Agenda packet, special meeting — San Mateo City Council, August 15, 2022

Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone: Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person: At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.

ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

2 of 21

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-3133 File ID: 22-6445 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: August 15, 2022
SUBJECT:

Tenant Protection Policies Work Program
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction on Tenant Protection policies to be incorporated into 2022-23 Housing Division work program.

BACKGROUND:

On April 4, 2022, the City Council adopted its Strategic Plan for fiscal year 2022-23. Among the adopted objectives is objective number 30: Explore policies to strengthen AB1482 Tenant Protection Act. The Work Plan and Expected Deliverables for this objective are to conduct outreach to tenant and landlord groups to identify issues related to AB1482 provisions, as well as to survey other programs and propose revisions for Council consideration. Staff is seeking Council direction on specific tenant protection policies to be prioritized for consideration in the 2022-23 Housing Division work program.

Assembly Bill 1482
In January 2020, the State enacted the California Tenant Protection Act (AB1482). AB 1482 limits rent increases statewide to five percent per year, plus any rise in the consumer price index, which cannot exceed 10%. AB1482 does not apply to cities which have their own rent control ordinances, such as Oakland and San Francisco. San Mateo does not have a rent control ordinance.

In addition to rent increase limits, AB1482 provides some additional tenant protections, such as implementing “Just Cause” eviction protections for covered tenants who have lived in their unit for at least 12 months, or 24 months if a new tenant is added. With “Just Cause” evictions, landlords/owners need a valid reason to evict a tenant. There are primarily two categories of evictions: At-Fault and No-Fault evictions. At-Fault evictions include nonpayment of rent, breach of material lease term, criminal activity, and using the unit for an unlawful purpose. No-Fault evictions include owner or family member intending to occupy the unit, compliance with a government court order that requires vacancy, and the intent to demolish or substantially remodel the unit, with permits. In the case of a No-Fault eviction, the landlord is responsible for paying relocation equal to one month’s rent.

AB1482 does not apply to all housing types and does exempt some housing types, including: new housing with a certificate of occupancy within the past 15 years; government subsidized or below-market rate housing; single-family homes or condos with no corporate ownership; duplexes – if the owner lives in the other unit; college dorms; mobile homes and RVs in a mobile home park that are owned by the occupant; and short-term stay hotels, motels, and hostels.

Although AB1482 does provide some statewide tenant protections, there are opportunities to strengthen these protections at the local level. Apart from the protections offered by AB1482, the City can enact its own tenant protection ordinances, if the ordinance is more protective than State law. A local relocation ordinance is more protective when it

3 of 21

CITY OF SAN MATEO
includes just cause protections consistent with AB1482 and further limits the reasons for terminating a residential tenancy, provides higher relocation assistance amounts, or provides additional tenant protections not otherwise prohibited by law.

Measure Q
Prior to AB1482, Measure Q was initiated by the citizens of San Mateo as a charter amendment and appeared on the ballot on November 8, 2016. Measure Q would have established a rent control commission and policies, including limiting annual rent increases, and would have required a landlord to have just cause to remove a tenant. Landlords would have been required to pay relocation assistance under certain circumstances. The rent regulations would have applied to multi- family rental units with an initial certificate of occupancy issued before February 1, 1995. They would not have applied to single family homes, condominiums, owner-occupied duplexes or secondary dwelling units, hotels, hospitals, certain nonprofits, dormitories, or governmental facilities. The Measure required a simple majority vote to pass and was defeated with 24,073 (59.99%) “no” votes and 16,053 (40.01%) “yes” votes. Since the defeat of Measure Q, AB1482 has established statewide tenant protections such as prohibiting evictions without just cause and limiting rent increases, as specified in this report.

Possible Tenant Protection Policies
Possible opportunities to strengthen tenant protection measures found in AB1482 are related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in no-fault eviction cases. Some policy options that may be considered are further described below, including the establishment of a rental registry, which is not a component of AB1482. The possible tenant protection policies noted below are a menu of options and do not need to be considered as an entire package. Also included are general expected timelines for completion, when considered with other Housing work plan and general priorities.

1. Just Cause Eviction Policy
Adopt a just cause eviction policy and extend AB1482 provisions to require tenant relocation payments for No Fault evictions for those tenants with less than one year of tenure. Under AB1482, No Fault tenant relocation payments only apply to renter households who have established 12 months of tenancy.

