; Ord. 390 § 2, 1984; Ord. No. 761, § 12, 1-13-2020) -126-

EXHIBIT C
Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.06,
Section 17.16.015 and Section 17.16.020 of the
Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating to the Conduct of
Home Businesses and the Issuance of Permits for Home
Businesses
October 12, 2026
1 -127-
ATTACHMENT 2
2 Background
The City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Commercial Activity Regulations considered input provided by the City Council and community at a November 17, 2025 Study Session regarding regulations related to home-based businesses and large events and during further discussion at a City Council meeting on March 9, 2026.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Municipal Code be updated to improve regulation of home businesses in Town in order to preserve the residential character of the Town while allowing home-based business activity that is consistent with the single-family residential zoning.

Note: Further discussion of regulations of large events will be presented at a future meeting. -128-
3 Findings
While the Town has long prided itself on being a single-family residential community with no commercial activity, times have changed.

Advances in technology and the increased acceptance of remote work during the pandemic have led to more acceptance of the concept that a home can be used for some business purposes without losing the essential residential character of the property and without unduly impacting neighbors. -129-
4 Proposed Changes
Unless specifically prohibited (parties with paid admissions) or regulated (movie productions), home businesses that obtain permits under Section 5.06.010 and comply with regulations would be permitted.

General Authorization
of Home Businesses
The guiding principle is that the business operations within a residence should not create impacts outside the property that exceed normal residential use.

Accordingly, no more than one full-time equivalent employee may be allowed to work at the home business, provided that they park on the property itself.

On-Site Employees
and Deliveries
The regulations would apply to all parts of the residential property, including ADUs General Application and garages. The regulations would apply to tenants and sub-tenants.

The home business application will be simplified to focus on the nature of the business, where employees will park, the expected volume of deliveries, and similar information to assess impacts.

Enforcement
-130-
5 Proposed Changes
Unless specifically prohibited (parties with paid admissions) or regulated (movie productions), home businesses that obtain permits under Section 5.06.010 and comply with regulations would be permitted.

General Authorization
of Home Businesses
The guiding principle is that the business operations within a residence should not create impacts outside the property that exceed normal residential use.

Accordingly, no more than one full-time equivalent employee may be allowed to work at the home business, provided that they park on the property itself.

The home business application will be simplified to focus on the nature of the business, where employees will park, the expected volume of deliveries, and similar information to assess impacts.

Enforcement
-131-
6 Proposed Changes
Unless specifically prohibited (parties with paid admissions) or regulated (movie productions), home businesses that obtain permits under Section 5.06.010 and comply with regulations would be permitted.

General Authorization
of Home Businesses
The guiding principle is that the business operations within a residence should not create impacts outside the property that exceed normal residential use.

Accordingly, no more than one full-time equivalent employee may be allowed to work at the home business, provided that they park on the property itself.

The home business application will be simplified to focus on the nature of the business, where employees will park, the expected volume of deliveries, and similar information to assess impacts.

Enforcement
-132-
7 Proposed Changes
Unless specifically prohibited (parties with paid admissions) or regulated (movie productions), home businesses that obtain permits under Section 5.06.010 and comply with regulations would be permitted.

General Authorization
of Home Businesses
The guiding principle is that the business operations within a residence should not create impacts outside the property that exceed normal residential use.

Accordingly, no more than one full-time equivalent employee may be allowed to work at the home business, provided that they park on the property itself.

The home business application will be simplified to focus on the nature of the business, where employees will park, the expected volume of deliveries, and similar information to assess impacts.

Enforcement
-133-
8 Proposed Changes
Unless specifically prohibited (parties with paid admissions) or regulated (movie productions), home businesses that obtain permits under Section 5.06.010 and comply with regulations would be permitted.

General Authorization
of Home Businesses
The guiding principle is that the business operations within a residence should not create impacts outside the property that exceed normal residential use.

Accordingly, no more than one full-time equivalent employee may be allowed to work at the home business, provided that they park on the property itself.

The home business application will be simplified to focus on the nature of the business, where employees will park, the expected volume of deliveries, and similar information to assess impacts.

Enforcement
-134-
9 Implementation
Enforcement
• Enforcement would be through
observations by the Code
Enforcement Officer and
reports from residents.
• The recommended enforcement
procedure would be for the
Code Enforcement Officer to
issue a warning with a 30-day
period to comply and thereafter
issue a citation for a hearing
before the Administrative
Hearing Panel.

Violations
• Failure to obtain a business
license is currently classified as
an infraction under Section

5.06.020.
• This provision would remain as
an alternative enforcement
tool.

Administration of License
• As a condition of the approval
of a business license, the permit
application will be submitted.
• During this application process,
the business will be required to
obtain a business license and
pay the gross receipts tax as set
forth in Chapter 5.04.
• The Town and its vendor who
administers the business license
program will make the
necessary adjustments to its
processes following the
adoption.
-135-
Recommendation
Introduce and waive further reading of the ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the Town of Hillsborough Amending Section 17.16.015 of the Hillsborough Municipal Code Relating to Home Businesses, Section 17.16.020 Relating to Use for the Purpose of Single-Family Dwelling and Chapter 5.06 Relating to Home Business Permits.” -136-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: Telecommunications Needs Assessment Update SUMMARY: As part of its annual goal-setting process, the City Council identified improving access to telecommunications service throughout Town as a top priority. To support this effort, the Town has led several opportunities to solicit community feedback in order to develop solutions. The October 2025 community meeting provided input on the key areas of need and helped inform focus areas for the Town to identify as part of a needs assessment. The areas of need were presented to City Council on January 12, 2026 and incorporated into a Request for Proposals to enlist a telecommunications consultant to develop a proposed plan of action. The Town received two submittals and awarded the contract to the top-rated firm, ENTRUST.

The needs assessment will include analysis of available technologies and solutions and the development of recommendations to deploy solutions to improve (1) fiber connectivity, (2) wireless service deficiencies, (3) power backup solutions, and (4) alternative technologies to improve connectivity. The project scope includes the following activities:

A. Conduct Needs Assessment
a. Asset Inventory
b. Market Assessment
c. Needs Assessment
d. Gap Analysis
e. Policy Review and Recommendations
B. Identify Solutions to Improve Fiber & Wireless Connectivity, Backup Power and Utilization of Alternative Technologies
a. Peer Analysis of Similar Communities
b. Review of Town Facilities and Integration in Solutions c. Policy Review and Regulatory Changes – (Included in Policy Review and Recommendations)
d. Community Education Library and Resources Guide
e. Summary of Alternative Technologies
f. Wireless Field Survey
g. Data Collection and Wireless Network Conceptual Design h. Wireless Technology Options and Costs
C. Develop Recommendations for Implementing Solutions
a. Implementing Identified Solutions
b. Project Management
The consultant team will be sharing the results of the needs assessment with preliminary conclusions and an outline of next steps as a result of the outreach conducted. To date, the team -137-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

has reviewed existing policies and programs, conducted interviews with Town staff, conducted focus groups with key community stakeholders (including public safety partners and education partners), completed a townwide survey, reviewed Town facilities, and collected data related to network service via field collection and other data sources.

