>> mayor diane papan: we will call this
meeting to order on this fine april 15th,
it's not my favorite day of the world.
let's have the pledge and we have the san
mateo's nursery school here to do the
pledge of allegiance. Come on down.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
united states of america and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation,
under god, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> excellent. Teacher, my a, in the
interest of full disclosure. I was the
teacher of our daughter alexa.
>> hello, mayor papan and council
members. We are the san mateo parents
nursery school and we are a private
non-profit co-op nursery school in san
mateo and we are so proud to celebrate
our 70th year this year in san mateo.
and I can't think of a better place for
someone who was born and raised in san
mateo to be able to serve our families.
we are a diverse group of people and we
can walk into costco and I guarantee
there is an alumni there. We are very
proud and we thank you so much for this
opportunity.
>> 70 years. And you are having a
celebration at some point?
>> yes, if anyone is into birthday cake
and face painting, come celebrate with
us. 70 years.
>> what are the sizes of the classes at
your preschool?
>> each session there is 38 children, two
teachers and anywhere from 6-8 lovely
volunteers, adults who come and help us
make the day work, each session.
>> excellent. Is that gus next to you?
>> yes.
>> I remember when you were pregnant.
>> hello. Congratulations.
[ applause ]
.
>> thank you.
>> with that, how about we call roll?
>>
>>clerk: with pleasure. Mayor.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: here,
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: here,
>> council member goethals: here,
>> former mayor rick bonilla: here.
>> I would like to call the kristin
here.
>> sustainable san mateo county.
>> first of all thank you for the
opportunity to present. As you mentioned
my name is is christine and I'm the
executive director for sustainable san
mateo county. Smc for short. We are a
local non-profit and our mission really
is to accelerate the sustainability
adoption throughout the county and
through a system wide lens. Our key
stakeholders are the government, the
business community and non-profit and
academia and members of the public. As
you know the issues around sustainability
are complex and will require partnerships
from all the key stakeholders to move us
forward. In terms of our program, those
include the data driven research based
indicators report. We have an annual
awards program to recognize our local
heroes and interested in the ideas to
help us improve. Even though we are
small, we have a big existence and over
25 years old and we rely on our
volunteers who have been here since the
beginning and we would like to be able to
include the community going forward.
with our current board members, we have a
few past mayor's on board. That was kind
of interesting. Necessary next few
slides, I want to give you an example of
the type of works in the community which
include local campaigns and which we
joined with the fossil free buildings
initiated by menlo spark. The goal is to
bring people to the table to discuss
issues and then really together exchange
information and move forward with
solutions. That's another picture. We
have the indicators report that provides
the cities benchmarking and a policy
development and implementation by
basically tracking over 40 key
performance indicators around
sustainability. I mentioned our annual
awards program that is to recognize
achievement from local heroes here in san
mateo county. We recognize individuals
and organizations and the winners are
identified by our panel of judges and
that is done with the american institute
of architects. Here are a few images of
some of our past awards events. And as
you can see we just celebrated our 20th
anniversary a few weeks ago and that's
exciting as well.
onto the sustainability ideas bank, that
is our newest initiative and that will be
about compiling sustainability solutions
that have been implemented in other
places and that are proven to work. And
by that, we really hope to make to
accelerate sustainability and to really
enable especially cities and businesses
to implement sustainability measures and
policies at scale. We are really excited
to share that we have secured funding for
the pilot fees. That is launching. And
of course to do all of this, we rely on
the support of our local cities because I
do want to point out that we are not
affiliated in anyway nor do we get
funding from the counties office of
sustainability. We would like to thank
the city of san mateo for your on going
support. We couldn't do it without you
and would like to here respectfully ask
that you consider an additional support
to help us cover the cost of the
sustainability ideas bank. So to
conclude, we love to hear about our
stakeholders. You do have my contact
information. We would love for to you
stay in touch and if there is anything we
can help you with, we would be more than
happy to do so. Thank you for the
opportunity to present smc and appreciate
your support.
>> thank you.
[ applause ]
>> mayor diane papan: okay, let's go to
the consent calendar.
>>clerk: for the consent calendar, all
the matters listed unto consent calendar
are considered to be routine and will be
enacted by one motion without discussion,
if one item is pulled, they will be
considered. 92 item no. 2, measure s
oversight committee.
>> item no. 3, classification updates
public works.
item no. 4. Cal public employees
retirement system. Item no. 5, transit
center way lease agreement.
item no. 6, san mateo county flood and
sea level rise resiliency agent
endorsement.
item no. 7, transfer of properties
property rights from county of san mateo
to city of san mateo northshore view of
flood froovments. Item no. 8,
engineering on call private development
services ma'am.
item no. 9, annual sewer basin
rehabilitation on call agreements.
amendments. Compressed natural gas truck
body contract, item no. 11, compressed
natural gas vehicle maintenance facility
agreement. Item no. 12, public works
capital project appropriation item 13,
trashing signal master plan agreement.
>> item no. 14, college of san mateo
football game police detail agreements.
>> item no. 15, let of opposition to
senate bill 50.
>> we have people who want to speak on
item 15.
>> how about item no. 6, I would like to
pull that one.
>> a motion to pass the rest of the
consent calendar.
>> I motion to approve the consent
calendar.
>> all in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed? All items are approved
except items 6 and 15.
>> on item no. 6.
>> san mateo county float and sea level.
>> we just wanted to see you.
>> thank you.
>> with that, do we have any questions
for mr. Patterson?
>> he's in a big hurry to get out of here.
>> how does sea level begin?
>> it begins with the ice age.
>>
[ laughter ]
>> all in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed? Now we move to the last
item. Okay. We will take item no. 15.
that is authorize the mayor to send a
letter from the city council opposing the
senate bill 50. Which is a bill that
mandates heights and densities along
corridors. I know staff has more
information on it if we need to. I know
deputy mayor wanted to say a few words
and council member bonilla as well and
council member rodriguez and goethals.
what the heck, you might as well join the
party.
>> sure.
>> okay, take it away.
>>
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: thank
you, mayor. As far as sb 50. The public
will need to know the impacts. S. B.
will be the most controversial senate
bill of 2019 because it requires
california to override our processes and
height districts. It does not provide
for housing and those in san mateo and
that san mateo is punitive and san mateo
has been at the forefront of these
policies as well as the railroad corridor
plan that we pass in 2005 and the many
transient projects that are already built
and those in the projects and even those
in our pipeline. Under s. B. 50,
properties along the corridor can be
established for housing with our zoning
and height limits and significantly
decreases zoning for parking. I think
these zoning changes can create negative
impacts for those already suffering from
parking supplies such as north central
and can change the single family
neighborhoods. While we all have single
jobs and balancing, senate bill is a one
for all thought less approach. I have
often required regional resolutions and
how work on providing affordable housing
and other issues. This requires the full
participation of impacted cities. In the
case of s. B. 50 we have a state mandate
that will change our city without our
input. I find this particularly
disturbing with the idea of having all of
our residents for the vision and
inclusion in a future they want to see.
while the meaning of s. B. 50 is
written, we will no longer have the
autonomy that is for our future. There
is so much left to interpretation. I
believe we have the obligation to
strongly oppose this legislation on
behalf of our constituency and including
changes along with our participation with
any impact on san mateo. I sure
appreciate mayor papan's lead on this and
would forward the letter to our
legislators.
>> mayor diane papan: council member
bonilla?
>> former mayor rick bonilla: sure,
while I agree with a lot of what maureen
has said, I would take a more cautious
approach. S. B. 50 is like she said,
well-meaning, well-intentioned. It seeks
to build housing that we desperately need
in the whole state, although there are
certain variations about which part of
the state and the bay area has
done with their efforts to affordable
housing. And san mateo are no slackers in
terms of building housing, but the fact
remains that we have a huge housing
imbalances. Don't get me wrong from the
start. I'm not purporting that we should
either support or oppose. Let me talk for
a second about that. I believe that this
is new legislation and this is only
passed one of several committees it needs
to pass through and it is recognized that
it needs more amending. This is an
unfinished product that is going to
require more refining before it's ready
for anybody to really say support or
oppose. I think this is the kind of
situation where if you are smart, you
don't try to cut your chance to
participate in the process off early by
taking a hard and fast position. Instead
you say, we see the pluses and minuses
and would like to see it amended further
and here is how we would like to see it
amended. With that standing, we can
support it if amended properly using the
considerations that we outlined in our
letter, then perhaps we could supported
it at some point. So, that's kind of
what I'm thinking. And I would like to
see what other opinions council members
may have.