Resources Needed:
• Staff time to research options and best practices, including meeting with staff from other jurisdictions that have implemented a just cause eviction policy.
• Community engagement activities, including advertising, translation services and venue rental (if applicable).

2. Relocation Payments
Expand relocation payments to three months to align with the City’s existing tenant relocation ordinance covering displacement due to demolition and condo conversion. Under AB1482, relocation payment is equal to one month’s rent.

Resources Needed:
• Staff time to research options and best practices, including establishing a mechanism for enforcement. • Community engagement activities, including advertising, translation services and venue rental (if applicable).

3. Renovation-related Evictions
Limit renovation-related evictions by requiring that landlords obtain building permits before issuing an eviction notice. AB1482 permits no-fault evictions for a substantial remodel. A substantial remodel does require a permit; however, AB 1482 does not require a property owner to obtain a building permit prior to issuing an eviction notice.

4 of 21

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Resources:
• Staff time to research options and best practices, including establishing a mechanism for enforcement • Meetings with other jurisdictions that have implemented similar policies. • Community engagement activities, including advertising, translation services and venue rental (if applicable).

4. Right to Return Policy
Establish a right to return for tenants affected by renovation-related evictions at the new increased rent. AB1482 does not require that the landlord give the tenant affected by renovation-related evictions the right to return, either at the previous rent or the new increased rent.

Resources:
• Staff time to research options and best practices, including establishing a mechanism for enforcement • Meetings with other jurisdictions that have implemented similar policies. • Community engagement activities, including advertising, translation services and venue rental (if applicable).

5. Rental Registry
Establish a means for collecting more rental housing data through the implementation of a rental registry. The rental registry could be a means for tracking rents and evictions citywide. Such data could provide valuable information that can assist in formulating new policies. However, there may be challenges in collecting data, addressing landlord/tenant privacy concerns, determining whether to make reporting mandatory, and if so, how to enforce.

Staff anticipates that each of these measures would take approximately 12 months to fully implement, and that assumes that these measures would be implemented sequentially and not concurrently given current resources and other work plan priorities. Alternatively, staff could do outreach to tenant and landlord groups regarding all of these provisions, as well as research and survey for similar programs in other jurisdictions, and then return to Council for implementation considerations. This is what was originally proposed for the current year’s work plan and allows for greater efficiency with respect to outreach and program research because it can be done for all tenant protection options at the same time.

Relationship to draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
In addition to tenant protections under AB1482, the 2023-2031 draft Housing Element Update document contains policies related to tenant protections, as well as examining a rental registry option. The draft Housing Element policies are listed below and are described in more detail in Attachment 1. • Policy H.3.4: Expand Tenant Protections
• Policy H 3.6: Examine a Rental Registry Option
• Policy 5.4.1: Establish tenant protections in local ordinance to extend measures of AB1482 related to relocation, documentation, and right to return policy in eviction cases.

The draft 2023-2031 Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on July 1, 2022 and is currently undergoing a 90-day review period, which ends on September 29,

5 of 21

CITY OF SAN MATEO
2022. After HCD completes their review and their questions and comments have been addressed, the Housing Element will be presented to Council for adoption prior to submitting the final version to HCD. It is anticipated that the final Housing Element will be brought before Council in late 2022. Because the Housing Element is currently in draft form, Council has the opportunity to provide additional input and direction on the policies relating to tenant protections before the Housing Element is adopted and certified.

Implementation Timeline
As previously mentioned, the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element includes policies related to the establishment of tenant protections. The target timeline in the Housing Element for completing those policies ranges from fiscal year 2023-24 to fiscal year 2025-26. However, staff may adjust the timelines if directed by Council. Housing staff will also need to work on implementing other goals, policies and programs contained within the 2023-2031 Housing Element. In addition to the time that staff is dedicating to the 2023-2031 Housing Element adoption, staff is currently working on a number of other priorities. These include conducting research to obtain a Pro-housing designation, preparing a mandatory 5-year Consolidated Plan for the period of 2023-2028 to submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in early 2023, actively working on streamlining the Below Market Rate (BMR) waiting list process, administering the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other state grants, and general administration of the BMR and First Time Homebuyer programs. One of the top priorities in the Housing Element is to update the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy, as this program must be completed within one year of the Housing Element adoption (fiscal year 2023-24). Due to staffing limitations, it is important to note that implementing other housing policies and programs may be delayed if staff is directed to prioritize the tenant protection policies.