The memo (Attachment 1) and presentation (Attachment 2) contains a summary of the survey results, with 348 respondents. These also include a high-level overview of some of the interim steps the Town can consider as well as next steps regarding the recommendations and implementation of solutions.

FISCAL IMPACT: As this is a progress update on the status of the telecommunications needs assessment, with no formal recommendations, there is no fiscal impact associated ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The proposed action is exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Memo

2. Presentation
PREPARED BY: Mandy Brown, Assistant City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Receive update, discuss current status and offer any input as it relates to next steps in the project.
-138-

Page 1 of 13 ends

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

Telecommunications Assessment
Interim Project Update and Summary of Findings
To: Town of Hillsborough: Staff Review for Town Council From: ENTRUST Solutions Group / EN Communications
Matthew Steadman, Senior Broadband Consultant
Lesslie Holte, Senior Manager, Telecommunications
Jory Wolf, VP of Digital Innovation and Project Executive Date: October 6, 2026
Purpose and Project Overview
The Town of Hillsborough engaged ENTRUST Solutions Group to conduct a Telecommunications Assessment addressing fiber connectivity, wireless service, backup power and alternative technologies. The assessment examines the services available to residents and Town operations, how well those services meet current needs, and the infrastructure and implementation considerations that will inform future improvements. This memorandum brings together findings from the asset, market, needs and wireless field assessments to provide Town staff and Council with an integrated view of conditions to date.

The work combines several research tools. An asset inventory documents Town properties and infrastructure relevant to telecommunications. Market research examines broadband providers, service technologies, advertised availability and comparisons with surrounding communities. A resident survey gathers experience with home broadband and cellular service, the importance of improvement, and preferences concerning Town involvement and infrastructure. The survey analysis retains 348 residential locations with submissions through September 25, 2026, after screening for duplicate locations, nonresident or test entries, and incomplete or unverifiable addresses. Six departmental and education interview sessions add operational needs and context on review procedures, utility coordination and continuity of service.

To complement these reported experiences, ENTRUST conducted a wireless drive survey in August 2026. Three identical consumer phones inside a moving vehicle were used to test AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon along major north-south and east-west roads. The survey recorded received signal strength and the speed at which data could be downloaded and uploaded. -139-
ATTACHMENT 1
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Observations were plotted on street maps to show how measured performance varied along the traveled routes. This provides a road-based view of cellular conditions, rather than an indoor survey or a test of every residential address.

The four supporting assessments are substantially complete in draft form and prepared for staff review. This update explains what their findings collectively mean for Hillsborough and identifies the continuing work that will lead to the final assessment. Infrastructure alternatives, investment priorities and recommendations will be developed through that work and the staff review process.

Principal Findings
Cellular service falls short across all three wireless carriers AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon each showed weak signals and very slow data transfers at multiple locations along the tested roads. For residents, dependable cellular service matters when streaming video, joining a video call, playing online games or using apps for navigation, ridehailing and other location-based services. The measured slowdowns indicate limitations in the data connection those activities may rely on. They do not directly test gaming responsiveness or GPS positioning, and obtaining a GPS location is different from loading maps or exchanging information through an app. Terrain and tree cover are plausible contributors to the observed conditions, alongside other network factors. The central finding is that none of the three carriers delivered uniformly strong performance across the sampled routes.1 Two dominant broadband providers and uneven fiber availability limit choice
Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T dominate Hillsborough’s wired broadband market, while competing broadband providers have more limited footprints. This concentration leaves some residents with few practical alternatives at their address, a concern also reflected in survey comments.

The market assessment identifies uneven fiber access within Town and a substantial disparity in reported availability compared with several surrounding communities. The principal issue is whether households can obtain a competitive, reliable service at their location, rather than whether a broadband provider advertises service somewhere in Hillsborough. 1 ENTRUST, Town of Hillsborough Wireless Field Survey, Conclusions and carrier-specific results, Tables 3-5.

Percentages describe test samples along surveyed routes. ENTRUST, Town of Hillsborough Broadband Market Assessment,, Summary of Findings, regional comparison and technology assessments. Graphics and selected coverage estimates remain under review.
-140-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Survey participants strongly support Town involvement
Approximately 87 percent supported the Town working with wireless providers. In a separate question, 87 percent agreed with carefully designed infrastructure that improves coverage and emergency communications. About 81 percent considered cellular improvement Very Important or Critical. These separate results reinforce the case that participants want the Town involved in improving service. They are not added together, and they do not represent approval of a particular site, design, tax or expenditure. The voluntary survey describes its participants rather than a statistically representative estimate of all residents.2 Reliable communication is a public safety and operational need Resident comments connect connectivity with reaching emergency assistance, children and caregivers. Interviews identify corresponding needs for public-safety field information, school communications and continuity of operations. Reliance on home Wi-Fi for calling makes power and broadband interruptions especially consequential. The common need is dependable communication when it matters, extending beyond faster downloads or entertainment. The drive tests did not evaluate service during an emergency or verify backup-power duration.

Town properties and rights of way provide a basis for evaluating solutions
Civic properties, water facilities and rights-of-way are tangible resources for the next stage of assessment. They provide locations and corridors to evaluate in relation to service needs, existing networks and potential partnerships. Their presence does not establish that every location can accommodate equipment or that every corridor offers usable conduit. Verification of carrier need, Town ownership, access, power, backhaul and physical suitability is needed before feasible uses are confirmed.
3 Permitting and design review are substantive parts of deployment planning
The interviews describe reviews involving multiple departments and consideration of antennas, cabinets, back-up-power equipment, screening and maintenance. These requirements connect the demand for reliable service with the physical form of an installation. Clarification and documentation of the applicable review paths will support the continuing assessment. The 2 ENTRUST, Town of Hillsborough Telecommunications Needs Assessment, residential survey, interviews and integrated findings. Survey quantities retain the established 348-location project tabulation through September 25, 2026.
3 ENTRUST, Town of Hillsborough Telecommunications Asset Assessment, Summary of Findings and inventory tables
-141-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA interviews establish review considerations; they do not establish that permitting caused existing service limitations.

Street protection and utility work need to be considered with future connectivity
Staff described codified pavement-protection and restoration practices, while reporting that spare conduit for future Town use had not been routine and that a microtrenching standard was not in place at the interview date. Water-main replacement is driven by long range plans, available budget, and geographically scattered. Utility work alone cannot be assumed to produce connected telecommunications routes. These findings make construction coordination necessary to limit damage to newly paved roadways. However, fiber companies who have recently pulled permits have utilized the edges of the unpaved right-of-way without issue to trench and directionally bore conduit. . Verification of current provisions will inform the later evaluation, without presuming adoption of a particular policy or construction method.

Asset Assessment
The asset assessment shows that Hillsborough has a physical foundation to bring to the evaluation of telecommunications improvements. Town properties, utility sites and rights-of-way provide places and corridors to examine alongside existing networks and service needs. Their significance is the opportunity to consider how public assets could contribute to a solution, rather than assume every improvement must depend on a new private location. The inventory does not establish a ready-to-build network: access, power, backhaul and physical suitability will determine which assets have a practical role. The next stage can therefore build on an identified resource base while evaluating its limitations. See Table 1.

Table 1: Asset assessment findings
Finding Significance
Distributed asset
portfolio
The inventory documents civic properties and water facilities relevant to future telecommunications evaluation. Rights-of-way provide additional corridors to consider; ownership, access and suitability require verification.

