San Mateo City Council
January 21, 2025

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Regular Meeting
January 21, 2025
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Robert Newsom Jr.

Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash

AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

January 21, 2025
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 813 0997 9074 Passcode: 391107
The City Council meeting will conclude by 11:00 p.m. unless otherwise extended by council vote.

Any unheard items will automatically move forward to the next regular meeting.

CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Consideration for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances

CEREMONIAL

1. Kent Trasher, Fire Chief – Commendatory Resolution

2. HIP Housing Calendar – Recognition

3. Rethink Waste – Poster Contest Winner

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately.

4. CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program Administration – Agreement Approve an agreement with Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) in the amount of $140,000 to provide program administration services for the City’s housing rehabilitation loan program funded by the State of California CalHome grant program.

CEQA: This Agreement 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).)

5. Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester 2 Cleaning — Agreement

1 of 426

Adopt a Resolution approving an alternative purchasing procedure to award an Agreement to Bristola, LLC for Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester 2 Cleaning services in the amount of $364,100, with a contingency in the amount of $36,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and approve change orders within the approved contingency amount.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” in that the cleaning of Digestor 2 consists of the operation, repair, or maintenance of an existing public structure, facility, or mechanical equipment involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

6. Enterprise Resource Planning Software Project – Supplemental Budget Appropriation and Change Orders Adopt a Resolution to approve a supplemental budget appropriation of $210,172 from unassigned fund balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund to increase the capital budget for the Enterprise Resource Planning Project; approve Change Order No. 8 to the master services agreement with Collaborative Solutions, LLC for ERP implementation services in the amount of $199,922 for a new agreement total of $4,739,292; approve Change Order No. 485765 to the master subscription agreement with Workday, Inc. for delivery assurance services in the amount of $10,250 for a new agreement total of $187,605; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Change Orders in substantially the form presented.

CEQA: Approval of the change orders for ERP implementation support is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption in it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.) In addition, approval of a supplemental budget appropriation for the Project is not subject to CEQA review in that it consists of a governmental 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).))

7. Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records – Approval Adopt a Resolution to authorize Hinderlighter de Llamas and Associates to examine sales or transactions and use tax records for all sales and transactions and use taxes.

CEQA: This Resolution to authorize examination of sales or transactions and use tax records is not a project subject to CEQA, because it consists of 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).)

8. New Construction Reach Codes for the 2022 Code Cycle — Ordinance Adoption Adopt an Ordinance to amend the San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 23.24 “Energy Code” and Chapter 23.70 “Green Building Code” to require enhanced energy performance for new construction, repeal unenforceable measures of the City’s current reach codes, and make a minor edit to the City’s electric-readiness requirements.

CEQA: This action to adopt reach codes and amend the energy Code and Green Building Code is categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

9. Parks and Recreation — Classification Updates
Adopt a Resolution to approve the revised job specifications for the Landscape Laborer and Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II to reflect a flexible staffed series pursuant to the recent MOU agreement.

CEQA: This classification update 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

2 of 426

impact on the environment.(CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the City Council at this time. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up.

Public comment is limited to a total of 15 minutes; however, an opportunity for additional public comment may be provided later in the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS

10. Historic Policy Update Effort Professional Services – Appropriation and Agreement Review and provide direction on historic preservation policies, including: the adoption of a Resolution to appropriate $328,743 (Option 1) or $394,450 (Option 2) from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project, with each option corresponding to a different project schedule; and approve an agreement with Rincon Consultants for community outreach and technical support related to historic policy and code amendments; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and to revise it as needed based on the selected option.

CEQA: The appropriation of funds and agreement approval 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).)

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council requests for scheduling future items.

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
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.

3 of 426

4 of 426

5 of 426

CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 3
0 6

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 4 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-3133 File ID: 24-9431 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2025
SUBJECT:

CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program Administration – Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an agreement with Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) in the amount of $140,000 to provide program administration services for the City’s housing rehabilitation loan program funded by the State of California CalHome grant program.

BACKGROUND:

Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program
From 1975 to 2012, the City operated an active housing rehabilitation loan program (Program), with over 630 loans funded by federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and, in later years, from a State of California CalHome (CalHome) grant. During this period, loans were annually reviewed and approved by a Loan Committee comprised of community members representing real estate and lending groups.

Despite the Program’s success, it was discontinued in 2012 due to reduced federal grant funds awarded to the City, staff reductions, and difficulty in locating eligible low-income homeowners willing to obtain loans secured against their property. The Loan Committee met for a final time in July 2012, and program funds from CDBG were redirected to benefit the City’s community-based projects.

CalHome Home Rehabilitation Loan Program
While federal grant funds were redirected to other City projects, the City continued to fund a housing rehabilitation loan program through CalHome. The CalHome loan fund was nearly depleted in 2012, but over time, the fund has been gradually replenished through loan repayments by borrowers to the City, in varied amounts each year. In 2019, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a qualified organization to provide administration of an updated CalHome Home Rehabilitation Loan Program (CalHome Loan Program).

Rebuilding Together Peninsula (RTP) was selected through this RFP process, and on March 1, 2020, the City entered into an administrative agreement (Agreement) with RTP to administer the CalHome Loan Program. The Agreement was renewed by the City on July 1, 2021 to extend RTP’s contract performance until June 30, 2023. In partnership with RTP, the City successfully provided CalHome Loan Program assistance to three City residents, despite countervailing factors such as the Covid pandemic disruptions to labor and construction supply chains, staff turnover, the challenge of establishing new administrative processes to review and approve loans in the place of the previous Loan Committee, and timely reimbursement of contractors during staffing shortages. There are currently two additional loan applications in the pipeline with RTP, and possibly more.

The City’s Agreement with RTP is expired, and the City is seeking to establish a new agreement (New Agreement) with RTP

6 of 426

CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 3
0 6
to continue its work in administrating the City’s CalHome Loan Program.

New Agreement with Rebuilding Together Peninsula
In this New Agreement with RTP, the City seeks to fine-tune the administration of the CalHome Loan Program based on experience from the past three years. Specifically, the New Agreement strengthens RTP’s role as project manager, leveraging RTP’s expertise in home repair and construction work coordination and aiming to reduce the burden on low- income homeowners, who may lack the resources to manage repair projects with contractors.

RTP is well-positioned to act as project manager for CalHome projects, as the organization performs similar work for its other programs, such as Safe at Home, National Rebuilding Day, and Unleaded Homes San Mateo County. As under the prior Agreement, RTP will collect contractor bids, work with the homeowner to select contractors, and review contractor work. Additionally, the New Agreement shifts responsibility to RTP to directly pay contactor invoices, rather than the City, and to invoice the City for reimbursement. The New Agreement also directs RTP to affirmatively market the City’s program to bring it in line with the City’s Housing Element preservation policies and programs.

The City’s responsibilities remain focused on overall CalHome Loan Program oversight, loan application processing, loan underwriting, and loan servicing of approximately $500,000 in funds to be awarded to low-income San Mateo residents with home rehabilitation needs, with a maximum loan amount of $60,000.

Under the agreement, RTP would be paid for services rendered in an amount not to exceed $140,000. The term of this agreement with RTP is for the period to begin on February 1, 2025 and to end on June 30, 2027.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund from this Agreement, as CalHome is a revolving loan program that is funded through loan repayments into a reuse CIP account (Fund 590).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This Agreement 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 - Agreement with Rebuilding Together Peninsula

STAFF CONTACT
Van Diggans, Housing Specialist II
[email protected]

7 of 426

Contract for Services Page 1 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 AGREEMENT WITH REBUILDING TOGETHER PENINSULA

FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
FOR

CALHOME HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
This Agreement is entered into this day of _______ (the “Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and REBUILDING TOGETHER PENINSULA, a California nonprofit corporation ("RTP," and together with CITY, the “Parties”), whose address is 841 Kaynyne Street, Redwood City, CA , 94063.

RECITALS:

A. CITY wishes to provide certain services for low-income San Mateo homeowners by leveraging funding from the State of California in connection with a CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program (the “Program”), which is described more fully in Exhibit A to this Agreement. The Parties contemplate that the Program will involve administering a loan pool of approximately $500,000 with a maximum loan amount for an eligible homeowner of $60,000 in order to help homeowners provide safety and improvement repairs to their homes.

B. RTP is a non-profit organization that is active in San Mateo with a mission to help provide renovation and repair services for the Peninsula’s most vulnerable homeowners, and as a consequence, has expertise in helping homeowners navigate complicated permitting processes and manage construction projects.

C. CITY desires to engage RTP to provide program administration services for its CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program, including vetting potential applicants, conducting biannual marketing and outreach (including translating flyers), helping homeowners navigate the bidding process, and facilitating inspections, among other administrative tasks, by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services.

D. CITY wishes to continue engaging RTP to provide these services and, in addition, to act as project manager for CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program projects. RTP has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth below. For the avoidance of doubt, RTP is only being engaged in order to provide program services to CITY and will not be a party to any separate loan agreements, construction contracts, or other agreements that may be entered into in the future by CITY and specific homeowners seeking assistance under the CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program.

8 of 426

Contract for Services Page 2 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
.

The scope of services to be performed by RTP under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference (the “Work”).

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR
RTP shall be responsible for performing the Work as more fully described in Exhibit A. RTP shall not be responsible for the professional quality or technical accuracy of the services to be performed by any contractors engaged by homeowners to perform actual construction work, but only for coordination of the Work described in Exhibit A. RTP shall, however, without additional compensation, be solely responsible for correcting or revising any errors or deficiencies in the Work for which CITY shall provide RTP prompt written notice with reasonable details of the errors or deficiencies.

RTP represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

RTP shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of RTP as described in Exhibit A; for the avoidance of doubt, RTP shall have no liability for the performance or non-performance of any contractors selected to perform services for homeowners.

RTP agrees to comply with CITY’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.

SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall promptly provide all information requested by RTP that is reasonably necessary for performing the Work.

CITY shall work in good faith to promptly review any documentation or requests submitted by RTP and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the RTP'S work.

CITY shall also be responsible for facilitating the Work as more fully described in Exhibit A, including but not limited to ensuring that properly submitted invoices from RTP are paid promptly, providing legal oversight of the Program, drafting loan documents determining applicant eligibility, and any other activities that are not expressly the responsibility of RTP.

9 of 426

Contract for Services Page 3 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on February 1, 2025 and be completed on June 30, 2027, unless this Agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with Section 6, below.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment to RTP for services performed under this Agreement shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of payment request as follows: RTP shall invoice CITY at a minimum, on a quarterly basis, for administrative costs and payments made to contractors or subcontractors by RTP for CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program projects that CITY has previously approved. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay RTP administrative fees in an amount not to exceed $140,000.00, pursuant to the rates stated in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by reference.

RTP shall provide an invoice for each request for payment, which shall specify the services rendered. RTP shall maintain receipts related to reimbursable expenses (if any) for three (3) years.

SECTION 6 - TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY or RTP may otherwise have by law, either Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Program for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to the other Party. If CITY provides written notice to RTP indicating its desire to terminate or suspend the Program, RTP agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice, and CITY agrees that RTP shall be compensated for all services performed up until the date such written notice is provided according to the rates set forth in Exhibit A.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared by RTP in connection with the performance of the Work under this Agreement are and shall be the property of CITY.

SECTION 8 - INTEREST OF RTP
RTP covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Work under this Agreement.

10 of 426

Contract for Services Page 4 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 SECTION 9 - CONTRACTOR'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the Work required under this Agreement, RTP shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of CITY as to the result of the work, but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make RTP an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 10 - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
RTP agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of RPT’s performance of this Agreement, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. RTP agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. RTP shall not be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental, special or exemplary damages arising out of or related to this agreement, regardless of the legal theory on which any such damages may be based and even if RTP has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

SECTION 11 - INSURANCE
RTP shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in Exhibit B to this Agreement.

SECTION 12 - NONASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the professional services of RTP and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by RTP without the prior written consent of CITY, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

SECTION 13 - RELIANCE UPON SKILL OF RTP
It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that RTP is skilled in the performance of the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of RTP to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and RTP agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of RTP's work by CITY does not operate as a release of RTP from said obligation.

11 of 426

Contract for Services Page 5 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 SECTION 14 - WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 15 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5,000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5,000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5,000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 16 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
The RTP warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither RTP nor any of its contractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 17 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.

12 of 426

Contract for Services Page 6 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 SECTION 18 - LITIGATION
RTP shall testify at CITY's request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with RTP's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by RTP, or is based upon RTP's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate RTP for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at RTP's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 19 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Rachel Horst, Housing Manager
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA, 94403
To RTP: Rebuilding Together Peninsula
Attn: Melissa Lukin, Executive Director
841 Kaynyne Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
SECTION 20 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and RTP and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and RTP.

SECTION 21- GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

13 of 426

Contract for Services Page 7 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Rebuilding Together Peninsula have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO Rebuilding Together Peninsula
Zachary Dahl
Community Development Director
Melissa Lukin
Its Authorized Agent
Executive Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mazarin Vakharia
Assistant City Attorney
Exhibits:

Exhibit A Scope of Services and Payment Rates
Exhibit B CalHome Program Guidelines
Exhibit C CalHome Program Gross Income Worksheet
Exhibit D Draw Schedule and Construction Payment Request Exhibit E Insurance Requirements

14 of 426

Contract for Services Page 8 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES and PAYMENT RATES
CITY wishes to provide a single-family CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Loan program for low-income San Mateo City homeowners.

The source of City funds is the State of California’s CalHome Program, administered by the California Dept. of Housing and Community Development.

During the term of the agreement, Rebuilding Together Peninsula (”RTP”) will help administer CITY’s CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. It is estimated that a loan pool of $500,000 will be available for eligible low-income homeowners. The maximum loan amount shall be $60,000. It is anticipated that approximately 10 homeowners will be served from this initial loan pool.

In general, RTP will conduct marketing and outreach, client intake, identify the scope of repair work to be performed by the homeowner, and manage the project, including inspections and payments to contractors.

In general, City will provide loan funds, determine applicant eligibility, draft loan documents, and manage its loan portfolio, including payments and payoffs, and lead program marketing and outreach.

Marketing efforts by RTP includes but is not limited to translating flyers and distributing information in various locations throughout CITY, including libraries, senior and community centers, and non-profit agencies. Outreach will be conducted biannually.

I. WORKFLOW
In general, each project will consist of the following steps:

A. Homeowner applies to RTP.

B. RTP collects income documentation, performs due diligence, and completes a preliminary assessment of the property.

C. CITY conducts site visit with RTP.

D. RTP uploads homeowner information to Neighborly website.

E. RTP collects contractor bids for any work to be performed.

F. RTP works with homeowner to select which contractor to work with.

G. CITY reviews income documentation, completes due diligence, and approves eligibility package.

H. CITY confirms loan amount and prepares loan documents.

I. RTP meets with homeowner for pre-construction survey and consultation.

J. Contractor(s) complete work.

K. Contractor(s) submit invoices to RTP for review and homeowner approval, and payment by RTP.

L. RTP, CITY, and homeowner complete final review of work.

M. RTP sends quarterly invoices to CITY for reimbursement of contractor invoices and administrative services.

15 of 426

Contract for Services Page 9 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 N. CITY and RTP will engage in quarterly meetings and keep records in a shared platform to track CalHome projects. City and RPT will use Neighborly, a loan software, to track payments. If use of Neighborly is discontinued or does not serve the full needs of the CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program, CITY and RTP will develop alternative means to maintain shared records.

II. ACTIVITY DELIVERY FEE – NEW PROJECTS
RTP’S Activity Delivery Fee for new projects will consist of a base fee of $3,690 per home plus $1,476 per set of needed contractor bids (i.e., for each individual loan).

For the base fee, RTP will perform at least five site visits to the home:

A. Preliminary Assessment
B. Site Visit including CITY Staff Review
C. Bid Review and Selection Meeting
D. Pre-Construction Site Visit
E. Post-Construction Site Visit
The base fee includes services that are customary and usual for management of home rehabilitation projects of this size. For example, writing the scope of work and completing other required paperwork; tracking data; phone calls and emails with the homeowner, contractors and CITY staff; processing contractor invoices; and providing status reports to the City of San Mateo.

In addition to the base fee, RTP will charge CITY $1,476 per each set of contractor bids necessary. RTP estimates that the typical home will need at least two types of contractor work (e.g. HVAC, roofing, sewer, electrical, internal plumbing), with each type of work requiring at least three bids (unless the amount for such bids is sufficiently modest, to be determined in RTP’s reasonable discretion, to warrant procuring less than three bids). For example, if RTP helps a homeowner to procure, review, and select bids for a new HVAC system and new electrical work, then RTP would be entitled to $2,952 in compensation ($1,476 multiplied by two, since there are two sets of bids).

If the property requires a termite inspection, RTP may pay for the inspection fee up front on behalf of the homeowner and seek reimbursement from CITY prior to requesting the Activity Delivery Fee. RTP shall utilize County of San Mateo Lead Abatement Program lead inspection or abatement is required; this amount shall not be deducted from the loan amount. City shall reimburse RTP even if the loan does not get approved. Other specialty inspection fees may also be reimbursed if approved by City ahead of time.

III. ACTIVITY DELIVERY FEE SCHEDULE PER HOME SERVED:

Task Description New Project
Base fee Five site visits and administrative
services (preparation, reporting,
coordination, communication) to
$3,690

16 of 426

Contract for Services Page 10 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 support the contract.

