City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of November 17, 2025, at 4:00 PM
From: Chantal Eaton
To: Rachel Horst; Jennifer Mora; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: FW: I oppose the new proposed changes to the housing laws as read for the Meeting City Council 11/18/25 Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:53:25 AM
Dear all and City Council (Bcc’d),
Please see the comment below.
Best,
Chantal
From:
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 10:09 AM
To: Chantal Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: Fw: I oppose the new proposed changes to the housing laws as read for the Meeting City Council 11/18/25
Chantel,
I spoke with the city clerk and she provided me with your email. I left you a voice message as well.
I am distraught that I was given only 3 days to respond to the proposals for tonight's meeting with the mayor and city council members. I wrote a letter and emailed it in opposition to the proposals which will change the housing laws in favor of tenants and their advocates, which will hurt the housing industry by continuing to penalize good housing providers. To make matters worse, all but one of my emails was blocked. This is highly unprofessional and I was purposely sabotaged in my attempt to voice my thoughts on the matters at hand. This is discrimination. Please forward a copy of the attached letter to each member of the city council and mayor of San Mateo on my behalf since they are refusing to acknowledge my rights I hope you can help me. Thank you in advance, Gab Laughlin
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Forwarded Message -------
From:
Date: On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Fw: I oppose the new proposed changes to the housing laws as read for the Meeting City Council 11/18/25
To:
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Forwarded Message -------
From:
Date: On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 10:04 AM
Subject: I oppose the new proposed changes to the housing laws as read for the Meeting City Council 11/18/25
To:
Dear City Council
Members and Mayor,
I am a housing provider
for 30 years. I have been
vocal in opposing these
draconian tenant/housing
provider laws which are
clearly in favor of tenant
rights and not the housing
provider's rights. We
deserve respect and fair
treatment.
I oppose the 11 month
proposal for AB 1482. The
one year proposal was
drastic, 11 months is a
sneaky way of getting AB
1482 implemented due to
unsuspecting housing
providers who give
tenants a one year lease.
There is no justification
for this change. AB 1482
is absurd as it stands
now. Tenants are
essentially made to be a
"partner" in our housing
investment without
investing their finances,
sweat equity and stress
that goes with rental
investments. All people
are responsible for
moving costs - it is a part
of living. We were tenants
and paid for our moving
cost, never dreaming of
the landlord paying our
way in life. The money
given to tenants is
extreme based upon the
scale if an owner wants to
move into their own
house or sell it. The
amount of money
proposed to these
tenants is extreme. These
tenants don't even have
to move appliances, most
younger tenants do not
have much as the way of
furniture. Most are
moving a matter of a few
miles yet we as housing
providers we are now
expected to have to pay
their costs - even if they
do not have any moving
costs, most find
friends/family to help.
The fees proposed in AB
1482 are similar to what
our family paid for an
entire household, barging
vehicles too, from Alaska
across the country. We
absorbed this cost for the
sake of seeking a job in
another state. NO one
paid for our move, as it
should be for tenants. It is
clearly social engineering
when city officials give
away our
money to
undeserving tenants. I
have had "professional"
"slip and fall artist" as
tenants who planned to
leave, but wanted a
payout based upon these
draconian laws. It is a
form of extortion, and the
city officials are co-
conspirators, all those
involved have acted
immoral, without
conscience to what is just
and fair. Enough is
enough. There needs to
be a moratorium on
created new housing
laws. Housing laws now
in place need to be re-
created to be balanced,
and follow the basic
principals of business
101: I am in business to
make a profit not act as a
stepping stone to fix the
city's claim of homeless
problems. No profit,
continued stress, unfair
treatment means no
more housing will be
provided as rentals. This
defeats the purpose of
what this council is trying
to solve. The public
officials are not solving
the problem - they are
the problem.
AB 1482 needs to go
away. At the least, the
tenant needs to have
earned payment for
moving costs - such as
the long term tenants I
have had who stayed in
my rental for 15 years
and moved out on her
own due to the children
she had were all grown up
and moving out. Even
with this, I feel the tenant
is responsible for their
own moving cost. It is part
of being a transient
occupant, tenants need to
be responsible for their
own expenses and take
accountability for the
position they find
themselves in. City
officials and tenant
advocate groups rewards
defunct tenants, who
drain their own accounts
and go after what they
believe are "deep pocket"
"landlords". As a housing
provider, we too have
expenses: We have a
mortgage due on the first
of each month, property
taxes, property insurance,
planned savings for future
renovations and repairs,
current repairs and up-
grades, gardening fees
and some of us pay for
utilities for the rentals.
OUR needs should be
taken into consideration.
