CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
June 17, 2024
5:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber 330 W.
20th Avenue San Mateo CA 94403
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Lisa Diaz Nash, Mayor
Rob Newsom Jr., Deputy Mayor
Rich Hedges
Amourence Lee
Adam Loraine
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:
June 17, 2024
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 868 3823 0799 Passcode: 777362
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
CLOSED SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment before the consideration of this item. Following the meeting a report of action from Closed Session will be provided if required.
1. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City designated representatives: Yumi Maeda, Karen Huang, Abby Veeser and Stacey Cue.
Employee Organizations: Police Sergeants’ Association, San Mateo City Employees Association, SEIU Maintenance and SEIU Non-Merit Part-Time
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.
2. Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines – Overview and Council Direction Receive a presentation from staff on historic policy workplan options and provide staff with direction on how this work should be prioritized.
CEQA: This item 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.
1 of 31
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.
2 of 31
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: 2 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 24-8766 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT:
Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines – Overview and Council Direction RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation from staff on historic policy workplan options and provide staff with direction on how this work should be prioritized.
BACKGROUND:
The City of San Mateo’s General Plan 2040, adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024, sets the policy framework for how issues such as historic resources and preservation should be addressed. The Community Design and Historic Resources Element addresses the topic of historic and cultural resources, and includes goals, policies, and actions that outline the framework for how the City should approach historic preservation. Specifically, Goal CD-5 speaks to preserving the historic and culturally important resources to maintain San Mateo’s special identity and continuity with the past and includes seven policies and six actions to support achievement of this goal (Attachment 1).
During the adoption process for General Plan 2040, the topic of historic resource preservation generated significant community interest and comments; with the historic related policies and actions based around this community input and the final versions based on Council direction. In addition, this past fall, a historic district designation application for the Baywood Neighborhood was submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance.
This application resulted in significant community discussions surrounding establishing historic districts, how the designations are approved at the State and local levels, and questions about the potential impacts of an application and a subsequent designation on properties within the district. To address questions about the State and local historic review processes and how historic districts are established, Planning Division staff, with support from historic consultant Architectural Resources Group (ARG), conducted a community informational meeting in February 2024, and also updated its website to provide FAQs related to the historic district designation process, the City’s permitting process for potential historic resources, and how the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) addresses historic resources. The City’s Historic Resources webpage can be viewed here.
Once the General Plan was formally adopted in March 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager under Reports and Announcements at their meeting on April 1, 2024 to agendize a future Study Session on what it would take to update the City’s local Historic Resources Program pursuant to the actions in the General Plan’s Historic Resources Element.
DISCUSSION:
As outlined in the General Plan, the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66) needs to be updated to create a complete framework for the designation of historic resources and districts; establish review and permitting procedures for historic alterations, demolitions or relocations; be consistent with federal and State standards and guidelines; and align with the other goals and policies outlined in the Community Design and Historic
3 of 31
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Resources Element (Action CD 5.8). In addition, to support a consistent and equitable approach to how historic resources are assessed and evaluated, preparation of a citywide historic context statement is needed to guide future historic policy decisions and survey efforts to identify individually eligible resources and districts (Action CD 5.9). Both of these actions were developed based on historic consultant guidance, community input, and City Council direction, and are included in Attachment 1. Based on these identified actions, staff is seeking input from Council on how the implementation of these actions should be prioritized and what level of staff and monetary resources should be invested to complete the work.
Below are three potential options for how to proceed with this historic policy work at this time.
Option 1: Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9 General Plan 2040 Action CD 5.8 outlines the parameters for updating the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to be more comprehensive, including creating a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts; establishing review and permitting procedures for historic alterations, demolitions or relocations; ensuring consistency with federal and State standards and guidelines, and alignment with the other goals and policies outlined in this Community Design and Historic Resources Element. Action CD 5.9 outlines the parameters for preparation of a citywide historic context statement to guide future historic resource survey efforts to identify individually eligible resources and historic districts. Both of these actions have been identified as the appropriate next steps to updating the City’s historic preservation policies, creating clear and comprehensive processes for historic designations and to establish a consistent approach for surveying and identifying eligible historic resources.