Construction
Project
Management
Securing bids and coordinating
between homeowner and contractor
$1,476
(per set)
Project
Management
Fee
Processing payments to contractors;
seeking reimbursement from City
3% of loan amount
(not to exceed $1,800
per loan)
Activity delivery fee per home with one
contractor:
$5,166Total:

Hourly rate if homeowner needs
additional contractor bids.
$123 per hour
not to exceed $1,476
IV. FISCAL AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF RTP:

A. RTP and City shall comply with all applicable State Regulations, particularly the provisions of the CalHome Program, Title 25 California Code of Regulations, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 9, Commencing with section 7715.

B. RTP shall document all costs by maintaining complete and accurate records of all financial transactions, including, but not limited to contracts, invoices, time cards, cash and charge receipts, vouchers, cancelled checks, bank statements and/or other official documentation evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of all transactions.

C. Independent Audits: RTP must perform an independent fiscal audit once a year, in conformance with the generally accepted standard accounting principles. For the avoidance of doubt, the fiscal audit required by this section can be satisfied by RTP’s usual annual audit and does not need to be specific to the Program or services provided to CITY.

Such audits must identify the total funds received and disbursed as well as funds granted and expended. The costs for such audits shall be at RTP’s expense, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. RTP’s Board of Directors must provide copies of the completed audits to CITY within thirty (30) days of their completion and acceptance by RTP’s Board of Directors.

D. Activities described in this agreement must be carried out in compliance with the following City of San Mateo regulations:
1) City of San Mateo – CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Program Guidelines (Exhibit B) V. RECORDS, REPORTS AND AUDITS OF ORGANIZATION:

A. Establishment and Maintenance of Records: RTP shall maintain records, including but not limited to books, financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, personnel,

17 of 426

Contract for Services Page 11 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 property, and all other pertinent records sufficient to reflect properly (1) all direct and indirect costs of whatever nature claimed to have been incurred and anticipated to be incurred to perform this Agreement, and (2) all other matters covered by this Agreement.

B. Preservation of Records: RTP shall reserve and make available its records:
1) Until the expiration of three (3) years from the date of the submission of the Program Report described below in Section VI.C.
2) For such longer period, if any, as is required by applicable law; or 3) If the Agreement is completely or partially terminated the records relating to the work terminated shall be preserved and made available for a period of three (3) years from the date of any resulting final settlement.

C. Program Report: RTP shall provide a quarterly written Program Report to CITY detailing progress made toward the provision of services as described above. Reports are due by the 15th of the month following the end of each quarter. RTP shall include an Annual Report in addition to the final quarterly report.
a. Contents of Quarterly Reports shall contain information that includes but is not limited to: description of current status of program activity, including number of units assisted, number of households served and demographic information; and description of problems or delays encountered in program implementation and course of action taken to address them.
b. Contents of the Annual Report shall contain information that includes but is not limited to: number of rehabilitation projects completed; number of rehabilitation projects in progress; amount of CalHome program funds spent in the last fiscal year.

18 of 426

Contract for Services Page 12 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 EXHIBIT B

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CALHOME HOUSING REHABILITATION GUIDELINES

GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Conflict of Interest
No member of the governing body of the locality and no other official, employee, or agent of CITY government who exercises policy, decision-making functions, or responsibilities in connection with the planning and implementation of the program shall directly or indirectly be eligible for this program, unless the application for assistance has been reviewed and approved according to applicable California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines. This ineligibility shall continue for one year after an individual's relationship with CITY ends.

A contractor with a vested interest in the property cannot bid on a rehabilitation job. Such a contractor may act as owner/builder, subject to Section V. Construction Standards. (Owner/builders are reimbursed for materials purchased which are verified by invoice/receipt and used on the job.

Reimbursement occurs after the installation is verified by the Construction Supervisor to be part of the scope of work. Owner/builders are not reimbursed for labor.) Fair Housing
CITY is an equal opportunity, fair housing lender and makes all programs available to low income families regardless of age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual preference, marital status or handicap.

Applicant Eligibility
Residency Requirements
Units to be rehabilitated must be the principal residence of the owner. (Owner Occupied). Each homeowner must be named on the property’s title evidenced by a preliminary title search of the property address. Each homeowner must sign all program and loan documents.

Continued residency is monitored between April 1st and the 30th of each year for the term of the loan.

Occupancy will be verified by the submission of the following:
(a) Proof of occupancy in the form of a copy of a current utility bill; and (b) Statement of unit's continued use as primary residence of the owner using the City of San Mateo’s “Form of Owner Occupancy Certification”.

19 of 426

Contract for Services Page 13 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 The CalHome loan is not assumable. (See Loan Servicing Policies and Procedures (LSPP) Conversion to a use other than residential is not allowable where the full use of the property is changed from residential to commercial or other.

Household Eligibility
A household is defined in terms of financial relationships and can include any owner partnerships as long as their combined gross, annual income meets the eligibility guidelines. To be considered a member of a household, a person must either be (1) on title or (2) claimed as a dependent on the tax returns of a household member who will appear on the title and loan for the CalHome loan.

Household Income
All sources from which the borrower(s), and any other person over 18 years of age who is expected to live in the residence, receive income including the monthly gross pay, and additional income from overtime, part-time employment, bonuses, commissions, tips, dividends, interest royalties, pensions, Veteran’s Admin compensation, net rental income or other income (such as alimony, child support, public assistance, sick pay, social security benefits unemployment compensation, income received from trusts, and income received from business activities or investments).

If one or more bedrooms of an owner occupied single-family property is/are rented to non-household members, the non-household member’s income shall not be included in income calculations for the owners household. However, the rent paid to the owner shall be included in income calculations for the owner’s household.

Gross Income
The annual gross income, of the Homeowner’s household income adjusted for family size, may not exceed the program limits. Determination of the Homeowner annual household income will be based on income projected for twelve (12) months. Please refer to Appendix 1; CalHome Program Gross Income Worksheet.

1. Maximum Income Limits: The household income of any Borrower cannot exceed 80% of the HCD low income Limits as published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) adjusted for household size. For purposes of determining the household income, the income of all persons 18 years and older who will reside in the property will be considered as part of the total income used to determine eligibility within the established limits.

2. Gross Income Includes: All sources of income from which the Borrower and any other person over 18 years of age who is expected to live in the residence. Gross income from wages,

20 of 426

Contract for Services Page 14 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 salaries; any additional income from overtime, part-time employment, bonuses, commissions, tips, dividends, interest or dividends earned on assets, royalties, annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds, pensions, disability or death benefits, Veteran’s Administration (VA) compensation, net rental income or other income (such as alimony, child support, public assistance, sick pay, social security benefits, unemployment compensation, income received from trusts, and income received from business activities or investments).

3. Income Determination: The gross income of the household (as defined by CCRs Title 25 Section 6914) promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service is the household’s annualized gross income.

Gross income shall mean the anticipated income of a borrower or family member for the twelve-month period following the date of determination of income. If the circumstances are such that it is not reasonably feasible to anticipate a level of income over a twelve-month period, a shorter period may be used subject to a re-determination at the end of such a period. "Income" shall consist of the following: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), all payments from all sources received by the family head (even if temporarily absent) and each additional member of the family household who is not a minor shall be included in the annual income of a family. Income shall include, but not be limited to:
a) The gross amount, before any payroll deductions, of wages and salaries, overtime pay, commissions, fees, tips and bonuses;
b) The net income from operation of a business or profession or from rental of real or personal property (for this purpose, expenditures for business expansion or amortization of capital indebtedness shall not be deducted to determine the net income from a business); c) Interest and dividends;
d) The full amount of periodic payments received from social security, annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds, pensions, disability or death benefits and other similar types of periodic receipts;
e) Payments in lieu of earnings, such as unemployment and disability compensation, worker's compensation and severance pay (but see subdivision (b)(3)).

f) Periodic and determinable allowances such as alimony and child support payments, and regular contributions or gifts received from persons not residing in the dwelling; g) All regular pay, special pay and allowances of a member of the Armed Forces (whether or not living in the dwelling) who is head of the family or spouse.

The calculation of income based on the gross income on each applicant’s past three pay stubs.

Each household member’s income is derived by dividing the year-to-date gross income by the person’s current pay period and then by annualizing an estimated pay period amount by the number of times the person is paid in one year. Calculations such as part-time employment

21 of 426

Contract for Services Page 15 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 with variable hours (or less than 40 hours per week), inconsistent income or hours, overtime, bonuses and commissions, etc., can be calculated using year-to-date income to project the annual income.

YTD gross income/current pay period x number of paid a year = Annualized gross income Example:

Year-to-date income is $20,000 as of the 10th pay period of the year Estimated pay period amount = $20,000 divided by 10 = $2,000 Total number of pay periods in year for applicant is 24 Annualized pay = $2,000 x 24 = $48,000
A self-employed Borrower can also be considered to have income, which varies from month to month. The borrower's gross annual income calculations will be based on the net income before taxes from the Borrower’s signed, quarterly Profit and Loss Statement. This amount will be divided by the appropriate number of months covered by the Profit and Loss Statement to derive at a monthly income amount. The monthly income amount will be multiplied by 12 to derive the annual income.

Self-employed Borrower must provide:
• Self-employed Affidavit.
• All Profit and Loss statements from the past 3 years. • A Profit and Loss statement for the current year.
• Copies of all invoices and payments made to the applicant as a part of self-employment in the current calendar year.

Example:

Year-to-date net income is $32,000 for 5 months on the P/L Statement Estimated Income amount = $32,000 divided by 5 = $6,400 Total number of the year is 12 months
Annualized Income = $6,400 x 12 = $76,800

h) Borrower or Co-Borrower not employed or not receiving any income must provide an Unemployment Affidavit that is signed and notarized. The Unemployment Affidavit (Appendix 3) must be used in the event that the applicant is not able to provide the City of San Mateo Housing Department with pay stubs or other documentation of regular income.

Underwriting
Once staff has verified the property is owner occupied, the number of eligible persons, and income eligibility, a credit report issued by a responsible reporting agency, will be used to verify expense information on the loan application. Staff will cross check the credit report with the

22 of 426

Contract for Services Page 16 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 preliminary title report to verify any derogatory public records and review the credit report for timeliness of past obligations such as mortgage payments, and other consumer credit lines.

Property Eligibility
Units to be rehabilitated must be located within the City of San Mateo city limits.

Property must contain a legal residential structure intended for continued residential occupancy.

Units that have code deficiencies must be corrected in order to qualify for loan funds. Repairs must address all health and safety hazards existing in the unit as determined by the agent’s construction supervisor and/or the City Building Department. CITY will determine the rehabilitation work to be performed on the property based on the outcome of the construction supervisor’s initial property inspection.

Single family housing and multi-family housing up to 4 units is/are allowable.

Eligible improvements include:
a) Code violations
b) Termite (scope of work limited to areas to be repaired) c) Deferred maintenance if required by city ordinance or health and safety code. d) Major system updates
e) Handicapped/disability modifications
f) General property improvements (no more than 25% of property). Not applicable unless it relates to health and safety or code compliance.
g) Lead-based paint hazard reduction work.
h) Energy and water conservation.
i) New construction is prohibited unless used to relieve overcrowding.

Construction Standards
All repair work must meet California Building Code standards.

Contracting Process:
a) Contracting will be done on a competitive basis.
b) The homeowner will be the responsible agent, but CITY and/or its agent will prepare the work write-up, prepare and advertise the bid package, and assist the owner in negotiating the construction contract.
c) The City does not warrant any construction work or provide insurance coverage.

23 of 426

Contract for Services Page 17 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 Approved Contractors:
a) Contractors are required to be licensed with the State of California and be active and in good standing with the Contractors’ License Board.
b) Contractors will be checked against HUD’s federally debarred list of contractors. No award will be granted to a contractor on this list.
c) Contractors must have liability and property damage insurance, worker’s compensation, and employer liability insurance to the extent required by State Law. d) Contractor must agree to comply with all CalHome regulations. e) The homeowner may be allowed to do his own work if he has a valid California Contractor’s license.

Eligible Rehabilitation Costs
Cost of rehabilitation of the property in accordance with the following definition: “Rehabilitation” means, in addition to the definition in Section 50096 of the Health and Safety Code, repairs and improvements to a home necessary to correct any condition causing the home to be substandard pursuant to Section 1704 of Title 25, California Code of Regulations. Rehabilitation also means repairs and improvements where necessary to meet any locally-adopted standards used in local rehabilitation programs. Rehabilitation does not include replacement of personal property.

Cost of building permits and other related government fees.

Cost of architectural, engineering, and other consultant services which are directly related to the rehabilitation of the property.

Non-recurring loan closing costs.

Owner-occupied rehabilitation activity delivery fees, pursuant to Section 7733(f), as reimbursement to CITY for the actual costs of services rendered to the homeowner that are incidentally but directly related to the rehabilitation work (e.g. planning, engineering, construction management, including inspections and work write-ups).

Owner-occupants are not eligible for temporary relocation unless health and safety threats are determined to exist by the agent/construction supervisor. In cases where relocation is determined to be necessary by the agent/construction supervisor, any assistance is to comply with California Government Code Section 7260 et seq. and regulations found in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 6. Relocation costs shall be included in the loan (not a separate grant).

CalHome Activity Delivery Fees

24 of 426

Contract for Services Page 18 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 CITY staff member responsible for the processing and underwriting of CalHome project funding will be responsible for documenting incurred costs using the “CalHome Program OOR-4, Activity Delivery Fee Reimbursement Form”.

FINANCING
The amount of CalHome assistance provided to a project is determined by the process of evaluating the available equity of the property, initial inspection, development of the work write-up and cost estimate, analysis of the contractor bids received, followed by comparison of the bids to the cost estimate to determine cost reasonableness.

Limits:
a) An eligible owner may qualify for the full cost of rehabilitation work needed to comply with California Building Code standards. Maximum assistance with CalHome funds is $60,000.00 for rehabilitation and/or reconstruction.
b) The loan-to-value ratio for an owner-occupied rehabilitation loan, when combined with all other indebtedness secured by the property, shall not exceed 105 percent of the estimated after-rehabilitation value. An estimate of after-rehab value will be made prior to making a commitment of CalHome funds using San Mateo County Association of Realtors “Sales Stat Records”. Staff will refer to both monthly and quarterly median values for the county to makes its assessment.
c) Total value of the unit after rehabilitation shall not exceed 100% of the current median sales price of a single family home in San Mateo County. Sales Price/Value limits will be according to San Mateo County Association of Realtors “Sales Stat Reports” for median home prices, or by an individual appraisal performed by a licensed appraiser.

Types of Financing and Terms:
a) Each applicant who is determined to be eligible for the CalHome program will receive Deferred Payment Loans (DPL) financing.
b) Deferred Payment Loans – Twenty-year, 3% interest bearing loan, secured by a deed of trust, with no payback required until the end of the 20 year term, participant sells or transfers title, or discontinues their residence in the dwelling. Payments may be made voluntarily on a DPL at any time within the term of the loan. There are no pre-payment penalties on loans issued by the City of San Mateo. Loan principal will not be forgiven. c) Loans shall be repayable upon sale or transfer of the property, when the property ceases to be owner-occupied; or upon the CalHome Program loan maturity date. However, if it is determined by CITY that repayment of the CalHome Program loan at the maturity date causes a hardship to the borrower, CITY may opt to do one of the following:

1. Amend the note and deed of trust one time only to defer repayment of the amount due at maturity, that is balance of the original principal plus the accrued interest, for up to an additional 30 years (at 0% additional interest) this may be offered one time;

25 of 426

Contract for Services Page 19 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 2. Convert the debt at loan maturity; (balance of the original principal plus any accrued interest) to an amortized loan, repayable in 15 years at 0% additional interest. d) Any cash out of escrow to the homeowner is prohibited. e) No financing, junior or senior to the CalHome loan, will have a balloon payment due before the maturity date of the CalHome loan.
f) Only after all loan documentation has been processed and recording has taken place, will the loan proceeds be available to the borrower.

LOAN SECURITY
Loan security for all owner-occupied rehabilitation stick-built homes will be secured by the real property and improvements, and will include a Deed of Trust, and Promissory Note in favor of CITY.

Entering a subordinate lien is acceptable. However, CITY will not subordinate a first lien position once established.

INSURANCE & PROPERTY TAXES
See Loan Servicing Policies and Procedures.

LOAN APPROVAL
The City of San Mateo Loan Committee must approve all loans. The Loan Committee may approve assistance in excess of the maximum loan limits with financing up to 105 percent of after rehabilitation value as needed, in cases where no other financial resources are available to cover the cost of the improvements and where clear and convincing documentation exists, justifying why the exception is needed.

In order to obtain CalHome financing, applicants must meet all property and eligibility guidelines in effect at the time the application is considered. Applicants will be provided written notification of approval or denial. Any reason for denial will be provided to the applicant in writing.

DEFAULT AND FORECLOSURE
If an owner defaults on a loan, and foreclosure procedures are instituted, they shall be carried out according to the Loan Servicing Policies and Procedures).

COMPLAINT AND APPEAL PROCEDURE
Complaints concerning the CalHome Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program should be made first to CITY’s contract agent. If the problem remains unresolved, the complaint or appeal should be made in

26 of 426

Contract for Services Page 20 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 writing and filed with the City Manager of the City of San Mateo.

AMENDMENTS
CITY may make amendments to these Participation Guidelines. Any changes made shall be in accordance with CalHome regulations.

EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions to these Participation Guidelines will require approval of the Housing Manager.

27 of 426

Contract for Services Page 21 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 EXHIBIT C
CalHome Program Gross Income Worksheet
ASSETS
Household Member Assets Description Current Value Actual Income from Assets (Annualized)

1. Totals 1(a) 1(b)

2. If line 1(a) is $5,000 or less, enter 0 here and in line 6(d) below.

Income from assets of $5,000 or less is not included in the determination of income eligibility.