The were no notifications
emailed nor mailed via US
mail regarding this
meeting. I was given only
three days to notice by
the California Apartment
Association. This is
planned by the city
officials to seek in their
addenda's and pass them
so to appease their
constituents who are the
majority, if not all, are
tenants. Not satisfying
these tenants and their
advocates means no
votes in the city officials
direction. However,
passing draconian laws
means no more housing
provided by us. Tenants
will be forced to live in
high rise apartments and
not the individual houses
they desire.
City Council email addresses
Name / Title Email
Mayor Rob
Newsom Jr. [email protected]
Deputy Mayor
Adam Lorraine [email protected]
Councilmember
Lisa Diaz Nash [email protected]
Councilmember
Danielle Cwirko-
Godycki
[email protected]
Councilmember
Nicole Fernandez [email protected]
Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council,
I urge you not to hurt our city’s housing by adopting strict and punitive laws. I don’t want to adopt extreme regulations like those in the rental markets of San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley.
The council directives from the April study session are closely in line with state law, and that’s all our city needs. Please don’t deviate from your decision, especially after you have already spent hours hearing testimony from local stakeholders and receiving significant research from your city staff.
I urge you to follow state law and focus your attention on educating renters and housing providers on the existing protections we already have under state and local laws. I also support a robust outreach promotion of the new rental
assistance program that helps renters during housing
emergencies.
Please move forward with aligning the city’s law to state law under AB 1482 without additional restrictions or new programs such as rent control, a rent registry or other regulations that further increase the cost of housing in San Mateo.
Gabrielle Laughlin
From: Chantal Eaton
To: Rachel Horst; Jennifer Mora; Zachary Dahl
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Vote no on additional tenant protections
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 7:41:59 PM
Hi,
Kindly, see comment below.
Best,
Chantal
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:42 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Vote no on additional tenant protections
CIty Council
I urge you to vote no on expanding measures for several reasons most of them unintended consequences of further action.
The first and most glaring is the squatters in a San Francisco affordable housing development slate to be rebuilt to include more affordable housing. Here is a link to a youtube
video from last summer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= m-gObDAM3U .
This tells me current protections have gone too far and are now punishing the very people who are supposed to be helping tenants needing affordable housing.
This will lead to less housing being built since the profitability on new construction is less likely to pencil and make it harder to find lending for such projects given the change in rental projections.
The market always likes certainty. Over the past several years we have had the housing element, Measure T, and tenant protections. Looking at these objectively without choosing one side or the other all have introduced significant uncertainty which make builders less comfortable, and when they are less comfortable combined with higher rates their choice is to do nothing. We should be creating certainty and not confusion.
Similarly this applies to landlords and having a larger disproportionate impact to mom and pop landlords. We should be making it easier, not harder.
When we make it harder
they either choose to sell which adjust units to current market price and higher rents or decide not to rent at all.
We are just beginning to see deflation in apartment rents lets not reverse the trend higher, what good are tenant protections if you are losing your job
We also have historically supported our laborers. A stoppage or slow down in building will negatively impact them and their families. In my opinion this is a price too high to
pay.
A 100% red line must be that for non-payment any and all tenant protection and relocation are fully waived. I think protections are going at bad landlords so
language must be specific and precise as to not open interpretation to all tenants. If we can't get that precise then we should not vote to adopt such protections.
Thomas Morgan
From:
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: S.M. Citizen in reference to Rental Protection Policies Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 11:16:37 AM
Dear San Mateo Mayor and City Council,
Through numerous town hall meetings on rental protection policies — including the rental registry component — public support has been consistently strong. Clearly, the residents of San Mateo want stronger protections for our rental community.
In contrast, the recent “cookie-cutter” letter campaign opposing renter safety appears to be a coordinated effort by the real estate industry, not a genuine reflection of public sentiment. This attempt by a special-interest group to derail sound public policy serves only their narrow interests, not the well-being of the community.
Time and again, instead of engaging constructively, real estate interests have rejected reasonable solutions — from red-tag safety ordinances to environmental initiatives — all while portraying themselves as victims and presenting themselves as purveyors of goodwill. Their track record reflects not collaboration, but obstruction.
City staff reports consistently indicate that a rental registry is the most effective tool for understanding the true landscape of San Mateo’s rental housing market. We also know there is a wealth of practical experience available from Bay Area jurisdictions that have already implemented similar programs. These cities are willing to share their insights on policy design, startup challenges, lessons learned, cost structures, cost-recovery models, and — most importantly — the long-term benefits to the community.
I am imploring this Council to direct staff to conduct a comprehensive study on the viability of establishing a rental agency and the pathways for implementing it. Even the limited data gathered so far clearly shows that a rental registry is the most accurate and effective method for assessing rental conditions in our city.
Please confirm receipt of this letter.
Signed,
San Mateo Resident- Diane Sturtevant