City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
1 From: GTL < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:11 AM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Fw: (No Subject)
To: city clerk and all council members,
City clerk, please include this letter for public view and for public records. Thank you, Gab T. Laughlin Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Forwarded Message -------
Date: On Saturday, June 14th, 2025 at 7:25 PM
Subject: (No Subject)
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
CC:
Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council,
The following is a stock letter and I am forwarding it to you since I agree with it. Please see message below this letter for my personal thoughts in addition to this stock letter:
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I am concerned with the proposals to retrofit existing properties to all-electric systems.
Conversion to all-electric is a major capital improvement that is very costly and complex. Mandating such a change should not be taken lightly without input from property owners and operators who will bear the cost of these new requirements.
Should you continue with electrification of residential buildings, please consider the following:
• The city should make funding available to help offset costs for the retrofit. This includes building and permit fees and other expenses, such as potential loss of income during construction. • The city should give property owners the maximum time allowed to comply. • The city should not adopt additional restrictions or regulations on the rental housing market that would make the retrofit even more cost-prohibitive or enact limitations that would constrain housing providers’ control of their properties.
• The city should prioritize an incentive-based approach for phasing out natural gas appliances instead of costly, unfunded mandates.
Property owners would be placed in the impossible position of being forced to make huge upfront investments – at a time when debt service costs are high – with little more than a hope of eventual modest cost savings.
My concerns:
2 It should not be mandated to retrofit all buildings and residential houses to use only electricity and not a combination of gas and electricity.
There are not enough licensed electricians or contractors to do the job - retrofitting would be an impossible task for a home owner, housing provider and other businesses to do in a reasonable time. There is no regulations on costs an electrician would charge, and since demand would be high and supply of electricians low, there would be price gouging. The cost to retrofit older buildings would mean completely re-wiring the entire building/house. The cost would be immense and there is no justification for this - what authority does the council members have to even consider this proposal to force everyone to comply with retrofitting to go all electric?
Electricity is more expense than gas. What happens to senor citizens who own their home and have to now come up with money to pay for the retrofit or complete re-wiring of their aged homes? How can on a fixed income or living off of their saving, pay for utilities when electric bill will be higher than a gas bill?
The power grid goes down, there is no backup for anything - it has happened with solar flares, too much demand for electricity as cold spells in Texas and north east US, there is a domino effect, where one power provider goes down then others will go down. An example: In 1982 high winds knocked over power lines and it had a ripple effect and took out the power from SF to San Diego and all the way to Las Vegas NV, In 1996, two major outages effecting western Canada, Idaho, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, CA, and Arizona which effected 3 million people the electricity went out due to voltage instability in the grid.
California imports electricity from Mexico and surrounding states, CA it is not self sufficient.
California is becoming a failed state because of these types of regulatory adventures.
The people that have the ability, and those that are young enough, are leaving the state and are also the people who provide income through taxes to the state, the state is biting the hand that feed it through these kinds of policies.
Gabby Tedeschi-Laughlin
-o0o- JACO PROPERTIES, LLC -o0o-
“A San Francisco Bay Area Workforce Housing Provider”
P.O. Box 570
San Mateo, CA 94401
June 16, 2025
San Mateo City Council
Mayor Rob Newsom – [email protected]
Deputy Mayor Adam Lorraine – [email protected] Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki – [email protected] Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash – [email protected] Councilmember Nicole Fernandez – [email protected] Council Clerk – [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 41 - “Forced All-Electric Retrofit”
Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council,
I am a local housing provider in San Mateo (we provide workforce housing in San Mateo and several other local communities on the peninsula), and I am concerned with the proposals to retrofit existing properties to all-electric systems.
Conversion to all-electric is a major capital improvement that is very costly and complex.
Mandating such a change should not be taken lightly without input from property owners and operators who will bear the cost of these new requirements.
Should you continue with electrification of residential buildings, please consider the following:
• The city should make funding available to help offset costs for the retrofit. This includes building and permit fees and other expenses, such tenant displacement payments and temporary housing as well as potential loss of income during construction.
• The city should give property owners the maximum time allowed to comply.
• The city should not adopt additional restrictions or regulations on the rental housing market that would make the retrofit even more cost-prohibitive or enact limitations that would constrain housing providers’ control of their properties.
• The city should prioritize an incentive-based approach for phasing out natural gas appliances instead of costly, unfunded mandates.
Property owners would be placed in the impossible position of being forced to make huge upfront investments at a time when debt service costs are high (some of our insurance premiums have increased from 350%) with little more than a hope of eventual modest cost savings.
Please do your due diligence before any final adoption of new mandates.