2. 3. If line 1(a) is greater than $5,000:
(a) multiply line 1(a) by 2.0% and enter results here 3(a) (b) enter amount from line 1(b) 3(b)
(c) Enter the greater of lines 3(a) or 3(b) here and inline 6(d) below. 3(c)

ANTICIPATED ANNUAL INCOME
Household Member
a.

Wages/
Salaries
b.

Benefits/
Pensions
c.

Other
Income
d.

Asset
Income

6. Totals a. b. c. d.

7. Enter total of items from 6a.through 6d. (Total Income) 7.

Completed and Reviewed by: ______________________ Date: _________

28 of 426

Contract for Services Page 22 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 EXHIBIT D

DRAW SCHEDULE AND CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT REQUEST
Draw Schedule
Company
Name Project
Name
Phone
Number Project
Address
Email Contract
Price
Draw No.

Est.

Completion
Date Percentage Amount
Description of
Work Status
1 $0
2 $0
3 $0
4 $0
5 $0
6 $0
7 $0
8 $0
9 $0
10 $0
Final 0% $0

29 of 426

Contract for Services Page 23 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 Date: Payment #
Owner: Property:

SUMMARY OF FUNDS
Loan Amount
Inspections/Fees:

Title Insurance
Termite
Other
Other
Other
Construction Funds

TRANSACTIONS
Beginning Total Contracts
List Contractor/Material Provider Names:Contract Amt. This Trans. Prior Trans. Job to Date Termite Contractor $0.00
Roofer Name $0.00
Gutter Contractor $0.00
Heater Contractor $0.00
Drainage pump Contracor $0.00
Drainage pipe Contractor $0.00
Plumber Name $0.00
$0.00
Contingency $0.00
Total Transactions $0.00
Balance $0.00
Notes:

Date Owner's Signature
I certify that I have checked this property and verify that the value of work performed warrants this payment request to be honored.

Date Project Manager
The undersigned Owner authorizes this payment for work performed on the above property and certifies that the value of work stated in the attached invoice has been essentially completed as of this date. All relevant permits and building inspections have been obtained.

30 of 426

Contract for Services Page 24 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 EXHIBIT E

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1.Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2.Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if the RTP has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3.Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

If RTP maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, CITY requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by RPT.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of RTP; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of RTP including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement RPT’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, RPT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the RPT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to CITY.

31 of 426

Contract for Services Page 25 of 27
Rev Dec. 2024
1 1
2 6
6 Waiver of Subrogation
RTP hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of RTP may acquire against CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. RTP agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by CITY. CITY may require RTP to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to CITY.

Verification of Coverage
RTP shall furnish CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive RPT’s obligation to provide them. CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

32 of 426

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: 5 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 72-4671 File ID: 24-9463 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2025
SUBJECT:

Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester 2 Cleaning — Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving an alternative purchasing procedure to award an Agreement to Bristola, LLC for Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester 2 Cleaning services in the amount of $364,100, with a contingency in the amount of $36,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and approve change orders within the approved contingency amount.

BACKGROUND:

The Clean Water Program (CWP) includes several capital improvement projects intended to upgrade or rehabilitate aging infrastructure in the City’s sewer collection system and Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to maintain plant operations, minimize service disruptions and safeguard public health. As part of the CWP, the WWTP Annual Major Components Project captures several repairs, rehabilitations, and efforts required to keep the portions of the existing WWTP that will remain after commissioning the new WWTP operational and forecast future needs. The WWTP Annual Major Components Project aims to enhance the ongoing improvements to the two digesters, which are used to break down solids in the wastewater treatment process. The WWTP operates two egg-shaped digesters in parallel and can operate with one digester but at limited capacity and with risk and cost to operations and maintenance. Cleaning of the digesters ensure reliability and safe operations of the digestion process and breakdown of sludge for safe disposal.

Digester 2 is currently offline due to failure of the mixer and draft tube in 2022. Services to repair the mixer and draft tube are currently in process. During the process of repair, it was observed that cleaning would be required to conduct the digester repairs properly and allow for reliable start-up and operations of the digester. Additionally, digester cleaning, which helps maintain capacity, effectiveness, and asset lifespan, has not been performed since 2010. To facilitate the repairs and cleaning, City WWTP operations and maintenance staff purged the digester of gas and liquid, and remaining materials include large solids, rags, grit, and struvite build-up. The City has been able to maintain operational capacity by operating only Digester 1; however, the inability to operate both digesters creates a larger volume of sludge (due to an increased liquid content) to be off-hauled, increasing disposal costs by $26,000 per month. Getting both digesters fixed and operational is essential for keeping disposal costs to a minimum. Furthermore, allowing Digester 2 to be cleaned, come online, and operate reliably will allow for inspection of Digester 1. The inspection of Digester 1 is scoped under the WWTP Biogas and Biosolids Evaluation, which was awarded to a consultant by City Council on November 18, 2024.

Staff initiated the process of obtaining a contractor for cleaning of Digester 2, which at the time was thought to be approximately $80,000. However, as staff started to solicit bids, the cost to clean was substantially higher due to the complexity and procedures to access and clean egg-shaped digesters. Egg-shaped anaerobic digester systems are not very common in the Bay Area and therefore, many companies don’t have experience cleaning this type of digester or capability to meet the repair and start-up schedule. The digester needs to get cleaned prior to reinstalling the mixer, which is

33 of 426

CITY OF SAN MATEO
currently scheduled to arrive in April 2025.

Staff requested three quotes from Synagro, Pipe and Plant Solutions, and Bristola, LLC (“Bristola”). Synagro declined to provide a quote due to specialization of the egg-shaped digesters. Pipe and Plant Solutions and Bristola provided cost proposals. Staff assessed both proposals and had virtual discussions with each vendor. Staff reviewed and negotiated a proposal with Bristola for $364,100 and determined it to be appropriate for the scope of work, expertise required, and timely need, and recommends Council approve an agreement with Bristola. Additionally, the costs associated with the cleaning can reduce the concurrent Biogas and Biosolids Evaluation Project scope and cost by coordinating the timing for the joint work of the scaffolding required for both projects.

Agreements that exceed $100,000 typically require an invitation-for-sealed-bids process. San Mateo Municipal Code Section 3.60.070(h)(3) authorizes the City Council to approve an alternative purchasing procedure when it finds doing so is in the best interest of the City. Because of the unusual egg-shaped digesters, only few companies have the capability to provide the cleaning services the City requires. In addition, the time it would take to go through a sealed bids process would not meet the timeframe needed to have the digester cleaned prior to the arrival of the repaired mixer and would not allow for the coordinated efforts of the Biogas and Biosolids Evaluation. Therefore, staff recommends for Council to award an agreement with Bristola since it is one of few companies that is able to provide the requisite cleaning services, will allow for Digestor 2 to be appropriately cleaned prior to completion of the repairs, ensure reliable start-up, and to meet the timeline for Biogas and Biosolids Evaluation.

Staff further recommends that $36,000 be authorized as a contingency amount for any potential changes that may arise due to the nature of this repair and investigation work.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds available in the budget for WWTP Annual Major Components Project (46t090) to award this agreement and fund the contingency amount.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This project is categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” in that the cleaning of Digestor 2 consists of the operation, repair, or maintenance of an existing public structure, facility, or mechanical equipment involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att. 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att. 2 – Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Thomas Ruark, Senior Project Manager
[email protected]
650-522-7280
Deryk Daquigan, Deputy Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650)522-7287
Matthew Fabry, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650)522-7303

34 of 426

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2025)

APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE PURCHASING PROCEDURE FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH BRISTOLA, LLC FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIGESTER 2 CLEANING
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Digester 2 Cleaning Project (Project) is a Clean Water Program capital improvement project that will result in ensuring the reliability and safe operation of existing WWTP facilities; and
WHEREAS, one of the two digesters used to break down solids in the wastewater treatment process, Digester 2, requires cleaning services prior to completion of needed repairs and reinstallation of the mixer and draft tube, which is estimated to be completed in April 2025; and WHEREAS, Digester 2 is egg-shaped, which is uncommon in the Bay Area and few companies have the capability to provide the requisite cleaning services; and WHEREAS, utilizing a sealed bid process will not likely allow for Digester 2 to be cleaned prior to reinstallation of the mixer and draft tube in April 2025; and WHEREAS, San Mateo Municipal Code section 3.60.070(h)(3) provides that the City may use purchasing procedures approved by the City Council if the City Council makes a finding concurrent with the award for the contract that the procedures are in the best interest of the City for the particular contract; and WHEREAS, in lieu of a sealed bid process, three requests for quotes were directly solicited and two companies with the experience and capability to clean egg-shaped digesters submitted quotes; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the two received quotes and determined that Bristola, LLC is the most competitive and qualified contractor to perform the requisite cleaning services; and WHEREAS, having Digester 2 completed in a timely manner will also allow for the City to have Digester 1 inspected for the WWTP Biosolids and Biogas Evaluation.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. The Council action approving this agreement is categorically exempt from CEQA review as an “existing facility,” in that it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

2. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 3.60.070(h)(3), award of an agreement to Bristola, LLC for Digester 2 cleaning services is in the best interest of the City because:
a. The City’s egg-shaped digesters at the WWTP are uncommon in the Bay Area;

35 of 426

1 1
2 8
6 b. Limited companies are capable of cleaning egg-shaped digesters given their specialized nature and specific methods to access and clean;
c. Cleaning and installation of the mixer and draft tube for Digester 2 in a timely manner will minimize ongoing disposal costs, and will allow for Digester 2 to come back online, allowing for Digester 1 to be inspected for the WWTP Biosolids and Biogas evaluation; and d. Bristola is the only company offering an economically feasible method for the cleaning service which meets the City’s timeline.

3. The Agreement with Bristola, LLC for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester 2 Cleaning in the amount not to exceed of $364,100 is approved.

4. A contingency reserve of $36,000 is established for this project.

5. The Public Works Director is authorized to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and approve any necessary change orders within the approved contingency amount.

36 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 1 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 AGREEMENT WITH BRISTOLA, LLC

FOR DIGESTER CLEANING SERVICES
FOR
AMC-DIGESTER 2 CLEANING
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ______________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and BRISTOLA, LLC ("CONTRACTOR"), whose address is 1226 Illinois Street Des Moines, IA 50314.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain digester maintenance and cleaning services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide these _digester maintenance and cleaning services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work.

CONTRACTOR represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONTRACTOR.

CONTRACTOR and his subcontractors shall comply with State’s Prevailing Wage Laws.

CONTRACTOR or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. For the work performed for the City, the CONTRACTOR and his subcontractors shall pay the workers at the prevailing wage rate as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations, for this locality. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. CONTRACTOR

37 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 2 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 agrees to comply with the City’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.

SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY
CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONTRACTOR and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONTRACTOR's work.

SECTION 4 - TERM
The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence upon execution of the Agreement and be completed on August 30, 2025.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT
Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a fee in an amount of $364,100, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 6 – TERMINATION
Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.

SECTION 8 - CONFIDENTIALITY
All reports and documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONTRACTOR shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONTRACTOR or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release.

SECTION 9 - INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement.

38 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 3 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 SECTION 10 - CONTRACTOR'S STATUS
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the services required under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONTRACTOR an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY
CONTRACTOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify City of San Mateo and the Estero Municipal Improvement District, their elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement, except for those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend City of San Mateo and the Estero Municipal Improvement District, their elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. The CONTRACTOR’S duty to indemnify shall survive expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

SECTION 12 - INSURANCE
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

SECTION 13 - NONASSIGNABILITY
Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONTRACTOR and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON SKILL OF CONTRACTOR
It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONTRACTOR is skilled in the performance of the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONTRACTOR to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONTRACTOR agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONTRACTOR's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONTRACTOR from said obligation.

39 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 4 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 SECTION 15 - WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 16 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES
Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 17 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
CONTRACTOR warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONTRACTOR nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 18 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.

40 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 5 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 SECTION 19 - LITIGATION
CONTRACTOR shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONTRACTOR'S services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONTRACTOR, or is based upon CONTRACTOR'S wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONTRACTOR for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONTRACTOR'S standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 20 - NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Thomas Ruark
City of San Mateo
WWTP Digester 2 Cleaning
City of San Mateo
2050 Detroit Drive
San Mateo, CA
To CONTRACTOR: Bristola, LLC
Attn: Jared Burma
1226 Illinois Street
Des Moines, IA 50314
SECTION 21 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONTRACTOR.

SECTION 22 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

41 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 6 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named, as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONTRACTOR
Matt Fabry
Public Works Director
Date Jared Burma
Chief Executive Officer
If a Corporation, can be either
1) President or 2) Vice
President plus an additional
corporate officer (i.e.,
Secretary, Treasurer) who shall
sign below.

Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM ADDITIONAL CORPORATE

OFFICER
(if necessary per the above)
N/A
Linh Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date Date
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Payment Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements

42 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 7 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Bristola will traditionally clean the solids from the Digester at City of San Mateo WWTP. Bristola will also include transportation and disposal of trash and solids. Trash to be sent to debris box and solids to the landfill. If needed, we can utilize the site waste manhole for turbid water to send back to head works. Entering through top. Once majority of solids have been removed from the digester, Bristola will power wash remaining sediment. Digester is 1.2MG and filled with grit, rags, material. Estimated current height of material is 10 feet from bottom of digester for total volume of 1,000 cubic feet/45 cubic yards. Level measurement from the top of the tank is about 73ft to the water level.

Items to Consider:

1. Method for screening large trash

2. Note the material can’t be dried or stored onsite

3. Turbid water can be sent back through the headworks through manhole to site waste

4. Inclusions/Exclusions

5. H&S provisions

43 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 8 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 Mobilization

1. Mobilization of all equipment to the project site.
a. Once mobilization is complete Bristola will perform a walkthrough with Client. b. After the walkthrough and layout approval, Bristola will begin setup of site. c. Make electrical connections and route cords
d. Identify and tape off safety areas
Operations

1. Bristola will be managing the Project and the Bristola team will work 10 hours a day with a 1- hour lunch, for 6 days a week.

2. Begin cleaning digester with manpower and vac truck.

3. Goal of this cleaning is to remove the solids from the digester. Drain the rest of the liquids to complete.

4. Customer is responsible for disposal fee of the sediment at the landfill.

5. Cleaned per the client’s request and demobilize.

Bristola Responsibilities

1. Safety monitors for employees

44 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 9 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 2. Support equipment

3. Labor to operate the equipment, hole watch & supervise the project

4. Spill cleanup and containment

5. Dewatering solids to paint filter standards

6. Transportation for solids to landfill

45 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 10 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT RATES
Pricing is based on removal of estimated 1000 cft of material Services and Items Estimated
Units
Unit of
Measure
Cost Total Cost
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 Fixed $50,000 $50,000
Labor (prevailing wage) 4 Fixed $68,000 $68,000
Supervisor (prevailing wage) 1 Fixed $30,000 $30,000
Per Diem 5 Fixed $10,000 $10,000
Safety equipment/services
(monitors, hole watch,
supplied air, harnesses, PPE)
1 Fixed $50,000 $50,000
Bristola Processing solids
(Pressing to meet paint filter
test)
1 Fixed $50,000 $50,000
Trucking (prevailing wage) 1 Fixed $45,000 $45,000
Power washing
(prevailing wage) 20 Hours $600 $12,000
Rentals/Materials cost plus
20%. (Crane, Telehandler,
extra pumps, hose, other)
Estimate $7,500 $7,500
Struvite blasting (draft tube)
(prevailing wage) 1 Fixed $30,000 $30,000
Draft Tube video inspection
(prevailing wage) 1 Fixed $10,000 $10,000
Fuel 200 Gallons $8.00 $1,600

46 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 11 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1.Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2.Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3.Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of San Mateo and the Estero Municipal Improvement District, their elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of San Mateo and the Estero Municipal Improvement District, their elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of San Mateo and the Estero Municipal Improvement District, their elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation

47 of 426

Contract for Services-Estero SB854 (PW) Page 12 of 12
Rev 9/22
1 1
1 9
3 Contractor hereby grants to the City of San Mateo and the Estero Municipal Improvement District a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

48 of 426

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: 6 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-9912 File ID: 24-9502 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Information Technology Department
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2025
SUBJECT:

Enterprise Resource Planning Software Project – Supplemental Budget Appropriation and Change Orders RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve a supplemental budget appropriation of $210,172 from unassigned fund balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund to increase the capital budget for the Enterprise Resource Planning Project; approve Change Order No. 8 to the master services agreement with Collaborative Solutions, LLC for ERP implementation services in the amount of $199,922 for a new agreement total of $4,739,292; approve Change Order No. 485765 to the master subscription agreement with Workday, Inc. for delivery assurance services in the amount of $10,250 for a new agreement total of $187,605; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Change Orders in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

In February 2022, the City Council awarded a contract to Collaborative Solutions, LLC in the amount of $2,527,160 as part of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system replacement project (Project). Collaborative Solutions, LLC is now known as Cognizant.

The ERP supports the City’s core administration functions of Human Capital Management (HCM), Payroll, and Core Financials. The ERP implementation has occurred in phases. Phase 1 covered Core Financials, began in March 2022, and went live on November 1, 2022. Phase 2 began in October 2022 and covers HCM and Payroll. The Plan, Architect, Configure, and Test Stages of Phase 2 have been completed, and project work is currently focused on the Deployment Stage. The Deployment Stage is a critical time when HR and Payroll staff ensure payroll calculations are accurate, City staff are trained, and City bargaining units are informed of changes brought by the new HCM and Payroll system through the meet and confer process. When the Deployment Stage is complete, the Project will continue with Post-Production Support.