Civic campuses
concentrate functions
Town Hall and the Corporation Yard contain multiple facilities.

Facility records include nonbuilding components and do not represent separate broadband connections.

Water facilities offer
locations for evaluation
Tank and pump records describe a distributed asset base.

Telecommunications suitability, spare power, backhaul and available space are not verified..
-142-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Finding Significance
Partner properties are
distinct assets
Education properties provide additional context but are outside the Town inventory totals.

Market Assessment
The market assessment indicates that the presence of major broadband providers does not translate into comparable service choices at every Hillsborough address. Concentrated wired options and uneven fiber access mean that a household dissatisfied with its broadband service may have limited ability to obtain an equivalent alternative. The comparison with surrounding communities puts that constraint in a regional context: proximity to extensive broadband infrastructure does not ensure the same access within Town. Advertised availability, technology and price therefore need to be understood at the property level. The overall implication is that availability and meaningful choice are separate questions, both relevant to the Town’s continuing assessment. See Table 2.

Table 2: Market assessment findings
Finding Significance
Fiber availability is
uneven
The draft identifies weaker availability in portions of Town, including western hillside areas, and a substantial disparity relative to several surrounding communities. Exact percentages require reconciliation.

Provider choice is
concentrated
Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T dominate the wired service
environment described in the memo. Other facilities-based providers have more limited footprints; a reseller option does not add a separate physical network.

Expansion needs vary by
location
Uneven availability identifies areas for further gap analysis. The appropriate scale of any expansion remains an assessment question, not a selected approach.

Legacy copper creates
transition questions
Copper remains part of the service environment. Continuity of voice, alarms and other dependent functions matter; specific retirement dates are not established by this update.

Fixed wireless availability
is conditional
Fixed wireless provides another class of service option.

Address-level availability and performance depend on site conditions; advertised reach does not establish an adequate connection at every property.

Advertised mobile reach
differs from experience
Broad reported coverage does not establish consistently usable service. The separate field survey provides direct observations along tested roads.
-143-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Finding Significance
Price and performance
vary by technology
The draft compares advertised plans and identifies differences in upload capability and cost per Mbps. These are plan
comparisons, not guarantees of household bills or experienced speeds.

Satellite has operating
constraints
The market memo identifies satellite options and potential backup relevance, subject to clear sky view, power and service limitations. Their role in Hillsborough remains under evaluation.

Nearby backbone differs
from household access
Regional fiber networks provide context, but proximity does not establish an available connection to individual Town properties.

Last-mile access remains a separate issue.

Needs Assessment
The needs assessment shows that residents and institutions are seeking dependable communication for daily life, public safety and continuity during disruptions. Strong support for Town engagement and carefully designed infrastructure indicates a willingness among survey participants to consider improvement, while concerns about location, appearance and cost remain important. Interviews add the practical requirements of public operations, permitting and construction coordination. Together, these perspectives define a broader problem than demand for faster internet: service must be usable where people need it, and potential improvements must be workable within the Town’s physical and administrative setting. The findings reflect 348 retained survey locations and six interview sessions; the voluntary survey is not a statistical estimate of all residents. See Table 3.

Table 3: Needs assessment findings
Finding Significance
Cellular ratings are poor
245 of 348 respondents (70.4%) rated service Poor or Very Poor. Separately, 323 of 346 (93.4%) reported encountering poor service areas.

Problems recur
frequently
254 of 348 (73.0%) reported failures daily or more than three times weekly; 176 (50.6%) reported daily problems. At home, 188 of 348 (54.0%) were rarely or never satisfied with mobile service.

Improvement is a high
priority
281 of 348 (80.7%) considered improvement Very Important or Critical. The remainder assigned a lower priority.

Town engagement has
broad support
302 of 347 (87.0%) supported Town engagement. A separate question found 87% of 346 agreed with carefully designed infrastructure improving coverage and emergency
communications.
-144-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Finding Significance
Design and location
remain important
248 of 347 (71.5%) prioritized coverage or improvement with minimized visual impact; 63 (18.2%) said it depends on
location. Support does not approve a particular proposal.

Broadband experience is
mixed
173 of 346 (50.0%) were satisfied with speed; 130 (37.6%) were dissatisfied. Xfinity/Comcast represented 260 of 346 subscriptions (75.1%), not a measured Town-wide market
share.

Residents identify several
areas of interest
Carrier software outreach: 71.8%; Town-wide fiber plan: 64.9%; undergrounding vulnerable utilities: 58.9%; backup power program: 54.3%; satellite-provider engagement: 38.8%.

Multiple selections were allowed; these are preferences, not recommendations.

Continuity is a shared
concern
Comments and interviews connect reliable service with
emergency access and loss of power or internet. Dependence on Wi-Fi calling can leave households concerned about
alternative communication paths.

Institutional needs extend
beyond buildings
Interviews identify field incident data, backup operating locations, equipment access and outdoor campus
communication. Education participants described adequate current indoor instructional connectivity.

Choice and clarity matter
to households
Comments seek usable provider alternatives, fiber availability, value, customer support and information about telephone transitions. Experiences vary and are not uniform across households.

Permitting links several
review responsibilities
Review paths vary by location and proposal type.

Documentation and clarification of applicable steps,
responsibilities and submittals will support the assessment.

Design review includes
support equipment
Cabinets, backup batteries, screening and maintenance are part of the physical deployment discussion, alongside antennas and poles.

Street preservation
affects construction
planning
Staff report pavement restrictions and restoration requirements.

Current provisions and construction-method interfaces require verification.

Spare conduit is a
substantive planning
issue
Staff report spare conduit for future Town use was not routine and a microtrenching standard was not in place at interview time. This is not a complete review of all dig-once provisions.

Utility work has
geographic limits
Condition-driven water-main replacement is scattered.

Coordination opportunities exist, but do not automatically form a connected telecommunications route.
-145-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Finding Significance
Implementation has
organizational
dimensions
Coordination, operating responsibilities, neighborhood
compatibility and financial capacity remain material
considerations.

Wireless Field Survey
The field survey gives measured support to the concern that mobile connectivity is uneven across Hillsborough. All three carriers produced weak signal readings and very slow transfers at multiple locations along the tested roads, even while achieving much higher speeds elsewhere.

For users, that variation means a favorable speed result or a carrier’s advertised coverage does not establish that a streaming session, navigation app or video call will work equally well throughout a trip. The central implication is the need to evaluate consistent usable service, not just peak speeds. These road-based observations support further assessment of service limitations; they do not directly measure indoor reception, GPS accuracy, call or text completion, or emergency performance. See Table 4.

Table 4: Wireless field survey findings
Finding Significance
Usable service varies
across all three carriers
The weakest signal band accounts for roughly 62 to 76 percent of recorded signal samples. This helps explain concern about dependable service along roads but is not a count of homes without coverage.

Sending information can
be difficult
34 to 39 percent of upload tests fell below 0.50 Mbps. Slow uploads can hinder sending photos, transferring files and transmitting video; application failure rates were not measured.

Apps and streaming can
encounter slowdowns
19 to 32 percent of download tests fell below 0.50 Mbps. Such readings are well below the 3 Mbps Netflix recommends for 720p streaming and can constrain data-heavy app content.

