City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
From:
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Regarding the notice for the proposed enforcement of Municipal Code Section 10.04.140:
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:30:53 AM
Attachments: IMG 0187.JPEG
Regarding the notice for the proposed enforcement of Municipal Code Section 10.04.140:
There are a variety of necessary reasons for living in a vehicle. From the perspective of those who are using their vehicles for overnight use:
They are not doing this as their preference or as their first choice.
Due to financial or other reasons, they may not have any other choice.
If you look in a car window and see someone in their car, how is this different than walking by a house and seeing someone through their house window? Some potential situations for overnight and other uses:
Someone may have been traveling and need a rest from the road.
Someone may be working in their car in between appointments (or taking a nap).
Someone may be in their car checking their email before going into their home due to the attention demands of their family, once they cross the threshold.
Someone may not have a job but would like to find work and have no other options.
A retiree with insufficient income to afford apartment rent, is thus living in a van.
Someone may have the funds in which to put towards buying a property but not the income to qualify for a loan, for the balance of the purchase.
Someone may be employed, yet does not make enough for the high rental rates in this area.
Someone may be a young adult who was previously living at home until a parent remarried, and is now “in the way”, with insufficient resources to pay rent and is now on their own.
Someone may be going through a divorce and is dealing with the court's mandate to support their family's expenses, yet without having adequate funds for their own living needs.
Others may be needing to escape from an unsafe home environment and may or may not also have their children living with them in their vehicles.
Many people are one paycheck away from homelessness if they should lose their job.
For those living in a traditional house, they may be more disruptive than those who sleep in their car:
Loud backyard music
Having late night backyard parties or loud card games in their garage The use of their lawnmower too early in the morning
The use of their generator, when it is running loudly, due to PGE having an outage Not everyone who lives/sleeps in their vehicle is dealing drugs, stealing our porch packages, littering, loitering, parking illegally during street sweeping days, having tailgate parties, or providing other disruptions.
The enforcement of other laws and codes is what I believe is, or should be, the spirit of the law regarding the proposed enforcement of this Municipal code.
Specifically, I am referring to laws and ordinances regarding:
Disorderly conduct
Littering
Blocking homeowners' driveways
Parking in a street sweeping zone
Illegal drug participation
Burglary
Assault
Harassment
Overstaying the time limits of the 72-hour parking zone Considering the perception of inhabitability, for having access to plumbing and other utilities- type of resources, these are obstacles that can be experienced by other than vehicular residents:
Homeowners, while their home is under renovation: During construction, there may not be access to a kitchen sink or shower, such as having to wash their dishes in the tub.
The vehicle is a shelter, albeit a dismal option, if this is not by choice.
The vehicle is an improved alternative to sleeping in a tent when camping (which is not a sturdy structure).
The lack of utilities may be compared to living in a dry cabin such as in Alaska (no plumbing, heating or electrical).
The vehicle is safer than a tent and is also out of the elements.
If the purpose of this meeting is only about the prohibition of sleeping in a vehicle, then the City is becoming involved with restrictions regarding a resident's personal situation to govern it, yet not for providing for
an alternative or other aid, as an inclusive community solution.
Questions or other considerations:
Where else may someone live, if this code is enforced? The housing problem has not been adequately addressed in our community. The proverbial “poking someone with a stick, to move them along”, is not a solution.
Can a pay-per-use lot be created as a designated area with a trash service? This could be like an RV park with designated spots. Also, members of this community can provide the labor to manage it as part of their contribution to reside there.
Some cities have provided access to showers in mobile setups for the homeless, which helps with those types of needs, including public bathrooms.
Are there other options that can be uncovered for those people who are falling short of a full habitation situation, who must otherwise reside in their vehicles? How is the enforcement for this code going to differentiate between someone SLEEPING in their vehicle from an EMPTY AND UNINHABITED, (yet legally parked), van or RV?
More specifically, how will it be determined if someone is sleeping in a van or RV or if it is vacant as the windows do not allow visual access? How is this enforcement going to eliminate crimes, such as burglary, noise, and littering?
It is the latter that should have the priority of being addressed, not the former.