Delays with the Testing Stage resulted in the need for significant previous timeline extensions and Change Orders. End-to- End testing was originally scheduled for completion on August 18, 2023, but was extended by 26 weeks with the approval by Council of Change Orders No. 5 and No. 6 on September 18, 2023. This resulted in a new target Go-Live in June 2024 and increased the Project budget by $780,580. However, in November 2023, it became clear that insufficient testing progress was occurring to meet the new Go-Live target. While Change Orders No. 5 and No. 6 extended the Project schedule and increased consultant resource commitments, they did not properly address the root causes of Project delays.

Change Order No. 7 extended the Project timeline an additional 26 weeks for a Go-Live in December 2024, concurrent with the first pay period of calendar year 2025. However, it required significantly less funding than prior Change Orders. Rather than extend time and money on the same trajectory, the Project team addressed Project deficiencies and remediated them through a Project re-plan. The new approach emphasized City staff performing functional work as is the best practice for Workday projects, rather than outsource that work to consultants to fill resource gaps. This re-plan also included new

49 of 426

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Cognizant project managers and leadership to provide more support and guidance for the Project. Additionally, the City’s Project Steering Committee consisted of HR and Finance Directors who have since left City employment. These roles were re-filled by the City’s current Finance Director, IT Director, and our recently hired HR Director. The Project Steering Committee reports to the City Manager, who serves as the Project Sponsor.

Approval of Change Order No. 8 will extend the project timeline an additional 3 months for Go-Live at the end of March 2025. This will provide HR and Payroll staff and the rest of the Project team sufficient time to ensure a successful Deployment Stage. Work toward that end will include ensuring accurate payroll calculations, ‘meet and confer’ with bargaining units, and end user training. Much of the work during this proposed 3-month project extension will be led by City staff rather than consultants, with the expectation that staff will gain a more complete understanding of the system and be better able to support and manage it long term. As reflected in Attachment 2 (Change Order No. 8), the additional scope cost for Cognizant is $199,922. As reflected in Attachment 3 (Change Order No. 485765), the additional delivery assurance services from Workday for the extended period will cost $10,250. All told, the project cost increase is $210,172.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The proposed Resolution, included as Attachment 1, approves adding $210,172 supplemental budget appropriations for the ERP Project from unassigned fund balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund. This fund balance will be replenished over a 10-year period.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Approval of the change orders for ERP implementation support is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption in it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.) In addition, approval of a supplemental budget appropriation for the Project is not subject to CEQA review in that it consists of a governmental 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
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Change Order No. 8
Att 3 – Change Order No. 485765

STAFF CONTACT
Pete Owen, Director, Information Technology
[email protected]
(650) 522-7074

50 of 426

1 1
2 9
6 CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2025)
APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,172 FROM THE

UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a master services agreement to Collaborative Solutions, LLC, now known as Cognizant, in February 2022 for enterprise resource planning (ERP) system implementation services for the ERP Planning Software Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, additional time is required to complete the Deployment Stage of the Project to ensure proper system functioning and to prevent payroll or benefits errors that may adversely impact employees at go- live; and
WHEREAS, an additional 12 weeks will provide Human Resources and Payroll more time to complete payroll testing, meet and confer with City staff, deliver training to users, and deploy on a new go-live date of March 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, additional funds in the amount of $210,172 in the Capital Budget for the Project is required to cover the additional 12 weeks required; and
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds in the unassigned fund balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund to provide for the additional 12 weeks for the Project; and WHEREAS, approval of this appropriation will enable the execution of Change Orders with Collaborative Solutions, LLC and Workday, Inc. to assist with ERP-related services during the additional 12 weeks.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES that:

1. This City Council action is not a project subject to CEQA, because it consists of a governmental 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).)

2. A supplemental budget appropriation of $210,172, of unassigned fund balance from the Equipment Replacement Fund, to increase the budget for the Enterprise Resource Planning Software Project (Project No. 200001) by $210,172 is approved.

51 of 426

52 of 426

53 of 426

54 of 426

55 of 426

56 of 426

57 of 426

58 of 426

Confidential
Change Order (Delivery Assurance)
©2024 Workday, Inc. v24.11 Page 1 of 2
CHANGE ORDER # 485765
TO MASTER SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT (“MSA”)
(DELIVERY ASSURANCE – CHANGES FOR ACTIVE PROJECT ONLY)
Customer Name City of San Mateo
Workday Entity Name Workday, Inc. 6110 Stoneridge Mall Rd., Pleasanton, CA 94588Ch MSA Effective Date February 23, 2022
Change Order Effective Date The later of the dates beneath the parties’ signatures below Original Order Form # ORDER FORM #319918
Currency USD
Total Additional Consulting Fees $10,250.00
This Change Order is supplemental to and is governed by the terms and conditions stated in the Original Order Form referenced above.

The Order Term of the Original Order Form is hereby extended and will end on April 11, 2025.

Fees and Payment. Customer will be invoiced for the Total Additional Consulting Fees upon the Change Order Effective Date with fees payable in accordance with the terms of the MSA. All remittance advice and invoice inquiries may be directed to [email protected]. Any travel and other expenses associated with the Professional Services set forth in this Change Order are subject to the terms of the Original Order Form or the MSA to which the Original Order Form is subject, as the case may be.

Customer Contact Information Billing, In Care of
Contact Name Peter Owen
Street Address
City/Town, State/Region/Province, Zip/Postal Code
Country
330 W 20th Ave
San Mateo, California 94403
United States
Phone/Fax # 650-522-7000
Email (required) [email protected]
This Change Order is only valid and binding on the parties when executed by both parties and is subject to the additional terms in the MSA and Addendum A to the Original Order Form referenced above.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Change Order is entered into and becomes a binding part of the above-referenced MSA as of the Change Order Effective Date, defined above.

City of San Mateo Workday, Inc.

Signature Signature
Name Name
Title Title
Date Signed Date Signed

59 of 426

Confidential
Change Order (Delivery Assurance)
©2024 Workday, Inc. v24.11 Page 2 of 2

60 of 426

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: 7 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-2021 File ID: 25-9533 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Finance Department
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2025
SUBJECT:

Examination of Sales or Transactions and Use Tax Records – Approval RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to authorize Hinderlighter de Llamas and Associates to examine sales or transactions and use tax records for all sales and transactions and use taxes.

BACKGROUND:

The Finance Department has contracted with MuniServices, LLC for several years to provide for the examination and audit services for all sales and transactions and use taxes. These services ensure that all sales and transactions and use revenues are appropriately calculated, collected, and received by the City of San Mateo. Since sales tax data is confidential, the City must formally delegate this authority to a third party via a Resolution that it files with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). In December 2024, the Finance Department entered into a new agreement with Hinderlighter de Llamas and Associates to provide examination and audit services for all sales and transactions and use taxes. As a result, the City must file a new Resolution with CDTFA to formally delegate this authority to Hinderlighter de Llamas and Associates and allow them to access our records as the new third-party examiner.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budgetary impact related to this Resolution. The services are the same as the services provided by MuniServices LLC.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This Resolution to authorize examination of sales or transactions and use tax records is not a project subject to CEQA, because it consists of 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
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution

STAFF CONTACT
Abby Veeser, Deputy Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102

61 of 426

1 1
2 9
5 CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO.___ (2025)

AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXAMINATION OF SALES OR TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX RECORDS WHEREAS, pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code Chapters 3.50 and 3.52, the City of San Mateo entered into a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Department) to perform all functions incident to the administration and collection of the Transactions and Use Tax Ordinances and the local sales and use taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo deems it desirable and necessary for authorized officers, employees and representatives of the City to examine confidential sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected by the Department for the City pursuant to that contract, including the City of San Mateo Transactions and Use Tax; and WHEREAS, Section 7056 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code sets forth certain requirements and conditions for the disclosure of Department records, and Section 7056.5 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code establishes criminal penalties for the unlawful disclosure of information contained in, or derived from, the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Deputy Finance Director, Economic Development Manager, Budget Manager, Budget Analyst or other officer or employee of the City designated in writing by the City Manager to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration is hereby appointed to represent the City with authority to examine sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department.

Section 2. The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to that contract, and for purposes related to the following governmental functions of the City:
(a) Forecasting and budget planning
(b) Tracking and economic development
(c) Detection of misallocation and deficiencies
(d) Real property services
The information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for those governmental functions of the City listed above.

Section 3. That Hinderlighter de Llamas and Associates is hereby designated to examine the sales or transactions and use tax records of the Department pertaining to sales or transactions and use taxes collected for the City by the Department. The person or entity designated by this section meets all of the following conditions, which are also included in the contract between the City and Hinderlighter de Llamas and Associates:
a) has an existing contract with the City to examine those sales or transactions and use tax records; b) is required by that contract to disclose information contained in, or derived from, those sales or transactions and use tax records only to the officer or employee authorized under Section 1 of this Resolution to examine the information.

62 of 426

1 1
2 9
5 c) is prohibited by that contract from performing consulting services for a retailer during the term of that contract;
d) is prohibited by that contract from retaining the information contained in, or derived from those sales or transactions and use tax records, after that contract has expired.

Section 4. That the information obtained by examination of Department records shall be used only for purposes related to the collection of City sales or transactions and use taxes by the Department pursuant to the contract between the City and the Department and for those purposes relating to the governmental functions of the City listed in section 2 of this Resolution.

Section 5. That this Resolution supersedes all prior Resolutions of the City Council of the City of San Mateo adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7056.

Section 6. Adoption of this Resolution authorizing the examination of sales or transactions and use tax records is not a project subject to CEQA, because it consists of a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)

63 of 426

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: 8 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 25-9558 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2025
SUBJECT:

New Construction Reach Codes for the 2022 Code Cycle — Ordinance Adoption RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt an Ordinance to amend the San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 23.24 “Energy Code” and Chapter 23.70 “Green Building Code” to require enhanced energy performance for new construction, repeal unenforceable measures of the City’s current reach codes, and make a minor edit to the City’s electric-readiness requirements.

BACKGROUND:

On January 13, 2025, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amend the San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 23.24 “Energy Code” and Chapter 23.70 “Green Building Code” to require enhanced energy performance for new construction, repeal unenforceable measures of the City’s current reach codes, and make a minor edit to the City’s electric-readiness requirements. Additionally, the City Council approved a Resolution to adopt express findings for local sustainability-related amendments to the California building standards code, 2022 edition, relative to local climatic, geographical, or topographical conditions. The proposed Ordinance is attached. If adopted, the Ordinance will become effective 30 days after its adoption.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budget impact associated with review of the proposed Ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This action to adopt reach codes and amend the energy Code and Green Building Code is categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Ordinance

STAFF CONTACT
Chantal Eaton, Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7044

64 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT ORDINANCE
An Ordinance amending San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 23.24 “Energy Code,” of Title 23, “Building and Construction,” to amend the California Energy Code, 2022 Edition and amending San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 23.70 “Green Building Code,” of Title 23, “Building and Construction,” to amend the California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo’s (City) Climate Action Plan recommends the City review local amendments to the California Energy Code and the Green Building Standards Code to promote building electrification, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle infrastructure; and WHEREAS, California Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition, were adopted by the City of San Mateo on November 7, 2022 with local amendments to require all-electric new construction and electric-readiness and electric appliances during residential building remodels; and WHEREAS, due to a federal court decision, in early 2024, the City suspended enforcement of local amendments that prohibited the installation of gas infrastructure; and WHEREAS, this presented an opportunity to replace the City’s reach code to encourage sustainable new construction; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance amends the California Energy Code to require energy compliance margins for newly constructed buildings and require electric-readiness when gas infrastructure is installed; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance appeals local amendments to the California Green Building Code that are unenforceable due to the federal court decision; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance amends the California Green Building Code to make a minor edit to the electric-readiness requirements to promote consistency with the 2022 Energy Code electric-readiness requirements for new construction; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17922, 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 authorizes the City to make local amendments to the California Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code upon express findings that the local amendments are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geographical, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with this Ordinance, the City Council of the City of San Mateo has adopted a resolution adopting express findings in support of local amendments to the California Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) establish a process which allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide Standards, provided that such local standards are cost effective, and the California Energy Commission finds that the standards will require building to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code; and

65 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program and associated study data and find them sufficient to illustrate compliance with the requirements set forth under California Administrative Code Chapter 10-106; and WHEREAS, that such modifications will result in designs that consume less energy than they would under the 2022 State Energy Code through the California Statewide Codes and Standards Reach Code Program, has performed cost effectiveness analyses as required by the California Energy Commission for the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in this Ordinance which is hereby incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, based upon these analyses, the San Mateo City Council finds that the local amendments to the California Energy Code contained in the Ordinance have at least one cost effective pathway and will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 23.24.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

23.24.020 Local Amendment to Definitions
(a) Energy Code subsection 100.1(b) is amended to include the following definitions:

Electric Heating Appliance. A device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.

Kitchen, institutional commercial. A kitchen dedicated to a foodservice establishment that provides meals at institutions including schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, correctional facilities, private cafeterias, nursing homes, and other buildings or structures in which care or supervision is provided to occupants.

Kitchen, quick-service commercial. A kitchen dedicated to an establishment primarily engaged in providing fast food, fast casual, or limited services. Food and drink may be consumed on premises, taken out, or delivered to the customer’s location.

Net Free Area (NFA). The total unobstructed area of the air gaps between louver and grille slats in a vent through which air can pass. The narrowest distance between two slats, perpendicular to the surface of both slats is the air gap height. The narrowest width of the gap is the air gap width. The NFA is the air gap height multiplied by the air gap width multiplied by the total number of air gaps between slats in the vent.

Section 2. Section 23.24.030 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

66 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 23.24.030 Electric-readiness and Energy Performance of Nonresidential Buildings (a) Energy Code Section 120.2 “Required Controls for Space-Conditioning Systems” is amended to add a new subsection (l) to read as follows:
(l) HVAC Hot Water Temperature. Zones that use hot water for space heating shall be designed for a hot water supply temperature of no greater than 130°F. (b) Energy Code Section 120.6 “Mandatory Requirements for Covered Processes” is amended to add a new subsection (k) to read as follows:
(k) Mandatory requirements for commercial kitchens. Electric Readiness for Newly Constructed Commercial Kitchens shall meet the following requirements:

1. Quick-service commercial kitchens and institutional commercial kitchens shall include a dedicated branch circuit wiring and outlet that would be accessible to cookline appliances and shall meet all of the following requirements:

A. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 50 amps minimum.

B. The electrical service panel shall have a minimum capacity of 800 connected amps.

2. The electrical service panel shall be sized to accommodate an additional either 208v or 240v 50-amp breaker.

Exception 1 to Section 120.6(k): healthcare facilities.

Exception 2 to Section 120.6(k): all-electric commercial kitchens. (c) Energy Code subsection 130.0(a) is amended to read as follows:

The design and installation of all lighting systems and equipment in nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings, outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution systems within the scope of Section 100.0(a), shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 130.0 through 130.6.

NOTE: The requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.6 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.6 also apply to additions and alterations to existing buildings.
(d) Energy Code Subchapter 4 “Nonresidential and Hotel/Motel Occupancies – Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment, and Electrical Power Distribution Systems” is amended to add a new section 130.6 “Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane” and read as follows:
130.6 Electric Readiness Requirements for Systems Using Gas or Propane

67 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 Where nonresidential systems using gas or propane are installed, the construction drawings shall indicate electrical infrastructure and physical space accommodating the future installation of an electric heating appliance in the following ways, as certified by a registered design professional or licensed electrical contractor.
(a) Branch circuit wiring, electrically isolated and designed to serve all electric heating appliances in accordance with manufacturer requirements and the California Electrical Code, including the appropriate voltage, phase, minimum amperage, and an electrical receptacle or junction box within five feet of the appliance that is accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and
(b) Labeling of both ends of the unused conductors or conduit shall be with “For Future Electrical Appliance”; and
(c) Reserved circuit breakers in the electrical panel for each branch circuit, appropriately labeled (e.g. “Reserved for Future Electric Range”), and positioned on the opposite end of the panel supply conductor connection; and
(d) Connected subpanels, panelboards, switchboards, busbars, and transformers shall be sized to serve the future electric heating appliances. The electrical capacity requirements shall be adjusted for demand factors in accordance with the California Electric Code; and (e) Physical space for future electric heating appliances, including equipment footprint, and if needed a pathway reserved for routing of ductwork to heat pump evaporator(s), shall be depicted on the construction drawings. The footprint necessary for future electric heating appliances may overlap with non-structural partitions and with the location of currently designed combustion equipment.
(e) Energy Code Section 140.0 “Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches” is amended to read as follows:

Nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings shall comply with all of the following:
(a) The requirements of Sections 100.0 through 110.12 applicable to the building project (mandatory measures for all buildings).
(b) The requirements of Sections 120.0 through 130.6 (mandatory measures for nonresidential and high-rise residential and hotel/motel buildings).
(c) Either the performance compliance approach (energy budgets) specified in Section 140.1, or the prescriptive compliance approach specified in Section 140.2 for the Climate Zone in which the building will be located. Climate zones are shown in FIGURE 100.1-A.

NOTE to Section 140.0(c): The Commission periodically updates, publishes and makes available to interested persons and local enforcement agencies precise descriptions of the Climate Zones,

68 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 which is available by zip code boundaries depicted in the Reference Joint Appendices along with a list of the communities in each zone.

NOTE to Section 140.0: The requirements of Sections 140.1 through 140.10 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0 specifies which requirements of Section 140.1 through 140.10 also apply to additions or alterations to existing buildings.
(f) Energy Code Section 140.1 “Performance Approach: Energy Budgets” is amended to read as follows:

A building complies with the performance approach provided that:

1. The time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy budget calculated for the Proposed Design Building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a), and

2. The source energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) has a source energy compliance margin, relative to the energy budget calculated for the standard design building under Subsection (a), of at least 7 percent for all nonresidential occupancies.