Implementation of these actions would constitute a significant policy initiative and require meaningful staff resources from the Community Development Department, City Attorney’s Office, and City Manager’s Office. The initiative would include public outreach and engagement, including community meetings and public hearings, retention of a qualified historic consultant (including an RFP), code amendments to update the Historic Preservation Ordinance, updated historic policy to adopt the context statement, and preparation of associated internal processes and documentation to implement this new code and policy. Staff anticipates that completing this work could require 12+ months, and could cost around $500,000 (consultant, staff and other associated costs).
Option 2: Update Internal Historic Review Processes without Code Amendments An alternative to full implementation of both Actions would be to work within the currently adopted ordinance and policies to strengthen and fully develop the City’s historic review processes. This would include developing historical resource screening criteria, developing a process for historic resource designation based on the current Historic Preservation Ordinance as well as State/Federal practices, establishing best practices for preservation and maintenance, building out the website with more historic information and resources to facilitate public awareness, and developing other tools to support clear understanding of requirements for projects associated with designated and eligible historic resources.
This effort would include the retention of a qualified historic consultant to support staff in preparation and development of this work and would be considered moderately resource intensive from a staffing perspective, with primary staff support coming from the Community Development Department. This work could be completed within 6-9 months and is estimated to cost around $100,000. Once the work was completed, an informational community meeting would be scheduled to present the updated information and historic review processes to the community, and answer questions.
Under this option, Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9 would remain with a short-term priority in the General Plan Implementation Plan, and would be completed when directed by City Council.
Option 3: Maintain Current Prioritization for Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9 Work to implement Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9 is identified as a short-term priority in the General Plan Implementation Plan, which means that it is anticipated to be completed within the next five years, with the exact timing in this range dependent on City Council prioritization. Under this option, staff would continue to do routine work to maintain and update City handouts, website resources, and other processes to support historic project reviews and public understanding of the subject, but would not dedicate additional staff resources to updating the Historic Preservation Ordinance, developing a historic context statement, or augmenting historic policies and processes until the work was
4 of 31
CITY OF SAN MATEO
prioritized and funded.
City Council Input and Direction
Given the information provided in this report and presentation, staff seeks direction on which option the Council would like to proceed with?
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no budget impacts associated with receiving this report. Depending on the direction provided by City Council, there will be additional budgetary costs associated with implementation of the historic policy work plan. Based on the nature of this historic policy work, it is anticipated that funding would come from the City’s Advanced Planning Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This item 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 – General Plan 2040 – Historic Resource Policies and Actions
STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Dahl, Director
[email protected]
650-522-7207
Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
[email protected]
650-522-7203
5 of 31
GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS
GOAL CD-5 Preserve historic and culturally important resources to maintain San Mateo’s special identity and continuity with the past.
POLICIES
Policy CD 5.1 Comprehensive Approach to Historic Preservation. Implement a comprehensive approach to historic preservation based on community input and best practices from State and federal agencies, to find an appropriate balance between preservation with other important priorities, such as affordable housing production and supporting local businesses.
Policy CD 5.2 Historic Preservation. Actively identify and preserve historic resources and concentrations of historic resources which convey the flavor of local historical periods, are culturally significant, or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, as feasible, when they meet national, State, or local criteria. Historic resources include individual properties, districts, and sites that maintain San Mateo’s sense of place and special identity, and enrich our understanding of the city’s history and continuity with the past.
Policy CD 5.3 Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.
Policy CD 5.4 Public Awareness. Foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s historic resources and educate the community about how to preserve and improve these resources. Increase public appreciation by supporting groups and organizations that provide neighborhood workshops, public presentations, interpretive signage, and walking tours.