From the perspective of those in favor of this endorsement, is it meant to remove this blight, which is a reminder that not everyone has the access to the same benefits in our society?
The
enforcement of this Municipal Code is missing the spirit of the purpose of its intended benefit.
From: Francie
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Prohibiting Vehicle Use for Habitation
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:17:26 PM
Dear Mayor Newsom and Members of the City Council,
This ordinance has been in effect since 1995, and it is time to begin enforcement again to reduce the impacts of health, safety, litter and garbage overflow, loud noise issues, and the illegal parking of these RV’s. Multiple recreational vehicles park illegally on S Amphlett and other San Mateo streets.
I support Option 1 - Resume enforcement of the ordinance with outreach by the Police twice prior to issuance of a 24 hour warning, after which appropriate outreach could occur.
Thank you for your consideration.
Francie Souza
Central Neighborhood resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Francie
To:
Cc: City Council (San Mateo); Martin McTaggart;
Subject: Re: Item #2 - Prohibiting Vehicle use for Habitation and Sleeping - Ordinance Enforcement Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:12:48 PM
I will also write in support of Option 1 - I can’t make the meeting though.
Francie
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 16, 2025, at 10:59 AM, l watanuki wrote:
>
> Dear Mayor Newsom and Members of the City Council,
>
> This ordinance has been in effect since 1995, and it is time to begin enforcement again to reduce the impacts of health, safety, litter and garbage overflow, loud noise issues, and the illegal parking of these RV’s. >
> I support Option 1 - Resume enforcement of the ordinance with outreach by the Police twice prior to issuance of a 24 hour warning, after which appropriate outreach could occur.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Laurie Watanuki
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Italia
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Regarding the notice for the proposed enforcement of Municipal Code Section 10.04.140:
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:42:02 AM
Attachments: IMG_0187.JPEG
Regarding the notice for the proposed enforcement of Municipal Code Section 10.04.140:
There are a variety of necessary reasons for living in a vehicle. From the perspective of those who are using their vehicles for overnight use:
They are not doing this as their preference or as their first choice.
Due to financial or other reasons, they may not have any other choice.
If you look in a car window and see someone in their car, how is this different than walking by a house and seeing someone through their house window? Some potential situations for overnight and other uses:
Someone may have been traveling and need a rest from the road.
Someone may be working in their car in between appointments (or taking a nap).
Someone may be in their car checking their email before going into their home due to the attention demands of their family, once they cross the threshold.
Someone may not have a job but would like to find work and have no other options.
A retiree with insufficient income to afford apartment rent, is thus living in a van.
Someone may have the funds in which to put towards buying a property but not the income to qualify for a loan, for the balance of the purchase.
Someone may be employed, yet does not make enough for the high rental rates in this area.
Someone may be a young adult who was previously living at home until a parent remarried, and is now “in the way”, with insufficient resources to pay rent and is now on their own.
Someone may be going through a divorce and is dealing with the court's mandate to support their family's expenses, yet without having adequate funds for their own living needs.
Others may be needing to escape from an unsafe home environment and may or may not also have their children living with them in their vehicles.
Many people are one paycheck away from homelessness if they should lose their job.
For those living in a traditional house, they may be more disruptive than those who sleep in their car:
Loud backyard music
Having late night backyard parties or loud card games in their garage The use of their lawnmower too early in the morning
The use of their generator, when it is running loudly, due to PGE having an outage Not everyone who lives/sleeps in their vehicle is dealing drugs, stealing our porch packages, littering, loitering, parking illegally during street sweeping days, having tailgate parties, or providing other disruptions.
The enforcement of other laws and codes is what I believe is, or should be, the spirit of the law regarding the proposed enforcement of this Municipal code.
Specifically, I am referring to laws and ordinances regarding:
Disorderly conduct
Littering
Blocking homeowners' driveways
Parking in a street sweeping zone
Illegal drug participation
Burglary
Assault
Harassment
Overstaying the time limits of the 72-hour parking zone Considering the perception of inhabitability, for having access to plumbing and other utilities- type of resources, these are obstacles that can be experienced by other than vehicular residents:
Homeowners, while their home is under renovation: During construction, there may not be access to a kitchen sink or shower, such as having to wash their dishes in the tub.