Exception 1 to 140.1 item 2. A source energy compliance margin of 0 percent or greater is required when nonresidential occupancies are designed with single zone space- conditioning systems complying with Section 140.4(a)2.

Exception 2 to 140.1 item 2. Where it is technically infeasible to implement the performance approach standards, exceptions are subject to review and approval at the discretion of the Community Development Director, or his/her designee. (g) Energy Code subsections 140.1(a)-(c) are adopted without modification.

Section 3. Section 23.24.040 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

23.24.040 Local Amendment Regarding Electric-readiness and Energy Performance of Single-Family Residential Buildings.
(a) Energy Code subsection 150.0(t) is amended to read as follows:
(t) Heat pump space heater ready. Systems using gas or propane furnace to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following:

1. A dedicated 240 volt branch circuit wiring shall be installed within 3 feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnace with no obstructions. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready.” All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

69 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 2. The main electrical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump space heater installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use.”

3. A designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit with either a drain or natural drainage for condensate.
(b) Energy Code subsection 150.1(b) is amended to read as follows:
(b) Performance Standards. A building complies with the performance standards if the energy consumption calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the energy budget calculated for the standard design building using Commission-certified compliance software as specified by the Alternative Calculation Methods Approval Manual, as specified in sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 below.

1. Newly Constructed Buildings. The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Ratings, which are based on source energy and time-dependent valuation (TDV) energy. The Energy Design Rating 1 (EDR1) is based on source energy. The Energy Design Rating 2 (EDR2) is based on TDV energy and has two components, the Energy Efficiency Design Rating, and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The total Energy Design Rating shall account for both the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The proposed building shall separately comply with the Source Energy Design Rating, Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating. A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building AND Source Energy compliance margin of at least 9, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.

Exception 1 to Section 150.1(b)1. A community shared solar electric generation system, or other renewable electric generation system, and/or community shared battery storage system, which provides dedicated power, utility energy reduction credits, or payments for energy bill reductions, to the permitted building and is approved by the Energy Commission as specified in Title 24, Part 1, Section 10-115, may offset part or all of the solar electric generation system Energy Design Rating required to comply with the Standards, as calculated according to methods established by the Commission in the Residential ACM Reference Manual.

Exception 2 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 1,500 square feet shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 4 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.

70 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 Exception 3 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed building with a conditioned floor area less than 625 square feet shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 0 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building.

Exception 4 to Section 150.1(b)1. A newly constructed Accessory Dwelling Unit, as defined by San Mateo Municipal Code Section 27.04.165(a), shall achieve a Source Energy compliance margin of 0 or greater, relative to the Source Energy Design Rating 1 calculated for the Standard Design building. (c) Energy Code subsections 150.1(b)2, 150.1(b)3, and 150.1(c) are adopted without amendments.

Section 4. Section 23.24.050 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

23.24.050 Local Amendment Regarding Electric-readiness and Energy Performance of Multifamily Buildings. (a) Energy Code subsection 160.4(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Reserved.
(b) Energy Code Section 160.9 “Mandatory Requirements for Electric Ready Buildings” is amended to add new subsections (d) through (f) as follows:
(d) Individual Heat Pump Water Heater Ready. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following components and shall meet the requirements of Section 160.9(f):

1. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, copper branch circuit rated to 30 amps, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. In addition, all of the following:

A. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated; and
B. A reserved single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit in A above and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”;

2. A condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the installed water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance,

3. The construction drawings shall indicate the location of the future heat pump water heater. The reserved location shall have minimum interior dimensions of 39”x39”x96”.

71 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 4. A ventilation method meeting one of the following:

A. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall have a minimum volume of 700 cubic feet; or
B. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall vent to a communicating space in the same pressure boundary via permanent openings with a minimum total net free area of 250 square inches so that the total combined volume connected via permanent openings is 700 cu. ft. or larger. The permanent openings shall be:
i. Fully louvered doors with fixed louvers consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slats; or
ii. Two permanent fixed openings, consisting of a single layer of fixed flat slat louvers or grilles, one commencing within 12 inches from the top of the enclosure and one commencing within 12 inches from the bottom of the enclosure.

C. The designed space reserved for the future heat pump water heater shall include two 8” capped ducts, venting to the building exterior:
i. All ducts, connections and building penetrations shall be sealed. ii. Exhaust air ducts and all ducts which cross pressure boundaries shall be insulated to a minimum insulation level of R-6.
iii. Airflow from termination points shall be diverted away from each other.
(e) Central Heat Pump Water Heater Electric Ready. Central water heating systems using gas or propane to serve multiple dwelling units shall include the following:

1. The system input capacity of the gas or propane water heating system shall be determined as the sum of the input gas or propane capacity of all water heating devices associated with each gas or propane water heating system.

2. Space reserved shall include:

A. Heat Pump. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and air flow clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be 2.0 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas

72 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 or propane water heating system, and the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall be 48 linear inches.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum space reserved for the heat pump shall be 3.6 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour the gas or propane water heating system, and the minimum linear dimension of the space reserved shall be 84 linear inches. iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

B. Tanks. The minimum space reserved shall include space for service clearances and shall meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum space reserved for the storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be 4.4 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system. ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum physical space reserved for the storage and temperature maintenance tanks shall be

3.1 square feet per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system.
iii. The space reserved shall be the space required for a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

3. Ventilation shall be provided by meeting one of the following:

A. Physical space reserved for the heat pump shall be located outside, or B. A pathway shall be reserved for future routing of supply and exhaust air via ductwork from the reserved heat pump location to an appropriate outdoor location. Penetrations through the building envelope for louvers and ducts shall be planned and identified for future use. The reserved pathway and penetrations through the building envelope shall be sized to meet one of the following:
i. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum air flow rate shall be 70 CFM

73 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system and the total external static pressure drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
ii. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, the minimum air flow rate shall be 420 CFM per input 10,000 BTU per hour of the gas or propane water heating system and the total external static pressure drop of ductwork and louvers shall not exceed 0.17 inch when the future heat pump water heater is installed.
iii. The reserved pathway and penetrations shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

4. Condensate drainage piping. An approved receptacle that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code to receive the condensate drainage shall be installed within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location, or piping shall be installed from within 3 feet of the reserved heat pump location to an approved discharge location that is sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code, and meets one of the following:

A. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.2 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

B. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, condensate drainage shall be sized for 0.7 tons of refrigeration capacity per input 10,000 BTU per hour.

C. Condensate drainage shall be sized to serve a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.

5. Electrical.

A. Physical space shall be reserved on the bus system of the main switchboard or on the bus system of a distribution board to serve the future heat pump water heater system including the heat pump and temperature maintenance tanks. In addition, the physical space reserved shall be capable of providing adequate power to the future heat pump water heater as follows:
i. Heat Pump. For the Heat Pump, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:

74 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 a. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 0.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
b. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 1.1 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
c. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient electrical power required to power a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
ii. Temperature Maintenance Tank. For the Temperature Maintenance Tank, the physical space reserved shall comply with one of the following:
a. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is less than 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 1.0 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
b. If the system input capacity of the gas water heating system is greater than or equal to 200,000 BTU per hour, provide 0.6 kVA per input 10,000 BTU per hour.
c. The physical space reserved supplies sufficient electrical power required to power a heat pump water heater system that meets the total building hot water demand as calculated and documented by the responsible person associated with the project.
(f) The building electrical system shall be sized to meet the future electric requirements of the electric ready equipment specified in sections 160.9(a) through (e). To meet this requirement the building main service conduit, the electrical system to the point specified in each subsection, and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each electric ready appliance in accordance with the California Electric Code. (c) Energy Code Section 170.1 “Performance Approach” is amended to read as follows:

A building complies with the performance approach if the TDV energy budget calculated for the proposed design building under Subsection (b) is no greater than the TDV energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building under Subsection (a). Additionally,

75 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 1. The energy budget, expressed in terms of source energy, of a newly constructed low- rise multifamily building (three habitable stories or less) shall be at least 10 percent lower than that of the Standard Design Building.

2. Newly Constructed high-rise multifamily buildings (greater than four habitable stories) shall be at least 4 percent lower than that of the Standard Design Building. (d) Energy Code subsections 170.1(a)-(d) are adopted without amendments.

Section 5. Section 23.70.060 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is repealed.

23.70.060 Repealed
Section 6. Section 23.70.070 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is repealed.

23.70.070 Repealed
Section 7. Section 23.70.080 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

23.70.080 Local Amendment Regarding Electrification Requirements for Existing Residential Buildings (a) Green Building Code Section 4.106 "Site Development" is amended and to include new subsections as follows:

4.106.5.3 Existing one- and two-family dwellings.

4.106.5.3.1 Reserved.

4.106.5.3.2 Reserved.

4.106.5.3.3 Kitchen alterations shall include a 240v, 50 ampere circuit and receptacle installed within 3 feet of the cooktop, oven, and/or range location.

4.106.5.3.4 Alterations to areas designated for the installation of laundry equipment shall include a 240v, 30 ampere circuit and receptacle installed within 3 feet of clothes drying appliance location.

4.106.5.4 Existing residential buildings.

4.106.5.4.1 Alterations or additions that involve or require an increase to the capacity of electrical panels or transformers as part of the scope, the electrical panel shall include reserved physical space for overcurrent protection devices, and transformers shall include reserved electrical capacity, as calculated per California Electric Code Section 220 for the following current or proposed appliances, as applicable to the project site, that will not be connected to fuel gas infrastructure:

1. Electric water heaters meeting the requirements of the California Energy Code.

76 of 426

1 1
2 4
5 2. Electric space heater and air-conditioner meeting the requirements of the California Energy Code.

3. Electric pool and/or spa water heater.

4. Electric clothes dryer.

5. Electric cooking equipment.

6. Electric vehicle charger
Exceptions:

1. Buss bar electrical capacity shall not be required to exceed the proposed utility electrical service to the building. Capacity and overcurrent protection spaces shall be reserved in the priority listed above to the extent allowable under the proposed buss bar capacity.

2. Reserved electric vehicle charger panel capacity may be shared with one of the following: water heater, clothes dryer, or cooking equipment.

3. Electrical panels with internet-connected overcurrent protection devices that monitor circuit load and manage power distribution.

Section 8. Environmental Determination. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15308, this action to adopt reach codes and amend the Energy Code and Green Building Code is categorically exempt from CEQA as an action by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment, because reach codes are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Section 9. Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 10. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.

Section 11. Legislative History and Effective Date. This Ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption.

77 of 426

CITY OF SAN MATEO
5 3
3 7

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 9 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-9811 File ID: 25-9559 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Human Resources Department
MEETING DATE: January 21, 2025
SUBJECT:

Parks and Recreation — Classification Updates
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve the revised job specifications for the Landscape Laborer and Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II to reflect a flexible staffed series pursuant to the recent MOU agreement.

BACKGROUND:

On October 7, 2024, the City Council approved a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with SEIU which included language updating the Landscape Laborer classification to become part of the Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II classification series. This change allows for more efficient staffing and growth opportunities. Approving this change to the job specifications will allow the implementation of the approved updates.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The consolidation of the Landscape Laborer with the Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II positions into one flexibly classed position was included in the 2024-25 adopted budget so this will have no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This classification update 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
Att 1 —Proposed Resolution
Exhibit A —Job Specification Landscape Laborer and Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II Att 2 — Job Specification with Tracked Changes

STAFF CONTACT
Lourdes Coles, Senior Human Resources Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7264

78 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. __ (2025)

APPROVING THE CLASSIFICATION UPDATES IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to the San Mateo Municipal Code Section 2.57.030(d), approval of new classifications and related job specifications, salary schedules, compensation changes, elimination or reinstatement of positions, reallocation of positions, reclassifications, and revisions of job specifications must be approved by City Council Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes as detailed below reflect the new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SEIU which included language updating the Landscape Laborer classification to become part of the Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II classification series. This change allows for more efficient staffing and growth opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed job specifications for the classifications of Landscape Laborer and Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the employee associations representing the impacted classifications have been informed of the classification updates and have not brought forth any objections or concerns.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. The classification updates are not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) because it can be seen with certainty that they will not cause a physical change in the environment; and

2. The job specification for the classifications of Landscape Laborer and Landscape Maintenance Worker I/II attached hereto as Exhibit A are approved.

79 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 Exhibit A

LANDSCAPE LABORER

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORKER I/II

DEFINITION
Under supervision, performs a variety of skilled gardening and landscape maintenance duties associated with the development, repair, and maintenance of public landscaped areas. Operates a wide variety of park and/or golf course equipment; may operate various mowing equipment to cut a variety of turfgrass areas throughout the City; and to perform related work as required.

Landscape Laborers and Landscape Maintenance Workers I/II are found in the Parks and Golf Course Divisions of the Parks and Recreation Department. Incumbents in these classifications may work individually on occasion, but primarily in combination with other Landscape Maintenance Workers and Landscape Laborers as a crew assigned to specific gardening and maintenance projects in City parks, municipal golf course, athletic fields, or other City facilities.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
Landscape Laborer - This is the entry level class in the Landscape Maintenance Worker class series. This position must be adaptive and work well with others. The laborer will be the primary position for all manual tasks. The individual must have good work habits and display good judgment and be able to work safely. The position must demonstrate the ability to operate a full range of hand tools and light engine equipment or acquire the skills after training.

Landscape Maintenance Worker I - This is the mid-level class in the Landscape Maintenance Worker class series. The positions in this class will normally perform most of the duties required of the Landscape Maintenance Worker I and II. However, as compared to the Landscape Maintenance Worker II, they are not expected to function at the same skill level and will normally exercise less discretion and judgment on matters related to work procedures and methods. Work is usually supervised while in progress and fits a pattern which has been established and explained before the work is started. Generally, changes in procedures or exceptions are explained in detail as they arise. Work assignments vary depending upon the function to which individuals are assigned and periodic work assignment transfers occur both for training purposes and to meet departmental staffing and work productivity requirements.

Landscape Maintenance Worker II - This is the journey level class in the Landscape Maintenance Worker series. Positions in this class are flexibly staffed and are normally filled by advancement from the Landscape Maintenance Worker I class, or when filled from the outside, require prior experience in the maintenance of landscaped areas. Appointment to the higher class requires that the employee be performing substantially the full range of duties for the class and meet the qualification standards for the class. All positions assigned to the class require the

80 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 ability to work independently, exercising judgment and initiative. For positions assigned to the golf course and landscape mowing crews, the demonstrated ability to operate the full range of park equipment normally utilized by the City in a safe, efficient and proper manner is a prerequisite for being assigned to the class. Work assignments vary depending upon the function to which individuals are assigned and periodic work assignment transfers occur both for training purposes and to meet departmental staffing and work productivity requirements.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general supervision from the Senior Park Landscape Maintenance Worker or Golf Course Maintenance Supervisor. Technical or functional supervision may also be provided by higher-level department personnel. May provide supervision for seasonal (per diem) workers.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES - Depending upon assignment, duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Landscape Maintenance/Horticulture
Maintains grounds and plantings in City parks, recreation facilities, playground areas, municipal building grounds, and street median islands
Maintains designated landscape effects through mowing, edging, pruning, weeding, fertilizing, cultivating, planting lawns, shrubs, ground cover, trees, and flowerbeds.

Picks up, cleans and removes debris and trash from walkways, picnic areas, play areas, restrooms, parking lots, drainage ditches and culverts.

Performs minor routine maintenance and repair on sprinklers and irrigation equipment.

Operates various power mowers, edgers, line trimmers, backpack blowers, sprayers, chain saws, aerators and other power equipment.

Assists in the mixing and applications of various pesticides, including herbicides.

Drive vehicles used to transport materials, tools, and equipment as required.

Assists in installation, minor repair and maintenance of parks and recreation playground equipment or furniture.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

Respond to inquiries from the public.

Fully utilize the computerized work systems in accordance with workflow processes.

Work alone or as a member of a crew.

81 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 Landscape Maintenance/Equipment Operation
Maintain and prepare athletic fields including dragging and watering baseball diamonds.

Operate complex mowing equipment; operate trucks, tractors, front end loaders, spray rigs, trenchers, and utilize a variety of hand and power tools in park maintenance work.

Fully utilize the computerized work systems in accordance with workflow processes.

Work alone or as a member of a crew.

Drive vehicles used to transport materials, tools and equipment as required.

Aerify, fertilize, seed and top-dress athletic fields, and other associated turfgrass areas.

Assist in the mixing and application of various pesticides, including herbicides Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

Perform routine preventative maintenance on mowing equipment and hand and power tools used in the course of work.

Performs minor routine maintenance and repair on sprinklers and irrigation equipment.

Landscape Maintenance/Golf Course
Perform routine preventive maintenance on mowing and hand and power tools used in the course of work.

Install, clean and rake sand traps.

Mow and trim tees and greens.

Assist in the construction, renovation, and maintenance of fairways, tees, sand traps, greens and other landscaped areas.

Apply pesticides and fertilizers to turf areas.

Aerify, fertilize, seed and top-dress greens complexes, and other associated turfgrass areas.

Perform routine maintenance on sprinklers and irrigation equipment.

Assist with irrigation repairs on main lines, lateral lines, valves, and heads under supervision from the Irrigation Specialist.

82 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 Assist with small equipment maintenance or repairs under supervision.

Fully utilize the computerized work systems in accordance with workflow processes.

Water, weed, trim, renovate, fertilize and perform mowing of golf course.

Respond to inquiries from the public.

Drive vehicles to transport materials, tools, and equipment as required.

Work alone or as a member of a crew.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

If assigned to the golf course, golf course setup procedures including but not limited to: cup cutting, proper pin location movement, dew removal and tee marker placement.