>> mayor diane papan: okay. Council
member rodriguez?
>> okay, 1st I would like to say that I
acknowledge and agree with the goals of
s. B. 50 and that our region as a whole
has a significant housing shortage and we
need to do all we can as a region to
build more housing especially affordable
housing. However I do not support s. B.
50 and I wanted to take a couple moments
to explain my position on this. I believe
as a locally elected council member, our
job is to strike a delicate balance
between making sure that we act
responsibly to ensure that we are
building and planning for our fair share
of the regions housing, but at the same
time, we must do everything we can to
protect the quality of life in our
neighborhoods and existing residents by
building in a manner that makes the most
sense given the unique challenges and
constraints of our city . According to
our planning department, I mean, I will
spend a couple moments talking about what
was in the letter because I think it's
important. In the last 5 years we have
build or -entitled to build 300,000
units and in the pipeline to be built.
once those houses will be built that will
be an increase in housing supply in san
mateo of over 11%. That is roughly the
housing supply of the size of atherton's
total housing supply in the last 5 years.
but the balance part of this, is that we
also are experiencing some stark quality
of life challenges and this is where the
balanced part comes in. The windows of
rush hour traffic are expanding and some
areas are facing severe parking shortages
and this is facing neighbors after
neighbors with bandoned vehicles calling
our police department reaching 5,000
calls per year. There is not an increased
in bandoned vehicles. This is just
neighbors fighting neighbors because they
can't find parking and nobody wants to
leave their parking once they find it and
we see trash cans used to reserve parking
spots. I think s. B. 50 is going to take
away the tools that manage these quality
of life challenges. For an example,
deputy mayor freschet mentioned in job
rich areas that are transit poor, parking
minimums are going to be lowered and
that's only going to make the situation
worse than it is right now. S. B. 50
treats san mateo the way they would treat
huntington beach and other areas. I
don't think this one size fits all
approach will work. I also have some
concerns for historic neighborhoods such
as historic park that will only take a
couple enterprising developer to acquire
one or two adjoining small bungalows and
before you know it, it could change the
complete neighborhood. That's why I'm
against s. B. 50.
>> okay, thank you. Council member
goethals?
>> council member goethals: thank you,
mayor. I think my fellow colleagues have
said it quite well that we agree with the
principles of s. B. 50 and housing is a
critical issue for so many people in the
bay area with our jobs housing
imbalances. We agree with the principal
with which the legislators tried to
approach this issue, but they have sort
of usurped the local city councils jobs.
our job is land use, our job is to make
our community what our residents want it
to be. So that is something that s. B.
50 violates and we want to make sure that
we retain that local control that is
critical to communities like ours. I
think that rick is right about one thing
which is that the blood sport of
washington and the blood sport of
sacramento is to amend bills constantly
and get people to take positions and end
up on both sides of it based on
amendments that are made. I
do think at a minimum we should talk
about it so there is no confusion going
forward. I don't know that we need to
spell out all the amendments we want
because I don't know how many members
could vote for it, and really, we have to
be more responsible in what san mateo is
doing. I don't think we have turned down
any housing units except for one in the
last number of decades. So san mateo is
trying to address this issue and I hope
we continue moving forward. I would agree
with the one proposal that rick had which
was that we limit this to s. B. 50 in
its current form. Certainly we agree on
all of its principals and the way this is
written. I don't want to get into the
amendments and whether one questions the
good things that might be added to it or
bad things that might be added to it.
those are my $0.02.
>> mayor diane papan: let me weigh in a
little bit. I think the legislature is
trying to do something about the housing
imbalances. But it can't make me do this
by amendment. I think the local control
will go away. And I think each individual
locality has constraints and those
constraints might be that you have water
such as we do, we have a lot of open
space and we have topography that we
can't take into account. And those that
tell me, don't reject it, tell me how you
can amend it. I don't know how you can
usurp land use from local control because
so much has to be balanced at the local
level whether that is physical,
topography, open space, the fiscal
constraints that might come with it, how
do you finance this structure that might
be needed, how do you take into account
what you define as a jobs rich area and
how do you impede in the equal. I don't
think there is an answer. At this point,
I don't see land use being done at the
state. I just don't see it. I have heard
the author of bill say, well, the state
controls education. That's comparing
apples to oranges. My remarks are dove
tailed. Does anyone have anything else?
okay, let's open up for public comment.
if anyone has anything from open comment
and then we'll take the vote.
>>
public speaker: good evening, mayor
papan, council members, I have to tell
you I'm very proud of san mateo. San
mateo has been a leader in affordable
housing and I think it's close to 4,000
units as we count the bay meadows one
laid out in the late 90s. We have done a
great job. I'm here to say that I think
this letter that you are sending is well
drafted, but I think you need to change.
the change poll was in san francisco that
61% of californians were in favor of it
and 41% of the republicans were in favor
of it. This is not led by a district by
the leaders. And it's much harder to
give up authority than to get it. So
watch out because people are going to
like it.
I disagree mildly in two areas. I think
if I were writing the letter and my
experience with legislation is that after
the word "oppose", I would put "unless
amended" because that does give you some
leverage. And actually, weiner is going
to be in san mateo county thursday night.
you can talk to him at the central
committee. I just got an e-mail that he
was going to be there.
>> he can come here. I will make time.
>> the only thing I don't disagree with
is on the issue how much it's going to
change san mateo because we have some
areas that are higher than s. B. 50. And
quite frankly, I don't believe someone is
going to buy 2-3 lots in san mateo and
pay the taxes. The development, there is
so much below market value. I would not
be in favor of that and nor would I fight
it. Let's send that senate bill 50 that
it recognizes that we are different from
everybody else and let's not let cities
that developed employers with 25,000
employees and build very little housing.
let's not let them off the hook. They are
the ones creating all of our traffic. If
you don't believe me, come up 280 in the
evening and see where it starts. Thank
you.
>> next speaker is nathan hams.
public speaker: good evening, council
members. I'm going to take a slightly
different approach and talk about climate
change aspect. I have been concerned
about climate change for a long time and
it's got to be really hard for someone
who is concerned about climate change and
look at the news, there is the typhoon in
east africa and the flooding in the
midwest and a president who is denying
this is even an issue. It's scary to
what is happening today and what is the
prediction for the future. I should be
thinking about having kids in the next
couple years and I don't really want to
have them. I don't know if the
projections and the human dislocation
that might happen as a result of these
changes, is that the type of world that
we should be bringing children in?
that's my own personal opinion by the
way, and everyone is entitled to their
own evaluation about this. But it is
something that weighs very heavily on me.
the last attempt to do climate
legislation at the federal level was in
2009. So e in the last 10 years nothing
has been done to address climate change
at the federal level, and the latest
report says that we have 12 years to
really bend the curve on emissions. I
really encourage the city council members
and every policy member at every level to
address this issue as the last best
attempt to address this issue. You may
equitable with the details of s. B. 50
about the ways it might undermine your
control overland use, but I think this is
our last best attempt to reiterate and
reorient our culture and reorient our
upward trajectory on upward emissions.
the report says that california is making
progress on reducing emissions. I would
strongly ask you not to oppose this bill.
this is a serious issue. We need to
solve it, and I believe this is our last
best attempt to solve it. Thank you.
don't let it slip away.
>> thank you, mr. Chen. Clerk next
speaker is thomas heiser.
