[0:03] >> mayor diane papan: we will call this

[0:04] meeting to order on this fine april 15th,

[0:08] it's not my favorite day of the world.

[0:12] let's have the pledge and we have the san

[0:16] mateo's nursery school here to do the

[0:18] pledge of allegiance. Come on down.

[0:22] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:51] united states of america and to the

[0:52] republic for which it stands, one nation,

[0:53] under god, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:54] justice for all.

[1:08] >> excellent. Teacher, my a, in the

[1:11] interest of full disclosure. I was the

[1:14] teacher of our daughter alexa.

[1:19] >> hello, mayor papan and council

[1:21] members. We are the san mateo parents

[1:23] nursery school and we are a private

[1:27] non-profit co-op nursery school in san

[1:29] mateo and we are so proud to celebrate

[1:32] our 70th year this year in san mateo.

[1:34] and I can't think of a better place for

[1:39] someone who was born and raised in san

[1:43] mateo to be able to serve our families.

[1:52] we are a diverse group of people and we

[1:55] can walk into costco and I guarantee

[1:58] there is an alumni there. We are very

[2:00] proud and we thank you so much for this

[2:05] opportunity.

[2:06] >> 70 years. And you are having a

[2:09] celebration at some point?

[2:13] >> yes, if anyone is into birthday cake

[2:24] and face painting, come celebrate with

[2:26] us. 70 years.

[2:28] >> what are the sizes of the classes at

[2:31] your preschool?

[2:32] >> each session there is 38 children, two

[2:36] teachers and anywhere from 6-8 lovely

[2:39] volunteers, adults who come and help us

[2:41] make the day work, each session.

[2:43] >> excellent. Is that gus next to you?

[2:46] >> yes.

[2:47] >> I remember when you were pregnant.

[2:51] >> hello. Congratulations.

[2:52] [ applause ]

[2:53] .

[2:54] >> thank you.

[3:03] >> with that, how about we call roll?

[3:06] >>

[3:07] >>clerk: with pleasure. Mayor.

[3:09] >> former mayor rick bonilla: here,

[3:14] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: here,

[3:23] >> council member goethals: here,

[3:26] >> former mayor rick bonilla: here.

[3:29] >> I would like to call the kristin

[3:48] here.

[3:49] >> sustainable san mateo county.

[3:54] >> first of all thank you for the

[3:55] opportunity to present. As you mentioned

[3:57] my name is is christine and I'm the

[4:03] executive director for sustainable san

[4:06] mateo county. Smc for short. We are a

[4:11] local non-profit and our mission really

[4:17] is to accelerate the sustainability

[4:19] adoption throughout the county and

[4:21] through a system wide lens. Our key

[4:27] stakeholders are the government, the

[4:29] business community and non-profit and

[4:33] academia and members of the public. As

[4:35] you know the issues around sustainability

[4:38] are complex and will require partnerships

[4:41] from all the key stakeholders to move us

[4:45] forward. In terms of our program, those

[4:49] include the data driven research based

[4:52] indicators report. We have an annual

[4:56] awards program to recognize our local

[5:05] heroes and interested in the ideas to

[5:18] help us improve. Even though we are

[5:20] small, we have a big existence and over

[5:27] 25 years old and we rely on our

[5:30] volunteers who have been here since the

[5:35] beginning and we would like to be able to

[5:39] include the community going forward.

[5:42] with our current board members, we have a

[5:44] few past mayor's on board. That was kind

[5:49] of interesting. Necessary next few

[5:56] slides, I want to give you an example of

[6:01] the type of works in the community which

[6:06] include local campaigns and which we

[6:13] joined with the fossil free buildings

[6:17] initiated by menlo spark. The goal is to

[6:20] bring people to the table to discuss

[6:23] issues and then really together exchange

[6:25] information and move forward with

[6:29] solutions. That's another picture. We

[6:50] have the indicators report that provides

[6:53] the cities benchmarking and a policy

[6:57] development and implementation by

[7:00] basically tracking over 40 key

[7:03] performance indicators around

[7:05] sustainability. I mentioned our annual

[7:10] awards program that is to recognize

[7:13] achievement from local heroes here in san

[7:18] mateo county. We recognize individuals

[7:26] and organizations and the winners are

[7:31] identified by our panel of judges and

[7:33] that is done with the american institute

[7:35] of architects. Here are a few images of

[7:38] some of our past awards events. And as

[7:44] you can see we just celebrated our 20th

[7:48] anniversary a few weeks ago and that's

[7:51] exciting as well.

[7:53] onto the sustainability ideas bank, that

[7:57] is our newest initiative and that will be

[8:01] about compiling sustainability solutions

[8:02] that have been implemented in other

[8:05] places and that are proven to work. And

[8:08] by that, we really hope to make to

[8:13] accelerate sustainability and to really

[8:17] enable especially cities and businesses

[8:20] to implement sustainability measures and

[8:23] policies at scale. We are really excited

[8:24] to share that we have secured funding for

[8:28] the pilot fees. That is launching. And

[8:32] of course to do all of this, we rely on

[8:36] the support of our local cities because I

[8:38] do want to point out that we are not

[8:41] affiliated in anyway nor do we get

[8:44] funding from the counties office of

[8:47] sustainability. We would like to thank

[8:51] the city of san mateo for your on going

[8:54] support. We couldn't do it without you

[8:57] and would like to here respectfully ask

[8:59] that you consider an additional support

[9:01] to help us cover the cost of the

[9:05] sustainability ideas bank. So to

[9:07] conclude, we love to hear about our

[9:11] stakeholders. You do have my contact

[9:15] information. We would love for to you

[9:19] stay in touch and if there is anything we

[9:21] can help you with, we would be more than

[9:25] happy to do so. Thank you for the

[9:29] opportunity to present smc and appreciate

[9:31] your support.

[9:32] >> thank you.

[9:34] [ applause ]

[9:48] >> mayor diane papan: okay, let's go to

[9:51] the consent calendar.

[9:52] >>clerk: for the consent calendar, all

[9:56] the matters listed unto consent calendar

[9:58] are considered to be routine and will be

[10:04] enacted by one motion without discussion,

[10:07] if one item is pulled, they will be

[10:11] considered. 92 item no. 2, measure s

[10:14] oversight committee.

[10:15] >> item no. 3, classification updates

[10:18] public works.

[10:20] item no. 4. Cal public employees

[10:24] retirement system. Item no. 5, transit

[10:27] center way lease agreement.

[10:29] item no. 6, san mateo county flood and

[10:35] sea level rise resiliency agent

[10:38] endorsement.

[10:39] item no. 7, transfer of properties

[10:44] property rights from county of san mateo

[10:47] to city of san mateo northshore view of

[10:52] flood froovments. Item no. 8,

[10:57] engineering on call private development

[11:00] services ma'am.

[11:01] item no. 9, annual sewer basin

[11:03] rehabilitation on call agreements.

[11:10] amendments. Compressed natural gas truck

[11:18] body contract, item no. 11, compressed

[11:21] natural gas vehicle maintenance facility

[11:23] agreement. Item no. 12, public works

[11:28] capital project appropriation item 13,

[11:32] trashing signal master plan agreement.

[11:34] >> item no. 14, college of san mateo

[11:37] football game police detail agreements.

[11:40] >> item no. 15, let of opposition to

[11:45] senate bill 50.

[11:46] >> we have people who want to speak on

[11:49] item 15.

[11:50] >> how about item no. 6, I would like to

[11:53] pull that one.

[11:55] >> a motion to pass the rest of the

[12:04] consent calendar.

[12:05] >> I motion to approve the consent

[12:08] calendar.

[12:09] >> all in favor say, "aye".

[12:10] >> aye.

[12:11] >> any opposed? All items are approved

[12:15] except items 6 and 15.

[12:20] >> on item no. 6.

[12:27] >> san mateo county float and sea level.

[12:33] >> we just wanted to see you.

[12:37] >> thank you.

[12:38] >> with that, do we have any questions

[12:43] for mr. Patterson?

[12:56] >> he's in a big hurry to get out of here.

[13:00] >> how does sea level begin?

[13:06] >> it begins with the ice age.

[13:12] >>

[13:13] [ laughter ]

[13:14] >> all in favor say, "aye".

[13:15] >> aye.

[13:16] >> any opposed? Now we move to the last

[13:19] item. Okay. We will take item no. 15.

[13:38] that is authorize the mayor to send a

[13:40] letter from the city council opposing the

[13:44] senate bill 50. Which is a bill that

[14:01] mandates heights and densities along

[14:03] corridors. I know staff has more

[14:07] information on it if we need to. I know

[14:12] deputy mayor wanted to say a few words

[14:15] and council member bonilla as well and

[14:18] council member rodriguez and goethals.

[14:21] what the heck, you might as well join the

[14:23] party.

[14:24] >> sure.

[14:25] >> okay, take it away.

[14:30] >>

[14:31] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: thank

[14:33] you, mayor. As far as sb 50. The public

[14:40] will need to know the impacts. S. B.

[14:43] will be the most controversial senate

[14:47] bill of 2019 because it requires

[14:53] california to override our processes and

[15:03] height districts. It does not provide

[15:07] for housing and those in san mateo and

[15:09] that san mateo is punitive and san mateo

[15:13] has been at the forefront of these

[15:17] policies as well as the railroad corridor

[15:21] plan that we pass in 2005 and the many

[15:25] transient projects that are already built

[15:26] and those in the projects and even those

[15:31] in our pipeline. Under s. B. 50,

[15:40] properties along the corridor can be

[15:44] established for housing with our zoning

[15:46] and height limits and significantly

[15:49] decreases zoning for parking. I think

[15:52] these zoning changes can create negative

[15:55] impacts for those already suffering from

[15:58] parking supplies such as north central

[16:01] and can change the single family

[16:04] neighborhoods. While we all have single

[16:13] jobs and balancing, senate bill is a one

[16:16] for all thought less approach. I have

[16:22] often required regional resolutions and

[16:29] how work on providing affordable housing

[16:32] and other issues. This requires the full

[16:35] participation of impacted cities. In the

[16:38] case of s. B. 50 we have a state mandate

[16:42] that will change our city without our

[16:48] input. I find this particularly

[16:53] disturbing with the idea of having all of

[16:55] our residents for the vision and

[16:57] inclusion in a future they want to see.

[17:00] while the meaning of s. B. 50 is

[17:06] written, we will no longer have the

[17:09] autonomy that is for our future. There

[17:11] is so much left to interpretation. I

[17:14] believe we have the obligation to

[17:17] strongly oppose this legislation on

[17:22] behalf of our constituency and including

[17:27] changes along with our participation with

[17:30] any impact on san mateo. I sure

[17:36] appreciate mayor papan's lead on this and

[17:39] would forward the letter to our

[17:44] legislators.

[17:45] >> mayor diane papan: council member

[17:49] bonilla?

[17:50] >> former mayor rick bonilla: sure,

[17:51] while I agree with a lot of what maureen

[17:53] has said, I would take a more cautious

[17:55] approach. S. B. 50 is like she said,

[18:00] well-meaning, well-intentioned. It seeks

[18:02] to build housing that we desperately need

[18:05] in the whole state, although there are

[18:07] certain variations about which part of

[18:09] the state and the bay area has

[18:15] done with their efforts to affordable

[18:18] housing. And san mateo are no slackers in

[18:22] terms of building housing, but the fact

[18:23] remains that we have a huge housing

[18:26] imbalances. Don't get me wrong from the

[18:29] start. I'm not purporting that we should

[18:36] either support or oppose. Let me talk for

[18:38] a second about that. I believe that this

[18:42] is new legislation and this is only

[18:44] passed one of several committees it needs

[18:46] to pass through and it is recognized that

[18:52] it needs more amending. This is an

[18:54] unfinished product that is going to

[18:57] require more refining before it's ready

[18:59] for anybody to really say support or

[19:01] oppose. I think this is the kind of

[19:03] situation where if you are smart, you

[19:05] don't try to cut your chance to

[19:08] participate in the process off early by

[19:11] taking a hard and fast position. Instead

[19:14] you say, we see the pluses and minuses

[19:17] and would like to see it amended further

[19:19] and here is how we would like to see it

[19:24] amended. With that standing, we can

[19:26] support it if amended properly using the

[19:28] considerations that we outlined in our

[19:30] letter, then perhaps we could supported

[19:31] it at some point. So, that's kind of

[19:35] what I'm thinking. And I would like to

[19:37] see what other opinions council members

[19:38] may have.

[19:39] >> mayor diane papan: okay. Council

[19:49] member rodriguez?

[19:50] >> okay, 1st I would like to say that I

[19:53] acknowledge and agree with the goals of

[19:57] s. B. 50 and that our region as a whole

[19:59] has a significant housing shortage and we

[20:01] need to do all we can as a region to

[20:05] build more housing especially affordable

[20:08] housing. However I do not support s. B.