Policy CD 5.5 Historic Resources Renovation and Rehabilitation. Promote the renovation and rehabilitation of historic resources that conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures and the California Historical Building Code and prioritize historic structures for available rehabilitation funds.
Policy CD 5.6 Historic Preservation Funding. Pursue and promote historic preservation funding sources to incentivize the protection of historic resources, such as the California Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program, Federal and State Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, and State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program.
115Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040
Chapter 5 Community Design and Historic Resources Element
6 of 31
Policy CD 5.7 Demolition Alternatives. Require an applicant to submit alternatives to preserve a historic resource as part of any planning application that proposes full demolition. Implement preservation methods unless health and safety requirements cannot be met or the City Council makes a finding explaining the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of the proposed demolition outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts to the historic resource. If a designated historic resource cannot be preserved, require City approval before the demolition of a historic resource.
ACTIONS
Action CD 5.8 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to create a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts, establish review and permitting procedures for historic alterations, demolitions or relocations, be consistent with federal and State standards and guidelines, and align with the other goals and policies outlined in this Element.
Action CD 5.9 Historic Resources Context Statements. Prepare a citywide historic context statement to guide future historic resource survey efforts to identify individually eligible resources and historic districts. If a neighborhood is identified as a historic district, prepare a more detailed historic context statement for that individual neighborhood.
Action CD 5.10 Historic Resources Survey. Establish and maintain an inventory of architecturally, culturally, and historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and districts. Proactively maintain an up-to-date historic resources inventory by seeking funding opportunities to update the historic survey. Prepare neighborhood-specific historic context statements prior to updating the historic resources survey.
Action CD 5.11 Preservation Incentives. Explore the option to create incentives to preserve historic and cultural resources, such as reducing parking and other prescriptive requirements, allowing adaptive reuse, or establishing a transfer of development rights program.
Action CD 5.12 Historic Resources Design Standards. Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts. Use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as the basis for these objective design standards to ensure projects have a contextual relationship with land uses and patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; cultural and historic values; and the height, massing, design, and materials of historic resources.
Action CD 5.13 Certified Local Government. Explore the feasibility of becoming a Certified Local Government (CLG) to become eligible for federal grant funds and technical assistance in support of historic resource preservation efforts.
116Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040
Chapter 5 Community Design and Historic Resources Element
7 of 31
From: weller323
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Zachary Dahl
Cc: Nancy Weller; Nancy Weller; Stephen Weller
Subject: Historic Policy Workplan and Timeline
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 11:19:53 AM
I urge the City Council to adopt Option 1 in order to give clarity and a workable City- wide plan for neighborhoods interested in reasonable historic preservation.
San Mateo's ordinance on historic preservation has not been updated in 30 years.
Now is the time to act. With ongoing pressure from Sacramento and developers to build higher density, many neighborhoods see the need for a unified approach to protecting our historic architecture.
Options 2 and 3 do not fully address the needs of future historic considerations.
Please do not delay----vote for Option 1. Option 1 will be a positive contribution to San Mateo's character as a guideline for both preservation and growth.
Sincerely,
Nancy Weller
8 of 31
From: Rita Armstrong
To: Clerk; [email protected]; Zachary Dahl Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 8:58:47 AM
Hello Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
I strongly support Option 1, Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9, where adequate focus will be given to address historic preservation City-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work.
In my opinion, Options 2 and 3 do not go far enough to unify the community, and the fractured environment we are currently experiencing will continue, and I’m pretty sure no one wants that.
Proceeding with Option 1, the City will truly lead this effort and make a positive impact on everyone in the city. You already have awareness of the importance of historic preservation in every San Mateo neighborhood, so now is the time to harness that support and interest in updating the ordinance.
Thank you.
-------------------------------
Rita Armstrong
9 of 31
From: Jennifer Bock
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Zachary Dahl
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance discussion tonight Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 5:57:42 AM
Hello Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
I strongly support Option 1, Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9, where adequate focus will be given to address historic preservation City-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work.