>>
public speaker: thank you, I'm going to
talk about the largest single generator
of greenhouse gas emissions in southern
california is vehicles and larger that
any other single
category, and the most report I have read
is lengthening the commute. If you watch
the traffic eastbound in the evening for
everyone that works on the peninsula and
can't afford to live here because
relative to the job growth in the last 20
years, that's where these emissions are
coming from. There are going to have
been some decisions to be made about
where these panels are going to be. We
have to take as much responsibility about
what we are doing locally. Lastly said,
I'm in support of s. B. 50. That is
probably a lost cause on my part. I do
want to say I saw the draft
to the letter. I'm confused under .3
where it talks about the constraints and
water. And s. B. 50 listed the
amenities and the physical
characteristics of the land. I don't know
how to read that. This isn't in the
bill. S. B. 50 isn't going to require
that we are filling in the bay half a
mile from the train station. I don't
understand how that is relevant to the
discussion of s. B. 50. Also as far as
mandating heights and densities, it's
really to allow the property owners to
choose the density. It's not that the
state is going to come and build five
buildings. It's allowing them to build
to the choice they want. And also on
fiscal impacts, it does raise an
interesting point if one of the corner
stones of the opposition of s. B. 50, as
I believe the letter states there are
challenges with meeting pension
obligations with san mateo, and the
interest of seeing basically where we are
raise revenue for land, where are the
well performing land use in this town and
where is the property tax and changing
the 1 story house to abusiness building,
I would like to see that analysis. Thank
you.
public speaker: good evening, council,
jordan grimes, also representing san
mateo peninsula for everyone nimby. There
is so much to talk about here. But I
would like to start here just by saying I
really believe, I have been very proud of
how our council has acted the last few
years. I think there are many cities
along the peninsula that have not acted
the way ours has and I think that really
gets to the crux of why I support s. B.
50. The is rest of the peninsula is not
doing their share and I don't think in
the past we have either. What I would
like to share what I will hope to be
enlightening some of my san mateo news
articles starting in 1974. 9,000 units
needed. 1975, county housing cost
squeezing families. 1976, housing crunch
hurts everyone. 1982, challenging
cities, lack of housing a major problem.
1982 was a big year for housing
apparently. Survey views housing crisis
and one more 1982, it hurts city economic
growth. Back to 1984, this is my
personal favorite. My kids can't afford
to live here.
1985, new housing crunch. What is the
biggest issue, housing. 1985, rental san
mateo, 1989 county housing most expensive
in california, only 64% could meet the
median price of a home. 1990 and 1994,
nimbyism as a factor and finally 1994,
the job growth. The biggest issue is
looking at where we are assessing wrong
and we haven't been able to keep up with
the job growth. It's very well
documented even in the city of san mateo.
where in 1990 if you look at the 1990
housing element, city staff estimated
that with san mateo's job and population
growth, the city would need to have a
total of 43220 housing units by 2005.
today, we have 41250. Roo thank you for
your time.
>>
public speaker: good evening, council,
I'm with san mateo young democrats.
earlier this year the san mateo young
democrats voted for climate endorseing
these emissions and the federalization
and the housing in california. We are a
club that is very concerned
about quality of life issues. These are
young people that come and we represent
democrats in the area to allow more
people to come here and live here more
comfortably. And we are concerned that
we ought to be able to stay here. I know
there is a history in san mateo of
building transient oriented development.
lastly, I want to say, the environmental
impact here is really significant and we
shouldn't take it for granted. The focus
here on building transient oriented
development and building away from
transportation and I think building
transit will get people out of their
cars. I live near the hayward station and
I use the caltrain. Young people support
s. B. 50 and I hope you take my advice.
>> anyone else?
>> okay, back to council.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: I missed
an important thing which is that we need
to remember that s. B. 50 is also an
attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions
in a very large way because that is
another end to the full circle with
housing and if we are able to do this
right, we are able to cut greenhouse gas
emissions and which leads to sea level
rise. We need to work to get these
things under control if we can get people
to live closer to where they work and the
more that is done, get them out of their
cars, we eliminate the congestion and
also our neighborhood streets, we'll be
that much better off. That said, I agree
this needs to be done in an organized
manner that the people of san mateo can
live with. So, that said, I will go back
to what I think which is that the
legislature has a raft of these kind of
bills going through right now. And I
think it's a good time to rather than
oppose right off the top to say how can
we work with you. My mention still would
be that we would oppose unless amended
and state all the reasons why we think it
needs to be amended. We don't have to
state them in long form and we can just
state them in general because this is
something that will continue to be worked
on, it's not finished and not ready to
oppose and support, it's really to say we
are in, let's participate, let's try to
get the right thing done. And in the
end, if it's something we can't support,
then we don't support it I guess as a
council. That's it. Right now I have a
problem just coming out just saying that
I oppose it. So thank you very much.
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I have
a concern and I hear what you are saying,
but the state hasn't asked us to
participate. To say that we are opposed
to it unless we are amending, how can we
amend it if we have not engaged in these
conversations. If we say we have a lot
of concern with this and the state is
saying, here is what we want to hear from
you, here is what we are looking at and
how does this affect the cities from
doing their share but I'm not seeing that
happen that's why I'm having a concern to
say that we oppose it because how can we
oppose it if we are not limiting.
>> I spoke with scott weiner and he will
be available to speak with people.
anytime they take action, it's posted on
their website and we can track it.
>> I think I would have preferred they
come before us before makeing this come
forward.
>> I think san mateo is in the middle
right now of a big general plan
discussion. We are talking about height
limits, we are talking about density, we
are talking about how maybe a one size
fits all approach doesn't work for
everything in san mateo and maybe
different different parcels deserve
different height limits and to just take
that away right now and say, councils do
not have a say in that discussion, that's
going to completely alter the community
discussion just like enacting measure p
would be before we are finished with the
general plan process. So it's really
hard for me to say let's wait when at the
core it's very bad. It's like our city
in san mateo, we have done so much. In
the last 6-7 years, we have really ramped
it up, I don't think it's fair for san
mateo residents and they are the ones who
voted us in here.
>> do you have anything to add?
>> just briefly. I want to agree with
what council member rodriguez just said
that these outside forces were trying to
influence the landscape of san mateo
makes it very difficult for us to do our
jobs in representing san mateo residents.
we have a huge jobs housing imbalances.
it's a crisis. I don't think the state
legislature would be writing bills like
this if it wasn't a crisis facing the
entire state, a crisis that affects
transportation, housing, quality of life,
on a massive scale. They didn't weight
into this lightly. I appreciate that they
are trying to take it as serious as it
is. We are also trying to take a
principaled view that we are doing the
right thing and these are measures that
should be done at the city level. With
all that has been said, I would ask that
we amend the letter in so far as we say
that in its current iteration, we oppose
it. With what it says right now. Not
knowing how it will be amended, not
knowing whether we will agree or disagree
with those amendments, if we are going to
to state an opinion, it's time sensitive
to what's in it right now in its current
forms. Those words would be sufficient.
>> madam mayor, that will save us and
give us room at the table. If we simply
say that we are opposing it, no one will
hear us.
>> I do not agree with that. Taking this
stance is not an anti-housing stance, it
is not a stance that we don't want to see
housing in this community near jobs. The
only reason why at least in my opinion
that I'm taking this stance is that I
want to see it done right for the
residents of this community. I'm not
against giving away authority, but it has
done this balance in the competing
interest. I appreciate the information
given by mr. Grimes, but in actuality, we
have had housing shortage but not to this
degree that it has kept up with jobs. We
did relative well up to that point. When
I look at this community and see what
this community has done, I don't see that
bill as being data driven. I don't see
this bill as saying, these communities
given water on one side that it is
confusing to you, don't let it be
confusing to you, there are areas that
may already be dense. I think cities and
localities are in the best positions to
weigh those constraints. I don't think
this is an anti-housing position. I think
this is housing position that can happen
and within the constraints for particular
community and that's what we are trying
to achieve by opposing the bill. I
appreciate and usually I'm one to say
let's keep the dialogue going, but the
underlying premise of this bill, I don't
see how you get that back.
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I
would agree, I don't see how they can
take back the local control and once they
take it, that's a big problem.
>> I don't have anything further to add.
do we have a motion and we'll go from
there.
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I will
make a motion that we approve the letters
s. B. 50 letter of opposition and
approve for the mayor to sign that.
>> I second that motion.
>> okay, all in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed?
>> no.
>> abstained?
>> abstained.
>> okay, that will pass 3-1. Excuse me.
>> let me ask, can we have the letter
state the amount of support.
>> we are already done.
>> I don't see any other support.
>> okay, we'll move on to item 16,
wastewater treatment plant modifications
agendaaddendum. Sorry, let's go to
public comment.
>>clerk: I have no speaker slips.
>> okay. We will go to item 16,
wastewater treatment plant modifications.