[20:12] 50 and I wanted to take a couple moments

[20:15] to explain my position on this. I believe

[20:18] as a locally elected council member, our

[20:21] job is to strike a delicate balance

[20:24] between making sure that we act

[20:27] responsibly to ensure that we are

[20:29] building and planning for our fair share

[20:32] of the regions housing, but at the same

[20:34] time, we must do everything we can to

[20:37] protect the quality of life in our

[20:40] neighborhoods and existing residents by

[20:42] building in a manner that makes the most

[20:45] sense given the unique challenges and

[20:47] constraints of our city . According to

[20:50] our planning department, I mean, I will

[20:56] spend a couple moments talking about what

[20:58] was in the letter because I think it's

[21:00] important. In the last 5 years we have

[21:06] build or -entitled to build 300,000

[21:10] units and in the pipeline to be built.

[21:13] once those houses will be built that will

[21:15] be an increase in housing supply in san

[21:19] mateo of over 11%. That is roughly the

[21:22] housing supply of the size of atherton's

[21:29] total housing supply in the last 5 years.

[21:33] but the balance part of this, is that we

[21:39] also are experiencing some stark quality

[21:42] of life challenges and this is where the

[21:45] balanced part comes in. The windows of

[21:56] rush hour traffic are expanding and some

[22:01] areas are facing severe parking shortages

[22:03] and this is facing neighbors after

[22:08] neighbors with bandoned vehicles calling

[22:10] our police department reaching 5,000

[22:12] calls per year. There is not an increased

[22:16] in bandoned vehicles. This is just

[22:19] neighbors fighting neighbors because they

[22:22] can't find parking and nobody wants to

[22:25] leave their parking once they find it and

[22:31] we see trash cans used to reserve parking

[22:34] spots. I think s. B. 50 is going to take

[22:39] away the tools that manage these quality

[22:42] of life challenges. For an example,

[22:47] deputy mayor freschet mentioned in job

[22:50] rich areas that are transit poor, parking

[22:53] minimums are going to be lowered and

[22:55] that's only going to make the situation

[22:57] worse than it is right now. S. B. 50

[23:10] treats san mateo the way they would treat

[23:17] huntington beach and other areas. I

[23:20] don't think this one size fits all

[23:26] approach will work. I also have some

[23:32] concerns for historic neighborhoods such

[23:33] as historic park that will only take a

[23:37] couple enterprising developer to acquire

[23:39] one or two adjoining small bungalows and

[23:43] before you know it, it could change the

[23:46] complete neighborhood. That's why I'm

[23:48] against s. B. 50.

[23:49] >> okay, thank you. Council member

[23:52] goethals?

[23:53] >> council member goethals: thank you,

[23:54] mayor. I think my fellow colleagues have

[23:57] said it quite well that we agree with the

[23:59] principles of s. B. 50 and housing is a

[24:02] critical issue for so many people in the

[24:04] bay area with our jobs housing

[24:07] imbalances. We agree with the principal

[24:11] with which the legislators tried to

[24:13] approach this issue, but they have sort

[24:19] of usurped the local city councils jobs.

[24:22] our job is land use, our job is to make

[24:26] our community what our residents want it

[24:29] to be. So that is something that s. B.

[24:32] 50 violates and we want to make sure that

[24:35] we retain that local control that is

[24:38] critical to communities like ours. I

[24:40] think that rick is right about one thing

[24:44] which is that the blood sport of

[24:46] washington and the blood sport of

[24:49] sacramento is to amend bills constantly

[24:52] and get people to take positions and end

[24:54] up on both sides of it based on

[24:57] amendments that are made. I

[25:02] do think at a minimum we should talk

[25:04] about it so there is no confusion going

[25:09] forward. I don't know that we need to

[25:23] spell out all the amendments we want

[25:27] because I don't know how many members

[25:30] could vote for it, and really, we have to

[25:34] be more responsible in what san mateo is

[25:37] doing. I don't think we have turned down

[25:40] any housing units except for one in the

[25:42] last number of decades. So san mateo is

[25:45] trying to address this issue and I hope

[25:49] we continue moving forward. I would agree

[25:50] with the one proposal that rick had which

[25:55] was that we limit this to s. B. 50 in

[26:00] its current form. Certainly we agree on

[26:02] all of its principals and the way this is

[26:06] written. I don't want to get into the

[26:10] amendments and whether one questions the

[26:13] good things that might be added to it or

[26:17] bad things that might be added to it.

[26:20] those are my $0.02.

[26:22] >> mayor diane papan: let me weigh in a

[26:25] little bit. I think the legislature is

[26:29] trying to do something about the housing

[26:33] imbalances. But it can't make me do this

[26:39] by amendment. I think the local control

[26:47] will go away. And I think each individual

[26:51] locality has constraints and those

[26:53] constraints might be that you have water

[26:55] such as we do, we have a lot of open

[26:57] space and we have topography that we

[27:08] can't take into account. And those that

[27:11] tell me, don't reject it, tell me how you

[27:14] can amend it. I don't know how you can

[27:18] usurp land use from local control because

[27:20] so much has to be balanced at the local

[27:23] level whether that is physical,

[27:27] topography, open space, the fiscal

[27:29] constraints that might come with it, how

[27:32] do you finance this structure that might

[27:36] be needed, how do you take into account

[27:38] what you define as a jobs rich area and

[27:42] how do you impede in the equal. I don't

[27:52] think there is an answer. At this point,

[27:54] I don't see land use being done at the

[27:57] state. I just don't see it. I have heard

[28:00] the author of bill say, well, the state

[28:05] controls education. That's comparing

[28:12] apples to oranges. My remarks are dove

[28:24] tailed. Does anyone have anything else?

[28:28] okay, let's open up for public comment.

[28:31] if anyone has anything from open comment

[28:36] and then we'll take the vote.

[28:39] >>

[28:40] public speaker: good evening, mayor

[28:41] papan, council members, I have to tell

[28:44] you I'm very proud of san mateo. San

[28:48] mateo has been a leader in affordable

[28:50] housing and I think it's close to 4,000

[28:52] units as we count the bay meadows one

[28:56] laid out in the late 90s. We have done a

[29:00] great job. I'm here to say that I think

[29:02] this letter that you are sending is well

[29:06] drafted, but I think you need to change.

[29:12] the change poll was in san francisco that

[29:17] 61% of californians were in favor of it

[29:24] and 41% of the republicans were in favor

[29:27] of it. This is not led by a district by

[29:32] the leaders. And it's much harder to

[29:35] give up authority than to get it. So

[29:40] watch out because people are going to

[29:43] like it.

[29:44] I disagree mildly in two areas. I think

[29:47] if I were writing the letter and my

[29:49] experience with legislation is that after

[29:55] the word "oppose", I would put "unless

[29:59] amended" because that does give you some

[30:03] leverage. And actually, weiner is going

[30:04] to be in san mateo county thursday night.

[30:07] you can talk to him at the central

[30:11] committee. I just got an e-mail that he

[30:22] was going to be there.

[30:24] >> he can come here. I will make time.

[30:27] >> the only thing I don't disagree with

[30:32] is on the issue how much it's going to

[30:35] change san mateo because we have some

[30:38] areas that are higher than s. B. 50. And

[30:42] quite frankly, I don't believe someone is

[30:45] going to buy 2-3 lots in san mateo and

[30:53] pay the taxes. The development, there is

[31:01] so much below market value. I would not

[31:05] be in favor of that and nor would I fight

[31:11] it. Let's send that senate bill 50 that

[31:14] it recognizes that we are different from

[31:16] everybody else and let's not let cities

[31:19] that developed employers with 25,000

[31:21] employees and build very little housing.

[31:23] let's not let them off the hook. They are

[31:25] the ones creating all of our traffic. If

[31:29] you don't believe me, come up 280 in the

[31:32] evening and see where it starts. Thank

[31:34] you.

[31:38] >> next speaker is nathan hams.

[31:52] public speaker: good evening, council

[31:56] members. I'm going to take a slightly

[31:59] different approach and talk about climate

[32:02] change aspect. I have been concerned

[32:04] about climate change for a long time and

[32:06] it's got to be really hard for someone

[32:09] who is concerned about climate change and

[32:12] look at the news, there is the typhoon in

[32:20] east africa and the flooding in the

[32:23] midwest and a president who is denying

[32:26] this is even an issue. It's scary to

[32:33] what is happening today and what is the

[32:35] prediction for the future. I should be

[32:37] thinking about having kids in the next

[32:42] couple years and I don't really want to

[32:44] have them. I don't know if the

[32:47] projections and the human dislocation

[32:49] that might happen as a result of these

[32:52] changes, is that the type of world that

[32:54] we should be bringing children in?

[32:57] that's my own personal opinion by the

[33:00] way, and everyone is entitled to their

[33:02] own evaluation about this. But it is

[33:04] something that weighs very heavily on me.

[33:09] the last attempt to do climate

[33:11] legislation at the federal level was in

[33:13] 2009. So e in the last 10 years nothing

[33:17] has been done to address climate change

[33:19] at the federal level, and the latest

[33:23] report says that we have 12 years to

[33:25] really bend the curve on emissions. I

[33:29] really encourage the city council members

[33:33] and every policy member at every level to

[33:36] address this issue as the last best

[33:38] attempt to address this issue. You may

[33:42] equitable with the details of s. B. 50

[33:44] about the ways it might undermine your

[33:48] control overland use, but I think this is

[33:52] our last best attempt to reiterate and

[33:58] reorient our culture and reorient our

[34:04] upward trajectory on upward emissions.

[34:07] the report says that california is making

[34:18] progress on reducing emissions. I would

[34:27] strongly ask you not to oppose this bill.

[34:30] this is a serious issue. We need to

[34:33] solve it, and I believe this is our last

[34:36] best attempt to solve it. Thank you.

[34:38] don't let it slip away.

[34:40] >> thank you, mr. Chen. Clerk next

[34:56] speaker is thomas heiser.

[34:59] >>

[35:00] public speaker: thank you, I'm going to

[35:02] talk about the largest single generator

[35:07] of greenhouse gas emissions in southern

[35:10] california is vehicles and larger that

[35:13] any other single

[35:19] category, and the most report I have read

[35:26] is lengthening the commute. If you watch

[35:29] the traffic eastbound in the evening for

[35:31] everyone that works on the peninsula and

[35:34] can't afford to live here because

[35:37] relative to the job growth in the last 20

[35:43] years, that's where these emissions are

[35:53] coming from. There are going to have

[36:02] been some decisions to be made about

[36:06] where these panels are going to be. We

[36:07] have to take as much responsibility about

[36:11] what we are doing locally. Lastly said,

[36:15] I'm in support of s. B. 50. That is

[36:18] probably a lost cause on my part. I do

[36:21] want to say I saw the draft

[36:28] to the letter. I'm confused under .3

[36:33] where it talks about the constraints and

[36:37] water. And s. B. 50 listed the

[36:41] amenities and the physical

[36:42] characteristics of the land. I don't know

[36:43] how to read that. This isn't in the

[36:47] bill. S. B. 50 isn't going to require

[36:48] that we are filling in the bay half a

[36:51] mile from the train station. I don't

[36:54] understand how that is relevant to the

[36:55] discussion of s. B. 50. Also as far as

[37:00] mandating heights and densities, it's

[37:01] really to allow the property owners to

[37:03] choose the density. It's not that the

[37:05] state is going to come and build five

[37:11] buildings. It's allowing them to build

[37:13] to the choice they want. And also on

[37:17] fiscal impacts, it does raise an

[37:20] interesting point if one of the corner

[37:24] stones of the opposition of s. B. 50, as

[37:27] I believe the letter states there are

[37:30] challenges with meeting pension

[37:32] obligations with san mateo, and the

[37:33] interest of seeing basically where we are

[37:36] raise revenue for land, where are the

[37:39] well performing land use in this town and

[37:42] where is the property tax and changing

[37:46] the 1 story house to abusiness building,

[37:52] I would like to see that analysis. Thank

[37:57] you.

[37:58] public speaker: good evening, council,

[38:03] jordan grimes, also representing san

[38:05] mateo peninsula for everyone nimby. There

[38:09] is so much to talk about here. But I

[38:11] would like to start here just by saying I

[38:14] really believe, I have been very proud of

[38:17] how our council has acted the last few

[38:19] years. I think there are many cities

[38:21] along the peninsula that have not acted

[38:24] the way ours has and I think that really

[38:26] gets to the crux of why I support s. B.

[38:31] 50. The is rest of the peninsula is not

[38:37] doing their share and I don't think in

[38:38] the past we have either. What I would

[38:40] like to share what I will hope to be

[38:45] enlightening some of my san mateo news

[38:50] articles starting in 1974. 9,000 units

[38:56] needed. 1975, county housing cost

[39:03] squeezing families. 1976, housing crunch

[39:10] hurts everyone. 1982, challenging

[39:13] cities, lack of housing a major problem.