In my opinion, Options 2 and 3 do not go far enough to unify the community, and the undesirable fractured environment we are currently experiencing will continue, Proceeding with Option 1, the City will truly lead this effort and make a positive impact on everyone in the city. You already have awareness of the importance of historic preservation in every San Mateo neighborhood, so now is the time to harness that support and interest in updating the ordinance.
Thank you,
Jennifer Bock Hughes
10 of 31
From: jeanne bosschart
To: Clerk
Subject: City Plan for Historic Preservation
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 1:20:37 PM
I strongly support Option 1 and implementing Actions CD 5.8 and 5.9. The city needs to provide a framework for city wide historic preservation.
Jeanne Bosschart
350 Fairfax Avenue
San Mateo
Sent from my iPad
11 of 31
From: Martin McTaggart
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Zachary Dahl
Subject: FW: Support Option # 1 for current and long term value for all citizens in City and County of San Mateo! Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 9:59:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Best wishes,
Martin
Martin McTaggart
City Clerk | City Clerk’s Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]
From: Caroline Brownstone
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 2:16 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Option # 1 for current and long term value for all citizens in City and County of San Mateo!
Thank you for long term value of our community!
Caroline Brownstone
Get Outlook for iOS
12 of 31
From: Frank Elliott
To: Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Lisa Diaz Nash; Amourence Lee; Adam Loraine; Richard Hedges; Rob Newsom Subject: Comment Study Session Historic Workplan - 34 Signatures Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 9:26:01 AM
Attachments: image.png
Historic Policy Workplan17th - LESS RED TAPE .pdf
Regarding the Historic Policy Work Plan and Timelines, for discussion June 17th, 34 supporters agreed to share their names in support of the attached document, which in essence states:
I believe it's financially irresponsible for the City to invest time and money in updating the local historic designation process without a guarantee the updated process won't be bypassed.
All of the
signatories have been confirmed by Anna Kurhe or me. We hope you appreciate receiving one combined email, rather than 34 separate emails. Our names appear below, and on the attached document.
We appreciate that the City Council has agreed to take up this topic and will hopefully find a path forward that moves us closer to neighborhood
harmony. Thank you for considering our comments.
Frank Elliott, for:
image.png
13 of 31
Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines
Comment by LESS RED TAPE
June 17, 2024
Attention: City Council Members and City Manager Alex Khojikian:
Summary: Less Red Tape believes it's financially irresponsible for the City to invest time and money in updating the local historic designation process without a guarantee the updated process won't be bypassed
LRT embraces the importance of establishing a local process that is both 1) in harmony with City housing objectives, and 2) involves property owners in the decision to confer historic designation. Creating historic districts to preserve the look and feel of properties should be carefully balanced against City wide housing needs and owners' property rights.
Any discussions about a local process are premature.
• San Mateo already has a local process for designating historic properties and districts. In essence, the Council can vote to confer historic designation on any property or district.
• Given the current budget crisis, it is not fiscally responsible to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to survey the city and revise the local process. • If Council decides to revise the local process, district nominations should require majority consent by owners, as in San Francisco which requires 2/3 owner consent.
• There is nothing to stop 3rd party organizations from bypassing the local process and applying directly to the state Office of Historic Preservation. However, the City can discourage such attempts by making it known that the Council will issue a strongly worded opposition letter, when asked by the OHP for comments. • Given that SMHA is currently pursuing a nomination outside of local process, developing a local process is a waste of time and money.
City Action Item: We urge the City Council to agendize and support a measure to strongly oppose the Baywood [or any other] nomination, which bypasses a local process and is overwhelmingly opposed by homeowners. We hope this will encourage SMHA to permanently withdraw their nomination and embrace development of a local process.
The people appearing on the following page agree for their names to appear in support of the above.
14 of 31
Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines
Comment by LESS RED TAPE
June 17, 2024
I believe it's financially irresponsible for the City to invest time and money in updating the local historic designation process without a guarantee the updated process won't be bypassed.