>> good evening, mayor papan and members
of the council. I'm the community
development director and I will be making
the presentation on the wastewater
treatment plant modifications. Brad and
I will tag team the presentation. I will
go over the purpose first. Brad will give
us the reasons on why this modification
is necessary and then I will take over
and walk briefly on the background on how
we got here and show you the designs and
modification being prepared and the
request of the council this evening.
sorry about that. We only missed one
slide, I think we are good. The purpose
of the tonight's meeting is to consider
the modifications made by the wastewater
treatment plant approved by konl july
2018. It is the site plan and
architectural rhee which will also
include a finding for the environmental
adequacy and the second entitlement being
requested tonight is an introduction to
an ordinance to allow off site staging.
>> members of council, I'm brad
underwood, public works director. This
item maybe familiar to you and I want to
bring this forward to you about why the
changes were occurring. You did approve
this project this last july. As we
received the cost estimate and the 60%
design this past fall, the estimated kept
climbing up higher and higher. So I
decided to take a pause at the 60% design
and do another evaluation engineering
effort to see what we can do about the
cost. We anticipate at $25 million in
savings from this redesign and gmp one,
we are seeing already $7 plus million
difference as we have those costs already
developed. And that's the smallest
passage, so the $25 million could be
higher than that. The design is still
meeting the regulatory requirements. I
found out additional information from the
bay area water conservation authority
about nutrient levels within the bay that
would be needed and rather than having
target levels which have been anticipated
before, they are just asking that we move
30% of the total nitrogen that we are
going into the bay now from the san mateo
plant. By 2024, if we complete that, it
will be an early act which will then
allow us not to be subject to future
regulations in the area for sometime.
we've also optimized the treatment plant
process for warmer weather using a
smaller footprint and it's a little less
complex for the staff to utilize and
implement. Also this maintains our
current program objectives that I wish we
had all along dealing with the aging
infrastructure, meeting the regulations,
building a wet weather capacity assurance
through that multiprong approach if you
recall the waste treatment plan and the
sustainability goals. The benefits and
modifications we are still meeting the
water quality control board requirements
and deadlines and this allows us to do
that with the plans through these
improvements. And we'll meet with the
schedule and the three of you and I know
with myself went to washington d.c. To
talk to our legislators about the
application which we have been accepted
for and this results in a $100 million of
interest savings to our ratepayers that
will be very significant and will keep us
on schedule for that application.
mitigate, if we keep on process and we
can continue the project going forward,
we'll continue to not have the $1 million
basically about $1 million a month in
installation. We plan to be before you
on june 6th with mp 1.
>> so everybody knows where the
wastewater treatment plant is located.
but to make sure everyone is oriented.
it's on the eastern bored of san mateo on
clinton drive outlined here. The
location of our wastewater treatment
plant. Cal trans praud the wastewater
treatment plant july 2018. Along with
the clean water program provided an
update and notified the council of the
project modifications needed as brad just
explained. This slide just chose this
side by side comparison. The project
that was approved on the left in july and
the proposed modifications on the right.
I will go over more detail on the next
slide. The design modifications can be
really summarized in 4 points. The first
is the replacement of the circular
clarifyers and the rectangle clarifyers
and this is a total reduction of 25,000
square feet. The original building was
previously located adjacent to the
wastewater treatment plant, now it's
located directly adjacent to it.
third, the maintenance warehouse was
increased in size by about 2800 square
feet and has an exchange in exterior
materials which I will go into more
details and show you elevations in the
upcoming slides and fourth, the overall
plant. So here is a view of the new
modified project. You will see here the
administration building was previously
located on the site but further away from
the treatment plant and adjacent and
attachment to the treatment plant. The
administration building stayed the same,
however there were some slight
modifications given the plaza and the new
entrance and the side location of the
plant were made with additional
landscaping included. The landscape
material and drought tolerant native
landscaping however changing more of a
pedestrian feel throughout the whole
site. The wall here where the previous
circular clarifiers, there was a curved
wall and now there is a straight wall and
the estuary panels now provides a
screen for the rectangular wall.
now I'm going to walk you through a
pedestrian scale of the view. The first
image was a birds eye view which very few
will see. Here is the entrance on the
site and the top and the bottom is the
new proposed modifications. Again, you
can see the the middle of the estuary
path and the view to the site. The view
we saw earlier was from this side, now we
are walking towards the other side of the
wastewater treatment plant. Again, the
educational component previously approved
remain the same, the largest change you
will notice here is the change from the
circular clarifiers to the rectangular
clarifyers to the straight wall and the
mesh estuary screen provided. This is
another view. Because of the reduction
in size, you will get a better view of
the administration building. This is at
the northeast corner of the site. The
second request this evening in terms of
an action is an uncodified ordinance.
the ordinance is requested because we
need to stage the construction somewhere.
and because the site is going to be
occupied by the existing wastewater
treatment plant whereas the future plant
there is no on-site construction staging.
the city has identified three city owned
parcels where the construction staging
could take place. The areas were
reviewed by the parks and recreation
commission and approved for staging. The
environmental effects for staging were
evaluated and approved for the staging
projects. There are these zoning areas
is for off-site staging. Requesting an
ordinance allowing the construction
changes to be on those three sites.
lastly there was a request done on
modifications and because only minor
changes occurred to the project and no
new information and changes, primarily do
due to the reduction in
size and no new ceqa analysis would be
necessary. Tonight, council is
requesting the council to take two
actions to approving the design
modifications to the plan architectural
review and the environmental affects of
modifications and to allow to
construction and staging. That concludes
our report and the entire design team is
available for any questions.
>> okay, thank you so much. I'm going to
bring it back for questions. I have just
a couple.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: I have one
question to start with. Does the
electric room still at sea level because
I'm seeing that the floor level is still
at sea level.
>> the electrical is below level. Any
protection from the walls that we have
for the galleries is up 3 feet above sea
level rise that we would expect.
>> so all thresholds are above sea level
rise as expected when?
>> that's the mid-level for 2100.
>> sure, if I can add to that, public
works deputy director, the 3.4 was
elected based on the 66% chance. So
probability depending on the 2100 high
emissions scenario for that probability
for the 2100.
>> okay, thanks for now.
>> mayor diane papan: over reduction of
the structure that doesn't increase the
capacity, right?
>> that's right. The capacity stays the
same for the regular normal dry weather
flow and 78 mgd per the water flow.
>> mgd is a million gallons per day. And
if we don't solve $78 mgd per the water
flow.
>> mgd is a million gallons per day. And
if we don't solve this, it's a million in
the bucket.
>> that's correct.
>> okay, let's open up for public comment.
>> I have no speaker slips.
>> that was fast. Surely you can draw
this out. We have everybody here. I want
to get my moneys worth.
>> motion to approve this item?
>> second.
>> all in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed? All those abstaining?
>> I will abstain right now. Okay, that
passes 4-0-1. Thank you so much. Next up
next up, we have the king park
improvement projects, old business.
>> good evening, parks and recreation and
I'm serving as the manager of the king
project. This project came up in march
and at that time we attempt an agreement
with the park improvement and the council
wanted to wait on approving that item
because of the school referral and that
they notified there was an investigation
at the state department of industrial
relations had opened about their
compliance with apprenticeship
requirements and the labor code. So, the
council wanted to have more time to meet
with them. Subsequent to that, staff was
able to meet with the project manager
from the unified school district and we
had the whole conversation about the
apprenticeship and the unified school
district indicated they had complied with
their requirements but acknowledged that
one of the unions disagreed with that.
so, with that, and an overall favorable
recommendation from the school district
as well as the other references that we
had, we prepared an administrative report
for your april 1st meeting to approve the
contract as previously presented. That
same day, we received an e-mail from the
laborers local union that transmitted two
documents from the state related to
goodland's use of the project on
apprenticeship. Because of the timing of
that, I felt it was important to have the
time to get a response from goodland to
make sure we had all the information and
documents to be able to make a full
assessment of that and be able to provide
full information to the council. So we
pulled the item from the april 1st
meeting to allow us to do that. So, we've
done that to the degree that we think is
necessary and possible. That due
diligence we did included speaking with
goodland and goodland followed up with an
e-mail with a third document with that.
and we signed the two documents.
