[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 ]