High peak speeds do not
ensure consistent service
Average downloads ranged from about 7 to 29 Mbps, with
much higher peaks. A fast test at one location does not establish a dependable connection elsewhere.

Carrier advantages
depend on the task
Verizon had the highest download average but the greatest low-upload share. AT&T had the smallest low-download share.

These distributions do not establish one carrier as best for every use or address.

Location services have
more than one
dependency
Satellite-based GPS positioning differs from downloading map content or sharing a location through an app. The tests did not measure positioning accuracy; slow mobile data can affect online functions even when a location fix is available. -146-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Finding Significance
Calls and texts require a
separate qualification
Resident reports describe calling problems, but these drive-test summaries do not measure voice-call or text-message
completion. Data throughput alone cannot establish whether an ordinary or emergency call will connect.

Causes require further
evaluation
Terrain and foliage are likely contributors. However, these measurements do not isolate them from site configuration, loading or other network conditions, and do not verify indoor or outage performance.

Application examples explain the practical meaning of low measured data rates; they are not observations of each application failing during testing. Streaming needs a sustained connection, while GPS positioning and online map functions are distinct services.4 What the Findings Mean Together
The assessments identify a common challenge: Hillsborough residents cannot consistently rely on having a dependable connection where they need it or a practical alternative when service falls short. The wireless field survey documents weak signals and very slow data transfers across all three carriers along tested roads. The market assessment identifies concentrated broadband choices and uneven fiber availability. Together, these findings show why the presence of major broadband and cellular providers does not, by itself, establish adequate service throughout Town.

The consequences extend beyond inconvenience. Resident comments and staff interviews connect reliable communications with emergency access, public-safety operations, school activities and everyday household responsibilities. Reliance on home Wi-Fi for calling also links cellular limitations to the reliability of household broadband and power. A household may work around poor cellular reception under normal conditions while remaining concerned about communication during an interruption. Dependability and continuity therefore deserve attention alongside coverage and speed.

Survey participants express substantial support for addressing these conditions. Results indicate willingness among participants to consider both Town involvement and physical improvements. Design, location and neighborhood compatibility remain important conditions of that support.

Hillsborough also has resources relevant to the evaluation of improvements. Town properties, water facilities and rights of way provide potential locations and corridors to examine against documented service needs. Their usefulness depends on physical suitability, access, power and 4 Netflix Help Center, “Netflix-recommended internet speeds,” https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306, recommends 3 Mbps or higher for 720p HD; GPS.gov, “GPS Overview,” https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/index.php, describes satellite-based positioning signals. Application implications are interpretations of the field measurements, not application-specific test results.
-147-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA connections to existing networks. Permitting responsibilities, equipment screening, pavement protection and utility coordination will also influence what can be implemented and how investible infrastructure providers view the Town moving forward. These considerations connect the asset inventory and interview findings directly to the next stage of technical analysis.

The shared-needs graphic summarizes recurring themes across resident comments and institutional interviews. It is a qualitative synthesis rather than a frequency count. Its central themes explain why the assessment must consider ordinary service and continuity together.

See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Shared telecommunications needs
The findings support continuing evaluation while leaving solution choices open. Interest in better service is not equivalent to agreement on where infrastructure should go, how it should look, or who should fund it. Those decisions require the remaining technical and financial assessment and the Town’s review of alternatives.

The combined findings establish a clear basis for continued Town attention: recurring service concerns, measured wireless limitations, constrained broadband alternatives and strong participant interest in improvement. The remaining assessment will determine how these conditions overlap geographically, which Town assets have a practical role, and what alternatives are technically and financially feasible. That work, informed by staff review, will provide the basis for recommendations.
-148-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Assessment Progress and Continuing Work
The four supporting memoranda are substantially complete as draft assessments and prepared for staff review. They are working documents rather than final, staff-accepted deliverables. The remaining workstreams build on those findings through the scope’s discovery, evaluation and integration activities. See Table 5.

Table 5: Assessment progress and continuing work
Workstream Current stage and next contribution
Asset assessment Substantially complete; draft prepared for staff review. Confirm inventory qualifications and incorporate staff clarifications.

Market assessment Substantially complete; draft prepared for staff review. Refine graphics and reconcile coverage estimates.

Needs assessment
Substantially complete; draft prepared for staff review.

Incorporate feedback, additional interviews and survey
reconciliation.

Wireless field survey
Substantially complete; draft prepared for staff review.

Incorporate staff feedback and finalize the presentation of field results.

Gap analysis Continuing assessment. Compare documented needs with service availability, measured conditions and infrastructure.

Peer-community analysis
Continuing assessment. . Examine comparable solutions,
costs, implementation responsibilities and outcomes;
community selection will be coordinated with Town staff.

Policy review
Continuing assessment. Evaluate relevant practices and
requirements as a separate workstream from the wireless fieldsurvey memorandum.

Alternative technologies
and backup power
Continuing assessment. Evaluate technology roles, operating constraints and continuity considerations.

Facilities integration and
conceptual design
Continuing assessment. Develop the anticipated wireless conceptual approach in relation to Town assets, service needs and related connectivity requirements.

Costs and funding
Discovery and data review. Evaluate capital and operating requirements, potential funding approaches and
implementation considerations.

Community education
and resource guide
Continuing assessment. Develop resident-facing information on providers, service options and reliability considerations. -149-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Workstream Current stage and next contribution
Final strategic
assessment and
presentation
Integration and review process. Consolidate memoranda,
evaluate alternatives, develop phased recommendations and present the resulting assessment to Town leadership.

Staff Review and Final Integration
The memorandum process is an iterative feedback loop. Draft assessments are provided to Town staff for review of facts, local context, interpretation and outstanding questions. ENTRUST incorporates that feedback, documents clarifications, and updates the supporting analysis.

Findings that affect more than one workstream are carried through the related memoranda before integration into the final assessment.

This process allows staff to review the basis for the eventual recommendations while the assessment develops. The final report will combine the supporting memoranda with the gap analysis, evaluation of alternatives, conceptual planning, and financial considerations.

Recommendations will be presented after that work has been integrated and reviewed.

Final delivery will be coordinated with Town staff and will depend on the timing and extent of staff and stakeholder feedback, the revisions arising from that review, and completion of the continuing analyses. This update does not establish a calendar delivery date. -150-
ENTRUST Solutions Group October 6, 2026 Hillsborough, CA Appendix A Project Memoranda
The following memoranda document the assessment work to date. The technical memoranda provide the supporting analysis, and this interim update brings their findings together for staff and Council review. See Table 6.

Table 6: Project memoranda to date
Memorandum Description
Telecommunications Asset
Assessment
Documents Town properties, utility facilities and
infrastructure relevant to telecommunications, with site groupings, operating context and considerations for
evaluating potential uses.

Broadband Market Assessment
Examines broadband providers, available technologies,
advertised services and pricing, and the relationship
between Hillsborough’s broadband environment and
surrounding communities.

Telecommunications Needs
Assessment
Integrates the resident survey and departmental and
education interviews to identify service needs, shared
concerns, permitting considerations and utilitycoordination issues.