[39:17] 1982 was a big year for housing

[39:22] apparently. Survey views housing crisis

[39:25] and one more 1982, it hurts city economic

[39:31] growth. Back to 1984, this is my

[39:34] personal favorite. My kids can't afford

[39:36] to live here.

[39:39] 1985, new housing crunch. What is the

[39:49] biggest issue, housing. 1985, rental san

[39:54] mateo, 1989 county housing most expensive

[39:58] in california, only 64% could meet the

[40:04] median price of a home. 1990 and 1994,

[40:20] nimbyism as a factor and finally 1994,

[40:26] the job growth. The biggest issue is

[40:30] looking at where we are assessing wrong

[40:34] and we haven't been able to keep up with

[40:37] the job growth. It's very well

[40:39] documented even in the city of san mateo.

[40:43] where in 1990 if you look at the 1990

[40:47] housing element, city staff estimated

[40:50] that with san mateo's job and population

[40:52] growth, the city would need to have a

[40:56] total of 43220 housing units by 2005.

[41:03] today, we have 41250. Roo thank you for

[41:22] your time.

[41:23] >>

[41:24] public speaker: good evening, council,

[41:25] I'm with san mateo young democrats.

[41:33] earlier this year the san mateo young

[41:41] democrats voted for climate endorseing

[41:55] these emissions and the federalization

[42:03] and the housing in california. We are a

[42:05] club that is very concerned

[42:09] about quality of life issues. These are

[42:12] young people that come and we represent

[42:16] democrats in the area to allow more

[42:22] people to come here and live here more

[42:27] comfortably. And we are concerned that

[42:33] we ought to be able to stay here. I know

[42:36] there is a history in san mateo of

[42:40] building transient oriented development.

[42:44] lastly, I want to say, the environmental

[42:47] impact here is really significant and we

[42:50] shouldn't take it for granted. The focus

[42:56] here on building transient oriented

[42:59] development and building away from

[43:01] transportation and I think building

[43:07] transit will get people out of their

[43:11] cars. I live near the hayward station and

[43:17] I use the caltrain. Young people support

[43:19] s. B. 50 and I hope you take my advice.

[43:37] >> anyone else?

[43:39] >> okay, back to council.

[43:40] >> former mayor rick bonilla: I missed

[43:42] an important thing which is that we need

[43:47] to remember that s. B. 50 is also an

[43:51] attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions

[43:53] in a very large way because that is

[43:56] another end to the full circle with

[44:01] housing and if we are able to do this

[44:03] right, we are able to cut greenhouse gas

[44:06] emissions and which leads to sea level

[44:09] rise. We need to work to get these

[44:11] things under control if we can get people

[44:13] to live closer to where they work and the

[44:15] more that is done, get them out of their

[44:18] cars, we eliminate the congestion and

[44:22] also our neighborhood streets, we'll be

[44:24] that much better off. That said, I agree

[44:26] this needs to be done in an organized

[44:28] manner that the people of san mateo can

[44:31] live with. So, that said, I will go back

[44:33] to what I think which is that the

[44:35] legislature has a raft of these kind of

[44:38] bills going through right now. And I

[44:40] think it's a good time to rather than

[44:43] oppose right off the top to say how can

[44:45] we work with you. My mention still would

[44:47] be that we would oppose unless amended

[44:50] and state all the reasons why we think it

[44:53] needs to be amended. We don't have to

[44:55] state them in long form and we can just

[44:58] state them in general because this is

[45:00] something that will continue to be worked

[45:03] on, it's not finished and not ready to

[45:08] oppose and support, it's really to say we

[45:10] are in, let's participate, let's try to

[45:12] get the right thing done. And in the

[45:14] end, if it's something we can't support,

[45:16] then we don't support it I guess as a

[45:20] council. That's it. Right now I have a

[45:22] problem just coming out just saying that

[45:24] I oppose it. So thank you very much.

[45:37] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I have

[45:39] a concern and I hear what you are saying,

[45:42] but the state hasn't asked us to

[45:47] participate. To say that we are opposed

[45:48] to it unless we are amending, how can we

[45:54] amend it if we have not engaged in these

[45:59] conversations. If we say we have a lot

[46:00] of concern with this and the state is

[46:03] saying, here is what we want to hear from

[46:05] you, here is what we are looking at and

[46:08] how does this affect the cities from

[46:11] doing their share but I'm not seeing that

[46:14] happen that's why I'm having a concern to

[46:17] say that we oppose it because how can we

[46:21] oppose it if we are not limiting.

[46:26] >> I spoke with scott weiner and he will

[46:32] be available to speak with people.

[46:35] anytime they take action, it's posted on

[46:37] their website and we can track it.

[46:44] >> I think I would have preferred they

[46:47] come before us before makeing this come

[47:02] forward.

[47:03] >> I think san mateo is in the middle

[47:05] right now of a big general plan

[47:06] discussion. We are talking about height

[47:08] limits, we are talking about density, we

[47:11] are talking about how maybe a one size

[47:14] fits all approach doesn't work for

[47:16] everything in san mateo and maybe

[47:20] different different parcels deserve

[47:21] different height limits and to just take

[47:24] that away right now and say, councils do

[47:28] not have a say in that discussion, that's

[47:31] going to completely alter the community

[47:34] discussion just like enacting measure p

[47:37] would be before we are finished with the

[47:43] general plan process. So it's really

[47:52] hard for me to say let's wait when at the

[47:57] core it's very bad. It's like our city

[48:05] in san mateo, we have done so much. In

[48:10] the last 6-7 years, we have really ramped

[48:13] it up, I don't think it's fair for san

[48:16] mateo residents and they are the ones who

[48:18] voted us in here.

[48:19] >> do you have anything to add?

[48:21] >> just briefly. I want to agree with

[48:26] what council member rodriguez just said

[48:30] that these outside forces were trying to

[48:34] influence the landscape of san mateo

[48:36] makes it very difficult for us to do our

[48:38] jobs in representing san mateo residents.

[48:41] we have a huge jobs housing imbalances.

[48:45] it's a crisis. I don't think the state

[48:48] legislature would be writing bills like

[48:49] this if it wasn't a crisis facing the

[48:52] entire state, a crisis that affects

[48:55] transportation, housing, quality of life,

[48:58] on a massive scale. They didn't weight

[49:02] into this lightly. I appreciate that they

[49:03] are trying to take it as serious as it

[49:08] is. We are also trying to take a

[49:12] principaled view that we are doing the

[49:15] right thing and these are measures that

[49:18] should be done at the city level. With

[49:21] all that has been said, I would ask that

[49:25] we amend the letter in so far as we say

[49:29] that in its current iteration, we oppose

[49:34] it. With what it says right now. Not

[49:36] knowing how it will be amended, not

[49:40] knowing whether we will agree or disagree

[49:42] with those amendments, if we are going to

[49:44] to state an opinion, it's time sensitive

[49:47] to what's in it right now in its current

[49:53] forms. Those words would be sufficient.

[50:01] >> madam mayor, that will save us and

[50:04] give us room at the table. If we simply

[50:07] say that we are opposing it, no one will

[50:18] hear us.

[50:19] >> I do not agree with that. Taking this

[50:21] stance is not an anti-housing stance, it

[50:23] is not a stance that we don't want to see

[50:26] housing in this community near jobs. The

[50:30] only reason why at least in my opinion

[50:33] that I'm taking this stance is that I

[50:35] want to see it done right for the

[50:38] residents of this community. I'm not

[50:45] against giving away authority, but it has

[50:49] done this balance in the competing

[50:52] interest. I appreciate the information

[50:53] given by mr. Grimes, but in actuality, we

[50:58] have had housing shortage but not to this

[51:03] degree that it has kept up with jobs. We

[51:06] did relative well up to that point. When

[51:08] I look at this community and see what

[51:11] this community has done, I don't see that

[51:13] bill as being data driven. I don't see

[51:16] this bill as saying, these communities

[51:18] given water on one side that it is

[51:22] confusing to you, don't let it be

[51:27] confusing to you, there are areas that

[51:30] may already be dense. I think cities and

[51:33] localities are in the best positions to

[51:39] weigh those constraints. I don't think

[51:40] this is an anti-housing position. I think

[51:43] this is housing position that can happen

[51:45] and within the constraints for particular

[51:49] community and that's what we are trying

[51:50] to achieve by opposing the bill. I

[51:53] appreciate and usually I'm one to say

[51:55] let's keep the dialogue going, but the

[51:57] underlying premise of this bill, I don't

[52:00] see how you get that back.

[52:10] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I

[52:13] would agree, I don't see how they can

[52:16] take back the local control and once they

[52:19] take it, that's a big problem.

[52:21] >> I don't have anything further to add.

[52:23] do we have a motion and we'll go from

[52:26] there.

[52:27] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I will

[52:28] make a motion that we approve the letters

[52:33] s. B. 50 letter of opposition and

[52:35] approve for the mayor to sign that.

[52:37] >> I second that motion.

[52:42] >> okay, all in favor say, "aye".

[52:43] >> aye.

[52:44] >> any opposed?

[52:45] >> no.

[52:46] >> abstained?

[52:47] >> abstained.

[52:48] >> okay, that will pass 3-1. Excuse me.

[52:56] >> let me ask, can we have the letter

[53:08] state the amount of support.

[53:12] >> we are already done.

[53:13] >> I don't see any other support.

[53:16] >> okay, we'll move on to item 16,

[53:22] wastewater treatment plant modifications

[53:24] agendaaddendum. Sorry, let's go to

[53:27] public comment.

[53:30] >>clerk: I have no speaker slips.

[53:32] >> okay. We will go to item 16,

[53:36] wastewater treatment plant modifications.

[54:04] >> good evening, mayor papan and members

[54:08] of the council. I'm the community

[54:23] development director and I will be making

[54:26] the presentation on the wastewater

[54:31] treatment plant modifications. Brad and

[54:32] I will tag team the presentation. I will

[54:34] go over the purpose first. Brad will give

[54:37] us the reasons on why this modification

[54:39] is necessary and then I will take over

[54:41] and walk briefly on the background on how

[54:44] we got here and show you the designs and

[54:50] modification being prepared and the

[54:52] request of the council this evening.

[55:06] sorry about that. We only missed one

[55:08] slide, I think we are good. The purpose

[55:10] of the tonight's meeting is to consider

[55:12] the modifications made by the wastewater

[55:15] treatment plant approved by konl july

[55:18] 2018. It is the site plan and

[55:20] architectural rhee which will also

[55:22] include a finding for the environmental

[55:26] adequacy and the second entitlement being

[55:30] requested tonight is an introduction to

[55:32] an ordinance to allow off site staging.

[55:36] >> members of council, I'm brad

[55:39] underwood, public works director. This

[55:42] item maybe familiar to you and I want to

[55:43] bring this forward to you about why the

[55:46] changes were occurring. You did approve

[55:49] this project this last july. As we

[55:53] received the cost estimate and the 60%

[55:57] design this past fall, the estimated kept

[56:00] climbing up higher and higher. So I

[56:02] decided to take a pause at the 60% design

[56:06] and do another evaluation engineering

[56:09] effort to see what we can do about the

[56:11] cost. We anticipate at $25 million in

[56:14] savings from this redesign and gmp one,

[56:17] we are seeing already $7 plus million

[56:21] difference as we have those costs already

[56:27] developed. And that's the smallest

[56:30] passage, so the $25 million could be

[56:33] higher than that. The design is still

[56:37] meeting the regulatory requirements. I

[56:39] found out additional information from the

[56:41] bay area water conservation authority

[56:44] about nutrient levels within the bay that

[56:46] would be needed and rather than having

[56:49] target levels which have been anticipated

[56:51] before, they are just asking that we move

[56:53] 30% of the total nitrogen that we are

[56:57] going into the bay now from the san mateo

[57:00] plant. By 2024, if we complete that, it

[57:03] will be an early act which will then

[57:05] allow us not to be subject to future

[57:08] regulations in the area for sometime.

[57:14] we've also optimized the treatment plant

[57:18] process for warmer weather using a

[57:21] smaller footprint and it's a little less

[57:23] complex for the staff to utilize and

[57:27] implement. Also this maintains our

[57:30] current program objectives that I wish we

[57:32] had all along dealing with the aging

[57:37] infrastructure, meeting the regulations,

[57:39] building a wet weather capacity assurance

[57:44] through that multiprong approach if you

[57:49] recall the waste treatment plan and the

[57:52] sustainability goals. The benefits and

[57:54] modifications we are still meeting the

[57:56] water quality control board requirements

[58:05] and deadlines and this allows us to do

[58:07] that with the plans through these

[58:10] improvements. And we'll meet with the

[58:12] schedule and the three of you and I know

[58:15] with myself went to washington d.c. To

[58:18] talk to our legislators about the

[58:20] application which we have been accepted

[58:23] for and this results in a $100 million of

[58:26] interest savings to our ratepayers that

[58:28] will be very significant and will keep us

[58:31] on schedule for that application.