Questions for Council:
1) Should staff begin researching tenant protection policies? If so, which ones and in what order of priority? 2) Which work items should move down in priority to make time to prioritize AB1482 work plan items? 3) Are there any other tenant protection policies that Council would direct staff to study? 4) Is there any additional direction to staff?
BUDGET IMPACT:

This item is for discussion purposes only. There are no budget impacts at this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Att 2 – Public Comments

STAFF CONTACT
Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Housing Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7223

6 of 21

From: Fernando Pena
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 3:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Alane Gilbrech <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose City of San Mateo Tenant Protection Policies Work program Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council members:

With all due respect, first there was a discussion to raise the property transfer tax this year.

Second,
you then decided on raising the property transfer tax to a higher tier to protect single family homeowners, but still placed it on the ballot for very large commercial properties. Third, a letter from a third-party vendor, HdL, began arriving in the mailboxes of mom-and-pop property owners in San Mateo saying there’s a business license tax on property owners who are receiving income from leasing/renting activities after many years of not enforcing this.

And now housing providers may be subject to stricter tenant protection policies.

It’s not hard to see
why housing providers in the City of San Mateo are feeling unappreciated. I am writing to you all to voice the San Mateo County Association of Realtors opposition to your proposed tenant protection policies.

Rent Control
As you know, the citizens of San Mateo soundly defeated Measure Q, the rent control measure in 2016 by a 60% to 40% vote.

We are strongly opposed to any rent control direction to staff.

Just Cause Eviction
The unintended consequences include a costly and time-consuming process, month to month lease impacts, good renters being punished, increase in criminal behavior, and good renters may experience harassment from a problem tenant.

Rental Registry
This is unnecessary, it’s going to be costly, cumbersome, and, most alarming, it would expose personal data to public scrutiny. The registry would make private tenants and housing providers share private, detailed information. This is not a component of AB 1482. No legislation on rental registry has been passed in Sacramento because it’s just flawed policy. Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

9 of 21

Relocation Payments

This provision negatively impacts owners’ decisions to make capital improvements and upgrades to their units. Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

Renovation-related evictions

We want to encourage people to buy buildings and to fix them, if needed. If you force substantial costs on these housing providers, it negatively impacts buyers’ decisions to improve apartments and houses. Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

Right to return policy

After putting in a substantial amount of money in to renovating properties and going through the city’s permit process, a right to return provision could negatively impact a housing providers decision to make improvements, discouraging them to improve facilities.

We are concerned that these and the other policies will lead to the vilification of housing providers here in San Mateo just like it has in Redwood City.

This is not needed in San Mateo. We would
support giving direction to staff to research what already is in place to protect tenants not new policies, including AB 1482, legal aid in the community, Project Sentinel, covenant of quiet enjoyment, and other state laws.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Fernando Peña

www.samcar.org | www.facebook.com/samcar.realtors

10 of 21
From:

Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2022 6:21 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: OPPOSE: City of San Mateo’s proposed tenant protection policy program Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of the City Council:

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concern regarding the City of San Mateo’s proposed tenant protection policy protection program. My name is Rosario Wong. I am in strong opposition to this proposal.

Rental Registry
This is unnecessary, it is going to be costly, cumbersome, and, most alarming, it would expose personal data to public scrutiny. The registry would make private tenants and housing providers share private, detailed information.

This is not a component of AB 1482. No legislation on rental registry has been passed in Sacramento because it is just flawed policy. Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

Relocation Payments
This provision negatively impacts owners’ decisions to make capital improvements and upgrades to their units.

Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

Renovation-related evictions
We want to encourage people to buy buildings and to fix them, if needed. If you force substantial costs on these housing providers, it negatively impacts buyers’ decisions to improve apartments and houses. Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

Right to return policy
After putting in a substantial amount of money in to renovating properties and going through the city’s permit process, a right to return provision could negatively impact a housing providers decision to make improvements, discouraging them to improve facilities. Please direct staff to eliminate this from further study.

We are concerned that these and the other policies will lead to the vilification of housing providers here in San Mateo just like it has in Redwood City. This is not needed in San Mateo.

We would support giving direction to staff to research what already is in place to protect tenants, and not new

11 of 21
policies, including AB 1482, legal aid in the community, Project Sentinel, covenant of quiet enjoyment, and other state laws.