Sincerely,
By, Michael Johnston
For, Jaco Properties, LLC
1 From: Z. L. < >
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 8:00 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Recommendations for item #41, Electrify San Mateo Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Council,
Thank you for ongoing, strategic climate leadership in these very tough times. Here are my recommendations for item #41, Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy, on the June 16, 2025 Council agenda:
1. I support adoption of building codes that eliminate gas in new construction,
2. I strongly supportadoption of building codes that eliminate gas in retrofit construction; these codes will deliver the most significant reductions in Greenhouse Gases,
3. I strongly supportacceleration of NOx air quality standards for gas water heater and furnace replacement; these codes will also deliver the most significant reductions in Greenhouse Gases,
4. I support adoption of building performance standards for commercial buildings, and
5. I support electrification of city buildings.
I thank you for this opportunity,
Ziyi Lu
From: John McKenna
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item #41 - City Council Meeting 6.16.25 Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 3:57:08 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am the father of an 11-year-old daughter and I’m very concerned about her future.
Collectively, we are not acting with the urgency that the climate situation demands and deserves. The science is clear and it is well-documented that the cost of addressing the climate crisis will never be less expensive than it is right now – the longer we wait, the greater the cost and the suffering. Time is running out. We must act now to preserve a livable planet for future generations.
That being said, I want to thank the City of San Mateo for prioritizing this issue and working to put a plan in place to decarbonize. San Mateo has proven to be a leader – we need that to continue and we need more cities to follow.
I respectfully ask the City Council to please support the boldest and most meaningful versions of the pathways outlined in tonight’s presentation. We are in a "yes, and" moment. Following just one or two of these pathways will not adequately address the challenge we have before us – each of the pathways offer solutions to different problems so we need all of them, in one form or another, to be adopted in order to meet the City’s goals. While taking these actions will confront the climate crisis, it’s helpful to also highlight the co-benefits of these electrification pathways which include better local air quality, improved public health, increased safety, greater resiliency, more comfortable buildings, and lower energy costs. It’s also important to understand that there are excellent resources and financial support mechanisms in place to assist with this transition, particularly for low-income communities.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you for taking this issue seriously and acting accordingly.
Sincerely,
John McKenna
From: Elaine Salinger
To: San Mateo City Council Members
Cc: San Mateo City Council Clerk
Subject: San Mateo"s Sustainable Building Strategy
Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 10:08:36 PM
Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Council,
Thank you for your climate leadership. As the leader of Citizens Climate Lobby San Mateo County Chapter, I am speaking for over 1200 members. Here are my recommendations for item #41,
Electrify San Mateo: Sustainable Building Strategy,
on the June 16, 2025 Council agenda:
1. I support adoption of building codes that eliminate gas in new construction,
2. I strongly support
adoption of building codes that eliminate gas in retrofit construction; these codes will deliver the most significant reductions in Greenhouse Gases,
3. I strongly support
acceleration of NOx air quality standards for gas water heater and furnace replacement; these codes will also deliver the most significant reductions in Greenhouse Gases,
4. I support adoption of building performance standards for commercial buildings, and
5. I support electrification of city buildings.
Thank you and I will try to join the meeting on Monday evening.
Elaine Salinger, Group Leader
San Mateo County Chapter
1 From:
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 7:56 AM
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: gas/electric
The city should stay out of regulating building codes - we have enough regulations without city's getting involved.
The all electric concept may not be supported by the supply which the state controls not city's. Until the city starts generation of electrical power - the city should stay out of regulating building code requirement.
Joe Sully
From: l watanuki
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: ; Martin McTaggart
Subject: Item #41 - Electrify San Mateo - Sustainable Building Strategy Policy Feed-back Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 2:12:26 PM
Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I am concerned with the proposals to retrofit existing properties to all-electric systems.
Conversion to all-electric is a major capital improvement that is very costly and complex.
Mandating such a change should not be taken lightly without input from property owners who will bear the cost of these new requirements.
Should you continue with electrification of residential buildings, please consider the following:
• The city should make funding available to help offset costs for the retrofit, including building and permit fees and other expenses, such as potential loss of income during construction.
• The city should give property owners the maximum time allowed to comply. • The city should not adopt additional restrictions or regulations on the rental housing market that would make the retrofit even more cost-prohibitive. • The city should prioritize an incentive-based approach for phasing out natural gas appliances instead of costly, unfunded mandates.
Property owners have to make huge upfront investments – at a time when debt service costs are high – with little hope of modest cost savings.
Please do your due diligence before any final adoption of new mandates.
Best,
Laurie Watanuki
1 From: William Williams
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:04 AM
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Electrify San Mateo
Andrea:
How is a disabled 70 year old resident supposed to pay for city mandated equipment upgrades and the correspondingly higher utility charges?
Will I be expected to live without hot water?
X Bill Williams, San Mateo 6/13/25
Sent from Outlook