With their permission signed by:
15 of 31
From: Jeremy Levine
To: Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Richard Hedges; Adam Loraine; Amourence Lee Cc: Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Manira Sandhir; Rachel Horst; Christina Horrisberger Subject: Public Comment on Special Meeting Item 2, Regular Meeting Item 24 Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:01:09 PM
Good afternoon San Mateo City Council Members,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment in advance of your very busy meetings tonight.
And thank you especially to staff for your informative reports.
Regarding Special Meeting Item 2, Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines, HLC supports Option 3: "Maintain Current Prioritization for Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9." Considering the city's increasingly constrained budget and limited staff time, San Mateo needs to prioritize its housing
element implementation goals. Rezoning, further reform to entitlement processes, exploring missing middle housing options, and more will all require substantial staff effort.
HLC is generally concerned by the use of the historic districting process to make housing more difficult to build. Efforts by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance to impose a historic district on most of the Baywood neighborhood would create a substantial new regulatory barrier to housing. As long as residents of San Mateo pursue the historic districting process at the state level, a local process will be largely irrelevant. The city should not use public resources to analyze historic preservation unless it can demonstrate that local elected officials, not highly paid consultants or state-level appointees, will have the final say in designating historic resources.
Regarding Regular Meeting Item 24, By-Right Housing Opportunity Overlay District, HLC supports the city's efforts to comply with state law by removing barriers to housing production. We also believe the newly proposed Housing Opportunities Overlay (H) District could be applied more broadly. The draft ordinance implementing the H District applies the streamlining provisions exclusively to properties on which streamlining is legally required.
If San Mateo wants to achieve its housing element goals to more than double the rate of housing production, then it will need to do more than the bare minimum required by state law to create opportunities to build housing. To that end, HLC proposes that the city:
Expand the H district to cover all properties slated to be rezoned in the pending General Plan update.
Extend streamlining to developments that include a wider range of affordability categories, such as 10% very low income. Increased flexibility will enable the city to deliver deeper levels of affordability.
Extend streamlining to developments that do not meet the city's objective design standards. San Mateo's recently approved objective design standards include over 100
requirements a developer must meet. Forcing developments to follow extremely prescriptive regulations renders the streamlining largely ineffective. Regulations do not make buildings beautiful, architects do.
Expanding by-right streamlining has the additional benefit of saving staff and council time by reducing unnecessary public hearings, freeing up capacity for other efforts.
HLC looks forward to continuing to support the city's efforts to implement the housing
16 of 31
17 of 31
From: Shirley Melnicoe
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Planning
Subject: Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines 6-17-2024 Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 11:37:29 AM
Dear Mayor Nash & City Council Members:
With regards to the Historic Policy Workplan, please support Option 1:
Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9. It is essential to update regulations to reflect the changing landscape and to ensure consistent protection of historic resources across the entire city. Option 1 seems like a proactive approach that addresses the concerns that have been outlined. By unifying neighborhoods and residents, we can strike a balance between preserving our architectural heritage and fostering future development.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shirley Melnicoe
Resident, San Mateo
--
18 of 31
From: Judith Paton
To: Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Option 1 for historic preservation
Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 12:56:34 PM
As the owner of a small 1929 house I urge you to adopt this option so as to preserve part of what makes San Mateo attractive to residents and outsiders.
Thank you
Judith Paton
Sent from my iPhone
19 of 31
From: Stephen Weller
To: [email protected]; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Historic Preservation
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 1:01:13 PM
I urge the City Council to act quickly and thoughtfully: adopt Option 1 in order to give our City a clear pathway for preserving valuable community resources, and still respond to the need for additional housing in San Mateo and throughout California Stephen A. Weller. MD
20 of 31
www.smheritage.org
June 17, 2024
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: June 17, 2024 City Council Study Session – Historic Policy Workplan & Timelines
Dear Mayor Nash and City Council Members:
First of all, thank you to the City staff for updating the historic resources web pages to answer community questions, refute misinformation, and provide more accurate information about how the City may treat historic resources and home modifications in historic districts.