[58:33] mitigate, if we keep on process and we

[58:36] can continue the project going forward,

[58:41] we'll continue to not have the $1 million

[58:44] basically about $1 million a month in

[58:50] installation. We plan to be before you

[58:53] on june 6th with mp 1.

[59:01] >> so everybody knows where the

[59:04] wastewater treatment plant is located.

[59:05] but to make sure everyone is oriented.

[59:09] it's on the eastern bored of san mateo on

[59:16] clinton drive outlined here. The

[59:20] location of our wastewater treatment

[59:22] plant. Cal trans praud the wastewater

[59:26] treatment plant july 2018. Along with

[59:29] the clean water program provided an

[59:31] update and notified the council of the

[59:33] project modifications needed as brad just

[59:36] explained. This slide just chose this

[59:40] side by side comparison. The project

[59:42] that was approved on the left in july and

[59:45] the proposed modifications on the right.

[59:47] I will go over more detail on the next

[59:50] slide. The design modifications can be

[59:53] really summarized in 4 points. The first

[59:57] is the replacement of the circular

[1:00:08] clarifyers and the rectangle clarifyers

[1:00:11] and this is a total reduction of 25,000

[1:00:16] square feet. The original building was

[1:00:18] previously located adjacent to the

[1:00:21] wastewater treatment plant, now it's

[1:00:23] located directly adjacent to it.

[1:00:27] third, the maintenance warehouse was

[1:00:30] increased in size by about 2800 square

[1:00:33] feet and has an exchange in exterior

[1:00:35] materials which I will go into more

[1:00:37] details and show you elevations in the

[1:00:44] upcoming slides and fourth, the overall

[1:00:49] plant. So here is a view of the new

[1:00:54] modified project. You will see here the

[1:01:00] administration building was previously

[1:01:02] located on the site but further away from

[1:01:06] the treatment plant and adjacent and

[1:01:08] attachment to the treatment plant. The

[1:01:11] administration building stayed the same,

[1:01:13] however there were some slight

[1:01:20] modifications given the plaza and the new

[1:01:26] entrance and the side location of the

[1:01:29] plant were made with additional

[1:01:32] landscaping included. The landscape

[1:01:34] material and drought tolerant native

[1:01:37] landscaping however changing more of a

[1:01:38] pedestrian feel throughout the whole

[1:01:43] site. The wall here where the previous

[1:01:50] circular clarifiers, there was a curved

[1:01:53] wall and now there is a straight wall and

[1:02:01] the estuary panels now provides a

[1:02:04] screen for the rectangular wall.

[1:02:11] now I'm going to walk you through a

[1:02:14] pedestrian scale of the view. The first

[1:02:18] image was a birds eye view which very few

[1:02:22] will see. Here is the entrance on the

[1:02:24] site and the top and the bottom is the

[1:02:30] new proposed modifications. Again, you

[1:02:38] can see the the middle of the estuary

[1:02:55] path and the view to the site. The view

[1:02:58] we saw earlier was from this side, now we

[1:03:03] are walking towards the other side of the

[1:03:06] wastewater treatment plant. Again, the

[1:03:09] educational component previously approved

[1:03:10] remain the same, the largest change you

[1:03:12] will notice here is the change from the

[1:03:16] circular clarifiers to the rectangular

[1:03:19] clarifyers to the straight wall and the

[1:03:29] mesh estuary screen provided. This is

[1:03:31] another view. Because of the reduction

[1:03:33] in size, you will get a better view of

[1:03:36] the administration building. This is at

[1:03:38] the northeast corner of the site. The

[1:03:46] second request this evening in terms of

[1:03:48] an action is an uncodified ordinance.

[1:03:51] the ordinance is requested because we

[1:03:53] need to stage the construction somewhere.

[1:03:55] and because the site is going to be

[1:03:58] occupied by the existing wastewater

[1:04:01] treatment plant whereas the future plant

[1:04:04] there is no on-site construction staging.

[1:04:06] the city has identified three city owned

[1:04:10] parcels where the construction staging

[1:04:12] could take place. The areas were

[1:04:13] reviewed by the parks and recreation

[1:04:16] commission and approved for staging. The

[1:04:20] environmental effects for staging were

[1:04:25] evaluated and approved for the staging

[1:04:31] projects. There are these zoning areas

[1:04:39] is for off-site staging. Requesting an

[1:04:44] ordinance allowing the construction

[1:04:46] changes to be on those three sites.

[1:04:50] lastly there was a request done on

[1:04:53] modifications and because only minor

[1:04:55] changes occurred to the project and no

[1:05:00] new information and changes, primarily do

[1:05:01] due to the reduction in

[1:05:13] size and no new ceqa analysis would be

[1:05:20] necessary. Tonight, council is

[1:05:22] requesting the council to take two

[1:05:24] actions to approving the design

[1:05:28] modifications to the plan architectural

[1:05:34] review and the environmental affects of

[1:05:42] modifications and to allow to

[1:05:47] construction and staging. That concludes

[1:05:55] our report and the entire design team is

[1:05:58] available for any questions.

[1:05:59] >> okay, thank you so much. I'm going to

[1:06:01] bring it back for questions. I have just

[1:06:06] a couple.

[1:06:15] >> former mayor rick bonilla: I have one

[1:06:17] question to start with. Does the

[1:06:21] electric room still at sea level because

[1:06:27] I'm seeing that the floor level is still

[1:06:34] at sea level.

[1:06:35] >> the electrical is below level. Any

[1:06:42] protection from the walls that we have

[1:06:44] for the galleries is up 3 feet above sea

[1:06:47] level rise that we would expect.

[1:06:52] >> so all thresholds are above sea level

[1:06:55] rise as expected when?

[1:07:01] >> that's the mid-level for 2100.

[1:07:08] >> sure, if I can add to that, public

[1:07:11] works deputy director, the 3.4 was

[1:07:15] elected based on the 66% chance. So

[1:07:19] probability depending on the 2100 high

[1:07:29] emissions scenario for that probability

[1:07:31] for the 2100.

[1:07:32] >> okay, thanks for now.

[1:07:40] >> mayor diane papan: over reduction of

[1:07:47] the structure that doesn't increase the

[1:07:50] capacity, right?

[1:07:52] >> that's right. The capacity stays the

[1:07:54] same for the regular normal dry weather

[1:07:57] flow and 78 mgd per the water flow.

[1:08:09] >> mgd is a million gallons per day. And

[1:08:14] if we don't solve $78 mgd per the water

[1:08:16] flow.

[1:08:17] >> mgd is a million gallons per day. And

[1:08:18] if we don't solve this, it's a million in

[1:08:19] the bucket.

[1:08:20] >> that's correct.

[1:08:21] >> okay, let's open up for public comment.

[1:08:22] >> I have no speaker slips.

[1:08:26] >> that was fast. Surely you can draw

[1:08:28] this out. We have everybody here. I want

[1:08:32] to get my moneys worth.

[1:08:34] >> motion to approve this item?

[1:08:37] >> second.

[1:08:38] >> all in favor say, "aye".

[1:08:39] >> aye.

[1:08:40] >> any opposed? All those abstaining?

[1:08:42] >> I will abstain right now. Okay, that

[1:08:46] passes 4-0-1. Thank you so much. Next up

[1:09:10] next up, we have the king park

[1:09:15] improvement projects, old business.

[1:09:16] >> good evening, parks and recreation and

[1:09:22] I'm serving as the manager of the king

[1:09:27] project. This project came up in march

[1:09:30] and at that time we attempt an agreement

[1:09:40] with the park improvement and the council

[1:09:44] wanted to wait on approving that item

[1:09:50] because of the school referral and that

[1:09:54] they notified there was an investigation

[1:09:56] at the state department of industrial

[1:09:59] relations had opened about their

[1:10:02] compliance with apprenticeship

[1:10:03] requirements and the labor code. So, the

[1:10:09] council wanted to have more time to meet

[1:10:11] with them. Subsequent to that, staff was

[1:10:14] able to meet with the project manager

[1:10:23] from the unified school district and we

[1:10:26] had the whole conversation about the

[1:10:29] apprenticeship and the unified school

[1:10:31] district indicated they had complied with

[1:10:34] their requirements but acknowledged that

[1:10:35] one of the unions disagreed with that.

[1:10:38] so, with that, and an overall favorable

[1:10:42] recommendation from the school district

[1:10:43] as well as the other references that we

[1:10:46] had, we prepared an administrative report

[1:10:48] for your april 1st meeting to approve the

[1:10:52] contract as previously presented. That

[1:10:55] same day, we received an e-mail from the

[1:11:00] laborers local union that transmitted two

[1:11:02] documents from the state related to

[1:11:09] goodland's use of the project on

[1:11:12] apprenticeship. Because of the timing of

[1:11:13] that, I felt it was important to have the

[1:11:16] time to get a response from goodland to

[1:11:20] make sure we had all the information and

[1:11:22] documents to be able to make a full

[1:11:25] assessment of that and be able to provide

[1:11:28] full information to the council. So we

[1:11:30] pulled the item from the april 1st

[1:11:33] meeting to allow us to do that. So, we've

[1:11:35] done that to the degree that we think is

[1:11:41] necessary and possible. That due

[1:11:43] diligence we did included speaking with

[1:11:50] goodland and goodland followed up with an

[1:11:52] e-mail with a third document with that.

[1:12:02] and we signed the two documents.

[1:12:06] I want to briefly discuss the

[1:12:11] requirements and related to the project.

[1:12:13] the state labor code requires for pork

[1:12:22] projects that apprenticeships be hired

[1:12:24] for 5 hours of journey men. And

[1:12:28] specifically --

[1:12:29] >> sorry, I'm too tall. It's too late to

[1:12:32] do anything about that. I will try to

[1:12:48] speak up.

[1:12:51] the joint labor committee made an

[1:12:53] exception to that 1-5-hour requirement of

[1:12:56] the labor code. And the committee had

[1:12:59] based that upon their determination that

[1:13:01] it's not a practical application for

[1:13:05] laborers and that doesn't provide

[1:13:11] adequate supervision so the exception is

[1:13:26] granted by the state and that 1-4

[1:13:32] laborers could be an journey men and the

[1:13:42] fifth laborer must be an apprentice. And

[1:13:51] they were out of compliance on the

[1:13:57] apprenticeship requirements and they

[1:13:59] thought they were eligible in that

[1:14:02] description I just described and asked

[1:14:05] for a reassessment for the finding for

[1:14:07] that. So the eventual outcome was the

[1:14:09] good land in the state entered into a

[1:14:13] release agreement and key parts of that

[1:14:16] where it included the stated goodland

[1:14:20] position where they were eligible for the

[1:14:22] position and the states position that

[1:14:23] they were not, but the two parties rather

[1:14:34] than litigating the issue they agreed to

[1:14:38] $65,000. So that payment was made and

[1:14:41] the complaint was closed.

[1:14:44] so, that's pretty much what we found

[1:14:47] about that particular circumstance, and

[1:14:48] so, what we thought we would do is bring

[1:14:54] back the original recommendation which we

[1:14:57] included the two contracts, but also

[1:14:59] bring two other options for the city

[1:15:03] council to consider. First is to reject

[1:15:15] all bids until we settle the issue with

[1:15:17] the contractor for the main part of the

[1:15:20] project.

[1:15:21] then the third option would be to

[1:15:23] essential he direct staff to pursue an

[1:15:26] award of contract to a bidder other than

[1:15:30] the low bidder from among those who had

[1:15:33] bid, and then to award a filter for

[1:15:39] contract to simultaneous toss contract

[1:15:40] for the main part of the project. So the

[1:15:45] administrative report provides a little

[1:15:47] bit more information related to each of

[1:15:50] those options. I won't go through those

[1:15:52] at this point, but I would just indicate

[1:15:56] that I or the city attorney can answer to

[1:16:18] your questions.

[1:16:19] >> this is for the attorney. The state

[1:16:24] says that we have gone against the law,

[1:16:29] which is that?

[1:16:31] >> the two parties entered into agreement

[1:16:34] that basically said we are done with it

[1:16:38] and we settled it. That's where we are.

[1:16:40] we have no opportunity for us to go

[1:16:44] through our own analysis of the law. So

[1:16:54] that's where it stands.

[1:16:55] >> but typically, if you are found to be

[1:16:59] in violation of the law, then

[1:17:04] that pretty much means even if you are

[1:17:06] able to negotiate it down to something

[1:17:10] else, in my reason, there was an a reason

[1:17:15] to pay the $55,000.

