San Carlos has also adopted objective standards and worked on the permit process. So they have:

• Completed rezoning
• Completed object design standards
• Improved the permit process
• Has approved some significant multi-unit projects
• Has transferred ownership of property from a defunct developer to San Mateo County in prep for for future housing

​

Which is pretty good for a town that wants to retain its charm and character.

County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.

Three general policy changes were discussed:

​

1. Rezoning: previous draft relied on rezoning primarily in the North Fair Oaks to meet the county's RHNA affordable quota. Housing advocates provided public comment urging the board to expand rezoning to also include higher opportunity neigborhoods. Supervisor started the conversation in firm support for this effort, and Pine and Corzo backed him up. Mueller suggested the Board not weigh in on the issues and essentially let the planning department work it out, which was met with criticism

​

1. Tenant protections: Corzo and Pine have been working on a tenant protection ordinance to strengthen just cause standards and explore options of a rental registry, etc. Advocates called on the county to incorporate these updates into the housing element. The county attorney provided clarification to the board that the housing element would have supremacy over an ordinance, and any future ordinance would need to comply with the element. The board generally agreed that since the ordinance is already in the works, there was no need to further slow down the element drafting process by incorporating tenant protections

​

Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense." 

​

The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that. 

https://sanmateocounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=998929&GUID=0D46FA6C-A477-4001-8780-87E9B4ED1E73&G=1088EC25-A43A-408F-A57C-73C0A70269AB

It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws

William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him. 

​

Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).

​

Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments). 

Tonight’s meeting was the first presentation of the draft housing element to the Housing Elements Advisory Committee and public. The draft housing element in it’s full form will be available August 4. Attendance for the meeting was high at ~100 people (vs 21-22 in prior meetings). The first 1.5 hours or so focused on zoning changes and programs and policies. The next hour was comprised of public comment (which was mostly thoughtful and restrained relative to other public comment on Housing Elements, largely favoring more high density development rather than broad rezoning). 

​

Zoning discussion:

Hillsborough currently has only 1 residential zoning district - "R". A change to three Residential districts, R1, R2 and R3, was discussed. R1 be for properties <10 acres, would cover all of the town, and go from the current 0.5 acre minimum and 150 feet of lot frontage down to 0.33 acre minimum and 100 feet lot frontage, along with landscape and building coverage % changes. 

​

R2 would cover properties >10 acres, and reduce minimum acreage to 0.25 acre and 75 feet street frontage. A min lot area per dwelling unit would be established. Non-age restricted housing would allow 1 dwelling unit on 1/8th acre (so a duplex), and age-restricted housing would all 1 unit on 1/16 acre (so a fourplex). 

​

AHOZ overlay district would be developed on top of R2 districts only. Could be triggered by developers if reserve 30% of housing units for Affordable units. AHOZ applies for min ½ acre, max 10 acre parcels. Min density of 20 du/acre proposed, but proposing to go up to 24 du/acre if housing is age restricted to 55+. 

​

Plans for the De Guigne estate, Strawberry Hill, and 50 Brooke Court were shown with area breakdown for Market rate and affordable housing. 

​

Min unit dwelling size changes from 2500 sqft to 800 sqft proposed for both R1 and R2.

​

R3 would only cover the Town Hall master plan and only applies to that site to help to support that development that is planned. Minimum number of units planned for the site is 100 units. 

​

Policies and Programs:

A quick overview of policies and programs was given. Stand-outs include the possibility of restricting homeowners from increasing the square footage of smaller homes, to retain the housing stock and relatively smaller homes in the town (this was unpopular in public comment). Another was reviewing the possibility of allowing two ADUs and one JADU on an acre property. Yet another was studying whether to deed-restrict second ADUs to be affordable. And another ADU policy included potentially requiring all new pool-houses and guest houses to comply with ADU requirements so they could be easily converted. ADU occupancy monitoring was included as an area to explore. 

​

Comment Period:

HEAC member comment was short, mostly clarifying what had been presented prior.

​

Public comment period was much longer, weaving through questions that the HEAC members themselves have had before, such as why we didn’t appeal our numbers, why the timing for submission is so tight, why the numbers are the way they are, etc. Hillsborough staff made it a open back and forth dialogue with commenters which provided a much easier forum than typical public comment sessions and seemed to also make it a much calmer comment period as public commenters felt heard. Staff provided clear feedback on our need to comply with the laws and detailed explanations, as well as information about the process that brought the town to their current proposal. The information provided by staff and consultant team was fair and non-concerning from a housing compliance standpoint. City council members also re-affirmed the consequences of non-compliance and our explicit need to comply, while also mentioning the desire to maintain town character as we do so. 