Interim Project Update and
Summary of Findings
Synthesizes the principal findings from the asset,
market, needs and wireless assessments for Town staff
and Council. Describes assessment progress,
continuing work and the staff review process leading to the final report.

Wireless Field Survey
Presents vehicle-based testing of AT&T, T-Mobile and
Verizon along major roads. Maps and tables describe
signal strength, download and upload performance, and
the implications and limits of the observations.
-151-
Telecommunications
Needs Assessment Update
October 12, 2026
1 -152-
ATTACHMENT 2
2 Background
October 2025
Community
Meeting
January 12, 2026
City Council
Meeting
February 6, 2026
RFP Issued
April 13, 2026
RFP Awarded to

ENTRUST
-153-
3 Telecommunications Assessment
Interim Project Update
and Summary of Findings
DRAFT
-154-
4 Project Progress
Memoranda supporting the project update
Memorandum Description
Telecommunications Asset
Assessment
Town properties, utility facilities and potential infrastructure uses.

Broadband Market Assessment Broadband providers, technology, advertised services and regional context.

Telecommunications Needs
Assessment
Resident survey and community leader interviews
Wireless Field Survey Vehicle-based signal and data-speed testing of the three cellular carriers.

Interim Project Update and
Summary of Findings
Integrated findings, project progress and the staff review process. -155-
5 Continuing Assessment
Continuing work
Workstream Current stage and contribution
Gap and peer-community analysis Continuing assessment and data review of service gaps, comparable approaches and outcomes.

Policy and alternative technologies Continuing assessment of applicable practices, technology roles and backup-power considerations.

Facilities and conceptual design Continuing assessment of a wireless concept in relation to Town assets and connectivity needs.

Costs, funding and resources Discovery and data review of costs and funding, with continuing development of resident information.

Final strategic assessment Integration and review leading to alternatives, phased recommendations and the final presentation.
-156-
6 Principal Findings

1. Cellular service falls short across all three carriers Weak signals and very slow transfers occur along multiple tested roads. High peak speeds do not establish dependable service throughout Town.

2. Broadband choice is concentrated, and fiber access is uneven Xfinity and AT&T dominate wired options. Some households have few practical alternatives, with reported fiber disparities relative to nearby communities.

3. Survey participants strongly support Town involvement Separate questions show 87% support for Town engagement wireless providers and 87% support for carefully designed infrastructure to improve connectivity. These results are not added together.

4. Reliability is a public safety and operational need
Resident comments and interviews connect service quality with emergency contact, field information, school communication and continuity.
-157-
7 Principal Findings

5. Town assets provide a basis for evaluating solutions Civic properties, water facilities and rights of way offer locations and corridors for evaluation and possible improvements. Access, power, backhaul and suitability require verification.

6. Permitting and design review are substantive parts of deployment planning Assess applicable review paths to support deployment. Establishing review considerations does not imply that permitting caused existing service limitations.

7. Street protection and utility work affect future connectivity Restoration requirements, spare conduit and scattered utility projects influence pathway planning.

Construction coordination is necessary to limit damage to newly paved roadways. -158-
8 1.Asset Assessment
Town owned assets offer potential locations for telecommunications improvements Civic properties , water facilities, and public rights of way provide potential sites and corridors for future broadband and wireless infrastructure
Civic campuses provide opportunities for shared connectivity Town Hall and Corporate Yard locations contain multiple facilities that may benefit from coordinated telecommunications infrastructure.

Water facilities warrant evaluation for wireless infrastructure Water tanks and pump stations represent potential infrastructure locations, subject to evaluation of site access, power availability, backhaul , and available space
Partner facilities may expand infrastructure opportunities Schools and other public agency properties and infrastructure may provide additional locations for telecommunications improvements
-159-
9 2. Broadband Market Assessment
Concentrated broadband options limit meaningful choice
Xfinity and AT&T dominate wired service and may lack incentive to improve reliability and coverage gaps Fiber availability varies within Town and across communities Most surrounding communities report stronger fiber availability. Address-level access matters more than a broad advertised footprint.

Technology options involve different operating conditions Fixed wireless and satellite depend on site conditions and power. Legacy copper raises continuity questions for voice, alarms and related functions.

Broadband footprint does not establish household access Nearby backbone infrastructure and advertised plan performance provide context, but do not guarantee a connection or experienced speeds.
-160-
Wired Broadband Availability
Cable, fiber and copper availability patterns
Source: Broadband Market Assessment. Reported availability is not a guarantee of service. Exact coverage estimates remain under review. 7 -161-
San Mateo County Fiber Availability
7 Community Fiber Availability
San Carlos 91.4%
Belmont 90.7%
Millbrae 85.3%
San Mateo 84.7%
Burlingame 79.2%
Redwood City 75.8%
San Mateo County 74.5%
Foster City 55.2%
Hillsborough 43.5%

74.5%
San Mateo County
-162-
12 3. Needs Assessment: Shared Concerns
Dependable communication matters more than speed alone
Survey comments and interviews connect reliable service with emergency contact, children and caregivers, and continuity during power or broadband interruptions.

Operational needs extend beyond buildings
Interviews identify field incident information, backup operating locations and outdoor campus communication.

Current indoor instructional connectivity was described as adequate.

Choice, value and design all matter
Residents seek usable broadband alternatives and clear service information. Support for improvement coexists with concerns about appearance, location and cost.

Interviews include Police, Fire, Finance, Planning and Building, Public Works, and Education. Additional interviews and staff review continue. -163-
13 Resident Survey Methodology
Hillsborough Telecommunications Assessment • Responses submitted through September 25, 2026 348 Hillsborough survey locations in the updated analysis Raw responses 429
Other disqualifier -13
Out-of-town or test responses -6
Incomplete or unverifiable address -12
Duplicate-location responses -50
Retained for analysis 348
One response per location
Most complete response retained
Participants offered voluntary responses,
but not to all questions
-164-
14 Survey Findings at a Glance
Source: Telecommunications Needs Assessment. Results describe participants. Question bases appear with the supporting charts.

Cellular reliability 70% rate service Poor or Very Poor Coverage gaps 93% have encountered poor or unreliable areas Frequent failures 73% report problems daily or more than three times weekly Improvement priority 81% rate improvement Critical or Very Important Coordination with wireless providers 87% support Town involvement in working with wireless providers to improve coverage Wireless Infrastructure Improvements 87% agree with supporting carefully designed wireless infrastructure improvements Infrastructure acceptance 71.5% prioritize coverage or minimized visual impacts Broadband 75% use Xfinity/Comcast. Speed satisfaction is 50%, dissatisfaction 38% -165-
15 Wireless Drive Test
Three carriers, measured along major roads
In August 2026, three identical consumer phones inside a moving vehicle tested AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon on major north-south and east-west roads.

Signal strength and data transfer speed
Measurements record received signal strength, downloads and uploads. Maps show variation along the traveled routes.

A road-based view of service
These results do not measure every address, indoor reception, GPS accuracy, call or text completion, or emergency performance.

Percentages describe recorded test samples, not homes or Town land area. Sample counts can vary by test type and recorded readings. -166-
16 What Wireless Findings Mean
All three carriers have substantial areas of weak measured service About 62% to 76% of signal readings fall in the weakest reported band. Terrain, foliage and lack of vertical infrastructure are contributing factors
Slow data can constrain streaming, video calls and app content About 19% to 32% of download tests and 34% to 39% of upload tests fall below 0.50 Mbps. Peak speeds elsewhere do not resolve these slow readings.