If assigned to the golf course, perform routine maintenance on greens, fairways and tees.

Early mornings and rotational weekend and holiday scheduling are required.

QUALIFICATIONS
Landscape Laborer
Knowledge of:

Basic methods, tools, materials, and equipment used in grounds maintenance work.

Safe work practices.

Basic construction and repair methods.

Ability to:

Perform semi-skilled, heavy manual landscape work.

Learn to safely operate the full range of light equipment utilized in landscape maintenance work, as assigned.

Use computers and handheld electronic devices in the course of work.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers and provide general assistance to the public.

Ability to work weekends and holidays as required.

83 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 Successful applicant must pass a physical and background check prior to starting in the position.

Experience and Education:

Any combination equivalent to experience and training that could likely provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:

Experience:

Six months of experience performing a variety of horticultural maintenance work.

Education:

Completion of high school or equivalent.

Landscape Maintenance Worker I
Knowledge of:

Basic methods, tools, materials, and equipment used in grounds maintenance work.

Safe work practices.

Knowledge of plant materials common in area and their care.

Basic construction and repair methods.

The basic operation of mowing equipment utilized by the City.

For employees assigned to the golf course, a basic knowledge of the game of golf is desirable.

Ability to:

Perform semi-skilled landscape and golf course maintenance work.

Learn to safely operate the full range of light and heavy equipment utilized in golf and landscape maintenance work.

Use computers and handheld electronic devices in the course of work.

Learn to mix and apply herbicides.

Perform heavy manual labor.

84 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers and provide general assistance to the public.

Ability to work weekends and holidays as required.

Experience and Education
Any combination equivalent to experience and education that could likely provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities
would be:

Experience:

One year of experience performing a variety of horticultural and/or golf course maintenance
work.

Education:

Completion of high school or equivalent
Landscape Maintenance Worker II
In addition to the qualifications for Landscape Maintenance Worker I:

Knowledge of:

Plant and turf pests and diseases and methods for the control and eradication.

An advanced knowledge of plant materials and the care required to properly maintain them.

Proper, safe, and effective use of landscape maintenance tools, equipment and materials.

If assigned to turf mowing work, the operational characteristics of the full range of mowing
equipment utilized by the City.

For employees assigned to the golf course, a basic knowledge of the game of golf is desirable.

Ability to:

Perform skilled landscape and golf course maintenance work.

85 of 426

1 0
7 0
4 Operate the full range of light and heavy equipment utilized in golf and landscape maintenance work.

Use computers and handheld electronic devices in the course of work.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

Ability to work weekends and holidays as required.

Experience and Education:

Any combination of experience and education equivalent to that of a Landscape Maintenance Worker I, which likely provides the required knowledge and abilities, would be considered qualifying. A typical way to obtain the necessary knowledge and abilities includes:

One year of experience performing duties comparable to those of a Landscape Maintenance Worker I with the City of San Mateo.

LICENSE AND CERTIFICATE
Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California Class C driver’s license and good driving record.

ADA Special Requirement:

Essential duties require the following physical abilities and work environment:

Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, squat, stoop, reach, twist, and lift 80 pounds; exposure to cold, heat, outdoors, chemicals, dust and mechanical hazards.

ADOPTED CC: 3-01-81, 10-06-86
REVISED CC: 6-21-99, 8-21.17, 2-18-20, 1-21-25
FORMER TITLES:

BARGAINING UNIT: SEIU MAINTENANCE UNIT
FLSA: NON EXEMPT
DOT: NO
PRE APPT MEDICAL: YES
SAFETY SENSITIVE: NO
REQUIRED HARASSMENT PREVENTION TRAINING: NON-SUPERVISORY FORM 700: NO
JOB CODES: LANDSCAPE LABORER - 6171
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORKER II – 6071
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORKER II – 6060
ABOLISHED:

86 of 426

LANDSCAPE LABORER

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORKER I/II

DEFINITION
Under supervision, performs a variety of skilled gardening and landscape maintenance duties associated with the development, repair, and maintenance of public landscaped areas. Operates a wide variety of park and/or golf course equipment; may operate various mowing equipment to cut a variety of turfgrass areas throughout the City; and to perform related work as required.

Landscape Laborers and Landscape Maintenance Workers I/II are found in the Parks and Golf Course Divisions of the Parks and Recreation Department. Incumbents in these classifications may work individually on occasion, but primarily in combination with other Landscape Maintenance Workers and Landscape Laborers as a crew assigned to specific gardening and maintenance projects in City parks, municipal golf course, athletic fields, or other City facilities.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
Landscape Laborer - This is the entry level class in the Landscape Maintenance Worker class series.

This position must be adaptive and work well with others. The laborer will be the primary position for all manual tasks. The individual must have good work habits and display good judgment and be able to work safely. The position must demonstrate the ability to operate a full range of hand tools and light engine equipment or acquire the skills after training.

Landscape Maintenance Worker I - This is the mid-level class in the Landscape Maintenance Worker class series. The positions in this class will normally perform most of the duties required of the Landscape Maintenance Worker I and II. However, as compared to the Landscape Maintenance Worker II, they are not expected to function at the same skill level and will normally exercise less discretion and judgment on matters related to work procedures and methods. Work is usually supervised while in progress and fits a pattern which has been established and explained before the work is started. Generally, changes in procedures or exceptions are explained in detail as they arise.

Work assignments vary depending upon the function to which individuals are assigned and periodic work assignment transfers occur both for training purposes and to meet departmental staffing and work productivity requirements.

Landscape Maintenance Worker II - This is the journey level class in the Landscape Maintenance Worker series. Positions in this class are flexibly staffed and are normally filled by advancement from the Landscape Maintenance Worker I class, or when filled from the outside, require prior experience in the maintenance of landscaped areas. Appointment to the higher class requires that the employee be performing substantially the full range of duties for the class and meet the qualification standards for

87 of 426

1 1
3 1
6 the class. All positions assigned to the class require the ability to work independently, exercising judgment and initiative. For positions assigned to the golf course and landscape mowing crews, the demonstrated ability to operate the full range of park equipment normally utilized by the City in a safe, efficient and proper manner is a prerequisite for being assigned to the class. Work assignments vary depending upon the function to which individuals are assigned and periodic work assignment transfers occur both for training purposes and to meet departmental staffing and work productivity requirements.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general supervision from the Senior Park Landscape Maintenance Worker or Golf Course Maintenance Supervisor. Technical or functional supervision may also be provided by higher-level department personnel. May provide supervision for seasonal (per diem) workers.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES - Depending upon assignment, duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Landscape Maintenance/Horticulture
Maintains grounds and plantings in City parks, recreation facilities, playground areas, municipal building grounds, and street median islands
Maintains designated landscape effects through mowing, edging, pruning, weeding, fertilizing, cultivating, planting lawns, shrubs, ground cover, trees, and flowerbeds.

Picks up, cleans and removes debris and trash from walkways, picnic areas, play areas, restrooms, parking lots, drainage ditches and culverts.

Performs minor routine maintenance and repair on sprinklers and irrigation equipment.

Operates various power mowers, edgers, line trimmers, backpack blowers, sprayers, chain saws, aerators and other power equipment.

Assists in the mixing and applications of various pesticides, including herbicides.

Drive vehicles used to transport materials, tools, and equipment as required.

Assists in installation, minor repair and maintenance of parks and recreation playground equipment or furniture.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

Respond to inquiries from the public.

Fully utilize the computerized work systems in accordance with workflow processes.

Work alone or as a member of a crew.

88 of 426

1 1
3 1
6 Landscape Maintenance/Equipment Operation
Maintain and prepare athletic fields including dragging and watering baseball diamonds.

Operate complex mowing equipment; operate trucks, tractors, front end loaders, spray rigs, trenchers, and utilize a variety of hand and power tools in park maintenance work.

Fully utilize the computerized work systems in accordance with workflow processes.

Work alone or as a member of a crew.

Drive vehicles used to transport materials, tools and equipment as required.

Aerify, fertilize, seed and top-dress athletic fields, and other associated turfgrass areas.

Assist in the mixing and application of various pesticides, including herbicides Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

Perform routine preventative maintenance on mowing equipment and hand and power tools used in the course of work.

Performs minor routine maintenance and repair on sprinklers and irrigation equipment.

Landscape Maintenance/Golf Course
Perform routine preventive maintenance on mowing and hand and power tools used in the course of work.

Install, clean and rake sand traps.

Mow and trim tees and greens.

Assist in the construction, renovation, and maintenance of fairways, tees, sand traps, greens and other landscaped areas.

Apply pesticides and fertilizers to turf areas.

Aerify, fertilize, seed and top-dress greens complexes, and other associated turfgrass areas.

Perform routine maintenance on sprinklers and irrigation equipment.

Assist with irrigation repairs on main lines, lateral lines, valves, and heads under supervision from the Irrigation Specialist.

89 of 426

1 1
3 1
6 Assist with small equipment maintenance or repairs under supervision.

Fully utilize the computerized work systems in accordance with workflow processes.

Water, weed, trim, renovate, fertilize and perform mowing of golf course.

Respond to inquiries from the public.

Drive vehicles to transport materials, tools, and equipment as required.

Work alone or as a member of a crew.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

If assigned to the golf course, golf course setup procedures including but not limited to: cup cutting, proper pin location movement, dew removal and tee marker placement.

If assigned to the golf course, perform routine maintenance on greens, fairways and tees.

Early mornings and rotational weekend and holiday scheduling are required.

QUALIFICATIONS
Landscape Laborer
Knowledge of:

Basic methods, tools, materials, and equipment used in grounds maintenance work.

Safe work practices.

Basic construction and repair methods.

Ability to:

Perform semi-skilled, heavy manual landscape work.

Learn to safely operate the full range of light equipment utilized in landscape maintenance work, as assigned.

Use computers and handheld electronic devices in the course of work.

Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers and provide general assistance to the public.

Ability to work weekends and holidays as required.

90 of 426

1 1
3 1
6 Successful applicant must pass a physical and background check prior to starting in the position.

Experience and Education:

Any combination equivalent to experience and training that could likely provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:

Experience:

Six months of experience performing a variety of horticultural maintenance work.

Education:

Completion of high school or equivalent.

Landscape Maintenance Worker I
Knowledge of:

Basic methods, tools, materials, and equipment used in grounds maintenance work.

Safe work practices.

Knowledge of plant materials common in area and their care.

Basic construction and repair methods.

The basic operation of mowing equipment utilized by the City.

For employees assigned to the golf course, a basic knowledge of the game of golf is desirable.

Ability to:

Perform semi-skilled landscape and golf course maintenance work.

Learn to safely operate the full range of light and heavy equipment utilized in golf and landscape maintenance work.

Use computers and handheld electronic devices in the course of work.

Learn to mix and apply herbicides.

Perform heavy manual labor.

91 of 426

1 1
3 1
6 Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers and provide general assistance to the public.

Ability to work weekends and holidays as required.

Experience and Education
Any combination equivalent to experience and education that could likely provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:

Experience:

One year of experience performing a variety of horticultural and/or golf course maintenance work.

Education:

Completion of high school or equivalent
Landscape Maintenance Worker II
In addition to the qualifications for Landscape Maintenance Worker I:

Knowledge of:

Plant and turf pests and diseases and methods for the control and eradication.

An advanced knowledge of plant materials and the care required to properly maintain them.

Proper, safe, and effective use of landscape maintenance tools, equipment and materials.

If assigned to turf mowing work, the operational characteristics of the full range of mowing equipment utilized by the City.

For employees assigned to the golf course, a basic knowledge of the game of golf is desirable.

Ability to:

Perform skilled landscape and golf course maintenance work.

Operate the full range of light and heavy equipment utilized in golf and landscape maintenance work.

Use computers and handheld electronic devices in the course of work.

92 of 426

1 1
3 1
6 Work cooperatively and effectively with co-workers.

Ability to work weekends and holidays as required.

Experience and Education:

Any combination of experience and education equivalent to that of a Landscape Maintenance Worker I, which likely provides the required knowledge and abilities, would be considered qualifying. A typical way to obtain the necessary knowledge and abilities includes:

One year of experience performing duties comparable to those of a Landscape Maintenance Worker I with the City of San Mateo.

LICENSE AND CERTIFICATE
Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid California Class C driver’s license and good driving record.

ADA Special Requirement:

Essential duties require the following physical abilities and work environment:

Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, squat, stoop, reach, twist, and lift 80 pounds; exposure to cold, heat, outdoors, chemicals, dust and mechanical hazards.

ADOPTED CC: 3-01-81, 10-06-86
REVISED CC: 6-21-99, 8-21.17, 2-18-20
FORMER TITLES:

BARGAINING UNIT: SEIU MAINTENANCE UNIT
FLSA: NON EXEMPT
DOT: NO
PRE APPT MEDICAL: YES
SAFETY SENSITIVE: NO
REQUIRED HARASSMENT PREVENTION TRAINING: NON-SUPERVISORY FORM 700: NO
JOB CODES: LNDCP MAINT WORKER I – 6071, LNDCP MAINT WORKER II – 6060 ABOLISHED:

93 of 426

94 of 426

95 of 426

96 of 426

97 of 426

98 of 426

99 of 426

100 of 426

101 of 426

102 of 426

103 of 426

104 of 426

105 of 426

106 of 426

107 of 426

108 of 426

109 of 426

110 of 426

111 of 426

112 of 426

113 of 426

114 of 426

115 of 426

116 of 426

117 of 426

118 of 426

119 of 426

120 of 426

121 of 426

122 of 426

123 of 426

124 of 426

125 of 426

126 of 426

127 of 426

128 of 426

129 of 426

130 of 426

131 of 426

132 of 426

133 of 426

134 of 426

135 of 426

136 of 426

137 of 426

138 of 426

139 of 426

140 of 426

141 of 426

142 of 426

143 of 426

144 of 426

145 of 426

146 of 426

147 of 426

148 of 426

149 of 426

150 of 426

151 of 426

152 of 426

153 of 426

154 of 426

155 of 426

156 of 426

157 of 426

158 of 426

159 of 426

160 of 426

161 of 426

162 of 426

163 of 426

164 of 426

165 of 426

166 of 426

167 of 426

168 of 426

169 of 426

170 of 426

171 of 426

172 of 426

173 of 426

174 of 426

175 of 426

176 of 426

177 of 426

178 of 426

179 of 426

180 of 426

181 of 426

182 of 426

183 of 426

184 of 426

185 of 426

186 of 426

187 of 426

188 of 426

189 of 426

190 of 426

191 of 426

192 of 426

193 of 426

194 of 426

195 of 426

196 of 426

197 of 426

198 of 426

199 of 426

200 of 426

201 of 426

202 of 426

203 of 426

204 of 426

205 of 426

206 of 426

207 of 426

208 of 426

209 of 426

210 of 426

211 of 426

212 of 426

213 of 426

214 of 426

215 of 426

216 of 426

217 of 426

218 of 426

219 of 426

220 of 426

221 of 426

222 of 426

223 of 426

224 of 426

225 of 426

226 of 426

227 of 426

228 of 426

229 of 426

230 of 426

231 of 426

232 of 426

233 of 426

234 of 426

235 of 426

236 of 426

237 of 426

238 of 426

239 of 426

240 of 426

241 of 426

242 of 426

243 of 426

244 of 426

245 of 426

246 of 426

247 of 426

248 of 426

249 of 426

250 of 426

251 of 426

252 of 426

253 of 426

254 of 426

255 of 426

256 of 426

257 of 426

258 of 426

259 of 426

260 of 426

261 of 426

262 of 426

263 of 426

264 of 426

265 of 426

266 of 426

267 of 426

January 21, 2025

TO: Honorable Mayor Newsom
Deputy Mayor Loraine
Council Members Fernandez, Cwirko-Godycki and Diaz-Nash

RE: Item 10: Historic Policy Update Effort Professional Services – Appropriation and Agreement
January 21, 2025 - San Mateo City Council Meeting

Please Vote to APPROVE Item 10 -Option 1 as it appears on tonight’s Agenda.

An annual “Blue Sky” Session is held early each year by City Council. The purpose is for Council members to: share their priorities for the Council during the coming year; review/discuss/update or delete items from the previous year’s list; and to gather input from the public on their priorities. Updating the City’s 1989 Historic Building Survey has consistently appeared on one, if not more, of Councilmembers’ list. Yet, no forward progress has been made. Please make a move in the positive direction by Approving Item 10 on tonight’s Agenda.

Soon after my appointment to the Planning Commission in 2011, I requested a copy of the City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report, January 1989, from then Chief of Planning Ron Munekawa. This survey and resulting 96 page document was a joint effort of the City of San Mateo’s Planning Department and the San Mateo County Historical Association.

Common wisdom says that such documents should be updated every five years. San Mateo’s 1989 Survey has not been updated in 36 years; the existing San Mateo Historic Building Ordinance has not been updated in 32 years.

Please make a move in the correct direction tonight by Approving Item 10 – Option 1.

Thank You,
Dianne Whitaker, Architect
San Mateo

268 of 426

269 of 426

270 of 426

271 of 426

272 of 426

273 of 426

274 of 426

275 of 426

276 of 426

277 of 426

1 From: Katrina Castillo < >
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 2:18 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Support for bike lanes
Hello City Council,

I am a San Mateo resident and constituent. I would like to voice my support for bike lanes and urge the city council to not remove bike lanes on Humboldt Street.

As we move forward into the future with our changed climate, we should be encouraging more people to use bikes, not discourage them by making it unsafe to use a bicycle.

We should not be prioritizing cars over people.