[1:17:20] >> they indicated there was a violation

[1:17:24] and must have thought it was an issue

[1:17:27] about their interpretation and didn't

[1:17:28] want to take the issue of appealing and

[1:17:34] they would not have insisted upon the

[1:17:39] violation of the code.

[1:17:41] >> okay, thank you.

[1:17:42] >> do we have any public comment?

[1:17:46] >> no, madam mayor.

[1:18:00] >> good evening, madam mayor, council

[1:18:04] members, dave dell la torre, with the

[1:18:16] labors union. I want to thank you for

[1:18:19] waiting to award this project pending the

[1:18:22] additional violations. By the way, it was

[1:18:24] only brought up because they challenged

[1:18:26] the foundation for fair contracting to

[1:18:29] discover and bring up any other

[1:18:37] violations. They should have been

[1:18:39] forthcoming knowing that this was out

[1:18:41] there, but yet they didn't. I want to

[1:18:44] thank the foundation for a fair

[1:18:48] contracting for bird dogging and bringing

[1:18:51] this up on behalf of the working

[1:18:59] families. I would just recommend that --

[1:19:04] I would strongly recommend that you would

[1:19:06] go with the second lowest bidder, okay,

[1:19:09] thank you for your time.

[1:19:10] >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, if you

[1:19:13] can repeat that last part.

[1:19:15] >> that I recommend that you go with the

[1:19:17] second lowest bidder.

[1:19:18] >> okay, thank you.

[1:19:21] >> the speaker is robert bingham followed

[1:19:30] by arturo samples.

[1:19:32] >>

[1:19:33] public speaker: council, robert bingham,

[1:19:36] I stand before you guys being accused of

[1:19:41] accusations that are simply falls.

[1:19:44] goodman has a right per the code to

[1:19:47] employ one apprentice when it exceeds

[1:19:51] four journey men workers for the project.

[1:19:54] goodman was not in

[1:20:06] violation of that code. We had to make a

[1:20:10] business decision to we spend $40,000 on

[1:20:16] a case or do we spend $55,000 to make it

[1:20:23] go away. Had the labors union had a

[1:20:25] stronger case, I don't think they would

[1:20:28] have let us off the hook for this

[1:20:33] settlement. We have worked over 100

[1:20:35] projects to date and there has been a

[1:20:37] couple of disputes that I will

[1:20:39] acknowledge that have been presented,

[1:20:41] however, I feel that we are being

[1:20:43] targeted simply because we are a

[1:20:45] non-union company and that is our

[1:20:48] constitutional right. We can't be

[1:20:52] belittled by the unions because we don't

[1:20:55] agree with their bylaws. Mr. Bonilla,

[1:20:58] being a union rep can also recognize that

[1:21:01] being a field member representative there

[1:21:04] is a ton of disputes from union to union,

[1:21:13] carpenters on laborers and labors or

[1:21:15] operators, this is a shake down because

[1:21:18] they are in this community and feel we

[1:21:20] are against the unions. All we are trying

[1:21:22] to do is make a fair living for ourselves

[1:21:26] and our workers and the citizens of san

[1:21:28] mateo. If you look at the bid results,

[1:21:30] there is an over $70,000 on economic

[1:21:34] advantage. You have a right to come out

[1:21:37] and audit our books, mr. Bonilla is more

[1:21:42] than welcome to come to the job to look

[1:21:45] as he has in the past. Thank you for your

[1:21:48] time.

[1:21:49] >> next speaker is arturo sam.

[1:21:50] >>

[1:22:00] public speaker: good evening, city

[1:22:02] council, mayor, thanks for my chance to

[1:22:05] speak. I know I fumbled the football, but

[1:22:10] it was my first time. We were going out

[1:22:16] to speak on the landscape. He did pay for

[1:22:18] it but it stands it was still a violation

[1:22:25] of 77.5. That's our key. As a father and

[1:22:27] commissioner of a volunteer of a softball

[1:22:34] league how it is to have a team ready to

[1:22:40] go. I used to live in san mateo when I

[1:22:44] was first married. I ask that you give a

[1:22:48] record to a no contract with no

[1:22:51] violations. We go to option 3 and that's

[1:22:53] all I have to say. Thank you.

[1:22:55] >> I have no other speaker slips.

[1:22:59] >> mayor diane papan: okay, we'll bring

[1:23:01] it back to the council for comment.

[1:23:06] >> former mayor rick bonilla: I have

[1:23:09] some comments?

[1:23:10] >> okay, council member bonilla.

[1:23:13] >> thank you, first I think it needs to

[1:23:15] be recognized that san mateo as a city

[1:23:18] that issue is public works projects under

[1:23:20] the state laws has awarded plenty of

[1:23:23] contracts to contractors who are not

[1:23:26] signatory to any unions. You are living

[1:23:30] proof. So that aside, I want to make sure

[1:23:32] that this city when it's reforming it's

[1:23:36] public works, it makes sure that the laws

[1:23:39] are being -- obeyed and they are going to

[1:23:44] be obeyed and we are upholding the

[1:23:46] dignity of this law so that the workers

[1:23:49] all get the same wages, the wages that

[1:23:51] are provided under the wage determination

[1:23:55] from the dir. And the apprenticeship

[1:23:58] standards an

[1:24:03] inherent part of that. They do not go

[1:24:06] away. I feel strongly we need to award a

[1:24:09] contractor who has not violated the law,

[1:24:12] at least not recently because this was

[1:24:15] just last year and the settlement only

[1:24:18] happened this year. So I am going to

[1:24:22] recommend my personal thoughts and we can

[1:24:24] hear other comments that we choose option

[1:24:27] 3 which is in the interest conveyed by

[1:24:31] staff earlier that there was a time limit

[1:24:33] for this project. I think it would be

[1:24:35] faster to look for one of the previous

[1:24:38] bidders. I know that it will cost a

[1:24:40] little bit more, but I think it's worth

[1:24:45] to get the job going and working with a

[1:24:49] contractor who is known to be a follower

[1:24:50] of the law in the interest of the people.

[1:24:51] thank you very much.

[1:24:56] >> mayor diane papan: okay. Anybody

[1:25:02] else?

[1:25:03] >> rick, I think it's within our purview

[1:25:05] to discuss this out a little bit.

[1:25:06] >> yeah.

[1:25:07] >> the idea that it's common or rare to

[1:25:12] have a complaint like this at a work

[1:25:16] site, are there builders who end up not

[1:25:23] having any complaints about their work

[1:25:26] site?

[1:25:27] >> yeah, there are plenty of contractors

[1:25:29] that have no complaints to the dir or

[1:25:33] dis. What mr. Bingham was describing is

[1:25:38] between contracts there is a description

[1:25:42] about who is doing the work and a whole

[1:25:45] different level of what goes on between

[1:25:48] unions. No, this is very simple, there

[1:25:51] are lots of contractors who have not had

[1:25:55] any complaints nor any violations.

[1:26:06] >> I have a couple questions. And you

[1:26:09] might be able to step in here.

[1:26:16] so attachment 7 is how the city can

[1:26:20] protect themselves if there is a breach

[1:26:24] as to hired apprenticeship as required by

[1:26:26] the law and other things we can do with

[1:26:30] certified payroll submittals as to the

[1:26:34] apprentice matters being done as well and

[1:26:36] not complying with that?

[1:26:37] >> I will let you speak to the memo that

[1:26:42] the generated by his office. The other

[1:26:44] two suggestions was that we could require

[1:26:48] that the certified payroll submittals be

[1:26:51] provided to staff as well and we would

[1:26:53] review those against the prevailing wage

[1:26:57] schedules to ensure compliance as well.

[1:26:58] the second thing we can do would be to

[1:27:04] require all the submittals that need to

[1:27:06] go to each of the trades around the

[1:27:10] apprenticeship issue and we can require

[1:27:11] those to be submitted to us as well. In

[1:27:14] the documentation that you received from

[1:27:19] goodland on several of their

[1:27:22] correspondence, included copies of those

[1:27:24] forms that are notification that a

[1:27:26] contract was going to be awarded, on the

[1:27:34] des 140 and the request for the dispatch

[1:27:37] of the bren apprentice. Those would be

[1:27:46] required.

[1:27:47] >> before you do that, explain to me the

[1:27:50] dispatch that goes to the union and says

[1:27:53] can you please dispatch to us the

[1:27:57] apprenticeship to do the job.

[1:28:00] >> I'm only been certified for 10

[1:28:03] minutes. I think those go to the

[1:28:06] apprenticeship committees. But we have

[1:28:08] people back here on the dais who may know

[1:28:12] more exactly, but it's requesting the

[1:28:21] apprentices be dispatched and identify

[1:28:22] what the need is.

[1:28:25] >> did you have a follow-up to that?

[1:28:27] >> no, I would rather wait.

[1:28:28] >> okay.

[1:28:34] >> so attachment 7 is a memo prepared by

[1:28:35] the city attorney and my office and

[1:28:39] outlines the remedies, both the penalties

[1:28:41] that go along for state law that are

[1:28:44] violating these laws, the prevailing wage

[1:28:47] laws and as well as the contractual

[1:28:49] remedies the city would have if the

[1:28:52] contractor did not comply with those

[1:28:54] laws. So there are remedies available

[1:28:59] when violations occur.

[1:29:04] >> I think I'm done for now.

[1:29:06] >> so, I just have a question for council

[1:29:17] member so I better understand this. Is

[1:29:21] your main concern is that goodland would

[1:29:25] not follow these regulations for these

[1:29:27] projects here, or is it more to kind of

[1:29:33] punish them for alleged violations in the

[1:29:35] past?

[1:29:36] >> so my concern right now is going

[1:29:38] forward we try to use a contractor who is

[1:29:41] not known to have violated these laws,

[1:29:44] and I have another concern in the letter

[1:29:47] and materials sent to us from goodland, I

[1:29:53] sensed and I red an read and an attempt

[1:30:00] to dissuade us that a violation was a

[1:30:05] violation and the laws pertaining to

[1:30:09] those that could qualify which is the law

[1:30:11] and would have to be signatory to qualify

[1:30:15] for that exemption. They wouldn't be

[1:30:17] qualified for it. It's not no judgment on

[1:30:20] my part. That's what the law says right

[1:30:23] now. He tried to convince us that the

[1:30:26] violation was not a violation and he only

[1:30:28] paid to make it go away which were his

[1:30:32] exact words just a minute ago. That's not

[1:30:34] a great attitude going forward in terms

[1:30:36] of showing respect for the law. In fact

[1:30:39] it shows a kind of contempt for the law

[1:30:41] in my mind. So I just want to get the job

[1:30:45] going with a contractor who doesn't have

[1:30:48] any violations under their belt and we

[1:30:50] can move forward.

[1:30:51] >> it's not about whether or not they

[1:30:53] will be able to fulfill their 100%

[1:30:57] obligations for the city of san mateo for

[1:31:01] this project.

[1:31:02] >> sean mentioned in his letter here that

[1:31:04] for instance paul said we could collect

[1:31:07] the certified payroll reports and examine

[1:31:09] them. So I have some questions about

[1:31:11] that, I don't think we employ anybody who

[1:31:15] is qualified, trained, knowledgeable in

[1:31:18] knowledging payroll reports. In fact

[1:31:19] they are not wage reports but wage in our

[1:31:23] reports and we have to know who was

[1:31:26] working on the site and what days and we

[1:31:27] have to be able to gather superintendents

[1:31:35] daily logs so that we are able to discern

[1:31:38] and I have seen so much information

[1:31:42] recently where people worked on-the-job 5

[1:31:45] hours a day where they claim to work

[1:31:48] somewhere else 3 hours a day. People

[1:31:51] that's what they do, they enforce

[1:31:55] certified payroll that we don't have

[1:31:59] anybody in house to try to do that and I

[1:32:01] think we would be a failure in trying to

[1:32:05] do that. Yes, I'm concerned that we'll

[1:32:07] get what we are supposed to get under the

[1:32:10] prevailing wage laws which is the

[1:32:15] people's moneys worth.

[1:32:20] >> so I have a follow-up question on

[1:32:26] that, it's worth 80,000, $80,000, plus

[1:32:32] the taxpayers money?

[1:32:35] >> yes, it is worth to not pay someone

[1:32:42] who has violated the law. Yes, I would

[1:32:45] say it's worth that.

[1:32:46] >> I was just going to say that nothing

[1:32:48] was presented to us and we didn't

[1:32:53] undercover anything that showed that good

[1:33:05] land did not follow the prevailing wage

[1:33:11] requirement.

[1:33:12] >> counsel, I'm trying to remember. I

[1:33:14] think I red this in the staff report, if

[1:33:16] we run the risk of paying $100,000 more

[1:33:19] to go to the other one of the

[1:33:22] contractors, we can also be presented

[1:33:24] with new bids that are even higher than

[1:33:28] that, and are we also at risk with a

[1:33:33] field turf on not honoring the amount

[1:33:35] they gave us?