Wireless connectivity affects location based applications A phone may determine its GPS location but still struggle to load maps , provide navigation updates, or share its location when cellular connectivity is poor.

Drive Test results reflect roadway conditions only
Measurements collected along primary roadways do not establish cellular performance inside homes, buildings, or areas outside surveyed routes
Source: Wireless Field Survey. Application examples explain potential effects, not observed application failure rates.

Current lack of infrastructure contributes to reliability in wireless service Additional infrastructure can help reduce coverage gaps and improve capacity -167-
17 Signal Strength Across Three Carriers
T-Mobile AT&T Verizon
Signal level Share Count
≥ −89 dBm 6.31% 544
−95 to −90 dBm 5.85% 504
−100 to −96 dBm 12.09% 1,042
≤ −101 dBm 75.75% 6,530
Total samples 8,620
Signal level Share Count
≥ −89 dBm 7.71% 1,925
−95 to −90 dBm 10.22% 2,552
−100 to −96 dBm 13.44% 3,355
≤ −101 dBm 68.63% 17,133
Total samples 24,965
Signal level Share Count
≥ −89 dBm 5.56% 526
−95 to −90 dBm 12.54% 1,187
−100 to −96 dBm 19.49% 1,845
≤ −101 dBm 62.40% 5,906
Total samples 9,464
August 2026 drive tests. Source: Hillsborough Cellular Coverage, slides 4, 14 and 9. Percentages describe test samples.

DRAFT
-168-
18 AT&T Overall Performance
Signal Strength (RSRP) Download Speeds Uploads Below 0.5 Mbps Signal level Share Count
≥ −89 dBm 7.71% 1,925
−95 to −90 dBm 10.22% 2,552
−100 to −96 dBm 13.44% 3,355
≤ −101 dBm 68.63% 17,133
Total samples 24,965
Download speed Share Count
> 50 Mbps 15.50% 1,029

0.50–49.99 Mbps 65.32% 4,336
0–0.49 Mbps 19.18% 1,273
Average: 21.89 Mbps Peak: 304.31 Mbps
Lowest: 0 Mbps Samples: 6,638

33.63%
1,642 of 4,882 upload samples
Map shows recorded locations with
upload speeds below 0.50 Mbps.

August 2026 drive tests. Source: Hillsborough Cellular Coverage, slides 14, 15, 17 and 18. Percentages describe test samples.

DRAFT
-169-
19 T-Mobile Overall Performance
Signal Strength (RSRP) Download Speeds Uploads Below 0.5 Mbps Signal level Share Count
≥ −89 dBm 6.31% 544
−95 to −90 dBm 5.85% 504
−100 to −96 dBm 12.09% 1,042
≤ −101 dBm 75.75% 6,530
Total samples 8,620
Download speed Share Count
> 50 Mbps 2.33% 82

0.50–49.99 Mbps 66.12% 2,326
0–0.49 Mbps 31.55% 1,110
Average: 6.94 Mbps Peak: 159.42 Mbps
Lowest: 0 Mbps Samples: 3,518

34.52%
1,303 of 3,775 upload samples
Map shows recorded locations with
upload speeds below 0.50 Mbps.

August 2026 drive tests. Source: Hillsborough Cellular Coverage, slides 4, 5, 7 and 8. Percentages describe test samples.

DRAFT
-170-
20 Verizon Overall Performance
Signal Strength (RSRP) Download Speeds Uploads Below 0.5 Mbps Signal level Share Count
≥ −89 dBm 5.56% 526
−95 to −90 dBm 12.54% 1,187
−100 to −96 dBm 19.49% 1,845
≤ −101 dBm 62.40% 5,906
Total samples 9,464
Download speed Share Count
> 50 Mbps 27.96% 662

0.50–49.99 Mbps 48.27% 1,143
0–0.49 Mbps 23.78% 563
Average: 29.44 Mbps Peak: 193.26 Mbps
Lowest: 0 Mbps Samples: 2,368

38.69%
1,134 of 2,931 upload samples
Map shows recorded locations with
upload speeds below 0.50 Mbps.

August 2026 drive tests. Source: Hillsborough Cellular Coverage, slides 9, 10, 12 and 13. Percentages describe test samples.

DRAFT
-171-
21 What’s Next?
Ongoing Draft memoranda provide the basis for staff review Staff review facts, local context and interpretation. The project team records clarifications and revises the supporting analysis.

Feedback carries through related workstreams
Changes that affect multiple assessments carry into the related memoranda before integration into the final report.

Final Plan Delivery
Cumulation of additional discovery as well as staff and stakeholder feedback resulting in final plan recommendations
DRAFT
-172-
22 Near-Term Solutions
Town Actions
• Continue to support needs assessment process
and consulting team (data, project guidance, etc.)
• Tree trimming around existing
telecommunications facilities to improve service
• Coordination with fiber installation (permit
processing, etc.)
• Management of existing WCFs in Town (lease
management)
• Review of any wireless applications submitted
-173-
23 Near-Term Solutions
Resident Actions
• Review drive test data to determine provider that
may work best
• Check fixed and mobile broadband speeds via FCC
data at https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home
• Inquire about fiber access and subscription from
providers, e.g.,
https://www.att.net/internet/availability
• Inquire about boosters from cell phone provider
• Subscribe for updates, email
[email protected]
-174-
Recommendation
Receive update, discuss current status, and offer any input as it relates to next steps in the project.
-175-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Presentation of the San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan Update
SUMMARY: C/CAG is responsible for preparing the County Transportation Plan (CTP) for San Mateo County. The last iteration of the CTP was adopted by the C/CAG board in February 2017.

Since then, the County’s population, employment, transportation projects, and planning efforts have changed. COVID-19 also altered commute patterns and the CTP will update the policies at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. The CTP is a collaboration between C/CAG and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA).

Draft vision and goals were initiated during the winter of 2025/2026, and during the summer of 2026 some of these ideas in focus groups representing focus groups in the north, mid, south, and coast regions of the county. Visits to City Councils within San Mateo County will continue through December of 2026, and a Draft Public review of the CTP is planned for the Winter of 2027.

The Town forwarded the following priority projects for
consideration in the CTP:

Brookevale Road Pedestrian Pathway
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation
and Active Transportation Coordinator
Both of these projects are priority projects to Improve Town Infrastructure and Enhance Quality of Life.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the Town at this time. Should the projects continue to move forward through the draft scoping and final approvals, the Brookevale Road project would be $2,000,000+, and an Active Transportation Coordinator $200,000.00. The total cost of these future projects would be reduced by any grants made available from the CTP process. The Town’s matching funds required for future grants are not known at this time as the CTP and future grants have not been developed.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) according to Section 15302 of the California Code of Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS: SMCTA Presentation
PREPARED BY: Paul Willis, Director of Public Works
-176-
Agenda Staff Report - Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation and provide comments to C/CAG and SMCTA staff.
-177-
San Mateo Countywide
Transportation Plan
Update
A JOINT EFFORT LED BY:

Town of Hillsborough | October 12, 2026
-178-
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Agenda
01 CTP Process & Update
Vision, Goals &
Framework
02 03 Draft Project List
04 Draft Initiatives
05 Next Steps
-179-
CTP

PROCESS
& UPDATE
SECTION 01
-180-
Purpose of CTP
Create a vision for
the future of
transportation in
San Mateo County.