​

Public commenters (shockingly) did not focus on ways to reduce numbers, or say to completely disregard state law and not even do the RHNA process, or complain about how large the allocations were. They mostly focused on substantive questions of whether impacts to school and infrastructure had been considered and reviewed in the Housing Element process, asks around whether we could concentrate high-density development in certain areas, and how we could increase density in those areas with taller apartments instead of re-zoning the entire town. Comments were laced with a sentiment for maintaining the current character of Hillsborough, there were one or two comments on property values, and a desire for any people moving into affordable housing units to ideally be frontline workers in the town. 

​

We can likely anticipate Hillsborough’s public comment period (Aug 4-Sep 19) to maintain this slightly more restrained manner of opinion deliverance, and generally less explicit desire to disregard state law and instead focus on how to make the plan more agreeable to residents with the least impact on property values and town character. 

​

Other Information:

There will be a presentation to City Council on the Housing Elements on August 8. There will also be open town halls at North School August 18 and Sep 6, and the housing element will be brought back to city council on September 12.

Presentation starts at 1:52 in the recording, concludes at 2:27. Sarah Fleming, director of Building and Planning for the town opened discussion. The lead consultant on the project, Robert Kain from Houseal Levine, presented a high level overview of the housing elements process, mentioned new laws impacting the process (including a mention that AFFH is big in this new process), higher targets for the city, and the timing of the submission of the housing element. Specifics of the housing element draft for Hillsborough and ideas proposed so far by HEAC (rezoning, where to place units) etc were not discussed. 

​

The housing draft element will be made available to the public on August 4, several days before the city council meeting on August 9th (may be the 8th, can't remember), but will be made available to HEAC members in advance of the August 2nd meeting. August 18th there will be an Public Open House on the Housing Element draft. City council recommended extending the comment period for the housing element from 30 to 45 days, as it closing in 30 days would mean the comment period concluding on Labor Day and residents may potentially feel blindsided by the introduction of the element during summer time when there is lower civic participation due to travel. Staff discussed that this may cause a little more of a crunch on review time by HCD, but seemed willing to make the compromise. Staff will then take feedback and incorporate it between September 20th and end of month, and plan to submit the housing element the end of September or October 1 to allow time for 90 days review, plus time to revise. It was mentioned that they hope it will take less than 90 days to review though based on the relationships made recently with HCD including a recent multi-city housing event hosted in Hillsborough with attendance by HCD staff. 

​

Recommendation from City Council was made that we execute survey before August to get resident thoughts on the Housing Element and ensure they are involved and don't feel blindsighted by the draft housing element that is brought for public comment. 

​

Also mentioned was the fact the city council has several extra city council meetings scheduled in the fall just in case they are needed to review the housing element. Noted the HEAC will have an additional meeting in June, on June 21, to discuss town zoning standards.

​

City council asked if they would be able to adopt a draft housing element first, prior to it being certified by HCD. Consultant explained that yes that was possible but that they would probably want to adopt the second or third draft, one that’s nearly final, and then they could adopt an updated one in January after the finishing touches has been put on and in responses to HCDs formal review. 

​

No specific sentiments in a pro or anti housing way were shared by council, staff, the consultant or attendees. Praise was given by City Council to the staff, consultant, and members of HEAC for their work on this project.

​

Informational note: Consulting firm Kimley Horn is also consulting on the Housing Element.

Meeting was a Housing Element Advisory Committee meeting, the third in a series of 6. Three key questions were discussed - What housing types and densities would be considered acceptable in Hillsborough, Where in Hillsborough the housing types should be located, and How the Town can encourage/promote the development these new housing types. Advisory committee members had given votes/written input prior to the meeting in a survey. The third question was not discussed as time had run out, but results were displayed.

​

Meeting opened with acknowledgement that greater density needed based on Housing Element, recurring theme of needing to maintain character of the town. Comment from City council member in the first few minutes that we haven’t been mandated to solve social inequities and economic disparities that have been present for centuries, focus is solutions for housing based on median income. 

​

Noted that RFP is ready to go to hire a firm to reimagine town hall site, site is 2.5 acres total. 1 parcel is currently city hall + police department, another parcel is across the street and is SFH residential but is empty right now and used as a parking lot. Discussion has occurred in past meetings on making this all or partially housing, with the potential to maintain City hall on ground floor or somehow within the footprint (if possible), otherwise move city hall. Police department is in need of renovations or re-doing.

​

Survey results on Housing Types- Duplex/Townhome/Fourplex was the highest vote-getter, tying with Apartments/Condos. Second was ADUs. Third was Senior Housing, tied with Single Family homes.

