CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
May 19, 2025
5:30 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:
May 19, 2025
To join via telephone:
(408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 838 2272 0810
Passcode: 699328
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Consideration for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.
1. Legislative and Grant Opportunities Briefing – Study Session Receive legislative updates from California State Senator Josh Becker, California State Assemblymember Diane Papan, and San Mateo County Supervisor Noelia Corzo (District 5), as well as briefings from the City’s state legislative consultant, California Public Policy Group, and federal legislative consultant, Smith Garson. Provide feedback and direction to staff as appropriate, including potentially taking action to adopt a position on pending legislation.
CEQA: This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5).)
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.
1 of 44
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.
2 of 44
CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 25-9987 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2025
SUBJECT:
Legislative and Grant Opportunities Briefing – Study Session RECOMMENDATION:
Receive legislative updates from California State Senator Josh Becker, California State Assemblymember Diane Papan, and San Mateo County Supervisor Noelia Corzo (District 5), as well as briefings from the City’s state legislative consultant, California Public Policy Group, and federal legislative consultant, Smith Garson. Provide feedback and direction to staff as appropriate, including potentially taking action to adopt a position on pending legislation.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 18, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting, during the Reports and Announcements section, Council Member Fernandez requested that the Council receive an update on state and federal legislative matters from the City’s elected representatives and advocacy partners.
In February 2025, the City Council approved an agreement with California Public Policy Group (CPPG). The City has engaged CPPG to support the Council and staff in advancing San Mateo’s regional and state legislative priorities as well as identifying potential grant opportunities, as outlined in the presentation contained within Attachment 1. CPPG provided an initial update to the City Council’s Legislative Committee during its meeting on April 28, 2025. For federal advocacy, the City has worked with Smith Garson (formerly Smith Dawson & Andrews) since 2017 to monitor and advance San Mateo’s interests at the federal level.
According to the City Council’s Rules and Procedures, it is the policy of the Council to be actively involved in developing the City’s position on significant pending state and federal legislation that may directly impact San Mateo. The Legislative Committee—comprised of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor—convenes annually or as needed to review and recommend positions on legislative matters.
Legislation may be submitted for consideration by the Legislative Committee by a Council Member, the City Manager, or a Commission Staff Liaison if a majority of the commission has voted to bring the matter forward. The Committee’s recommendations are presented to the full City Council for consideration. In time-sensitive cases where Council action cannot be obtained before a legislative deadline, the Legislative Committee may take immediate action to communicate with legislators. When this occurs, the Committee must copy the full Council and provide a summary of its actions during the Reports and Announcements section of the next Council meeting.
During this study session, the City Council will receive presentations California State Senator Josh Becker, California State Assemblymember Diane Papan, and San Mateo County Supervisor Noelia Corzo (District 5), as well as briefings from the City’s state legislative consultant, California Public Policy Group, and federal legislative consultant, Smith Garson. Following the presentations, Council may direct a position be taken on any legislation or direct staff to provide further information
3 of 44
CITY OF SAN MATEO
for consideration at a later date.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this legislative briefing. There are no additional costs associated with this legislative briefing. Participation by California Public Policy Group and Smith Garson is covered under their existing monthly fees as outlined in the City’s approved agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – California Public Policy Group Presentation
STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7044
4 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM City of San Mateo
Legislative Update
Dane Hutchings, Founder + CEO California Public Policy Group Jake Whitaker, Director of Grant Services
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM
5 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM 2025 Legislative State-of-Play
Primary Narrative That Has Driven Policy This Year…
“Affordability”
Dozens of Measures Seeking To:
• Cap, Delay or Eliminate Local Mitigation and Development Related Fees • New State-Mandated Local Programs Without Offset Funding • Fast-Tracked Timelines That Place Considerable Pressure on Local Agencies • New Requirements Making it Seemingly More Difficult to Utilize Professional Service Contracts and Driving Operational Costs.