[1:33:36] >> the field turf, I believe their

[1:33:39] proposal is good through june 1st. They

[1:33:42] are bound by that until june 1st, but

[1:33:48] after that, they can choose to honor that

[1:33:53] or not. Secondly, I believe their base

[1:33:56] bid is what we identified the low bidder

[1:34:01] on is about $100,000 over. If we

[1:34:05] included the two alternates that were

[1:34:09] included which were the colorization of

[1:34:13] the basketball court and added the

[1:34:16] drinking fountain then it would be

[1:34:18] $100,000 over the amount by goodland.

[1:34:23] the third and fourth contractor is a

[1:34:25] little bit above on the base, but the

[1:34:28] alternates are lower so their net total

[1:34:30] would be less than $150,000.

[1:34:32] >> okay, thank you.

[1:34:48] >> madam mayor, the additional

[1:34:50] requirements you would impose on them,

[1:34:55] would those be included in the main

[1:34:57] motion or in the amendment we would have

[1:35:02] to add?

[1:35:15] >> I can answer that question. It would

[1:35:17] need to be added.

[1:35:18] >> if I can ask the city attorney, are you

[1:35:27] okay with the language on what we would

[1:35:36] require by goodland as proposed by the

[1:35:37] mayor.

[1:35:38] >> I think the paragraph we are referring

[1:35:43] to just for clarification would be it's

[1:35:57] in the staff report there is a section

[1:35:59] called award contracts to goodland and

[1:36:05] the last part of that report under no. 1

[1:36:11] says: in dispute of a memo, the city

[1:36:14] remedy is available in the event of a

[1:36:18] contract breach, and in addition the city

[1:36:21] could require copy of payroll submittals

[1:36:25] and apprenticeship of ds 140 and

[1:36:27] consistent with the labor code

[1:36:30] requirement without exemption submitted

[1:36:31] directly to the state also be submitted

[1:36:33] to the city project manager.

[1:36:38] who would that be, by the wa?

[1:36:43] >> the field manager is the department

[1:36:47] staff.

[1:36:48] >> okay.

[1:36:49] >> I believe your motion would be to

[1:36:50] approve the contract with the addition of

[1:36:53] that language from the report in terms of

[1:37:00] those forms that is sufficient to change

[1:37:02] the agreement.

[1:37:03] >> former mayor rick bonilla: I have

[1:37:06] more questions. Does mr. Mason have

[1:37:12] experience with certified payrolls.

[1:37:14] >> he's been employed with the city for

[1:37:17] 30 years and his job has been

[1:37:21] construction management. She'll have a

[1:37:23] better idea of what his role is.

[1:37:27] >> thank you, sheila, parks and

[1:37:30] recreation. As mentioned ron has been

[1:37:31] with us for about 30 years and prior to

[1:37:34] coming to san mateo has also worked as a

[1:37:38] job site superintendent for the valley

[1:37:42] landscape when he was on the private

[1:37:45] side. Specifically speaking to that, I

[1:37:47] don't know. Before the certified

[1:37:48] payrolls were sent to the state, the city

[1:37:52] accepted those, so I'm suspecting that on

[1:37:55] previous jobs those came to ron to review

[1:37:57] before they were sent directly to the

[1:38:00] state. But I don't know the time frames

[1:38:04] when that might have happened.

[1:38:07] >> okay, so let me ask you, do you know

[1:38:12] what happens after certified payroll

[1:38:14] reports get to the state?

[1:38:16] >> no, I don't believe I'm aware of it.

[1:38:21] >> okay.

[1:38:23] >> okay, having worked in that field for

[1:38:26] quite a while and done a lot of this,

[1:38:29] nothing happens unless someone is out

[1:38:33] there checking an monitoring jobs and

[1:38:38] files a complaint. Unless someone files

[1:38:40] a complaint and they get examined. If we

[1:38:43] are dealing with the reports ourselves

[1:38:45] and we have somebody here who knows how

[1:38:49] to read and interprets those and knows

[1:38:55] the violation, that would make no sense.

[1:38:58] we can hire someone to do that, but we

[1:39:01] have nobody here that can do that. It's

[1:39:04] not been our function, our project

[1:39:08] manager's don't do that, that's not his

[1:39:11] job. All he did was require them to turn

[1:39:14] them in and he turns them into somebody

[1:39:17] else. That's all there is to it. All I'm

[1:39:21] saying if we really stand by the

[1:39:23] prevailing wage laws and we want to do

[1:39:28] business in an honest and open way, then

[1:39:33] we find someone who has not violated and

[1:39:42] they have to follow the standards under

[1:39:44] the law.

[1:39:45] >> if I might add a comment. We have not

[1:39:48] done due diligence on the next to low

[1:39:50] bidders, I can't say with any certainty

[1:39:52] that the next three bidders are going to

[1:40:02] turn up clean at all without any

[1:40:07] violations.

[1:40:08] >> thank you. That's already a part of

[1:40:12] doing business. Unless we ask them ahead

[1:40:15] of time if they have had any violations

[1:40:19] which is what we want to maybe look into

[1:40:22] doing.

[1:40:23] >> are we good?

[1:40:26] >> well, my feeling is this. I want you

[1:40:28] to know where I'm leaning with this.

[1:40:30] I don't see any wage violations in this

[1:40:36] particularly contractor's history, and I

[1:40:37] think there are protections that we have

[1:40:42] to ensure there aren't going to be wage

[1:40:45] violations on this job. He's done a lot

[1:40:48] of public works jobs and I don't see any

[1:40:51] issues. With the apprentice issues, we

[1:40:55] can have some oversight to make sure that

[1:40:58] happens. When I see the potential for

[1:41:01] that and an additional $80,000 we can

[1:41:07] protect that. Inasmuch as I don't want

[1:41:08] to, not that I don't want to, but I want

[1:41:13] to be sympathetic to those concerns, but

[1:41:17] when I weigh it with the potential and

[1:41:18] the protections and the price

[1:41:23] differential, I'm leaning with the

[1:41:24] approval towards the protections. That's

[1:41:26] kind of the process that I went through.

[1:41:30] >> yeah, I went through all the

[1:41:32] documents. I read them all, all the

[1:41:42] letters, the e-mails and I regulate that

[1:41:44] this came up and we had to regulate this

[1:41:47] and I think it's appropriate the city did

[1:41:55] its due diligence, but I'm not convinced

[1:41:57] that there is enough strong evidence to

[1:42:00] deny this construction and ensure that

[1:42:04] additional $100,000. I think we have a

[1:42:06] fiduciary responsibility to our community

[1:42:10] as well is to protect their interest to

[1:42:13] do the job the best way we can in a

[1:42:16] financial and feasible way. I appreciate

[1:42:19] the city attorney gave us sufficient

[1:42:24] remedies for a breach of contract. I

[1:42:26] think we can with some additional

[1:42:31] requirements of additional submittals to

[1:42:32] police this in a way that will meet our

[1:42:33] requirements, and I think we've had a

[1:42:38] relationship with goodland in the past

[1:42:41] without any issues. I'm hoping that they

[1:42:44] are kind of on noticed that they are

[1:42:46] going to be watched on this project and

[1:42:47] we can't have any problems and that we

[1:42:49] can move forward and get this done. My

[1:42:52] concern is also a filter and changing

[1:42:57] their dollars we see and money is going

[1:42:59] up all the time for construction

[1:43:01] projects. We are trying to get this done

[1:43:03] in the most efficient and cost-efficient

[1:43:06] way we can. I'm leaning towards going

[1:43:09] with the award to goodland with the

[1:43:16] protections in place.

[1:43:19] >> I'm in favor of moving forward with

[1:43:23] going with goodland with the protection

[1:43:27] in place. The $100,000, I would rather be

[1:43:29] spent on our parks and kids if we are

[1:43:32] spending more than we have to, let's put

[1:43:35] it to good use. I think goodland knows

[1:43:46] they are going to be watched like a hawk,

[1:43:49] and I think it's time the kids get their

[1:43:54] park and we stop playing politics and is

[1:43:55] that are the the project already.

[1:44:04] >> former mayor rick bonilla: playing

[1:44:08] politics? I'm sorry, we have to state nd

[1:44:11] up for something and these are the laws.

[1:44:13] we are a public works employer. We

[1:44:16] create projects and it's always been our

[1:44:18] value that we make sure we get people

[1:44:21] here who follow the law. Now, anybody can

[1:44:24] bid these projects, that is the law,

[1:44:27] anybody can. But if you are implying

[1:44:29] that I'm playing politics, you are going

[1:44:31] up the wrong tree. That's it. I think

[1:44:34] you know my position. Thank you.

[1:44:36] >> so what I look for is a motion in

[1:44:41] making the motion, if whoever makes the

[1:44:44] motion reads the language after option 1,

[1:44:46] up to where it gets to option 2 to make

[1:44:50] sure we have a clear record as to what

[1:44:53] the council's decision is.

[1:44:54] >> what was the last part, I'm sorry,

[1:44:59] option 1 and in the end?

[1:45:00] >> if you look at the agenda, it says

[1:45:06] option 1, adopt a resolution and the

[1:45:08] language that follows. If whoever makes

[1:45:09] the motion reads that language up to the

[1:45:11] point where it says not to exceed $80,000.

[1:45:17] >> okay.

[1:45:18] >> that way it will capture all the

[1:45:21] actions that the council is approving.

[1:45:23] >> would it have the protections in

[1:45:27] there?

[1:45:28] >> then add from the paragraph from the

[1:45:32] staff report.

[1:45:33] >> all right. I will make the motion.

[1:45:38] >> adopt a resolution to find that the

[1:45:41] cooperative program is in the best

[1:45:42] interest of the city, to install this

[1:45:46] king park and approve two agreements,

[1:45:51] with goodland to construction the

[1:45:53] improvements of the base bid no. 1,

[1:45:58] acrylic resurfacing and a basketball

[1:46:00] court and no. 3 new drinking fountain at

[1:46:05] field entry, and b, feet turf usa inc. In

[1:46:14] the amount of $676,614 to execute the

[1:46:21] agreements and issue change orders to

[1:46:24] either or both contracts in an aggregate

[1:46:27] amount not to exceed $80,000 and the

[1:46:34] remedies available in a contract be set

[1:46:39] forth in attachment 7 and the city

[1:46:42] requires that all papers and submittals

[1:46:46] and all apprenticeships forms consistent

[1:46:48] with labor code requirement without

[1:46:51] exemption be submitted directly to the

[1:46:52] state also be submitted to the city

[1:46:56] project manager. That's the motion. Okay.

[1:47:02] >> second.

[1:47:04] >> all right. All in favor say, "aye".

[1:47:05] >> aye.

[1:47:06] >> any opposed?

[1:47:08] >> no.

[1:47:12] >> abstentions? That motion passes 4-1.

[1:47:15] okay, we will move on to bonds, bonds,

[1:47:33] bonds. Mr. Lee, welcome. Is that mic

[1:47:40] working?

[1:47:42] >> yes.

[1:47:43] >> okay, take us through the bond sales.

[1:47:49] >> good evening. The finances director.

[1:47:52] this item before you is for clean water

[1:47:56] program costs bond sale.

[1:47:58] the clean water program in february of

[1:48:01] 2016, the san mateo foster city of public

[1:48:06] finance authority was formed and in 2017,

[1:48:11] the council adopted a reimbursement

[1:48:16] resolution to capture finances incurred

[1:48:20] and this is for approval of the bond

[1:48:22] sale. In about 12 hours from now, the

[1:48:26] city staff, our consultants, staff from

[1:48:30] the municipal improvement district will

[1:48:32] meet at the beginning of bond rating of

[1:48:36] san francisco and to mood easy. May of

[1:48:39] 2019, will be actually first going to the

[1:48:42] public financing authority board for

[1:48:44] approval of the sale, then we'll be going

[1:48:47] through pricing and closing. So those are

[1:48:49] the major milestones for the financing.