C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Set C/CAG and
SMCTA priorities,
and guide decisionmaking.

Inform planning,
funding, and delivery
of local and regional
transportation
improvements.
-181-
CTP Process
Define Vision
and Goals for
CTP Update
Winter
2025/6
Develop Policy
Framework
Spring
2026
Winter
2026/7
Draft
Plan
Spring
2027
Final
Plan
Generate Draft
Project and
Initiative List
- Review with
Cities
Summer/
Fall 2026
Engagement Touchpoints
-182-
Round 1 Outreach Efforts
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
To validate existing
travel trends
observed in the data
On transportation
needs and
challenges
On community
transportation
priorities for the
next decade
On Draft CTP Goals
We sought input
Roadshow
presentations to city
transportation and
countywide
committees
23 Prior countywide
outreach efforts
reviewed for
relevance to the CTP
15 CBO
Interviews
6 Continuously
accessible website
1 -183-
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
What We Heard from Community Members
Need… Safety & Comfort Improvements
Senior Mobility
AVs & E-Bikes …More Frequent Transit
…support for School Trips
…Highway 1 & El Camino Real Improvements
Successful Caltrain Electrification!
…to close Network Gaps
…Better Coastal Access
…more Caltrain/BART Connections
…More Attention to Non-Work Trips
Text size reflects the number of input sources (Committees, CBO Interviews, Plan & Data Review) in which the theme was raised
-184-
Today we are looking for feedback on…
• Vision and Goals: do these resonate with you?
• Project List: are these the right local projects?
• Initiatives: does this mix of countywide initiatives address your key transportation concerns between now and 2050?
• What’s missing: anything you’re not seeing in this update that you think the CTP should address?
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
-185-
Vision,
Goals, &
Framework
SECTION 02
-186-
CTP Vision
The San Mateo CTP envisions a county where
residents, workers, and visitors can travel safely,
reliably, and with convenient choices across all
modes. People easily connect to daily needs via
streets, trails, transit service, and highways that are resilient and endure for generations.
-187-
CTP Goals
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
-188-
New Equity Definition
for Funding Decisions
C/CAG Countywide Transportation Plan Update
map
• Simplified definition based on
income, race, vehicle ownership, and
rental cost burden
• By introducing tiers, we now consider
more of the county in equity-based
planning and funding decisions (49%
of households covered, up from 21%)
-189-
SECTION 02
SECTION 03

PROJECTS
AND

INITIATIVES
-190-
What is a Regionally Significant Project?
Meets any one of the following:
• Expands or reduces capacity of major roadways
• Expands or reduces rail network or stations
• Adjusts transit service levels
• Changes cost of transportation system (e.g. tolling or transit fares) • Total estimated cost over $250 million
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
-191-
How are most other projects captured?
Programmatic Funding Categories
• Covers smaller transportation efforts that are not regionally significant • Most local jurisdiction projects fall within these categories rather than being listed individually
• Categories include: Categories include: TDM, Grade Separation, Highway, Multimodal, Pedestrian & Bicycle, Shuttle Program, Transit C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
-192-
Why generate a project list?
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Better Understanding of Local Priorities
Identify Projects and Programmatic Categories that
Need Additional C/CAG or SMCTA S upport
Position Projects for Regional Funding Success
How the list will inform Plan Bay Area 2060
The CTP list is unconstrained
MTC will ask for a financially constrained list
Each county gets a total projected budget
MTC will share regional goals and project priorities
These goals will be used to pare down the CTP list
How the list will inform the CTP
-193-
Town of Hillsborough Priority Projects

1. Brookevale Road Pedestrian Pathway

2. Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Implementation & Active Transportation Coordinator C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Note: Bold projects are Regionally Significant
-194-
Draft CTP Initiatives
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
Established
Initiatives Safe Routes to
School
Shuttles Transportation
Demand
Management
Community-Based
Transportation
Plans & Benefits
Emerging
Initiatives Autonomous
Vehicle
Integration
E-Devices &
Bikeshare
Green Streets &
Climate Resilience
Mobility for Older
Adults
-195-
NEXT
STEPS
SECTION 05
-196-
Today we are looking for feedback on…
• Vision and Goals: do these resonate with you?
• Project List: are these the right local projects?
• Initiatives: does this mix of initiatives address your key transportation concerns between now and 2050?
• What’s missing: anything you’re not seeing in this update that you think the CTP should address?
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
-197-
Upcoming milestones and schedule
• Website live now with draft project and initiative lists https://ccag.ca.gov/programs/countywide-transportation-plan/ • Focus groups and CBO engagement through the Fall
• Roadshow is touring through December 2026
• Draft Public Review CTP in Winter 2027
C/CAG and SMCTA Countywide Transportation Plan Update
-198-

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

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 2026

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: (1) Mayor/Vice Mayor Selection and Rotation; and (2) Mayoral and Councilmember Term Limits
SUMMARY: At the June 8, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council considered approval of the City Council Handbook, but no action was taken. Instead, Council provided direction to return to the City Council with options for discussion regarding the rotation and selection procedures for Mayor and Vice Mayor as well as Mayoral and City Council term limits. The City Council Handbook was subsequently approved at the July 13, 2026 City Council meeting with a notation that the Mayor/Vice Mayor selection and rotation process was pending further discussion. This report provides the historical context and a menu of options utilized in other jurisdictions to inform the discussion.
(1) Term
(A)Mayoral Term Limits
The Town of Hillsborough’s City Council Handbook states that the “Mayor shall be elected annually by a majority vote of Councilmembers for a one-year term. Councilmembers may serve as Mayor for two consecutive terms.”
The Hillsborough Municipal Code (HMC) Section 2.04.030 states “Each year the city council shall select one of its members to serve as mayor and another to serve as vice mayor. The council members so selected shall take office at the first regular meeting of the city council held in December (that being the month following the month in which the election for city council members is held) and shall serve until the first regular meeting of the city council held in December of the following year.”
Regardless of whether the practice is changed, either the Municipal Code or the Handbook would need to be updated to ensure the two match.
(B)Councilmember Term Limits
The Town currently has no term limits for Councilmembers. California Government Code section 36502(b) authorizes a general law city to limit the number of terms Councilmembers may serve. This State law outlines two principal rules:
(1) A local term limits measure requires voter approval. It must be submitted to Hillsborough voters at a “regularly scheduled election” and obtain majority voter approval. Under case -199-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

law, a “regularly scheduled election” means (i) a statewide primary election, (ii) a statewide general election or (iii) a general municipal election. (2) A local term limits measure must be “prospective.” It may only apply to new Mayoral/Council terms that were voted upon at the same election as the measure, or terms voted upon at a later election. For example, a term limits measure approved in 2026 would only apply to new terms elected on November 3, 2026. However, it could not apply to terms elected at prior elections. That would make the measure impermissibly “retroactive” rather than “prospective.”
Six of the twenty cities in San Mateo County currently have term limits. The restrictions limit consecutive terms only.
(2) Rotation/Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor
In the past, the rotation system of Mayor has traditionally been an informal seniority-based rotation system. This has not been codified in any documents but generally followed by all Councilmembers to elect the person who has served on City Council the longest as the Mayor, with the next most tenured Councilmember serving as Vice Mayor. They rotate after two consecutive one-year terms, as outlined above.