6 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM State Legislative Timeline
Key State Legislative Dates Action
January 10 Governor must present budget proposal to the Legislature.
January 24 Last day to submit bill requests to the Office of LegislativeCounsel.
February 21 Last day for bills to be introduced.
April 10-21 Legislative spring recess.
May 2 Last day for policy committees to hear and report to fiscalcommittee’s fiscal bills introduced in their house.
May 14 Governor Released May Revise
June 15 Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget must be passed by theLegislature.
June 30 Governor must sign Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget.
July 18-August 18 Legislative summer recess.
September 12 Last day for each house to pass bills.
October 12 Governor must take action all measures passed by theLegislature.
7 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM VLF Update
8 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM VLF Update
• $114M Claim Pending for San Mateo County (SMC) and its taxing agencies • VLF reimbursement claim not included in Governor’s January budget proposal • Have been working with SMC delegation on coordinated outreach efforts • City of San Mateo has submitted a letter requesting that the Backfill amount be included • Have had productive conversations with Senate Budget Chair and Sub Committee Chair • Working with allies in organized labor—particularly police and fire to highlight importance • CPPG testified in support of restoring the VLF amount in Senate Budget Sub 4 (State Administration) • Highlighted real costs and potential service reductions if backfill amount was not honored Next Steps:
• Collaboration with relevant budget committees in both Chambers • June 15 Budget Passed by the Legislature
9 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Update on Positioned Bills
10 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM AB 60 (Papan)
o This bill, the Musk Reduction Act, would expand that prohibition by adding musk ambrette, musk tibetene, musk moskene, and musk xylene to the list of banned ingredients. The bill would also, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit the use of musk ketone in cosmetic products in excess of specified amounts, including 1.4% in fine fragrance products, and oral products, as defined. o Status: 5/6/2025 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. o Client Position: Support
11 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM AB 650 (Papan)
• AB 650 strengthens the state’s housing planning process by requiring HCD to develop a standardized reporting format for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) programs. It also moves up the timeline for determining Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) with Councils of Governments (COGs) to 30 months before housing element deadlines, giving jurisdictions 6 more months for planning. Additionally, the bill mandates that HCD provide clear, detailed guidance to help jurisdictions address noncompliance findings and achieve certification more efficiently. o Status: 5/1/2025 Coauthors revised. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9.
Noes 0.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
o Client Position: Support
12 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislation Impacting San
Mateo
Note: Informational item only, no recommended positions provided. Status/ location of legislation based on 05/15/2025.
13 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislation Impacting San Mateo
Bill Number
(Author)
Brief Summary Status
AB 306
(Schultz)
AB 306 temporarily prohibits cities and counties, including charter cities, from adopting or modifying residential building standards—such as green codes—between June 1, 2025, and June 1, 2031, unless the changes meet limited exceptions like emergency health and safety or home hardening. It also requires that residential model home designs approved under existing standards continue to use those standards for future builds unless significantly altered or outdated
5/13/2025 From committee
chair, with author's
amendments: Amend, and
re-refer to committee. Read
second time, amended,
and re-referred to Com. on
HOUSING.
SB 79 (Wiener) SB 79 shifts significant land use authority away from local governments by requiring cities to allow higher-density housing near transit-oriented development (TOD) stops, overriding local zoning standards for height, density, and floor area ratio. It also allows transit agencies to set objective development standards on land they own or control within a half-mile of TOD stops, further limiting local control over site-specific planning. Projects that meet these criteria are entitled to ministerial approval, and cities that deny them—especially in high-resource areas— face automatic penalties under the Housing Accountability Act unless a specific health or safety risk is proven
5/19/2025 Senate
Appropriations
AB 1026
(Wilson)
AB 1026 imposes new requirements on electrical corporations to streamline and standardize the processing of energization applications for housing developments, including deadlines for application review, completeness determinations, and appeals procedures 5/12/2025 Read second
time. Ordered to third
reading. Re-referred to
Com. on APPR. pursuant to
Joint Rule 10.5.