I want to briefly discuss the
requirements and related to the project.
the state labor code requires for pork
projects that apprenticeships be hired
for 5 hours of journey men. And
specifically --
>> sorry, I'm too tall. It's too late to
do anything about that. I will try to
speak up.
the joint labor committee made an
exception to that 1-5-hour requirement of
the labor code. And the committee had
based that upon their determination that
it's not a practical application for
laborers and that doesn't provide
adequate supervision so the exception is
granted by the state and that 1-4
laborers could be an journey men and the
fifth laborer must be an apprentice. And
they were out of compliance on the
apprenticeship requirements and they
thought they were eligible in that
description I just described and asked
for a reassessment for the finding for
that. So the eventual outcome was the
good land in the state entered into a
release agreement and key parts of that
where it included the stated goodland
position where they were eligible for the
position and the states position that
they were not, but the two parties rather
than litigating the issue they agreed to
$65,000. So that payment was made and
the complaint was closed.
so, that's pretty much what we found
about that particular circumstance, and
so, what we thought we would do is bring
back the original recommendation which we
included the two contracts, but also
bring two other options for the city
council to consider. First is to reject
all bids until we settle the issue with
the contractor for the main part of the
project.
then the third option would be to
essential he direct staff to pursue an
award of contract to a bidder other than
the low bidder from among those who had
bid, and then to award a filter for
contract to simultaneous toss contract
for the main part of the project. So the
administrative report provides a little
bit more information related to each of
those options. I won't go through those
at this point, but I would just indicate
that I or the city attorney can answer to
your questions.
>> this is for the attorney. The state
says that we have gone against the law,
which is that?
>> the two parties entered into agreement
that basically said we are done with it
and we settled it. That's where we are.
we have no opportunity for us to go
through our own analysis of the law. So
that's where it stands.
>> but typically, if you are found to be
in violation of the law, then
that pretty much means even if you are
able to negotiate it down to something
else, in my reason, there was an a reason
to pay the $55,000.
>> they indicated there was a violation
and must have thought it was an issue
about their interpretation and didn't
want to take the issue of appealing and
they would not have insisted upon the
violation of the code.
>> okay, thank you.
>> do we have any public comment?
>> no, madam mayor.
>> good evening, madam mayor, council
members, dave dell la torre, with the
labors union. I want to thank you for
waiting to award this project pending the
additional violations. By the way, it was
only brought up because they challenged
the foundation for fair contracting to
discover and bring up any other
violations. They should have been
forthcoming knowing that this was out
there, but yet they didn't. I want to
thank the foundation for a fair
contracting for bird dogging and bringing
this up on behalf of the working
families. I would just recommend that --
I would strongly recommend that you would
go with the second lowest bidder, okay,
thank you for your time.
>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, if you
can repeat that last part.
>> that I recommend that you go with the
second lowest bidder.
>> okay, thank you.
>> the speaker is robert bingham followed
by arturo samples.
>>
public speaker: council, robert bingham,
I stand before you guys being accused of
accusations that are simply falls.
goodman has a right per the code to
employ one apprentice when it exceeds
four journey men workers for the project.
goodman was not in
violation of that code. We had to make a
business decision to we spend $40,000 on
a case or do we spend $55,000 to make it
go away. Had the labors union had a
stronger case, I don't think they would
have let us off the hook for this
settlement. We have worked over 100
projects to date and there has been a
couple of disputes that I will
acknowledge that have been presented,
however, I feel that we are being
targeted simply because we are a
non-union company and that is our
constitutional right. We can't be
belittled by the unions because we don't
agree with their bylaws. Mr. Bonilla,
being a union rep can also recognize that
being a field member representative there
is a ton of disputes from union to union,
carpenters on laborers and labors or
operators, this is a shake down because
they are in this community and feel we
are against the unions. All we are trying
to do is make a fair living for ourselves
and our workers and the citizens of san
mateo. If you look at the bid results,
there is an over $70,000 on economic
advantage. You have a right to come out
and audit our books, mr. Bonilla is more
than welcome to come to the job to look
as he has in the past. Thank you for your
time.
>> next speaker is arturo sam.
>>
public speaker: good evening, city
council, mayor, thanks for my chance to
speak. I know I fumbled the football, but
it was my first time. We were going out
to speak on the landscape. He did pay for
it but it stands it was still a violation
of 77.5. That's our key. As a father and
commissioner of a volunteer of a softball
league how it is to have a team ready to
go. I used to live in san mateo when I
was first married. I ask that you give a
record to a no contract with no
violations. We go to option 3 and that's
all I have to say. Thank you.
>> I have no other speaker slips.
>> mayor diane papan: okay, we'll bring
it back to the council for comment.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: I have
some comments?
>> okay, council member bonilla.
>> thank you, first I think it needs to
be recognized that san mateo as a city
that issue is public works projects under
the state laws has awarded plenty of
contracts to contractors who are not
signatory to any unions. You are living
proof. So that aside, I want to make sure
that this city when it's reforming it's
public works, it makes sure that the laws
are being -- obeyed and they are going to
be obeyed and we are upholding the
dignity of this law so that the workers
all get the same wages, the wages that
are provided under the wage determination
from the dir. And the apprenticeship
standards an
inherent part of that. They do not go
away. I feel strongly we need to award a
contractor who has not violated the law,
at least not recently because this was
just last year and the settlement only
happened this year. So I am going to
recommend my personal thoughts and we can
hear other comments that we choose option
3 which is in the interest conveyed by
staff earlier that there was a time limit
for this project. I think it would be
faster to look for one of the previous
bidders. I know that it will cost a
little bit more, but I think it's worth
to get the job going and working with a
contractor who is known to be a follower
of the law in the interest of the people.
thank you very much.
>> mayor diane papan: okay. Anybody
else?
>> rick, I think it's within our purview
to discuss this out a little bit.
>> yeah.
>> the idea that it's common or rare to
have a complaint like this at a work
site, are there builders who end up not
having any complaints about their work
site?
>> yeah, there are plenty of contractors
that have no complaints to the dir or
dis. What mr. Bingham was describing is
between contracts there is a description
about who is doing the work and a whole
different level of what goes on between
unions. No, this is very simple, there
are lots of contractors who have not had
any complaints nor any violations.
>> I have a couple questions. And you
might be able to step in here.
so attachment 7 is how the city can
protect themselves if there is a breach
as to hired apprenticeship as required by
the law and other things we can do with
certified payroll submittals as to the
apprentice matters being done as well and
not complying with that?
>> I will let you speak to the memo that
the generated by his office. The other
two suggestions was that we could require
that the certified payroll submittals be
provided to staff as well and we would
review those against the prevailing wage
schedules to ensure compliance as well.
the second thing we can do would be to
require all the submittals that need to
go to each of the trades around the
apprenticeship issue and we can require
those to be submitted to us as well. In
the documentation that you received from
goodland on several of their
correspondence, included copies of those
forms that are notification that a
contract was going to be awarded, on the
des 140 and the request for the dispatch
of the bren apprentice. Those would be
required.
>> before you do that, explain to me the
dispatch that goes to the union and says
can you please dispatch to us the
apprenticeship to do the job.
>> I'm only been certified for 10
minutes. I think those go to the
apprenticeship committees. But we have
people back here on the dais who may know
more exactly, but it's requesting the
apprentices be dispatched and identify
what the need is.
>> did you have a follow-up to that?
>> no, I would rather wait.
>> okay.
>> so attachment 7 is a memo prepared by
the city attorney and my office and
outlines the remedies, both the penalties
that go along for state law that are
violating these laws, the prevailing wage
laws and as well as the contractual
remedies the city would have if the
contractor did not comply with those
laws. So there are remedies available
when violations occur.
>> I think I'm done for now.
>> so, I just have a question for council
member so I better understand this. Is
your main concern is that goodland would
not follow these regulations for these
projects here, or is it more to kind of
punish them for alleged violations in the
past?
>> so my concern right now is going
forward we try to use a contractor who is
not known to have violated these laws,
and I have another concern in the letter
and materials sent to us from goodland, I
sensed and I red an read and an attempt
to dissuade us that a violation was a
violation and the laws pertaining to
those that could qualify which is the law
and would have to be signatory to qualify
for that exemption. They wouldn't be
qualified for it. It's not no judgment on
my part. That's what the law says right
now. He tried to convince us that the
violation was not a violation and he only
paid to make it go away which were his
exact words just a minute ago. That's not
a great attitude going forward in terms
of showing respect for the law. In fact
it shows a kind of contempt for the law
in my mind. So I just want to get the job
going with a contractor who doesn't have
any violations under their belt and we
can move forward.
>> it's not about whether or not they
will be able to fulfill their 100%
obligations for the city of san mateo for
this project.