In looking at the twenty cities in San Mateo County, the most common practice is for a one-year mayoral term, selected by the City Council, based on an informal rotation practice. At a high level, of the various cities:
• 18 cities have a Council-selected Mayor (Belmont and San Bruno have a directly elected Mayor)
• 18 cities have a one-year Mayoral term (Belmont and Redwood City have two-year terms) • Six of the 18 cities that have a Council-selected Mayor have a formalized rotation policy, either based on seniority and prior service or vote-total based rotational practices Additional details are provided in the table below:

City Mayor Term Mayor Selection Vice Mayor Term Rotation System Atherton 1 year Council selects 1 year
Formalized rotation with
restrictions on consecutive
service
Belmont 2 years Directly elected Council selects Formalized rotation policy Brisbane 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
-200-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

City Mayor Term Mayor Selection Vice Mayor Term Rotation System Burlingame 1 year Council selects 1 year
Per resolution, automatic
rotation of Mayor and Vice
Mayor based on seniority.

Colma 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Daly City 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
East Palo Alto 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Foster City 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Half Moon Bay 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Hillsborough
1 year per
Municipal Code –
may serve for two
consecutive terms
(uncodified)
Council selects
1 year per Municipal
Code – may serve
for two consecutive
terms (uncodified)
Informal seniority-based
Menlo Park 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Millbrae 1 year Council selects 1 year Formalized vote-total-based rotation queue
Pacifica 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Portola Valley 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
Redwood City 2 years Council selects 2 years
Formalized succession policy
emphasizing seniority and
prior service. Term lengths
specified in City Charter.

San Bruno 2 years Directly elected 1 year Per Municipal Code based on seniority.

San Carlos 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal rotation based on prior service
San Mateo 1 year Council selects 1 year Adopted rotational sequence guidelines
South San
Francisco 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom Woodside 1 year Council selects 1 year Informal seniority-based custom
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

ATTACHMENT(S): Presentation
PREPARED BY: Mandy Brown, Assistant City Manager and Lisa Natusch, City Clerk -201-
Agenda Staff Report – Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026

Page 4 ends

RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and provide feedback to staff on which, of any, changes should be explored further related to Mayor/Vice Mayor Selection and Rotation and Mayor and Councilmember term limits.
-202-
Mayor/Vice Mayor Selection and Rotation;
and Mayoral and Councilmember Term Limits
October 12, 2026
1 -203-
2 Background
• At the June 8, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council considered approval of the City Council Handbook, but no action was taken.
• Council provided direction to return to the City Council with options for discussion regarding:
• The rotation and selection procedures for Mayor and Vice Mayor; and • Mayoral and City Council term limits.
-204-
3 Current Practices – Term Limits
(A) Mayoral Term Limits
• Handbook - The Town of Hillsborough’s City Council Handbook states that the “Mayor shall be elected annually by a majority vote of Councilmembers for a oneyear term. Councilmembers may serve as Mayor for two consecutive terms.” -205-
4 Current Practices – Term Limits
(A) Mayoral Term Limits
• Handbook - The Town of Hillsborough’s City Council Handbook states that the “Mayor shall be elected annually by a majority vote of Councilmembers for a oneyear term. Councilmembers may serve as Mayor for two consecutive terms.” • Municipal Code - The Hillsborough Municipal Code (HMC) Section 2.04.030 states “Each year the city council shall select one of its members to serve as mayor and another to serve as vice mayor. The council members so selected shall take office at the first regular meeting of the city council held in December (that being the month following the month in which the election for city council members is held) and shall serve until the first regular meeting of the city council held in December of the following year.”
-206-
5 Current Practices – Term Limits
(A) Mayoral Term Limits
• Handbook - The Town of Hillsborough’s City Council Handbook states that the “Mayor shall be elected annually by a majority vote of Councilmembers for a oneyear term. Councilmembers may serve as Mayor for two consecutive terms.” • Municipal Code - The Hillsborough Municipal Code (HMC) Section 2.04.030 states “Each year the city council shall select one of its members to serve as mayor and another to serve as vice mayor. The council members so selected shall take office at the first regular meeting of the city council held in December (that being the month following the month in which the election for city council members is held) and shall serve until the first regular meeting of the city council held in December of the following year.”
Regardless of whether the practice is changed, either the Municipal Code or the Handbook would need to be updated to ensure the two match.
-207-
6 Current Practices – Term Limits
(B) Councilmember Term Limits
• The Town currently has no term limits for Councilmembers. California Government Code section 36502(b) authorizes a general law city to limit the number of terms Councilmembers may serve.

Provide input on whether to further explore Councilmember term limits -208-
7 Current Practices – Term Limits
(B) Councilmember Term Limits
• The Town currently has no term limits for Councilmembers. California Government Code section 36502(b) authorizes a general law city to limit the number of terms Councilmembers may serve.

This State law outlines two principal rules:
• A local term limits measure requires voter approval.
• A local term limits measure must be “prospective.”
Six of the twenty cities in San Mateo County currently have term limits. The restrictions limit consecutive terms only.
-209-
8 Current Practices –
Rotation/Selection of Mayor
and Vice Mayor
Rotation/Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor
• In the past, the rotation system of Mayor has traditionally been an informal seniority-based rotation system.
• This has not been codified in any documents but generally followed by all Councilmembers to elect the person who has served on City Council the longest as the Mayor, with the next most tenured Councilmember serving as Vice Mayor.
• They rotate after two consecutive one-year terms.
-210-
9 Current Practices –
Rotation/Selection of Mayor
and Vice Mayor
Rotation/Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor
• In the past, the rotation system of Mayor has traditionally been an informal seniority-based rotation system.
• This has not been codified in any documents but generally followed by all Councilmembers to elect the person who has served on City Council the longest as the Mayor, with the next most tenured Councilmember serving as Vice Mayor.
• They rotate after two consecutive one-year terms.

If the Council were to adopt a policy formalizing the rotation and selection for Mayor and Vice Mayor, they may choose to keep the seniority-based rotation system or explore a different practice. Should the seniority-based system remain, and City Councilmember Term Limits be established, the system should clarify whether seniority refers to the total time of service on the Council or be limited to the amount of time served since their last election. -211-
Summary
Category Current Practice Discussion Prompt
Term – Mayoral Term 1-year Mayoral Term, may serve
for two consecutive terms
Input on if the code should be
updated to reflect the handbook
practice allowing for two
consecutive Mayoral terms
Term – Councilmember Term Limit No term limit Input on whether to further explore a term limit measure
Rotation/Selection of Mayor and
Vice Mayor
Informal, seniority-based rotation
system
Input on whether to formalize the
rotation policy or make
modifications
-212-
Recommendation
Discuss and provide feedback to staff on which, of any, changes should be explored further related to:
• Mayor and Councilmember term limits; and
• Mayor/Vice Mayor Selection and Rotation.
-213-

Hillsborough City CouncilOctober 12, 2026

Hillsborough City Council
October 12, 2026