14 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislation Impacting San Mateo
Bill Number (Author) Brief Summary Status*
SB 499 (Stern) This bill amends the timing and conditions under which local agencies may collect fees on residential developments, generally deferring payment until final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, with exceptions for utility connections and certain public improvements.
It also provides extended deferral options and exemptions for designated affordable housing projects and outlines enforceable contracts and lien procedures to secure deferred payments. 5/15/2025 #99
Senate Third
Reading File
AB 259 (Rubio) This bill defines the conditions under which members of a legislative body may participate remotely in meetings, including due to illness, disability, family emergencies, or official travel, and specifies the technologies and terms associated with such participation. It allows remote participation without public accessibility to the member’s location and remains in effect until January 1, 2030.
5/14/2025
Referred to Coms.
on L. GOV . and
JUD.
AB 339 (Ortega) This bill requires public agencies to provide at least 120 days’ written notice to recognized employee organizations before soliciting or renewing contracts for services covered by union- represented job classifications. It also mandates good faith negotiations upon request and allows reopening of labor agreements, while preserving existing employee rights and contract provisions.
Appropriations
Suspense File
15 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislation Impacting San Mateo
Bill Number (Author) Brief Summary Status*
SB 63 (Wiener) This bill establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Revenue Measure District, which will have authority to place a regional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot to fund improvements to public transit systems like BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit. It also requires the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to report by 2026 on how planned transportation projects will affect ridership, especially for rail connectivity, and outlines procedures for district formation, governance, tax implementation, and election logistics.
Appropriations
Suspense File
AB 382 (Berman) This bill updates California's Vehicle Code to allow local authorities greater flexibility to lower speed limits in school zones and near senior centers, including setting a 20 mph limit under specific conditions and enabling 15 mph limits with proper justification. It also clarifies enforcement standards for speed limits, definitions of speed traps, and when local jurisdictions can bypass standard survey requirements, while setting a repeal and update schedule for these provisions by 2029.
Appropriations
Suspense File
SB 456 (Ashby) This bill exempts artists who create murals under a legal agreement from contractor licensing requirements under the Business and Professions Code. It defines a mural as a hand-painted, original work of fine art protected by intellectual property laws, excluding commercial painted wall signs. 5/15/2025 #38
Senate Third
Reading File
16 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Policy +
Platform
17 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Platform Background
and Purpose
Creates a Helpful Guide for Communicating with Various Stakeholders • Communicates City’s policies, priorities, and positions to the public, and to state and regional governments.
Allows the City to Have a Gameplan
• Allows staff and legislative advocate to quickly triage and assess legislative matters upon introduction and as they advance through the process.
• In 2023-24 legislative session there were 5,564 legislative and budgetary measures introduced. • 2,628 having some level of impact on public agencies at time of introduction.
Examples Include:
• Drafting and resubmitting advocacy letters and modifying advocacy letters based on amendments • Testifying in legislative and budgetary committees
• Attending meetings with state legislative, regulatory and administrative agencies • Negotiating amendments/ comments/ policy on legislative, regulatory or administrative actions. • Seeking funding for key programs and city initiatives • Meeting with stakeholders involved in the state legislative, regulatory and administrative proposal.
18 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Platform Background
and Purpose
Provides Guidance/Direction to City Staff and State Legislative Consultants on How to Engage on Specific Pieces of Legislation—Including Coalition Building • This is especially important during key legislative and budget deadlines. • Helps secure critical amendments early in the process. • Allows immediate engagement on legislation throughout the legislative process. • Enables the City to take the following advocacy positions:
• Sponsor
• Support
• Oppose
• Oppose unless amended
• Neutral
• Watch (Internal)
19 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Platform
Development
Meetings to be Focused Primarily On The Following:
• Polices that have an impact on departmental operations. • Assessing major issues/projects/initiatives within the City that need to be considered or shared.