The vehicle is a shelter, albeit a dismal option, if this is not by choice.
The vehicle is an improved alternative to sleeping in a tent when camping (which is not a sturdy structure).
The lack of utilities may be compared to living in a dry cabin such as in Alaska (no plumbing, heating or electrical).
The vehicle is safer than a tent and is also out of the elements.
If the purpose of this meeting is only about the prohibition of sleeping in a vehicle, then the City is becoming involved with restrictions regarding a resident's personal situation to govern it, yet not for providing for an alternative or other aid, as an inclusive community solution.
Questions or other considerations:
Where else may someone live, if this code is enforced? The housing problem has not been adequately addressed in our community. The proverbial “poking someone with a stick, to move them along”, is not a solution.
Can a pay-per-use lot be created as a designated area with a trash service? This could be like an RV park with designated spots. Also, members of this community can provide the labor to manage it as part of their contribution to reside there.
Some cities have provided access to showers in mobile setups for the homeless, which helps with those types of needs, including public bathrooms.
Are there other options that can be uncovered for those people who are falling short of a full habitation situation, who must otherwise reside in their vehicles? How is the enforcement for this code going to differentiate between someone SLEEPING in their vehicle from an EMPTY AND UNINHABITED, (yet legally parked), van or RV?
More specifically, how will it be determined if someone is sleeping in a van or RV or if it is vacant as the windows do not allow visual access? How is this enforcement going to eliminate crimes, such as burglary, noise, and littering? It is the latter that should have the priority of being addressed, not the former.
From the perspective of those in favor of this endorsement, is it meant to remove this blight, which is a reminder that not everyone has the access to the same benefits in our society?
The enforcement of this Municipal Code is missing the spirit of the purpose of its intended benefit.
Some of these vehicular residents are likely still in this city because they have previously resided here, having rented or owned in these neighborhoods.
Without adequate alternatives for the community, the enforcement of this code should be suspended, unless people are breaking the laws that affect the safety and enjoyment of our neighborhood.
The "Not in My Backyard" is not inclusive for all our neighbors, meaning those residents who are working, yet poor. Yet it’s these residents who are providing necessary services to other more fortunate residents, for example, janitorial, grocery baggers, house cleaners, etc.
I am a homeowner and resident in San Mateo.
From: Mike Swire
To: City Council of San Mateo (San Mateo)
Subject: RVs on City streets
Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 10:10:35 AM
Dear City Council,
I see that the Council will be discussing RVs and related vehicles on City streets in Monday's meeting. Thank you to the City for previous efforts to prevent large vehicle storage on local streets. As discussed several years back, these vehicles present a safety hazard as they obstruct drivers' views of pedestrians and other small vehicles. They also frequently are too large for our roadways or parking spaces.
On my street, we have several Sprinter Vans or similar smaller RVs that are stored on our streets indefinitely. I have notified Laz and/or Code Enforcement several times about these vehicles blocking bike lanes. Many also have out of state tags. I assume they do this to avoid paying California registration and insurance, which is higher, despite state law requiring residents to register vehicles within three weeks after moving here. This illegal behavior negatively impacts California public revenues and circumvents smog and other public health requirements.
Here are images
of one of the vehicles that is permanently parked on Kyne Street and yet never ticketed despite the recent reinstatement of parking limits in Bay Meadows. It has Arizona plates, despite being parked in our neighborhood for over a year. It also has an illegal license plate cover that allows the driver to illegally avoid toll cameras on local bridges and Express Lanes.
Thanks for your attention to this matter,
Mike Swire
SM resident
From: l watanuki
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: ; Martin McTaggart
Subject: Item #2 - Prohibiting Vehicle use for Habitation and Sleeping - Ordinance Enforcement Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 10:59:17 AM
Dear Mayor Newsom and Members of the City Council,
This ordinance has been in effect since 1995, and it is time to begin enforcement again to reduce the impacts of health, safety, litter and garbage overflow, loud noise issues, and the illegal parking of these RV’s.
I support Option 1 - Resume enforcement of the ordinance with outreach by the Police twice prior to issuance of a 24 hour warning, after which appropriate outreach could occur.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laurie Watanuki