​

Discussion on Housing Types - Discussed high-density apartment housing (up to 150 units/acre at the City Hall location, more likely in the 40-60 unites per acre range), housing on country clubs and schools, senior housing, though much of the discussion time was spent on ADUs. A comment was made by Staff that Hillsborough can put other programs and policies into the Housing Element making sure ADUs get filled by BMR tenant (things that won’t all count towards RHNA though, such as trying to convert existing ADU rentals that are above market rate to BMR), “as good-will and justification with HCD”. Assumed to be in a bid to try to get around Mullin densities and upzoning. Discussions were also had on what other city-owned land exists that could be used for Multi-Family housing. Decreasing lot size considered, not well received (also discussed in the Meeting #2). Staff mentioned seeing if Hillsborough might be able to get credit for potential SB9 units. Advisory member commented about how restrictive the Hillsborough ordinance is, Hillsborough shouldn’t overestimate their potential SB9 units even if HCD allows them to be counted. 61 units have been identified for non-SB9 lot splits based on current zoning.

​

Discussion on Housing Locations - Reviewed map showing where advisory committe identified locations for housing. Section of Hillsborough south-east of Crystal Springs road (which is a sizeable chunk) floated as a possibility for blanket upzone to 10 units per acre. Most discussion centered on increasing density only on specific parcels or small areas, potentially near El Camino, or on Skyline near the border with Burlingame. Housing on school properties and country club properties brought up several times. Lowlands near El Camino that have much larger homes (near Santa Inez, El Cerrito, Baywood) and some historic homes that cannot be demolished easily noted as unlikely to get redeveloped unless certain spot zoning on a particular parcel were to occur. 

​

Ways to encourage new types of housing - Revise development standards had the highest favor, followed by lowering fees to or guraranteeing build times for RHNA projects, and third by Financial incentives tied with developing on town owned land.

​

Meeting was a Housing Element Advisory Committee meeting, the third in a series of 6. Three key questions were discussed - What housing types and densities would be considered acceptable in Hillsborough, Where in Hillsborough the housing types should be located, and How the Town can encourage/promote the development these new housing types. Advisory committee members had given votes/written input prior to the meeting in a survey. The third question was not discussed as time had run out, but results were displayed.

Meeting opened with acknowledgement that greater density needed based on Housing Element, recurring theme of needing to maintain character of the town. Comment from City council member in the first few minutes that we haven’t been mandated to solve social inequities and economic disparities that have been present for centuries, focus is solutions for housing based on median income. 

Noted that RFP is ready to go to hire a firm to reimagine town hall site, site is 2.5 acres total. 1 parcel is currently city hall + police department, another parcel is across the street and is SFH residential but is empty right now and used as a parking lot. Discussion has occurred in past meetings on making this all or partially housing, with the potential to maintain City hall on ground floor or somehow within the footprint (if possible), otherwise move city hall. Police department is inneed of renovations or re-doing.

Survey results on Housing Types- Duplex/Townhome/Fourplex was the highest vote-getter, tying with Apartments/Condos. Second was ADUs. Third was Senior Housing, tied with Single Family homes.

Discussion on Housing Types - Discussed high-density apartment housing (up to 150 units/acre at the City Hall location, more likely in the 40-60 unites per acre range), housing on country clubs and schools, senior housing, though much of the discussion time was spent on ADUs. A comment was made by Staff that Hillsborough can put other programs and policies into the Housing Element making sure ADUs get filled by BMR tenant (things that won’t all count towards RHNA though, such as trying to convert existing ADU rentals that are above market rate to BMR), “as good-will and justification with HCD”. Assumed to be in a bid to try to get around Mullin densities and upzoning. Discussions were also had on what other city-owned land exists that could be used for Multi-Family housing. Decreasing lot size considered, not well received (also discussed in the Meeting#2). Staff mentioned seeing if Hillsborough might be able to get credit for potential SB9 units. Advisory member commented about how restrictive the Hillsborough ordinance is, Hillsborough shouldn’t overestimate their potential SB9 units even if HCD allows them to be counted. 61 units have been identified for non-SB9 lot splits based on current zoning.

Discussion on Housing Locations - Reviewed map showing where advisory committe identified locations for housing. Section of Hillsborough south-east of Crystal Springs road (which is a sizeable chunk) floated as a possibility for blanket upzone to 10 units per acre. Most discussion centered on increasing density only on specific parcels or small areas, potentially near El Camino, or on Skyline near the border with Burlingame. Housing on school properties and country club properties brought up several times. Lowlands near El Camino that have much larger homes (near Santa Inez, El Cerrito, Baywood) and some historic homes that cannot be demolished easily noted as unlikely to get redeveloped unless certain spot zoning on a particular parcel were to occur. 

Ways to encourage new types of housing - Revise development standards had the highest favor, followed by lowering fees to or guraranteeing build times for RHNA projects, and third by Financial incentives tied with developing on town owned land.