• Major policy areas of importance that CPPG should be monitoring more closely. • Critical funding priorities for the City that CPPG should know more about. • How best CPPG can serve as the City’s legislative advocacy firm.
Given The Legislative Timing More Emphasized Focus In The Fall • Goal is to adopt a formal platform in the Fall of 2025
20 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Policy
• Establishing a legislative policy aims to
formalize how and when the City responds to
local, state, and federal legislation or ballot
measures impacting it.
• Many cities outline a process for addressing
proposed legislation and ballot measures to
clarify City interests and facilitate prompt
responses as necessary.
• Effective March 1, 2025, the City Retained
CPPG for Legislative Advocacy and Grant
Writing Services.
• It is anticipated that the City will broaden its
scope of engagement on local, state and
federal matters of interest.
• Having clear direction through an adopted
policy and platform will be helpful to ensure
clear direction, timely engagement and
sustained success.
21 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Policy
Assessment of San Mateo’s Current Policy
• Formalized Legislative Roles:
o Mayor and Deputy Mayor serve as the Legislative Committee. • Annual Review of Priorities:
o Legislative Committee may meet annually to draft priorities. • Emergency/Expedited Action Allowed:
o The Legislative Committee can act urgently and report back at the next meeting. • Communication to Full Council:
o Copy full Council and report under Reports and Announcements.
22 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Legislative Policy
Areas to Potentially Explore Based on Best Practices
• Fully Developed Legislative Advocacy Platform:
o Adopt a written legislative platform and reaffirm by the full City Council at least every two years (to conform with legislative Cycle) . • Detailed Emergency Authorization Criteria:
o Modify policy to account for emergency or time-sensitive circumstances permitting unilateral action (e.g., protect revenues, local control, legislative committee timing etc.).
• Explicit Role for City Staff and Legislative Consultants:
o Modify policy to recognize the involvement that City staff and the legislative consultant in effectively advocating on behalf of the City. • Councilmember Discretion and Caution:
o Clearly state Councilmembers must distinguish personal views from the City’s official position. • Formal Procedures for Ballot Measures (optional)
o Create a defined process for Council action on State and Local ballot measures.
23 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Grant and Funding Outlook
24 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Major Funding Sources
• State Budget: May Revise budget preserves discretionary grant spending programs that were proposed in the Governor’s January budget proposal.
• Proposition 1: First tranche of $3.3 billion in funding was just awarded. A second and final round of funding will be available later this year.
• Proposition 4: The “Climate Bond” spending package will be rolled out with the adoption of the state’s FY 25-26 budget.
• Federal Budget: Cuts to discretionary spending subject to negotiations on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 extension via budget reconciliation and the FY 26 budget package. • Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Investments authorized through the IIJA are largely preserved in the President’s budget proposal for FY 26. • Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): Current federal budget framework rolls back tax credit programs authorized under the IRA, which were the last major components of the bill’s clean energy investment strategy.
25 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM The Trump Administration
• Changing Federal Grantmaking Priorities
• Executive Orders Targeting Climate Investments & “DEI” Principles • Renewed Focus on Investments in “Areas of Persistent Poverty” • Prioritization for Agencies that Comply with Federal Immigration Enforcement • Attempts to Rescind Grant Awards Based on Revised Policy Priorities • Ongoing Legal Challenges to Administrative Actions
• USDOT Review of Pending Award Agreements
• Termination Notices
• Grant Competitions Resuming after Programmatic Review • USDOT IIJA Funding – Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) • USDOJ COPS Office Grants
26 of 44
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY GROUP • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP .COM Next Steps
• Deep Dive Meetings with staff to refine CPPG’s understanding of the City’s priorities and project pipeline.
• Strategic Plan and Planning Document review to further inform grant-seeking efforts and ensure alignment with priorities.