>> sean mentioned in his letter here that
for instance paul said we could collect
the certified payroll reports and examine
them. So I have some questions about
that, I don't think we employ anybody who
is qualified, trained, knowledgeable in
knowledging payroll reports. In fact
they are not wage reports but wage in our
reports and we have to know who was
working on the site and what days and we
have to be able to gather superintendents
daily logs so that we are able to discern
and I have seen so much information
recently where people worked on-the-job 5
hours a day where they claim to work
somewhere else 3 hours a day. People
that's what they do, they enforce
certified payroll that we don't have
anybody in house to try to do that and I
think we would be a failure in trying to
do that. Yes, I'm concerned that we'll
get what we are supposed to get under the
prevailing wage laws which is the
people's moneys worth.
>> so I have a follow-up question on
that, it's worth 80,000, $80,000, plus
the taxpayers money?
>> yes, it is worth to not pay someone
who has violated the law. Yes, I would
say it's worth that.
>> I was just going to say that nothing
was presented to us and we didn't
undercover anything that showed that good
land did not follow the prevailing wage
requirement.
>> counsel, I'm trying to remember. I
think I red this in the staff report, if
we run the risk of paying $100,000 more
to go to the other one of the
contractors, we can also be presented
with new bids that are even higher than
that, and are we also at risk with a
field turf on not honoring the amount
they gave us?
>> the field turf, I believe their
proposal is good through june 1st. They
are bound by that until june 1st, but
after that, they can choose to honor that
or not. Secondly, I believe their base
bid is what we identified the low bidder
on is about $100,000 over. If we
included the two alternates that were
included which were the colorization of
the basketball court and added the
drinking fountain then it would be
$100,000 over the amount by goodland.
the third and fourth contractor is a
little bit above on the base, but the
alternates are lower so their net total
would be less than $150,000.
>> okay, thank you.
>> madam mayor, the additional
requirements you would impose on them,
would those be included in the main
motion or in the amendment we would have
to add?
>> I can answer that question. It would
need to be added.
>> if I can ask the city attorney, are you
okay with the language on what we would
require by goodland as proposed by the
mayor.
>> I think the paragraph we are referring
to just for clarification would be it's
in the staff report there is a section
called award contracts to goodland and
the last part of that report under no. 1
says: in dispute of a memo, the city
remedy is available in the event of a
contract breach, and in addition the city
could require copy of payroll submittals
and apprenticeship of ds 140 and
consistent with the labor code
requirement without exemption submitted
directly to the state also be submitted
to the city project manager.
who would that be, by the wa?
>> the field manager is the department
staff.
>> okay.
>> I believe your motion would be to
approve the contract with the addition of
that language from the report in terms of
those forms that is sufficient to change
the agreement.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: I have
more questions. Does mr. Mason have
experience with certified payrolls.
>> he's been employed with the city for
30 years and his job has been
construction management. She'll have a
better idea of what his role is.
>> thank you, sheila, parks and
recreation. As mentioned ron has been
with us for about 30 years and prior to
coming to san mateo has also worked as a
job site superintendent for the valley
landscape when he was on the private
side. Specifically speaking to that, I
don't know. Before the certified
payrolls were sent to the state, the city
accepted those, so I'm suspecting that on
previous jobs those came to ron to review
before they were sent directly to the
state. But I don't know the time frames
when that might have happened.
>> okay, so let me ask you, do you know
what happens after certified payroll
reports get to the state?
>> no, I don't believe I'm aware of it.
>> okay.
>> okay, having worked in that field for
quite a while and done a lot of this,
nothing happens unless someone is out
there checking an monitoring jobs and
files a complaint. Unless someone files
a complaint and they get examined. If we
are dealing with the reports ourselves
and we have somebody here who knows how
to read and interprets those and knows
the violation, that would make no sense.
we can hire someone to do that, but we
have nobody here that can do that. It's
not been our function, our project
manager's don't do that, that's not his
job. All he did was require them to turn
them in and he turns them into somebody
else. That's all there is to it. All I'm
saying if we really stand by the
prevailing wage laws and we want to do
business in an honest and open way, then
we find someone who has not violated and
they have to follow the standards under
the law.
>> if I might add a comment. We have not
done due diligence on the next to low
bidders, I can't say with any certainty
that the next three bidders are going to
turn up clean at all without any
violations.
>> thank you. That's already a part of
doing business. Unless we ask them ahead
of time if they have had any violations
which is what we want to maybe look into
doing.
>> are we good?
>> well, my feeling is this. I want you
to know where I'm leaning with this.
I don't see any wage violations in this
particularly contractor's history, and I
think there are protections that we have
to ensure there aren't going to be wage
violations on this job. He's done a lot
of public works jobs and I don't see any
issues. With the apprentice issues, we
can have some oversight to make sure that
happens. When I see the potential for
that and an additional $80,000 we can
protect that. Inasmuch as I don't want
to, not that I don't want to, but I want
to be sympathetic to those concerns, but
when I weigh it with the potential and
the protections and the price
differential, I'm leaning with the
approval towards the protections. That's
kind of the process that I went through.
>> yeah, I went through all the
documents. I read them all, all the
letters, the e-mails and I regulate that
this came up and we had to regulate this
and I think it's appropriate the city did
its due diligence, but I'm not convinced
that there is enough strong evidence to
deny this construction and ensure that
additional $100,000. I think we have a
fiduciary responsibility to our community
as well is to protect their interest to
do the job the best way we can in a
financial and feasible way. I appreciate
the city attorney gave us sufficient
remedies for a breach of contract. I
think we can with some additional
requirements of additional submittals to
police this in a way that will meet our
requirements, and I think we've had a
relationship with goodland in the past
without any issues. I'm hoping that they
are kind of on noticed that they are
going to be watched on this project and
we can't have any problems and that we
can move forward and get this done. My
concern is also a filter and changing
their dollars we see and money is going
up all the time for construction
projects. We are trying to get this done
in the most efficient and cost-efficient
way we can. I'm leaning towards going
with the award to goodland with the
protections in place.
>> I'm in favor of moving forward with
going with goodland with the protection
in place. The $100,000, I would rather be
spent on our parks and kids if we are
spending more than we have to, let's put
it to good use. I think goodland knows
they are going to be watched like a hawk,
and I think it's time the kids get their
park and we stop playing politics and is
that are the the project already.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: playing
politics? I'm sorry, we have to state nd
up for something and these are the laws.
we are a public works employer. We
create projects and it's always been our
value that we make sure we get people
here who follow the law. Now, anybody can
bid these projects, that is the law,
anybody can. But if you are implying
that I'm playing politics, you are going
up the wrong tree. That's it. I think
you know my position. Thank you.
>> so what I look for is a motion in
making the motion, if whoever makes the
motion reads the language after option 1,
up to where it gets to option 2 to make
sure we have a clear record as to what
the council's decision is.
>> what was the last part, I'm sorry,
option 1 and in the end?
>> if you look at the agenda, it says
option 1, adopt a resolution and the
language that follows. If whoever makes
the motion reads that language up to the
point where it says not to exceed $80,000.
>> okay.
>> that way it will capture all the
actions that the council is approving.
>> would it have the protections in
there?
>> then add from the paragraph from the
staff report.
>> all right. I will make the motion.
>> adopt a resolution to find that the
cooperative program is in the best
interest of the city, to install this
king park and approve two agreements,
with goodland to construction the
improvements of the base bid no. 1,
acrylic resurfacing and a basketball
court and no. 3 new drinking fountain at
field entry, and b, feet turf usa inc. In
the amount of $676,614 to execute the
agreements and issue change orders to
either or both contracts in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $80,000 and the
remedies available in a contract be set
forth in attachment 7 and the city
requires that all papers and submittals
and all apprenticeships forms consistent
with labor code requirement without
exemption be submitted directly to the
state also be submitted to the city
project manager. That's the motion. Okay.
>> second.
>> all right. All in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed?
>> no.
>> abstentions? That motion passes 4-1.
okay, we will move on to bonds, bonds,
bonds. Mr. Lee, welcome. Is that mic
working?
>> yes.
>> okay, take us through the bond sales.