Thank you. I am respectfully asking you to provide staff direction to not begin researching the tenant protection policy program. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rosario

12 of 21
From:

Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:19 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: OPPOSE: City of San Mateo’s proposed tenant protection policy program Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of the City Council:

We do not want to have City of San Mateo to follow the rental policies of San Francisco. There are a lot of houses vacant in San Francisco because people there are afraid of the draconian rental policies there and do not want to rent it out. Also City of San Mateo is popular because of its good schools, good environment and good policies enacted by the City Council all along. I know many friends who like to move to this city from San Francisco.

By enacting too many restrictions on the rental properties, people will not want to invest here. This will lessen the supply of housing inventories. I think the best way is to set up a Charity Foundation and people in the City can donate to help the tenants who face financial difficulties.

Thank you.

Regards,
Rosario

13 of 21

14 of 21
From: Patrice Olds
To: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: August 4 meeting on tenant protection
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 3:57:05 PM

From: John Lau
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 3:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: August 4 meeting on tenant protection

Ladies/Gentlemen:

We can never protect solve housing shortage by passing rent control laws. Neither San Francisco, nor San Jose can do it. It creates unequal distribution of resources, allowing long term tenants occupying big spaces while low-income people cannot find adequate spaces. It depressed the property tax revenue of San Jose rental properties and made the neighborhood worse off. It took San Jose and Campbell police joint force half a year with 13 unmarked police cars to surround 2982 Magliocco Drive, San Jose to arrest a criminal. Had San Jose did not had just cause eviction to protect criminals, a responsible landlord can remove that criminal in 3o days.

We landlord are not interested in evicting tenants just for few bucks. Tenant turnover causes a lot more than the so called increased rent. If we check the record of San Francisco and San Jose, which have recorded all evictions. I think near 100% were due to non-payment of rent. The just cause and other stupid laws mainly work for the criminals and drug dealers and cannot solve the housing shortage.

Please concentrate on
John Lau

15 of 21
From: Patrice Olds
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Erin Fellers; Martin McTaggart Subject: FW: No Additional Housing Protections Needed in San Mateo Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 2:56:33 PM
Attachments: Outlook-a1npgs0z.png

From: Cary Kletter
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 2:14 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: No Additional Housing Protections Needed in San Mateo

Dear San Mateo City Council Members:

I live and work in San Mateo and I provide housing here as a residential landlord. It is very difficult to provide housing in the City of San Mateo because there are numerous overlapping state and city rules regarding providing housing. California recently enacted Statewide Rent Control, and that limits the amount that rents can be increased (water, sewer, mortgage interest, taxes and other expenses go up over time). A previous effort to enact city mandated rent protections in San Mateo was unsuccessful.

One problem with relocation expenses is that even highly compensated and millionaire tenants must be paid relocation expenses by mom and pop landlords like me. This is because these types of laws are never tied to the income or net worth of the tenants. Another problem with rent regulations is that is leads to less renovation of housing, and ultimately blight and delapidated communities. Why would landlords renovate their housing if they cannot recoup the expenses by raising the rent? Renovation of housing is safer for the tenants and more beautiful (and more property tax income) for the community. San Francsico, Oakland and other cities that have passed city rent ordinances have seen the disasterous consequences these local rent laws create.

There are many ways tenants are already protected including but not limited to AB 1482, Section 8 housing, Project Sentinel, Legal Aid, HIP Housing, San Mateo County Bar Assoc. and other community organizations. The best way to ease the problem of housing in San Mateo is make it easier to build and provide housing. Do not make it more onerous to be a housing provider, make it easier so that more housing is built.

As a San Mateo resident, San Mateo employer, San Mateo business owner, and San Mateo housing provider I strongly encourage you to NOT pass new tenant protections laws that will harm our beautiful San Mateo community.

Thank you.

16 of 21
Cary Kletter

Cary Kletter

CONFIDENTIALITY - This e-mail message and any attachments thereto are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain a private, confidential communication protected by the attorney client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

17 of 21
From: Patrice Olds
To: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers; Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Subject: FW: No rent control at the local level in San Mateo Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 3:47:03 PM
Attachments: Agenda Report-104.pdf

From: l watanuki
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 3:15 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; Patrice Olds <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: No rent control at the local level in San Mateo

August 15, 2022
Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of the City Council,
We are totally against any type of rent control or any additional bureaucracy at the local level in San Mateo for more tenant protections.

Why punish the good landlords who already follow good
business practices with tenants.

Thank you.