• Development of Curated Tracking List for high-priority, high-impact opportunities that align with the City Council’s strategic goals. We are looking ahead and thinking about anticipated opportunities over the next two-years. • Ongoing Monitoring of State and Federal Action to inform the City’s grant- seeking priorities and strategies.
27 of 44
28 of 44
2 1. Does SB 63 simply allow a regional transit sales tax to potentially be placed on a future ballot (in San Mateo and elsewhere)?
Yes. SB 63 authorizes the creation of a regional Transportation Revenue Measure District and allows for a regional sales tax measure to potentially be placed on the November 3, 2026 statewide ballot. San Mateo County is not automatically included and would need to affirmatively opt in , but the bill explicitly invites San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to opt in by July 31, 2025. If San Mateo opts in, the tax measure would apply countywide and require voter approval.
2. Does SB 63 mandate that something be placed on the ballot, or could it be delayed or dropped like the BAFHA bond last year?
SB 63 does not mandate that a ballot measure must appear. Like BAHFA housing bond, SB 63 enables the legal and administrative framework, but whether a measure actually goes to the ballot in 2026 depends on stakeholder negotiations, funding decisions, and potential board action. It is entirely possible that the structure is created, but the measure is never placed before voters.
3. If no ballot measure is placed in 2026, does the Transportation Revenue Measure District dissolve?
The bill does not specify an automatic dissolution of the district if no ballot measure is placed. However, the functional purpose of the district is to administer the proposed tax measure. If the tax does not proceed, the district may remain dormant unless future legislation or board action directs otherwise.
4. Are there other costs or mandates that may concern the City of San Mateo? Potential concerns include:
If San Mateo County opts in, the City of San Mateo would be subject to the regional tax and the broader regional funding structure, which could raise local control and priority-setting questions. There is no requirement that funds raised be proportionally returned to cities or counties.
Although Caltrain is eligible for operational funds, the City would have no direct control over allocations.
Separately, the bill does not impose direct costs or mandates on the City. One minor consideration is that SB 63 allows San Mateo County to levy its own separate local transportation tax in 1/8% increments, which could influence future local tax discussions or voter fatigue.
One additional note here, is that by my read there are some inconsistencies in the bill with respect to San Mateo (and also Santa Clara counties opting in).
As drafted, SB 63 sets a July 31, 2025 opt-in deadline for San Mateo County, but the bill does not take effect until January 1, 2026—creating a timing conflict. In other words, the County would need to opt into an agency that doesn’t technically exist. I am not sure how this works in practice. To date, the County of San Mateo has not adopted a formal position. I am not sure what their interest is in supporting this measure.
DH
29 of 44
3 Dane Hutchings
Founder + CEO
[email protected]
(916) 230-6935
I appreciate the importance of maintaining work-life balance. Please feel free to respond to this message at your convenience during working hours.
30 of 44
City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
31 of 44
32 of 44
33 of 44
34 of 44
1 From: Mike Swire
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 8:51 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Please support SB63
First try bounced . . .
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Swire
Date: Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:47 AM
Subject: Please support SB63
To: <[email protected]>
Dear SM City Council,
Thank you for your service to the community.
At tonight's discussion of legislative priorities for the City, I encourage the Council to support SB 63. This important piece of legislation would provide a route to a sizable and reliable funding mechanism for our chronically underfunded public transit systems. Current funding mechanisms in SM County, including Measure A & W sales taxes, do not provide sufficient revenue to maintain current service levels. In addition, Measures A & W spend too much money. on highway widening and other expensive, car- focused projects (such as the 101/92 Direct Connector project which the Council just opposed) that fail to address congestion, climate change, or air pollution.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mike Swire
Bay Meadows resident
35 of 44
36 of 44
37 of 44
38 of 44
39 of 44
40 of 44
41 of 44
42 of 44
43 of 44
44 of 44