>> good evening. The finances director.
this item before you is for clean water
program costs bond sale.
the clean water program in february of
2016, the san mateo foster city of public
finance authority was formed and in 2017,
the council adopted a reimbursement
resolution to capture finances incurred
and this is for approval of the bond
sale. In about 12 hours from now, the
city staff, our consultants, staff from
the municipal improvement district will
meet at the beginning of bond rating of
san francisco and to mood easy. May of
2019, will be actually first going to the
public financing authority board for
approval of the sale, then we'll be going
through pricing and closing. So those are
the major milestones for the financing.
we are looking an as the council is
well aware and as the chart shows, $830
million ass the cities share of the cost
allocation or roughly 84% and the
remainder. The table before you shows
the use of a particular interest. The
bond uses for the entire program rests at
about $503 million. And the program was
discussed in greater detail and finally
cash that is generated through these
service charges. In terms of uses, as you
can see the lion share is for the clean
water program, $807 million and the
portion is to repay the line of credit
that the city has with stage street. One
important item to note for federal
securities laws in attachment 2 of the
administrative report is the preliminary
official statement. It really reflected
hercule an effort with appendix a and c,
appendix c is the disclosure or our
opportunity to provide information while
the debt has already been issued. The
bottom line is we ask the council to
review the preliminary statement and
there is information by the city to a key
to a reasonable investor in their
determination whether or not they want
to buy or sell the bonds. So the
recommendation before you this evening,
there is a number of items. First that
the council a sentence n assents to the
san mateo city for the bonds and the loan
for the city. The city only pays its
share of the actual debt. The continuing
disclosure to make disclosures to
investors is in the preliminary c
official statement and the bonding for
the 2019 bonds. We ask that you approve
and authorize distribution of the
official statement. Approve all
documents and substantially the form
presented and approve all related
documents and actions. This concludes my
presentation. I happy to answer any
questions.
>> so it is that the financing authority
and that's made up of the district and
the city, right?
>> that's correct.
>> they are going to get the bonds,
right?
>> correct.
>> and then the financing authority
actually loans the money to the city to
do the work and we pay the financing
authority back and they pay the bond
market back, right?
>> that's correct. That is essentially
what item no. 2 is which is the financing
agreement between the city an at anied
financing authority.
>> that's how we get the money?
>> right.
>> okay. And then just trying to see,
one more question about the obligation to
make annual disclosures. Is that on a set
date every year that we must do that and
how does that work?
>> yes, there is two items that are
principally included in the disclosure.
first is the cities comprehensive annual
financial report or cafr, we typically
issue that in november or perhaps
december in order to maintain compliance
with our with bonds. We upload that
information and we have a consult that up
loads that document to the first part of
containing the disclosure.
>> another question, is it the deputy
mayor that signed off own that before it
happens or no?
>> on the financial statement?
>> the one you do every year or is that
the audit?
>> the financial statement is presented
to council for approval each fiscal year
in order to be considered for the
government finance officer's award. We
submit that no later december 31st for
each year, but for compliance purposes
for the bond requirements, there is a
deadline of march 31st of each year.
>> okay. Did you want to say something
else, I'm sorry, I interrupted you. There
was a second part to it.
>> yes, the second part is to report the
coverage requirements. Our existing debt
there is a 1.2 ratio on the net and
existing debt service. As long as there
is a 1.2 ratio, then we are in compliance
and that will remain true for debt which
is what we are asking for council this
evening.
>> okay. Public comment? They are not
lined up?
>> okay.
>> make a motion to approve.
>> we are going to sign our lives away
momentarily.
>> in making the motion, if you would
read the language.
>> okay, let me apply my glasses.
>> thank you.
>> adopt a resolution to approve, one,
the san mateo foster city public
financing authorities sale of revenue
bonds, financing agreement for a loan
from the authority to the city,
continuing disclosure certificate that
obligates the city to make annual
disclosures to investors, and bond
purchase agreement providing for the
purchase of 2019 bonds, 2, approve and
authors distribution of the official
statement, 3, approve all documents in
substantially the form presented.
approve all related documents and
actions. Second.
>> all in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed? Next up. Is there a
license plate reader in the crowd? Come
on down.
>>> how many do you want? Six? Have
they gone down in price, by the wa?
>> please go ahead.
>> captain norris, chief at the police
department. Someone is here to back me
up. Madam mayor, council, thank you for
listening to us today. The item that you
have on today is to adopt a resolution to
use alternative purchasing method to
approve an agreement with neology for the
procurement of six automated license
plate readers for the san mateo police
department in the amount of $108,124.30.
appropriate $72,718.53. From the
available balance of the measure s fund
and authorize the chief of police to
execute the agreement.
there is an property crime epidemic in
california, and as we try to tam p down
on that are those that are committing
crimes that are coming across the bridge
and working their way up the peninsula
and hitting pretty much every city in
between. There are two dwrafs graphs on
the first slide and one showing specifics
and the auto burglaries which we know are
very high right now which is that top
line in the red and the one in the middle
is the stolen vehicles which continue to
rise. I wanted to highlight those because
these are particularly effective with
stolen vehicles. So you all have the
city and safe and secure neighborhoods.
a big part of that was to levy the
technology resources and to maximize the
effectiveness out there and to indicate
these property crimes. Automated license
readers are a resource for police
strategies. They are really just a faster
version of what officers have been doing
for decades. I put an example in there.
some of you may recognize that. 5/23/68
is a description. Dark green vw karman
ghia. That takes that basic description
and information and compares it with
other data. So we are in an era right
now, we are in neighboring agencies and
cities are in their jurisdictions and we
need to be competitive with that,
otherwise we maybe more vulnerable than
some of those jurisdictions. There is a
lot of detail on this page. I want to hit
the highlights for you. We have two
vehicles in operation since 2011. They
have been in operation for 8 years which
is a really long time in terms of
technology and equipment. And operating
on that same equipment. The data from
those are located to the northern
california regional intelligence center
data base where we store all of that data
under strict guidelines and there is
access to which we get those is highly
controlled. Only authorized and train
personnel are indicating a legitimate
purpose can access that system so it's
very audible and very secure. We have a
record service agreement in
the county and our officers use this data
base daily to investigate crimes. We
meet all the legal compliance and we have
policies and procedures in place to make
sure we are handling that data in the
most professional manner possible.
with the approval of the purchase gets
for us today, we'll be updating the
equipment on our 2 current arpr vehicles,
we'll be adding two additional arpr
vehicles to that number and also
outfitting two mobile message trailers
and it gives us a flexible option. We can
place those on hot spots and place those
strategically for events and management
situations and it gives us what we
consider to be a good proof of concept
for what will be what I would guess a
request for the future for what cities
are doing and be able to put this in
locations to gather the data and get the
concepts for how that data will work.
this is to give you a quick example. I
took 5 minutes out of the day and went
through the last 60 days searching
e-mails and came up with five great
examples and came up with how license
readers help us. There was a suspect
identified in a road rage in san bruno
and you know in the month of february for
an arson murder case and we accurately
identified a suspect in that case. A
commercial crew in fresno gets
communicated to california, and a murder
case out of danville and east bay case
about home invasion. All of those cases
were flyers and I extracted a lot of the
information out of it because a lot of
them are active cases. But flyers coming
from other agencies that they have
identified a suspect based on arp data
with access to vehicles that allows us to
investigate those cases. I have a couple
of pages about why this technology is
essential.
the alpr's are being used actively by all
levels of our departments, by the
officers on the streets, our detectives
and they are using all of this technology
from other areas and they can shorten the
investigation time and operational period
an get to the suspect identification if
they had more from the local alpr
sources. We have a lot of community
meeting with coffee with the cop meetings
and social media. A lot of folks in our
neighborhood are saying they have a very
high approval of the alpr systems and
what they do for laughed and I have not
heard any negative commentary on that.
and throughout the agencies nationwide,
they say that is a deterrent to crime. I
know I rambled through all of this. If
you have any questions.
>> how soon can these things be
delivered?
>> it was 7 minutes.
>> how soon can these things be
delivered?
>> good question.
>> we are going to put the plan in place
tomorrow if you approve tonight.
>> I have a meeting at 8:30 a.m. To put
everything in motion if approved.
>> what are the tough questions you get
from the community about privacy
concerns?