Thank you,
Katrina Castillo

278 of 426

279 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: City council members: please SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:49:41 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anna McLean < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Subject: City council members: please SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

280 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:48:46 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anna Yun < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:39 AM
Subject: Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation. - This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

281 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:56:17 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ashley Frambach < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsom and San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. I would much rather see these funds go toward park and playground improvements for neighborhood children.
- Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

282 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:57:33 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Barbara Pavicic < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:28 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >, ICE < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
We are respectfully calling on you to REJECT spending ANY money on the proposed Historic Resources RFP or any other historic surveying in San Mateo. We live near Borel Middle Svhool and believe this survey is an unnecessary expenditure, put forward by a very small and self-serving vocal group called the San Mateo Heritage Alliance.

When Baywood
homeowners overwhelmingly rejected the no-consent historic districting by a ratio of 9 to 1, the group switched to a new tactic to control houses and remodels in the entire City of San Mateo via a local “historic resources survey.”
This survey is very expensive and not needed.

It can also be very harmful, as insurance
companies drop houses receiving historic significance designations. It can also add more bureaucracy and increase costs on sensible owners upgrading their property.

Please prioritize safety, security and infrastructure as you allocate scarce resources. And use this opportunity to put an end to the manuvering of this very small group of zealots.

Thank you for your consideration.

Barbara and Nikola Pavicic
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City.

283 of 426

- Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

284 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:47:30 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Beryl Kim Tang < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 8:40 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

285 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Please vote NO on the Historic Resources Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:49:52 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brad Goodwin < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Subject: Please vote NO on the Historic Resources Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
Please REJECT the proposed Historic Resources Survey RFP.

As a long time Baywood resident I deeply value its unique character and have invested in my home to preserve that character for myself and my community. Recently a small group tried to force a Baywood Historic District upon 440 Baywood residents without their knowledge or consent in an extraordinary anti- democratic process. Our Baywood neighborhood mobilized itself and voted 9 to 1 against the historic district. The amount of grassroots effort needed to overturn this misguided effort was immense and a vocal rejection of its NIMBY-ism and authoritarianism.

Councilperson Linda Diaz Nash, as the District 1 represenative, I would have thought you would have been sufficiently in touch with your constituents to know their opposition to the Baywood Historic District and would have led the efforts to overturn. Unfortunately that was a missed opportunity. Instead you have turned your attention to advancing another disconnected-from-voter-will overreach: this wasteful Historical Resources RFP. It is my hope you will reflect on the clear voice of your constituents and adjust your priorities for San Mateo accordingly, withdrawing this proposal.

Mayor Newsom, I welcome your stated focus on fiscal responsibility. Please use that to identify simpler and less expensive alternatives for targeted historic preservation goals.

In summary, I urge all council members vote NO on the Historic Survey RFP. Please find a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents.

Sincerely,
Brad Goodwin

286 of 426

287 of 426

288 of 426

Primary Office:

This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and any attachments.

289 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:48:36 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: CAROL PERUSSE < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP.

The city council should not be involved in nor should the taxpayers pay for a private bid for historical designation. Individuals can apply for it on their own if they think it is such a good idea. Others should not be forced into something they do not want.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic resources RFP. Surely the city has more important issues to spend time and money on!

Sincerely,
Carol Perusse

290 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:59:48 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Casey Dougan < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:05 AM
Subject: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP. As a San Mateo resident, I have several serious concerns:
**Financial Impact:**
• City faces $10.6M budget deficit and $306M in unfunded infrastructure needs • $500,000 could be better spent on deteriorating parks and facilities • Less than 0.03% of San Mateo's 101,327 residents are driving this expensive initiative **Community Opposition & Consensus:**
• In Baywood, 9 out of 10 residents weighing in oppose historic districting • No broad community consensus exists for such a consequential decision • City has conducted no community outreach to determine if this is a citywide priority **Legal Concerns:**
• JMBM Attorneys warn of permanent, irreversible consequences in this RFP format • Historical context statement with potential for CEQA obligations • Potential impacts exceed those of general plan or zoning changes • Council is putting the cart before the horse - community outreach should precede signing this RFP
**Alternative Solution:**
• Implement staff-driven community engagement process
• Focus on voluntary participation rather than mandatory impositions • Develop consent-driven historic preservation ordinance • Prioritize infrastructure benefiting all residents
I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community- driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Casey Dougan

291 of 426

292 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:48:28 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cecilia Wong < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

293 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:04 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Charlene Alfson < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

294 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:55:25 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susie < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Charles and Suzanne Schafer
Concerned Residents of San Mateo

295 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: VOTE NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Resources RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:58:12 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Chris Battles < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:56 AM
Subject: URGENT: VOTE NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Resources RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Subject: Opposition to the Proposed Historic Resources RFP Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to strongly urge you to REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP, as it does not align with the will of the community or the city’s most pressing priorities.

Key considerations:

Lack of Baywood Community Support: The Baywood community voiced overwhelming opposition to the proposed historic district, with a 9-to-1 stance against it. Support for this initiative appears limited to a small, highly vocal group.

Fiscal Responsibility & City Priorities: This initiative contradicts Mayor Newsom’s commendable focus on prudent financial management. Approving this expenditure in the face of a $10.6 million budget shortfall will likely generate significant -- and well deserved -- anger among your constituents. Our resources should be allocated to higher- priority initiatives such as public safety and parks, which better reflect the needs and expectations of our community.

Unnecessary Bureaucracy and Risk: The proposed non-consensual historic survey introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and could expose the city to increased legal costs, further straining the budget and personnel.

Better Alternatives: There are more cost-effective alternatives available to achieve historic preservation goals without burdening taxpayers. [Note: Lisa Diaz Nash has been intentionally omitted from this message as she ignores the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.]
In closing, I strongly request that you VOTE "NO" against the Historic Resources RFP.

Respectfully,
Christopher Battles
Concerned Baywood Resident
,

296 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:42:09 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Christine Barulich < >
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:38 AM
Subject: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP. As a San Mateo resident, I have several serious concerns:
**Financial Impact:**
• City faces $10.6M budget deficit and $306M in unfunded infrastructure needs • $500,000 could be better spent on deteriorating parks and facilities • Less than 0.03% of San Mateo's 101,327 residents are driving this expensive initiative **Community Opposition & Consensus:**
• In Baywood, 9 out of 10 residents weighing in oppose historic districting • No broad community consensus exists for such a consequential decision • City has conducted no community outreach to determine if this is a citywide priority **Legal Concerns:**
• JMBM Attorneys warn of permanent, irreversible consequences in this RFP format • Historical context statement with potential for CEQA obligations • Potential impacts exceed those of general plan or zoning changes • Council is putting the cart before the horse - community outreach should precede signing this RFP **Alternative Solution:**
• Implement staff-driven community engagement process
• Focus on voluntary participation rather than mandatory impositions • Develop consent-driven historic preservation ordinance • Prioritize infrastructure benefiting all residents
I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Christine Barulich

297 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:00:53 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Christine Montenegro < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 2:22 PM
Subject: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsome and City Council Members,
I am a 61 year old native resident of San Mateo. Our great city is in dire need of multiple internal infrastructure projects such as the outdated and broken sewage system which affect me and my family.

We already have a million dollar plus budget deficit. Please do not waste money to hire a $500,000.00 consultant for the historical district of our city. This would be a complete waste
of funds that could be better spent on vital projects which are necessities such as parks and facilities maintenance and repairs.

Furthermore, I believe that the homeowners should be able to make their own decisions regarding their personal property.

Please REJECT the historic RFP!!!
Sincerely,
Christine Naples Montenegro, MA

298 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:59:56 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Crystal Matye < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:40 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Crystal Matye

299 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:52:23 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Daniel Schonberg < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsom and San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
--
Dan Schonberg

300 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:59:10 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Daniela N < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:51 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City.

Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.

This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

This goes against Mayor Newsom's
much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo. In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

301 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:57:43 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Darren Woulfe < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:35 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority Darren Woulfe
Baywood Resident
Sent from my iPhone

302 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:35 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Derek Cummings < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP.

- Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.

- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

- Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,

Derek Cummings

303 of 426

304 of 426

305 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:53:06 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Elaine Salinger < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Elaine Salinger, San Mateo County Chapter Leader

Citizens Climate Lobby

306 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:01:42 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Els < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:41 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

307 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:52:56 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Erin Livingston < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

308 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:46:39 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Erin Stallings < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:43 AM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City.

Our CENTRAL PARK
PLAYGROUND is currently closed and I’ve been WAITING 12 years FOR IMPROVEMENTS!!
- Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

309 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:48:08 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Esmat Rafizadeh < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend

over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation. - This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive,

community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Esmat Rafiezadeh, A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

310 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:00:00 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ex Sx < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 2:00 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

311 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:43:56 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Floyd Alfson < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

312 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 5 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:01:16 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gary Phipps < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 5 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Gary Phipps

313 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: I urge you to vote NO on ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:47:13 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gene Alston < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 8:01 AM
Subject: I urge you to vote NO on ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed allocation of $500,000 for developing a historic context statement for the Baywood neighborhood. While I understand the importance of preserving our city’s history, I believe this expenditure is neither necessary nor justifiable at this time, especially given competing priorities and the lack of consensus among residents.

Concerns Regarding the Proposed Allocation

1. Cost vs. Benefit
Spending half a million dollars on a historical context statement seems disproportionate to the potential benefits. Many cities achieve similar outcomes through more cost-effective means, such as public-private partnerships or leveraging grant funding from preservation organizations. Allocating such a large sum from the city's budget could divert resources from essential services like public safety and infrastructure which currently have a $306 Million funding gap.

2. Community Division
The proposal has already caused significant division within the Baywood neighborhood and beyond. Many residents are concerned about the implications of a historic designation, including potential restrictions on property rights, increased maintenance costs, higher insurance premiums, and lack of homeowner consent in any designation. In fact, as measured by the objections received by the State Office of Historic Preservation, we know that Baywood homeowners object to the historic district 9:1 over those that support it. Moving forward with this expenditure without broader community support risks further polarizing the neighborhood.

3. Uncertain Outcomes
It is unclear whether creating a historical context statement will bring tangible benefits to the city or its residents. Without a clear roadmap for how this document would enhance the neighborhood or contribute to citywide goals, the expenditure appears premature and speculative.

As we’ve seen, a few individuals have sought to circumvent any local process through their filing with the State. Certainly, based on the stated goals of this group, they seemed to be poised to leverage the historical context statements paid for by the City to

314 of 426

315 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:47:40 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gerald Stokes < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:06 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: <
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

316 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:42:30 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hanish Rathod < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Hanish

A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

317 of 426

318 of 426

319 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:57:56 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Heather Brien < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:04 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.

- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

- Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Heather Brien, A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

320 of 426

321 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:50:56 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Helaine Blumenthal < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

322 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:48:21 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: James Isaacs >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
Thank you for all of your hard work looking out for our interests. I and my family have lived iin San Mateo since 1989. My wife and I raised our family here. We appreciate how you have effectively managed change and expansion so well.

I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - My understanding is that we have a $10 Million deficit. on our budget right now. It seems uunwise to do this RFP. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

We have lived in San
Mateo Park for 20 years and in Baywood for 8 years before that and Shoreview before that.

I think the gambit on historic district will create a lot of restriction on building, upgrading and remodeling.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

323 of 426

Sincerely,
James Isaacs
A long term San Mateo Resident

324 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:59 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeane Makar < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:20 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

325 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Please REJECT the wasteful Historic Resources Survey Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:50:24 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joanne Spetz < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Please REJECT the wasteful Historic Resources Survey To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP.

This is an unwise and wasteful use of our city resources. City resources should be prioritized for traffic, parks, and safety.

Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. The Baywood neighborhood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of people who do not represent the majority of homeowners.

This proposed historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation. The proposed survey goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there are much less expensive alternatives to historic preservation goals, including standard processes associated with permitting remodeling and renovations.

Please note that I have not included Lisa Diaz Nash from this message because she is on record as supporting this RFP, even though it does not align with the preferences of members of her own district.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Joanne Spetz

326 of 426

327 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Vote NO on Historic Survey RFP
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:16 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joe Godfrey < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Subject: Vote NO on Historic Survey RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
San Mateo City Council Members,
Spending $500k on a "historic resources survey" seems like a tremendous waste of money.

The San Mateo Heritage Alliance ran an incredibly misleading process to try and sneak through an application for Baywood to become a historic district, and once residents were
actually engaged and informed, they OVERWHELMING objected. Lisa Nash and her husband were central to this effort, and now it feels like Mrs Nash is trying a different path to
prioritize her own desires over the wishes of her own constituents.

There is no demonstrated broad community support for establishing historic designation to areas of San Mateo. Our taxpayer funds should be applied to the things our citizens need and want - improved parks, public safety,
schools, Fire, Police, and public works. San Mateo has
lots of needs that require government funds. A back-door attempt to subvert the will of a community who have stated resoundly that they do NOT want historic designation is not one of them.

Sincerely,
Joe Godfrey
San Mateo resident, Little League board member, PTA board member, and concerned citizen

328 of 426

329 of 426

lengthens the time required and cost to make home improvements. Further, it burdens all future owners with unreasonable limitations. This adversely impacts resale value. When a potential buyer realizes that they can’t modify the home to meet the changing needs of their family, they will not buy the property. Most significantly, it grants a small committee the authority to impose requirements on homeowners without regard to practicality, difficulty, or the cost that will be borne by the homeowner.

A historic district designation is not something we need.

The majority of Baywood
residents oppose it. Consequently, it is an issue that is dividing our community without a lot of upside and potentially significant downside. Individual homeowners purchase homes in Baywood for a variety of reasons but virtually all of them are looking to increase their property values. They should be the ultimate deciders as to what happens to their properties. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that the new construction in Baywood has done anything other than enhance property values.

From an insurance standpoint, California is in the midst of a serious homeowner insurance crisis.

Evidence of this is the exponential growth in applications to the California FAIR Plan (the insurer of last resort for individuals that can’t get coverage in the voluntary market).

Many companies have left the state entirely while some of the largest remaining companies have non-renewed huge numbers of existing policies and stopped writing new business altogether.

All these actions make homeowners insurance difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to get. Even if coverage is available, it has become extraordinarily expensive.

The recent fires in Los Angeles County are almost certain to make this situation far worse.

For most people, their home is their most expensive asset and it is a scary proposition when they struggle to find ways to protect it.

In a market where availability is already an issue exacerbated by the levels of bureaucracy; it makes no sense to impose the restrictions that come with Historic Districting.

At a
minimum, it severely restricts the improvements a homeowner can make, creates a more extensive approval process and ultimately lengthens the time required and cost to rebuild or remodel.

This is the very thing that insurers are objecting to now. Historic homes are often more costly to insure than modern homes because they generally are constructed with older, rarer, and more expensive materials that aren’t common in modern homebuilding.

Furthermore, historic homes are typically constructed using labor intensive methods that require specialized craftsmen and can be slower than modern construction methods.

Even if you are able to insure your home today, that may not be the case going forward in a dynamic market.

Insurance companies often have different underwriting rules for “renewal” business than they do for “new” business. Therefore, if a home has been covered by an insurer for a number of years, the agent may have latitude to treat it differently than a piece of “new” business with the same characteristics.

In other words, if that same home were
sold, and the new owners approached the very same carrier, they might get a very different
answer. This is a problem all homeowners could face when they ultimately try to sell their home and the potential buyer can’t get coverage (at least 13% of real estate agents in California had a contract canceled in 2024 when a buyer couldn't get insurance).

Also, since some companies have already said they would not renew a policy if it were in a historic district, carriers that accept business today could easily change their stance over time. There is a limit to the amount of exposure a single company can take on in a given area. If other companies pull out, a small number of remaining companies couldn't afford to be the writer for all that is left. Once they see their competitors refusing to write this business, they would almost certainly tighten their stance.

In an already troubled market made worse by unwieldy regulation, if there is even the possibility that creating a Historic District designation would either limit the availability or increase the cost of coverage, it just doesn’t make sense.

It simply isn’t necessary to
impose a blanket designation on all Baywood homeowners or any other neighborhood without their permission.

330 of 426

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

The city has far higher priorities, especially with a $10.6M budget shortfall! Sincerely
Joe Volponi

331 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:52:59 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John ODA < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
John Oda

332 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:03 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John-Katy Bejarano < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Subject: Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, CC:
< >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.

- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

- Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Katy Bejarano, a concerned resident of Baywood

333 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:57:11 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joyce Chow < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:45 PM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

334 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:47 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kamal Nabijee < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

K A M A L

N A B I J E E

335 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:47:45 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Karen E. Hummel < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:08 AM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

336 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:50:00 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Karen Stokes < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

337 of 426

338 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:02:21 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: < >
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Subject: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP.

Really, this is just silly.

Does the majority of the neighborhood really want this? I don’t think so.

Is this a high priority for city funds? I don’t think so.

Are there less expense options? Others have been proposed.

I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community- driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Kevin Laughlin and Kathleen Navarra

339 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:42 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lance Smith < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. As a local business owner/operator, which services close to 2,500 families in the City of San Mateo through youth programs and offerings - this is a nonsensical use of funds which takes away from the enrichment within the City.
- Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. Why would we as tax payers waste this capital on a survey to combat a guided vote against this movement? Would these funds not be better suited to enable our community development - perhaps the youth and families our business serves immediately and directly?

- Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district.

- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo as well as a local business owner operating in the City of San Mateo.