​

This was the first public housing element workshop. It was led by the Building and Planning Department, other Hillsborough staff, and the consultant, Houseal Lavigne. Two councilmembers were present: Council member Sophie Cole and Vice Mayor Christine Krolik. They are the two members of the housing element subcommittee of the city council. They did not share opinions - they just listened in on the workshop. Another prominent attendee was An Chen - who is on the Hillsborough City School District School Board of Trustees.

The workshop started by defining RHNA and penalties for noncompliance with the housing element process. The Building and Planning Director, Sarah Fields, commented that Hillsborough had not only zoned successfully for their RHNA (Hillsborough is entirely single family residential zoning, with some school sites and a golf course sprinkled in), but that they had issued building permits exceeding their RHNA targets in every category. However, what they did not point out is that their RHNA numbers were very low last cycle, and that they primarily met their lower income targets via ADU permits, and there is absolutely no indication as to how many of those ADUs are actually being used by people in the lower income bracket, or even being used as housing at all. It is likely that many of these ADUs are being used as pool houses rather than housing.

I asked if we are planning through 2040, or whatever the horizon for our general plan is. Sarah mentioned that we are planning through this housing element cycle only.

Someone named Julius Young asked about ways to get out of meeting the RHNA requirements. The staff mentioned that HCD is requiring more justification of zoning than previous years.

Someone named Kathleen Egan asked - how do you ensure that the units getting built meet the affordability requirements specified by the city? Staff answered that ADU allowances for lower income categories won't be as flexible in Hillsborough as they were in the previous cycle.

Another attendee asked about Hillsborough's infrastructure capacity to accommodate new development. Public works staff said that the developer is responsible for upgrades to the facilities. The city can charge impact fees on some development. They said this is likely the approach they would take to new units. And similar to any development on a vacant lot or any subdivision, they would have to consider the impacts of the net new buy-ins to the system. Staff also mentioned that as part of the housing element, they would have to make a preliminary finding that there is infrastructure available to service the sites - they are looking at proximity to the site and capacity. And if the current capacity doesn't meet demand, they need to write policies -  i.e. collecting moneys to invest in infrastructure to support the growth - this is something that would happen regardless of the housing element or not.

After initial overview of RHNA/the process, we split into two visioning groups.

In the visioning groups, we talked about specific challenges, policies and anxieties for the road ahead. One attendee asked if we could "give" our RHNA number to another city. Anne Paulson from Los Altos commented that we could not.

We talked about ways to build affordable housing - land dedication, inclusionary zoning, charging higher fees for larger single family homes, and building apartments on town-owned land.

We talked about transit-oriented development - there was some preference for building more housing near El Camino where there is more transit. Attendees said they were concerned about wildfires and didn't understand why development was being "forced" on Hillsborough when a lot of the town is in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Staff mentioned that the state believes that home hardening measures have developed to a point to allow building in fire zones. The town owns land near El Camino Real that is used for city hall/police/public buildings. They are considering zoning that land for residential development. At least three people (myself and Julius Young and Anne Paulson) supported the land being redeveloped for housing. I suggested looking at school-owned land and allowing development on there as well. Staff noted my comment. I said that I was concerned that we would shoot ourselves in the foot for RHNA cycle 7 by not zoning sites for enough homes, and then those sites would get developed, and we would have a lower number of sites to develop in the future cycle.

We rejoined the larger group and reported out what happened. I gave a summary of our discussion and the other group also summarized their discussion. That group preferred ADUs and was concerned about infrastructure. We took a poll about ways we preferred to meet our RHNA numbers. Meeting it through ADUs was more popular by the poll takers than meeting it through duplexes, reduced minimum lot sizes (Hillsborough has a minimum lot size of 0.5 acre), or building apartments on town-owned land.

No demographic poll was taken, but I did tell them that I wanted them to poll demographics of every housing element update to see who was in the room.

The town hosted a "Let's Talk Housing: Hillsborough" event to get resident feedback what they like about Hillsborough, what they imagine the city to look like in 50 years (generally), and what residents think is missing in terms of housing in Hillsborough. No decisions were made during the meeting, attendees were just solicited for general comments, informed about the RHNA process, and informed about the newly finalized RHNA allocation numbers for the city. See here for detailed notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VxHjytn8oWdKtjS9aXoflnq248W7Y4N8hgAwDnYQ8vE/edit?usp=sharing

This was a session to initiate conversation re. housing. The first part of the event was an introduction with several cities included: Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae, East Palo Alto, and San Mateo. In the second half, we broke into breakout rooms by city. I went to the Hillsborough group, which was a discussion about the Hillsborough-specific housing element update process.