>> we have not had a lot of questions
about privacy. I know those with the
measure s community and what are we doing
with privacy. Part of that is we show on
the website how we maintain the security
of the data and what we do
to access the data and part of it is to
ensure that we are not pulling
registration information. If our alpr get
through council and the license plate and
at this paragraph at the rear of the
vehicle so we have a vehicle color, make
model and description and the license
plate number, that is all we get. The
only time you get more than that, is what
that data that is automatically compared
to list of vehicles that might get a hot
list. That just matches that data, but it
doesn't pull the data of everybody and
that is a pretty good argument point when
it comes to privacy. What we are doing
with our activity is we are just
enhancing what we have been doing for
decades. That's why I put the example
when sergeant was killed. That's what we
do with our eyes and our observations. We
are extracting no more than that with
these systems, just at a higher volume.
>> can you go to the slide with the lap
top in the vehicle? That one, in this
set up, it looks incredibly distracting.
is that the set up that would happen
inside of vehicles, and are we taking any
steps to make sure that
drivers are not causing a crash.
>> this is not the set up that you would
see in our vehicles per say. This is
something that might show up from an
investigation, and generally there is
audible beep. That will indicate to them
that there is something going on that
they need to checkout. And in addition
to that, our feeling is that when you
provide this type of technology that
enhances officer's ability to collect
information without having to actually
look at it, our drivers are actually
performing safer because they are not
looking at all the license plates of all
the cars on the road. They are looking
ahead of them at the traffic situation
that they are driving into. In my
opinion, it's a safety reducer and the
safety enhancer of reducing the risk of
being distracted while they are driving.
>> it sounds good. I hope it plays out
that way.
>> can you help explain why you are
requesting six of these?
>> we went through several different
rounds of looking at different numbers.
we were looking at something that fit
with a reasonable ask with regard to
measure s funds and what we needed. We
knew we needed to return those old alpr
systems and we wanted to get something
that was a proof of concept on our mobile
message trailers to put some semi fixed
alpr locations out in public. We would
love to have more.
>> is this the type of thing where six is
good and 12 is twice as good?
>> absolutely.
>> what is your timeline for evaluating
the proof of concept and what is a road
map if it goes away, your thinking or
hoping it goes?
>> depends on our operational needs but
we would be looking to put things in
motion with that proof of concept as
quickly as possible because we want to
come back to you and show you exactly
what that does.
>> if you are asking what's belonging
here, these mobile trailers that we can
fix these hot spots will help us identify
how helpful it will be to put these hot
spots for these cities that are
crossroads for freeways on and off, as
you know we are the crossroads for this
county and we will bring back to you a
fixed system that will help and
neighborhoods are begging for it. In fact
private neighborhoods are putting it in
themselves.
>> that was my last question where you
probably have a 59% chance where one or
two of these fixed ones. It doesn't make
sense to keep buying six temporary ones
if you know. Is the economics work where
it works better?
>> I think these are very important
because we need the mobile ones to do the
audits of the transient hotels. These
two are the collectors and the trailer
ones are going to help us decide where is
the best place to put them. If we are
going to play with four of them, we are
going to say this is the best return on
investment. We are happy to get another
four now, but this is the most prudent
way to get this with the funding. We
have been waiting for quite a while and
we have the business services contractor
ready to sign this tonight.
>> we'll get back with you with some of
the jurisdictions that have alpr's
already and the success they are showing
and give you an idea of what it looks
like in a similar sized area as to having
the alpr's out there in a fixed location
and what they can do.
>> this to me sounds like an outstanding
investment for funds for public safety.
>> I wonder if they are coming down in
price. I agree that you are buying them
in bulk. About $18,000 a piece?
>> yes, for the all mobile stuff anything
we put on a vehicle is about $17,000 or
$18,000 a piece. They come in a little
different price range and depends on the
complexity of where we put those
in.
>> when you were talking about that it
would cut down on investigation and
operational time. I'm assuming that
equates to having more officers out on
the streets which is what our citizens
would like to see as well.
>> so very briefly, the conversation that
I had with one of our detectives who had
been involved in street crime, what he's
telling me is the data we get local in
san mateo will help us identify san mateo
crimes. What they are doing right now is
they are having to reach out to other
jurisdictions hoping that our suspects
are rolling through those intersections
to pick up that information. While we are
waiting for that information to come in
or we have to go out on some type of
physical surveillance operations or sting
operations to get that information to us,
we can get that information if we have
local information to work with.
>> outstanding. Thank you.
>> so, do we have a motion?
>> you have public comment?
>> is there public comment?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> the one time I don't ask. Mr. Hedges?
public speaker: yes, thank you, mayor
papan and council members. As chair of
measure s, we had to go through some
history of what the funds were for. As
you know I ran the campaign on the
citizens side to pass the measure, and we
knew that those of us that were involved
in it was for street and road repair for
flood control and for extending the
library hours and for enhanceing the
police department. In looking at that, we
took all of these things into
consideration. We took most of the money
for street and roads, and fema is coming
back by demanding that we raise san mateo
creek again. And $72,000 for the police
department, and 18,000 for the library
which will go towards money from the
library foundation to improve one of the
branches. So we are able to leverage
that money for a lot more money. So,
just a personal note, I'm very in favor
of these cameras. We are needing them in
arbor town. We had three trucks stolen
and our poor maintenance guy had his
truck stolen with tools he collected all
his life and to add insult to injury, it
had been destroyed and useless and he had
to pay the surcharges and storage fee. We
came up with voluntary gifts to help him
restore to normal. It was a help. They
know about it and they are pushing for
cameras. If we get those cameras, they
will be linked in with the city. Thank
you.
>> mayor diane papan: I want to close
public comment. I want to thank mr.
hedges for all of his efforts for measure
s and after that, in the allocation of
those funds, we appreciate your
contributions.
>> no finer steward than yourself.
>> do we have a comment or motion.
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: this
is the most valuable way we can spend the
measure s funds. I think public safety
is something that this entire council is
concerned about. The track record so far
in how this has helped solve crimes and
the fact that it's going to help more
officers on the streets and help with
investigations, it's the perfect way to
utilize some of those measure s funds.
unless others have comments, I will just
make a motion. Okay, I move that we adopt
a resolution to use an alternative
purchasing method to approve an agreement
with the neology inc. For the procurement
of six automated license plate readers
for the san mateo police department.
>> all in favor say, "aye".
>> aye.
>> any opposed? That item passes. Thank
you so much.
>> mayor diane papan: well, that brings
us to the end of the agenda. Do we have
anything? I have just an announcement; a
report, rather. Reports or
announcements?
>> something brief.
>> go ahead.
>> I don't know, maybe you were going to
talk about the same thing t ad hoc
committee?
>> no. Real quick, the ad hoc committee
for the 101 managed lanes met and came to
some consensus around the staffing for
the jpa that's going to be formed. We
have another meeting this week and then
we'll be able to report back on what that
final staffing model is going to look
like. But it was a very collaborative
event between c kag and representatives
and everyone is pleased with how that is
going to look.
>> former mayor rick bonilla: as member
of the heart board we are going to have
on annual heart fundraiser at 5:30 p.m.
at the sand devil's brewery. About
$140,000 which keeps our office running
and helps us keep making affordable loans
for our first time home buyers.
I think I have to give mr. Rick an
apology. I apologize for that. In the
future, I will ask you later.
>> mayor diane papan: really quickly, I
saw that they are raising the amount fof
first time home buyers, the amount of how
much they can make, I think it's how much
the home can be worth.
>> we can only finance up to so much
through the financing arrangement.
>> it had been $730,000. It's up to
$905,000. That means they can look for a
more expensive place.
>> wonderful.
>> keeping up with the times and
adjusting for the high cost of housing.
>> good news.
>> anyone else?
>> I want to say great job, kathy and the
crew.
>>
[ laughter ]
>> council member goethals?
>> council member goethals: I have got
nothing.
>> I have something. I even have a wacha
call it. I want to give a shout out to
the homeowners association of north
central san mateo to a phenomenal event
on saturday with a multi-clean up with
multicultural and multi-departmental and
they were out there barbecuing and I
found myself down on the freeway alone
picking up trash and brought some back
and went back again and there was a bag
of 8 pounds of cigarette butts.
unbelievable. This is a community effort
with the collaboration with the city and
the managers office and I know I'm
leaving somebody out. In any event. I
love these t-shirts and it's talking
about loving north central and this was
nothing about a labor of love and I'm
super proud of our city.
>> deputy mayor maureen freschet: I
would like the public to know that our
city manager crossed the finish line
today and we are very proud of him.
>> in 3 hours and 90 seconds.
[ applause ]