[1:48:53] we are looking an as the council is

[1:49:00] well aware and as the chart shows, $830

[1:49:03] million ass the cities share of the cost

[1:49:07] allocation or roughly 84% and the

[1:49:11] remainder. The table before you shows

[1:49:14] the use of a particular interest. The

[1:49:18] bond uses for the entire program rests at

[1:49:27] about $503 million. And the program was

[1:49:32] discussed in greater detail and finally

[1:49:35] cash that is generated through these

[1:49:37] service charges. In terms of uses, as you

[1:49:39] can see the lion share is for the clean

[1:49:44] water program, $807 million and the

[1:49:45] portion is to repay the line of credit

[1:49:48] that the city has with stage street. One

[1:49:51] important item to note for federal

[1:49:54] securities laws in attachment 2 of the

[1:49:56] administrative report is the preliminary

[1:49:58] official statement. It really reflected

[1:50:10] hercule an effort with appendix a and c,

[1:50:15] appendix c is the disclosure or our

[1:50:17] opportunity to provide information while

[1:50:21] the debt has already been issued. The

[1:50:24] bottom line is we ask the council to

[1:50:28] review the preliminary statement and

[1:50:29] there is information by the city to a key

[1:50:32] to a reasonable investor in their

[1:50:34] determination whether or not they want

[1:50:38] to buy or sell the bonds. So the

[1:50:41] recommendation before you this evening,

[1:50:42] there is a number of items. First that

[1:50:45] the council a sentence n assents to the

[1:50:54] san mateo city for the bonds and the loan

[1:50:56] for the city. The city only pays its

[1:50:59] share of the actual debt. The continuing

[1:51:05] disclosure to make disclosures to

[1:51:07] investors is in the preliminary c

[1:51:10] official statement and the bonding for

[1:51:12] the 2019 bonds. We ask that you approve

[1:51:14] and authorize distribution of the

[1:51:18] official statement. Approve all

[1:51:20] documents and substantially the form

[1:51:22] presented and approve all related

[1:51:24] documents and actions. This concludes my

[1:51:27] presentation. I happy to answer any

[1:51:31] questions.

[1:51:32] >> so it is that the financing authority

[1:51:37] and that's made up of the district and

[1:51:38] the city, right?

[1:51:39] >> that's correct.

[1:51:41] >> they are going to get the bonds,

[1:51:45] right?

[1:51:46] >> correct.

[1:51:49] >> and then the financing authority

[1:51:51] actually loans the money to the city to

[1:51:53] do the work and we pay the financing

[1:51:56] authority back and they pay the bond

[1:51:58] market back, right?

[1:51:59] >> that's correct. That is essentially

[1:52:01] what item no. 2 is which is the financing

[1:52:04] agreement between the city an at anied

[1:52:06] financing authority.

[1:52:08] >> that's how we get the money?

[1:52:10] >> right.

[1:52:12] >> okay. And then just trying to see,

[1:52:15] one more question about the obligation to

[1:52:21] make annual disclosures. Is that on a set

[1:52:23] date every year that we must do that and

[1:52:26] how does that work?

[1:52:27] >> yes, there is two items that are

[1:52:30] principally included in the disclosure.

[1:52:32] first is the cities comprehensive annual

[1:52:36] financial report or cafr, we typically

[1:52:38] issue that in november or perhaps

[1:52:40] december in order to maintain compliance

[1:52:46] with our with bonds. We upload that

[1:52:49] information and we have a consult that up

[1:52:54] loads that document to the first part of

[1:52:59] containing the disclosure.

[1:53:02] >> another question, is it the deputy

[1:53:05] mayor that signed off own that before it

[1:53:09] happens or no?

[1:53:10] >> on the financial statement?

[1:53:11] >> the one you do every year or is that

[1:53:15] the audit?

[1:53:16] >> the financial statement is presented

[1:53:18] to council for approval each fiscal year

[1:53:20] in order to be considered for the

[1:53:24] government finance officer's award. We

[1:53:27] submit that no later december 31st for

[1:53:30] each year, but for compliance purposes

[1:53:32] for the bond requirements, there is a

[1:53:37] deadline of march 31st of each year.

[1:53:39] >> okay. Did you want to say something

[1:53:43] else, I'm sorry, I interrupted you. There

[1:53:45] was a second part to it.

[1:53:48] >> yes, the second part is to report the

[1:53:54] coverage requirements. Our existing debt

[1:53:56] there is a 1.2 ratio on the net and

[1:54:00] existing debt service. As long as there

[1:54:03] is a 1.2 ratio, then we are in compliance

[1:54:07] and that will remain true for debt which

[1:54:12] is what we are asking for council this

[1:54:16] evening.

[1:54:17] >> okay. Public comment? They are not

[1:54:20] lined up?

[1:54:21] >> okay.

[1:54:22] >> make a motion to approve.

[1:54:23] >> we are going to sign our lives away

[1:54:26] momentarily.

[1:54:27] >> in making the motion, if you would

[1:54:28] read the language.

[1:54:30] >> okay, let me apply my glasses.

[1:54:32] >> thank you.

[1:54:33] >> adopt a resolution to approve, one,

[1:54:37] the san mateo foster city public

[1:54:42] financing authorities sale of revenue

[1:54:44] bonds, financing agreement for a loan

[1:54:47] from the authority to the city,

[1:54:51] continuing disclosure certificate that

[1:54:52] obligates the city to make annual

[1:54:56] disclosures to investors, and bond

[1:54:58] purchase agreement providing for the

[1:55:01] purchase of 2019 bonds, 2, approve and

[1:55:05] authors distribution of the official

[1:55:08] statement, 3, approve all documents in

[1:55:11] substantially the form presented.

[1:55:15] approve all related documents and

[1:55:18] actions. Second.

[1:55:19] >> all in favor say, "aye".

[1:55:20] >> aye.

[1:55:21] >> any opposed? Next up. Is there a

[1:55:22] license plate reader in the crowd? Come

[1:55:29] on down.

[1:55:51] >>> how many do you want? Six? Have

[1:55:59] they gone down in price, by the wa?

[1:56:05] >> please go ahead.

[1:56:09] >> captain norris, chief at the police

[1:56:12] department. Someone is here to back me

[1:56:18] up. Madam mayor, council, thank you for

[1:56:19] listening to us today. The item that you

[1:56:21] have on today is to adopt a resolution to

[1:56:26] use alternative purchasing method to

[1:56:30] approve an agreement with neology for the

[1:56:45] procurement of six automated license

[1:56:47] plate readers for the san mateo police

[1:56:49] department in the amount of $108,124.30.

[1:57:04] appropriate $72,718.53. From the

[1:57:06] available balance of the measure s fund

[1:57:09] and authorize the chief of police to

[1:57:11] execute the agreement.

[1:57:15] there is an property crime epidemic in

[1:57:29] california, and as we try to tam p down

[1:57:37] on that are those that are committing

[1:57:39] crimes that are coming across the bridge

[1:57:43] and working their way up the peninsula

[1:57:45] and hitting pretty much every city in

[1:57:47] between. There are two dwrafs graphs on

[1:57:55] the first slide and one showing specifics

[1:57:59] and the auto burglaries which we know are

[1:58:02] very high right now which is that top

[1:58:04] line in the red and the one in the middle

[1:58:10] is the stolen vehicles which continue to

[1:58:12] rise. I wanted to highlight those because

[1:58:16] these are particularly effective with

[1:58:18] stolen vehicles. So you all have the

[1:58:22] city and safe and secure neighborhoods.

[1:58:24] a big part of that was to levy the

[1:58:28] technology resources and to maximize the

[1:58:30] effectiveness out there and to indicate

[1:58:35] these property crimes. Automated license

[1:58:38] readers are a resource for police

[1:58:40] strategies. They are really just a faster

[1:58:43] version of what officers have been doing

[1:58:45] for decades. I put an example in there.

[1:58:47] some of you may recognize that. 5/23/68

[1:59:05] is a description. Dark green vw karman

[1:59:16] ghia. That takes that basic description

[1:59:18] and information and compares it with

[1:59:20] other data. So we are in an era right

[1:59:23] now, we are in neighboring agencies and

[1:59:28] cities are in their jurisdictions and we

[1:59:31] need to be competitive with that,

[1:59:33] otherwise we maybe more vulnerable than

[1:59:36] some of those jurisdictions. There is a

[1:59:38] lot of detail on this page. I want to hit

[1:59:41] the highlights for you. We have two

[1:59:45] vehicles in operation since 2011. They

[1:59:47] have been in operation for 8 years which

[1:59:49] is a really long time in terms of

[1:59:52] technology and equipment. And operating

[1:59:53] on that same equipment. The data from

[1:59:58] those are located to the northern

[2:00:04] california regional intelligence center

[2:00:06] data base where we store all of that data

[2:00:13] under strict guidelines and there is

[2:00:14] access to which we get those is highly

[2:00:19] controlled. Only authorized and train

[2:00:24] personnel are indicating a legitimate

[2:00:28] purpose can access that system so it's

[2:00:31] very audible and very secure. We have a

[2:00:34] record service agreement in

[2:00:41] the county and our officers use this data

[2:00:44] base daily to investigate crimes. We

[2:00:46] meet all the legal compliance and we have

[2:00:49] policies and procedures in place to make

[2:00:51] sure we are handling that data in the

[2:00:54] most professional manner possible.

[2:00:56] with the approval of the purchase gets

[2:00:59] for us today, we'll be updating the

[2:01:02] equipment on our 2 current arpr vehicles,

[2:01:06] we'll be adding two additional arpr

[2:01:10] vehicles to that number and also

[2:01:13] outfitting two mobile message trailers

[2:01:17] and it gives us a flexible option. We can

[2:01:21] place those on hot spots and place those

[2:01:24] strategically for events and management

[2:01:26] situations and it gives us what we

[2:01:27] consider to be a good proof of concept

[2:01:30] for what will be what I would guess a

[2:01:35] request for the future for what cities

[2:01:37] are doing and be able to put this in

[2:01:40] locations to gather the data and get the

[2:01:45] concepts for how that data will work.

[2:01:47] this is to give you a quick example. I

[2:01:50] took 5 minutes out of the day and went

[2:01:54] through the last 60 days searching

[2:01:57] e-mails and came up with five great

[2:02:00] examples and came up with how license

[2:02:06] readers help us. There was a suspect

[2:02:09] identified in a road rage in san bruno

[2:02:12] and you know in the month of february for

[2:02:17] an arson murder case and we accurately

[2:02:20] identified a suspect in that case. A

[2:02:24] commercial crew in fresno gets

[2:02:28] communicated to california, and a murder

[2:02:30] case out of danville and east bay case

[2:02:34] about home invasion. All of those cases

[2:02:37] were flyers and I extracted a lot of the

[2:02:39] information out of it because a lot of

[2:02:43] them are active cases. But flyers coming

[2:02:46] from other agencies that they have

[2:02:48] identified a suspect based on arp data

[2:02:51] with access to vehicles that allows us to

[2:02:57] investigate those cases. I have a couple

[2:03:00] of pages about why this technology is

[2:03:08] essential.

[2:03:09] the alpr's are being used actively by all

[2:03:13] levels of our departments, by the

[2:03:15] officers on the streets, our detectives

[2:03:22] and they are using all of this technology

[2:03:28] from other areas and they can shorten the

[2:03:35] investigation time and operational period

[2:03:37] an get to the suspect identification if

[2:03:39] they had more from the local alpr

[2:03:44] sources. We have a lot of community

[2:03:46] meeting with coffee with the cop meetings

[2:03:48] and social media. A lot of folks in our

[2:03:50] neighborhood are saying they have a very

[2:03:52] high approval of the alpr systems and

[2:03:55] what they do for laughed and I have not

[2:04:00] heard any negative commentary on that.

[2:04:07] and throughout the agencies nationwide,

[2:04:10] they say that is a deterrent to crime. I

[2:04:17] know I rambled through all of this. If

[2:04:20] you have any questions.

[2:04:22] >> how soon can these things be

[2:04:25] delivered?

[2:04:26] >> it was 7 minutes.

[2:04:28] >> how soon can these things be

[2:04:31] delivered?

[2:04:32] >> good question.

[2:04:33] >> we are going to put the plan in place

[2:04:35] tomorrow if you approve tonight.

[2:04:36] >> I have a meeting at 8:30 a.m. To put

[2:04:41] everything in motion if approved.

[2:04:42] >> what are the tough questions you get

[2:04:45] from the community about privacy

[2:04:48] concerns?

[2:04:52] >> we have not had a lot of questions

[2:04:57] about privacy. I know those with the

[2:05:01] measure s community and what are we doing

[2:05:04] with privacy. Part of that is we show on

[2:05:07] the website how we maintain the security

[2:05:12] of the data and what we do

[2:05:16] to access the data and part of it is to

[2:05:19] ensure that we are not pulling

[2:05:23] registration information. If our alpr get

[2:05:26] through council and the license plate and

[2:05:27] at this paragraph at the rear of the

[2:05:29] vehicle so we have a vehicle color, make

[2:05:33] model and description and the license

[2:05:35] plate number, that is all we get. The

[2:05:37] only time you get more than that, is what

[2:05:39] that data that is automatically compared

[2:05:47] to list of vehicles that might get a hot

[2:05:52] list. That just matches that data, but it

[2:05:57] doesn't pull the data of everybody and

[2:06:01] that is a pretty good argument point when

[2:06:06] it comes to privacy. What we are doing

[2:06:08] with our activity is we are just

[2:06:11] enhancing what we have been doing for

[2:06:14] decades. That's why I put the example

[2:06:22] when sergeant was killed. That's what we

[2:06:25] do with our eyes and our observations. We

[2:06:29] are extracting no more than that with

[2:06:33] these systems, just at a higher volume.