Best,
Laurie Watanuki

18 of 21
From: Patrice Olds
To: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia; Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers Subject: FW: Tenant Protection Policies
Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 4:00:42 PM

From: Neville Batliwalla
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 4:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Subject: Tenant Protection Policies

Dear Mayor and Council members. I was shocked to see this study session when we as landlords have recd no rent increases for two to three years.

Furthurmore our mortgage payments are increasing with the Fed increasing rates.

Our average rents are stlll below Pre pandemic levels.

We have just gone thru hell with vacancies, non payment of rent etc.

Please ask your staff to not research this now. Let us get our heads above the water before you proceed.

Thanking you

Neville Batliwalla
Sent from Mail for Windows

19 of 21

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 2 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 21-4678 File ID: 22-6482 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: August 15, 2022
SUBJECT:

Solid Waste Rate Setting for 2023
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive information and provide feedback on potential solid waste rates and restructuring for 2023.

BACKGROUND:

City Council sets the rates to be charged by the City’s franchise hauler for solid waste, recycling, and compost collection annually. The total cost of the solid waste program includes those for collection services provided by Recology San Mateo County (Recology), processing and disposal services provided by the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), and City fees that support the City’s sustainability goals and efforts to meet all regulatory compliance mandates.

The customer rates are adjusted as required to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the provided services.

In 2006, the Council established a progressive rate structure for the City’s solid waste collection and disposal to incentivize waste reduction and to comply with waste diversion regulations. This was successful and residential rate payers migrated to smaller solid waste collection containers, thereby reducing their monthly cost. However, the incentive in the previous rate structure resulted in the single-family residential and roll-off rates not covering their cost of service. Commercial and multi-family rates do cover their cost of service. Proposition 218 requires rates to reflect the true cost-of-service and ensure each customer class is financially self-sufficient.

Council approved a one-year rate increase for 2022 that moved towards a cost-of-service recovery vs. progressive rate structure and recommended staff to continue to balance cost-of-service recovery for 2023 and beyond. In addition, Council directed staff to reevaluate a three-year rate structure for 2023-2025. Lastly, in 2022, the Council provided direction to maintain a minimum reserve target of 1.5 months (12.5%) of annual operating costs, which can be used in times of need to offset rate increases. The 2022 rate increases reflected:
• A $4.00 per month increase for 20- and 32-gallon residential and commercial cart rates; • A $2.00 increase for 64- and 96-gallon residential and commercial cart rates; • A two percent increase in commercial solid waste and organic bin rates; and • A five percent increase in compactor rates.

Staff contracted with HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) to develop a five-year plan for a solid waste rate structure that provides funding for collection, disposal, and processing of solid waste; continuation of the City’s Solid Waste enterprise programs; and maintenance of reserves based on appropriate balances as described above. HF&H evaluated the revenue requirement and current rates for each customer class (e.g., single-family residential, commercial). The recommended rate adjustments are consistent with a phased-in strategy to realign each customer class to reflect the true cost-of-service and

20 of 21

CITY OF SAN MATEO
ensure each customer class is financially self-sufficient. The 2022 rate adjustments brought cart rates closer to the actual cost-of-service, yet additional increases are needed for 2023 and beyond.

Recommended rate adjustments balance the use of existing reserves, receipt of non-rate revenues, and rate increases to bridge the projected revenue shortfall. The current projected Solid Waste Fund balance is $9.4M, which is more than the minimum reserve balance of $3.4M. However, if there is no rate increase over the next five years, the reserves will be depleted. HF&H and staff recommend a three percent overall revenue increase in 2023. While rates will be set to generate an overall increase of three percent, the rate impacts will differ by customer class and container size, to better align the rates with each customer class’s proportionate share of the cost-of-service.

In the study session, staff will review findings and present strategies including (1) continued re-alignment of revenues from each customer class to their respective cost-of-service and the recommended rate increases over the five-year planning period; (2) a proposal to eliminate the 25% discount for commercial organic rates; and (3) a recommended three-year rate structure and Proposition 218 notice. Staff requests Council feedback regarding rate adjustment strategies. The next step in the rate setting process will be presenting solid waste rate increases and requesting Council approval for Proposition 218 notification in advance of a public hearing to approve final solid waste rates before the end of 2022.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no impact to the budget for receiving this administrative report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This rate setting review is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments.

STAFF CONTACT
Jack Johnson, Waste Management Supervisor
[email protected]
(650) 522-7346
Sarah Scheidt, Regulatory Compliance Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7385

21 of 21

San Mateo City CouncilAugust 15, 2022

San Mateo City Council
August 15, 2022