340 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Fw: REJECT THE $500K HISTORIC RFP
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:40:34 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lauren Lum < >
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Subject: Fw: REJECT THE $500K HISTORIC RFP
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Cc: < >
Please see the below
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lauren Lum < >
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: < >
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 at 04:03:27 PM PST
Subject: REJECT THE $500K HISTORIC RFP
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you
REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP. As a long-time San Mateo resident, I have several serious concerns:
**Financial Impact:**
• City faces $10.6M budget deficit and $306M in unfunded infrastructure needs • $500,000 could be better spent on deteriorating parks and facilities • Less than 0.03% of San Mateo's 101,327 residents are driving this expensive initiative **Community Opposition & Consensus:**
• In Baywood, 9 out of 10 residents weighing in oppose historic districting • No broad community consensus exists for such a consequential decision • City has conducted no community outreach to determine if this is a citywide priority **Legal Concerns:**
• JMBM Attorneys warn of permanent, irreversible consequences in this RFP format • Historical context statement with potential for CEQA obligations • Potential impacts exceed those of general plan or zoning changes • Council is putting the cart before the horse - community outreach should precede signing this RFP **Alternative Solution:**
• Implement staff-driven community engagement process
• Focus on voluntary participation rather than mandatory impositions • Develop consent-driven historic preservation ordinance • Prioritize infrastructure benefiting all residents
I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community-driven

341 of 426

alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Lauren Lum

342 of 426

343 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:55:12 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: marialena roussere < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Marialena Malejan-Roussere
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

344 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:49:16 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Pietrofesa < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Mark Pietrofesa
Sent from my iPhone

345 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:58:29 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mary Crawford < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

346 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:49 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Mary Gerritsen
Baywood homeowner and 27 year resident if San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

347 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:55 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew Wes < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:39 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group.

- This non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

- Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
--
Matthew Wes

348 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:59:37 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew Bugna < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Subject: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

349 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: RFP
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:54:30 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maureen Goldrath < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Subject: RFP
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Subject:

Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you
REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP.

As a San Mateo resident, I have several serious concerns:
**Financial Impact:**
• City faces $10.6M budget deficit and $306M in unfunded infrastructure needs • $500,000 could be better spent on deteriorating parks and facilities • Less than 0.03% of San Mateo's 101,327 residents are driving this expensive initiative
**Community Opposition & Consensus:**
• In Baywood, 9 out of 10 residents weighing in oppose historic districting • No broad community consensus exists for such a consequential decision • City has conducted no community outreach to determine if this is a citywide priority **Legal Concerns:**
• JMBM Attorneys warn of permanent, irreversible consequences in this RFP format • Historical context statement with potential for CEQA obligations • Potential impacts exceed those of general plan or zoning changes • Council is putting the cart before the horse - community outreach should precede signing this RFP
**Alternative Solution:**
• Implement staff-driven community engagement process
• Focus on voluntary participation rather than mandatory impositions • Develop consent-driven historic preservation ordinance • Prioritize infrastructure benefiting all residents

350 of 426

I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Thank you
Maureen

351 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:22 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: P Mayers < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

352 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:57:02 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ischay < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:43 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of individuals with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

353 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:53:49 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Flynn >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:41 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district.We do not want this. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

- Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of Baywood, San Mateo

354 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:55:45 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:25 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >, Michele Cinq Mars >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
Please REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP.

I am concerned that you are considering the expenditure of $500,000 on a Historic Resources RFP, when we are facing a $10.6 million dollar budget shortfall. San Mateo residents do not want, or need, their neighborhoods turned into Historic Districts. When a Historic District was proposed for Baywood,
residents voted 9 to 1 AGAINST this classification in District 1. Additionally, - A historic survey will use financial and administrative resources the City does not have. - There are CHEAPER, BETTER, and more DEMOCRATIC ways to pursue historic preservation. - Parks and public safety are pressing priorities that require more resources. - Lisa Diaz Nash is not representing the will of our District in this matter. The small group of residents who want Historic Districts, do not reflect the opinions of the majority of residents in our community.

I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP! A less expensive, community-driven alternative should meet the needs of all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Michele A. Cinq Mars
A Concerned City of San Mateo and Baywood Knolls Resident

355 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:49:31 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michelle Hudson < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 1:14 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, Adam Loraine <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request that you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP for the following reasons:

Other matters should be higher priorities for the city, such as addressing the climate crisis, parks, safety and housing.

Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of residents who wish to circumvent the will of the majority.

This non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility.

Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Michelle Hudson
Baywood Resident

356 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:46:15 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michelle Quinn < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:51 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

357 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:50:15 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mignon O'Young < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

358 of 426

359 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:46:50 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mo Lehman >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

360 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:47:56 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mohammad Jahangoshahi < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 9:32 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.

- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals.

- Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Mohammad Jahangoshahi, A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

361 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:46:07 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Douglas Morais < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Douglas and Christiane Morais
Sent from my iPad

362 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:52:46 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nancy Trio < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

363 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:01:25 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nancy Whelan < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation. - This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

364 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:46:29 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nkia Richardson < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:22 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

365 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:50:08 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Oliver Shay < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

366 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:24 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patty Anixter < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Patty Anixter

367 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:54:15 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Peter Stone < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. I can’t believe that you are wasting tax dollars on this where there are much more important issues that need to be addressed. For example, our roads, especially El Camino Real, are in terrible condition. In addition, the Parks and Public Safety should be higher priorities for the City.

Every year my property taxes increase, and I don’t see any improvement in our community. In my view, you increase taxes, give yourselves raises, and accomplish nothing! Quit wasting money! This non-consent historic survey will only add to government bureaucracy and accomplish nothing! I am sick of “too much government” – federal, state, and local.

I understand that you already have a $10.6 MM budget shortfall, and you want to spend $500K on a moronic study?
Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. Do your jobs and try doing “more with less!”

I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Stone

368 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:42:47 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Elisa Radice < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 3:33 PM
Subject: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP. As a San Mateo resident, I have several serious concerns:
**Financial Impact:**
• City faces $10.6M budget deficit and $306M in unfunded infrastructure needs • $500,000 could be better spent on deteriorating parks and facilities • Less than 0.03% of San Mateo's 101,327 residents are driving this expensive initiative **Community Opposition & Consensus:**
• In Baywood, 9 out of 10 residents weighing in oppose historic districting • No broad community consensus exists for such a consequential decision • City has conducted no community outreach to determine if this is a citywide priority **Legal Concerns:**
• JMBM Attorneys warn of permanent, irreversible consequences in this RFP format • Historical context statement with potential for CEQA obligations • Potential impacts exceed those of general plan or zoning changes • Council is putting the cart before the horse - community outreach should precede signing this RFP
**Alternative Solution:**
• Implement staff-driven community engagement process
• Focus on voluntary participation rather than mandatory impositions • Develop consent-driven historic preservation ordinance • Prioritize infrastructure benefiting all residents
I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community- driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Elisa Radice

369 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Vote NO on ‘Historic’ Survey RFP
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:54:08 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rebecca Smith < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Subject: URGENT: Vote NO on ‘Historic’ Survey RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - At a time when the city is running a budget deficit, it makes no sense to spend scant resources on this survey. The City should prioritize spending on parks and safety. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over priorities that are critical to the quality of life in San Mateo. The overwhelming majority of Baywood residents are AGAINST the proposed historic district (by 9:1). A small minority of residents should not get to force their will on the majority. - This non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and it will likely result in additional ongoing costs to the City as it is litigated. - This initiative runs counter to Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility. Moreover,
there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to achieve these historic preservation goals.
- I have deliberately omitted Lisa Diaz Nash from this message as she is ignoring the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

370 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Vote No on wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:59:19 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Richard Dickson < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Vote No on wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>, Adam Loraine
<[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP.

I, and many other of your constituents, will be angry should they find out that you approved this spend over other priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9
to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

Her hypocrisy is shameful, and I
predict that she will be voted out of office soon enough.

This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy, and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.

VOTE NO on the Historic Resources RFP.

If any of you vote in favor of such a measure, I
respectfully request that you write me to explain your decision including why you prioritized spending money on it over the many other priorities of our community.

Sincerely,
Richard Dickson
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and its attachments contain information that may

371 of 426

372 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:58:53 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rick Bonilla < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:22 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>, PRASANNA RASIAH <[email protected]>, Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members, I am writing to STRONGLY DEMAND that you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation. - This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo. In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Rick Bonilla
Chair, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Former Mayor, City of San Mateo
Director, Housing Action Coalition

373 of 426

374 of 426

375 of 426

376 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:42:38 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ryan Chow < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo

377 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:47:21 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sandy Jensen < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

378 of 426

379 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Item 10 - Historic Designations Work - OPPOSE Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:41:37 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nancy Schneider < >
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Item 10 - Historic Designations Work - OPPOSE To: < >
This is the email that I sent to the city council.

Nancy Schneider

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Nancy Schneider < >
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 4:23
PM
Subject: Item 10 - Historic Designations Work - OPPOSE
To: <[email protected]
>
Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council,
I am writing to you as a resident of San Mateo and a homeowner in the Baywood neighborhood. I oppose the designation of Baywood as an historic district for a multitude of reasons, primarily that I don't think the neighborhood should be exempt from policies to increase housing production in San Mateo. Every neighborhood should do its part.

I acknowledge that this agenda item is not concerned with Baywood specifically, but about hiring the consultant for the historic work and deciding on which option.

I urge you to pick Option 3
and not approve an appropriation Resolution or an agreement with Rincon Consultants and vote not to
proceed with the historic policy update effort at this time. .

We have worked to pass good housing laws, both at the state and local levels, and a historic district would undermine these laws, as well as our general plan and newly- minted Measure T. Please do not support any actions to establish more historical districts.San Mateo has many more pressing concerns.

The money allocated for this project
could be put to better use.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.

Nancy Schneider

380 of 426

381 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Please Reject the Proposed Historic Resources RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:46:45 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joel Scott < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Subject: Please Reject the Proposed Historic Resources RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to reject the proposed Historic Resources RFP. Approving this measure would divert attention and resources away from more pressing priorities for our city, such as parks and safety, while further exacerbating the $10.6 million budget shortfall.

Key concerns include:

1. Fiscal Responsibility:

This proposal is at odds with Mayor Newsom’s focus on fiscal responsibility. There are far more cost-effective ways to achieve historic preservation goals that better balance the needs of the broader community.

2. Misaligned Priorities: Parks and public safety are far more critical to San Mateo residents. Allocating funds to this RFP disregards the needs and desires of the community, as evidenced by the overwhelming 9-to-1 opposition in Baywood to the proposed historic district.

3. Increased Litigation and Bureaucracy:

A non-consensual historic survey will likely
lead to costly legal challenges and create layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, further straining the city’s resources

4. Community Backlash: Approving this initiative risks alienating your constituents, who will rightly feel that their priorities have been overlooked in favor of a small but vocal group advocating for this costly and unnecessary measure.

Finally, I want to highlight my deep disappointment with Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash for ignoring the clear opposition of her own district and the broader San Mateo community on this issue.

In summary, I urge you to vote NO on the Historic Resources RFP and instead pursue a less expensive, community-driven alternative that reflects the priorities of all San Mateo residents —not just a small minority.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

382 of 426

Sincerely,
Joel Scott
Concerned Resident of San Mateo

383 of 426

384 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: PLEASE VOTE NO to ridiculous Historic Designation for San Mateo Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:53:39 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Selena Trotter < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO to ridiculous Historic Designation for San Mateo To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I strongly urge you to vote against the proposed Historic Resources RFP.

The City should focus on more pressing issues like parks and public safety.

I think approving this expenditure will anger your constituents, particularly in light of the $10.6 million budget shortfall. Baywood residents were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed historic district, with a 9-to-1 majority against it. This initiative is being pushed by a small, overly passionate group—not the broader community.

The proposed non-consent historic survey will add unnecessary red tape and likely lead to costly litigation, further straining the budget.

Mayor Newsom's focus on fiscal responsibility has been appreciated, and this proposal contradicts that. There are much more cost-effective ways to achieve historic preservation goals.

I am excluding Lisa Diaz Nash from this message because her stance does not reflect the views of her district or San Mateo.

In conclusion, I would like to ask you to vote NO on the Historic RFP and instead explore a more affordable, community-centered alternative that aligns with the needs and priorities of all San Mateo residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Selena Trotter

385 of 426

386 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:01:04 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shelly DeCorte < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

387 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:54:00 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stacey Kepler < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 2 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsom and San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Stacey Kepler

388 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 5 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:51:19 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stephanie Moy < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 5 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

389 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:51:50 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: stephanie < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Subject: URGENT: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsom and San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall.

Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

390 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: “Historic” neighborhoods? Not this again! Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:53:26 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stephen Howard-Sarin < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Subject: “Historic” neighborhoods? Not this again!
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear City Council,
Please reject the proposed funding for an RFP to analyze classification of any San Mateo neighborhoods as historic districts. It’s a badly veiled attempt to block housing expansion, which is so crucially important to our future as a community.

I’ve seen such a groundswell of resident opposition to the idea that whole neighborhoods in our city are “historic” — surely you have seen it also? While it might be tempting to kick the can, allocate funding to study options, and return to this topic (much) later, please don’t. Just stop this undemocratic, bad faith, busybody intrusion into our lives once and for all. — Stephen Howard-Sarin

391 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:51:07 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: < com>
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

392 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:59:01 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rustard Mustard < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:51 AM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>, PRASANNA RASIAH <[email protected]>, Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I strongly implore you to REJECT the proposed Historic Resources Request For Proposals on tonight's agenda.

There is a $10.6M budget shortfall.

This is absolutely NOT any type of priority if 9 to 1 Baywood residents are against the proposal of making their neighborhood a historic district. It is my strongly held belief that, once informed, all San Mateo residents would reject this proposal.

Mayor Newsom wants fiscal responsibility. So Council step up to the plate and put an end to this divisive chaos that you will be continuing to instigate. Instead find a way to solve the deficit.

Once again,VOTE NO on the Historic Request for Proposals.

Sincerely,
Dr. Suzanne Bonilla
San Mateo Resident

393 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:55:33 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tim D < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Subject: District 3 SAYS NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey spending To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsom and San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo.
- There are more important parks and safety priorities for the City. - This ridiculous historic survey creates unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation. I’ve seen ridiculous turn around times for permits from other families with our current processes and can’t imagine it getting worse.

- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are more pressing needs facing San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

394 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:31 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Priya Varma < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 9:04 PM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Priya Varma, MD, MPH

A Concerned Taxpayer of San Mateo

395 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:40:15 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anya Wes >
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 3:05 PM
Subject: Fwd: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP To: <[email protected]
>
Cc: < >, Anya Wes < >
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anya Wes < >
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 3:01
PM
Subject: Urgent Appeal: REJECT the $500K Historic RFP
To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >, Anya Wes < >
Dear Honorable Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed $500,000 Historic Resources RFP. As a San Mateo resident, I have several serious concerns:
**Financial Impact:**
• City faces $10.6M budget deficit and $306M in unfunded infrastructure needs • $500,000 could be better spent on deteriorating parks and facilities • Less than 0.03% of San Mateo's 101,327 residents are driving this expensive initiative **Community Opposition & Consensus:**
• In Baywood, 9 out of 10 residents weighing in oppose historic districting • No broad community consensus exists for such a consequential decision • City has conducted no community outreach to determine if this is a citywide priority **Legal Concerns:**
• JMBM Attorneys warn of permanent, irreversible consequences in this RFP format • Historical context statement with potential for CEQA obligations • Potential impacts exceed those of general plan or zoning changes • Council is putting the cart before the horse - community outreach should precede signing this RFP
**Alternative Solution:**
• Implement staff-driven community engagement process

396 of 426

• Focus on voluntary participation rather than mandatory impositions • Develop consent-driven historic preservation ordinance • Prioritize infrastructure benefiting all residents
I urge you to vote NO on this $500,000 RFP and instead support a less expensive, community- driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
Anya Wes

397 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:52:32 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Whitney Kirschbrown < >
Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear Mayor Newsom and San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT spending ANY money on historic surveying in San Mateo. - There are SO MANY more important parks and safety priorities for the City. Especially Sunnybrae Park!! - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend without their input and over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots who obsess about other people’s houses. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility especially when there are MUCH CHEAPER alternatives to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message. She already goes against the will of her own district and would likely go against our wishes on this as well.

In summary, I urge you to REJECT spending ANY budget on historic surveys.

Sincerely,
Whitney Kirschbrown, a Concerned Resident of San Mateo

398 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:43:21 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: rick.wysong < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

399 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:00:47 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Yao < >
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Subject: URGENT: Parks over wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands. - This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent and Taxpayer of San Mateo
Sent from my iPhone

400 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:45:13 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Yuanxuan Wang < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 8:41 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo

401 of 426

From: Support User
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 7:44:41 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Will Howekamp < >
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Subject: URGENT: SAY NO to wasteful ‘Historic’ Survey RFP To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: < >
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,
I am writing to request you REJECT the proposed Historic Resources RFP. - Parks and safety should be higher priorities for the City. - Your District Constituents will be angry when they find out that you approved this spend over their priorities especially given the $10.6M budget shortfall. Baywood was 9 to 1 AGAINST the proposed historic district. No one wants this except a small group of zealots with too much time on their hands.
- This ridiculous non-consent historic survey will create unnecessary bureaucracy and the City will end up spending even more budget on litigation.
- This goes against Mayor Newsom's much welcomed focus on fiscal responsibility and there is a MUCH CHEAPER alternative to historic preservation goals. - Lisa Diaz Nash is omitted from this message because she goes against the will of her own district and all of San Mateo.

In summary, I urge you to VOTE NO on the Historic RFP and support a less expensive, community-driven alternative that serves all San Mateo residents, not just a vocal minority.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Resident of San Mateo
Sent from my iphone

402 of 426

403 of 426

404 of 426

405 of 426

406 of 426

407 of 426

408 of 426

409 of 426

410 of 426

411 of 426

412 of 426

413 of 426

414 of 426

415 of 426

416 of 426

417 of 426

418 of 426

419 of 426

420 of 426

421 of 426

422 of 426

423 of 426

424 of 426

425 of 426

426 of 426