[2:06:35] >> can you go to the slide with the lap

[2:06:39] top in the vehicle? That one, in this

[2:06:48] set up, it looks incredibly distracting.

[2:06:51] is that the set up that would happen

[2:06:54] inside of vehicles, and are we taking any

[2:06:58] steps to make sure that

[2:07:05] drivers are not causing a crash.

[2:07:07] >> this is not the set up that you would

[2:07:10] see in our vehicles per say. This is

[2:07:17] something that might show up from an

[2:07:21] investigation, and generally there is

[2:07:27] audible beep. That will indicate to them

[2:07:29] that there is something going on that

[2:07:31] they need to checkout. And in addition

[2:07:34] to that, our feeling is that when you

[2:07:37] provide this type of technology that

[2:07:40] enhances officer's ability to collect

[2:07:41] information without having to actually

[2:07:43] look at it, our drivers are actually

[2:07:46] performing safer because they are not

[2:07:48] looking at all the license plates of all

[2:07:50] the cars on the road. They are looking

[2:07:52] ahead of them at the traffic situation

[2:07:55] that they are driving into. In my

[2:07:58] opinion, it's a safety reducer and the

[2:08:01] safety enhancer of reducing the risk of

[2:08:04] being distracted while they are driving.

[2:08:09] >> it sounds good. I hope it plays out

[2:08:14] that way.

[2:08:17] >> can you help explain why you are

[2:08:22] requesting six of these?

[2:08:23] >> we went through several different

[2:08:26] rounds of looking at different numbers.

[2:08:29] we were looking at something that fit

[2:08:32] with a reasonable ask with regard to

[2:08:35] measure s funds and what we needed. We

[2:08:38] knew we needed to return those old alpr

[2:08:41] systems and we wanted to get something

[2:08:43] that was a proof of concept on our mobile

[2:08:47] message trailers to put some semi fixed

[2:08:51] alpr locations out in public. We would

[2:08:52] love to have more.

[2:08:54] >> is this the type of thing where six is

[2:09:00] good and 12 is twice as good?

[2:09:04] >> absolutely.

[2:09:05] >> what is your timeline for evaluating

[2:09:07] the proof of concept and what is a road

[2:09:09] map if it goes away, your thinking or

[2:09:14] hoping it goes?

[2:09:16] >> depends on our operational needs but

[2:09:18] we would be looking to put things in

[2:09:21] motion with that proof of concept as

[2:09:25] quickly as possible because we want to

[2:09:26] come back to you and show you exactly

[2:09:29] what that does.

[2:09:30] >> if you are asking what's belonging

[2:09:33] here, these mobile trailers that we can

[2:09:37] fix these hot spots will help us identify

[2:09:42] how helpful it will be to put these hot

[2:09:47] spots for these cities that are

[2:09:51] crossroads for freeways on and off, as

[2:09:53] you know we are the crossroads for this

[2:09:57] county and we will bring back to you a

[2:09:59] fixed system that will help and

[2:10:03] neighborhoods are begging for it. In fact

[2:10:06] private neighborhoods are putting it in

[2:10:11] themselves.

[2:10:12] >> that was my last question where you

[2:10:15] probably have a 59% chance where one or

[2:10:19] two of these fixed ones. It doesn't make

[2:10:22] sense to keep buying six temporary ones

[2:10:26] if you know. Is the economics work where

[2:10:29] it works better?

[2:10:31] >> I think these are very important

[2:10:32] because we need the mobile ones to do the

[2:10:36] audits of the transient hotels. These

[2:10:41] two are the collectors and the trailer

[2:10:44] ones are going to help us decide where is

[2:10:47] the best place to put them. If we are

[2:10:49] going to play with four of them, we are

[2:10:51] going to say this is the best return on

[2:10:55] investment. We are happy to get another

[2:10:57] four now, but this is the most prudent

[2:11:00] way to get this with the funding. We

[2:11:03] have been waiting for quite a while and

[2:11:06] we have the business services contractor

[2:11:09] ready to sign this tonight.

[2:11:11] >> we'll get back with you with some of

[2:11:13] the jurisdictions that have alpr's

[2:11:16] already and the success they are showing

[2:11:18] and give you an idea of what it looks

[2:11:20] like in a similar sized area as to having

[2:11:24] the alpr's out there in a fixed location

[2:11:27] and what they can do.

[2:11:29] >> this to me sounds like an outstanding

[2:11:33] investment for funds for public safety.

[2:11:35] >> I wonder if they are coming down in

[2:11:40] price. I agree that you are buying them

[2:11:45] in bulk. About $18,000 a piece?

[2:11:47] >> yes, for the all mobile stuff anything

[2:11:52] we put on a vehicle is about $17,000 or

[2:11:59] $18,000 a piece. They come in a little

[2:12:02] different price range and depends on the

[2:12:05] complexity of where we put those

[2:12:10] in.

[2:12:11] >> when you were talking about that it

[2:12:13] would cut down on investigation and

[2:12:17] operational time. I'm assuming that

[2:12:19] equates to having more officers out on

[2:12:20] the streets which is what our citizens

[2:12:23] would like to see as well.

[2:12:24] >> so very briefly, the conversation that

[2:12:26] I had with one of our detectives who had

[2:12:32] been involved in street crime, what he's

[2:12:37] telling me is the data we get local in

[2:12:40] san mateo will help us identify san mateo

[2:12:43] crimes. What they are doing right now is

[2:12:46] they are having to reach out to other

[2:12:49] jurisdictions hoping that our suspects

[2:12:52] are rolling through those intersections

[2:12:54] to pick up that information. While we are

[2:12:56] waiting for that information to come in

[2:12:58] or we have to go out on some type of

[2:13:05] physical surveillance operations or sting

[2:13:09] operations to get that information to us,

[2:13:12] we can get that information if we have

[2:13:14] local information to work with.

[2:13:16] >> outstanding. Thank you.

[2:13:17] >> so, do we have a motion?

[2:13:21] >> you have public comment?

[2:13:23] >> is there public comment?

[2:13:24] >> yes, ma'am.

[2:13:25] >> the one time I don't ask. Mr. Hedges?

[2:13:30] public speaker: yes, thank you, mayor

[2:13:33] papan and council members. As chair of

[2:13:36] measure s, we had to go through some

[2:13:39] history of what the funds were for. As

[2:13:41] you know I ran the campaign on the

[2:13:44] citizens side to pass the measure, and we

[2:13:46] knew that those of us that were involved

[2:13:49] in it was for street and road repair for

[2:13:57] flood control and for extending the

[2:14:00] library hours and for enhanceing the

[2:14:02] police department. In looking at that, we

[2:14:06] took all of these things into

[2:14:08] consideration. We took most of the money

[2:14:11] for street and roads, and fema is coming

[2:14:16] back by demanding that we raise san mateo

[2:14:20] creek again. And $72,000 for the police

[2:14:22] department, and 18,000 for the library

[2:14:27] which will go towards money from the

[2:14:29] library foundation to improve one of the

[2:14:31] branches. So we are able to leverage

[2:14:33] that money for a lot more money. So,

[2:14:38] just a personal note, I'm very in favor

[2:14:41] of these cameras. We are needing them in

[2:14:47] arbor town. We had three trucks stolen

[2:14:50] and our poor maintenance guy had his

[2:14:54] truck stolen with tools he collected all

[2:14:57] his life and to add insult to injury, it

[2:15:03] had been destroyed and useless and he had

[2:15:06] to pay the surcharges and storage fee. We

[2:15:12] came up with voluntary gifts to help him

[2:15:18] restore to normal. It was a help. They

[2:15:22] know about it and they are pushing for

[2:15:24] cameras. If we get those cameras, they

[2:15:29] will be linked in with the city. Thank

[2:15:31] you.

[2:15:32] >> mayor diane papan: I want to close

[2:15:33] public comment. I want to thank mr.

[2:15:36] hedges for all of his efforts for measure

[2:15:39] s and after that, in the allocation of

[2:15:42] those funds, we appreciate your

[2:15:49] contributions.

[2:15:50] >> no finer steward than yourself.

[2:15:54] >> do we have a comment or motion.

[2:15:58] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: this

[2:16:00] is the most valuable way we can spend the

[2:16:05] measure s funds. I think public safety

[2:16:08] is something that this entire council is

[2:16:11] concerned about. The track record so far

[2:16:13] in how this has helped solve crimes and

[2:16:18] the fact that it's going to help more

[2:16:20] officers on the streets and help with

[2:16:22] investigations, it's the perfect way to

[2:16:24] utilize some of those measure s funds.

[2:16:28] unless others have comments, I will just

[2:16:30] make a motion. Okay, I move that we adopt

[2:16:33] a resolution to use an alternative

[2:16:40] purchasing method to approve an agreement

[2:16:53] with the neology inc. For the procurement

[2:16:57] of six automated license plate readers

[2:17:00] for the san mateo police department.

[2:17:03] >> all in favor say, "aye".

[2:17:04] >> aye.

[2:17:05] >> any opposed? That item passes. Thank

[2:17:08] you so much.

[2:17:12] >> mayor diane papan: well, that brings

[2:17:14] us to the end of the agenda. Do we have

[2:17:17] anything? I have just an announcement; a

[2:17:24] report, rather. Reports or

[2:17:26] announcements?

[2:17:27] >> something brief.

[2:17:28] >> go ahead.

[2:17:29] >> I don't know, maybe you were going to

[2:17:30] talk about the same thing t ad hoc

[2:17:33] committee?

[2:17:34] >> no. Real quick, the ad hoc committee

[2:17:38] for the 101 managed lanes met and came to

[2:17:42] some consensus around the staffing for

[2:17:45] the jpa that's going to be formed. We

[2:17:47] have another meeting this week and then

[2:17:49] we'll be able to report back on what that

[2:17:52] final staffing model is going to look

[2:17:54] like. But it was a very collaborative

[2:18:02] event between c kag and representatives

[2:18:06] and everyone is pleased with how that is

[2:18:08] going to look.

[2:18:09] >> former mayor rick bonilla: as member

[2:18:11] of the heart board we are going to have

[2:18:17] on annual heart fundraiser at 5:30 p.m.

[2:18:22] at the sand devil's brewery. About

[2:18:30] $140,000 which keeps our office running

[2:18:34] and helps us keep making affordable loans

[2:18:39] for our first time home buyers.

[2:18:42] I think I have to give mr. Rick an

[2:18:50] apology. I apologize for that. In the

[2:18:51] future, I will ask you later.

[2:18:53] >> mayor diane papan: really quickly, I

[2:18:56] saw that they are raising the amount fof

[2:19:00] first time home buyers, the amount of how

[2:19:02] much they can make, I think it's how much

[2:19:05] the home can be worth.

[2:19:06] >> we can only finance up to so much

[2:19:09] through the financing arrangement.

[2:19:12] >> it had been $730,000. It's up to

[2:19:18] $905,000. That means they can look for a

[2:19:20] more expensive place.

[2:19:21] >> wonderful.

[2:19:22] >> keeping up with the times and

[2:19:25] adjusting for the high cost of housing.

[2:19:27] >> good news.

[2:19:29] >> anyone else?

[2:19:30] >> I want to say great job, kathy and the

[2:19:33] crew.

[2:19:34] >>

[2:19:35] [ laughter ]

[2:19:37] >> council member goethals?

[2:19:39] >> council member goethals: I have got

[2:19:40] nothing.

[2:19:41] >> I have something. I even have a wacha

[2:19:50] call it. I want to give a shout out to

[2:19:55] the homeowners association of north

[2:19:57] central san mateo to a phenomenal event

[2:20:00] on saturday with a multi-clean up with

[2:20:05] multicultural and multi-departmental and

[2:20:09] they were out there barbecuing and I

[2:20:11] found myself down on the freeway alone

[2:20:17] picking up trash and brought some back

[2:20:20] and went back again and there was a bag

[2:20:23] of 8 pounds of cigarette butts.

[2:20:27] unbelievable. This is a community effort

[2:20:29] with the collaboration with the city and

[2:20:34] the managers office and I know I'm

[2:20:36] leaving somebody out. In any event. I

[2:20:40] love these t-shirts and it's talking

[2:20:43] about loving north central and this was

[2:20:45] nothing about a labor of love and I'm

[2:20:52] super proud of our city.

[2:20:53] >> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I

[2:20:55] would like the public to know that our

[2:21:00] city manager crossed the finish line

[2:21:03] today and we are very proud of him.

[2:21:07] >> in 3 hours and 90 seconds.

[2:21:11] [ applause ]

City Council on 2019-04-15 7:00 PM - Regular Meeting - Revised - Apr 15th, 2019

Agenda

Transcript