For tonight’s meeting, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance strongly supports Option 1:
Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9 for the Historic Policy Workplan.
We support Option 1 as the best way to understand our historic resources across the City and how we want to manage them. It will provide the answers to questions that people are seeking and minimize the opportunity for confusion. Option 1 gives the opportunity for a robust community discussion about how San Mateans want to manage our historic resources.
Note that we feel the cost for Option 1 seems high and think the City can complete the program in less than the 1-2 years mentioned in the staff report. There are many historic preservation ordinances that could be used as examples or templates; the ordinance does not need to be overly complicated. One key requirement is to extend the applicability to historic districts and resources across all of San Mateo. The elements of Option 2, which are essential to updating the historic preservation ordinance, must be a part of Option 1.
Heritage Alliance commits to being an active participant in the development of the local program. We will work hard to build support and consensus for the conclusions and direction of the final program. Our goal from the start has been to advocate on behalf of the amazing historic resources in San Mateo and we believe this program can protect historic resources and allow for the vibrant City we all desire.
These policies have largely been in place for decades but have never been implemented. Now is the time! This workplan option would be a benefit to the entire City and outline historic preservation into the future.
The workplan outlined in Option 2 is an essential part of the update of the historic preservation ordinance, but is not adequate as stated because it does not allow for any protection of the existing Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District or the pending Baywood Historic District.
The activities outlined, while important, do little to protect unknown or existing historic resources.
21 of 31
City Council
June 17, 2024
2 Option 3 would maintain the status quo of giving lip service to historic preservation and ignoring historic resource goals and policies ignored as they have been for the last 30+ years.
Implementing the Historic Policies in the General Plan is a City-wide issue. It is about protecting the historic resources for all of San Mateo. As we have always maintained, only the City can specify any protection of historic resources and districts. Your vote determines whether San Mateo remains in turmoil or moves to be a leader in the County.
Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: Zach Dahl, Director
Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
22 of 31
From: jill valladares
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Zachary Dahl
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance Meeting June 17th Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:21:09 AM
Hi Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members,
I wanted to share with you my thoughts on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
I strongly
support Option 1, Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9, where adequate focus will be given to address preservation City-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work. An update is necessary and is very important to the future of our beloved San Mateo neighborhoods.
I believe that Options 2 and 3 do not go far enough to unify the community, and the unfortunate fractured environment we are currently experiencing will continue. We need to address the current status in a positive and productive way.
Proceeding with Option 1, the City will openly lead this effort and make a beneficial impact on everyone in the city. This is the best time to update the Historic Preservation Ordinance since awareness, interest and support is widely available. The well-being of our San Mateo community is at stake.
Thank you for your consideration in supporting the preservation of historic resources in San Mateo.
Sincerely,
Jill Valladares
23 of 31
From: Lisa Vande Voorde
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Zachary Dahl
Subject: 6/17/24 STUDY SESSION: Historic Resource Element Implementation Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:13:01 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on priorities for the Historic Policy Workplan and Timelines. I have read the City Manager's report, and I support Option 1: Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9 above the other two options being considered at tonight's Study Session. Option 2 is not comprehensive enough, and Option 3 just kicks the can down the road while allowing the negative community discourse to roil for another five years.
But allow me to suggest that you consider combining Option 1 and Option 2. There is no reason that Option 1 and Option 2 cannot happen simultaneously. Both require hiring a historic consultant, so the financial impact is minimized while providing a more comprehensive approach on tasks the City should be doing concurrently anyway, as outlined in the City Manager's report:
. . . developing historical resource screening criteria, developing a process for historic resource designation based on the current Historic Preservation Ordinance as well as State/Federal practices, establishing best practices for preservation and maintenance, building out the website with more historic information and resources to facilitate public awareness, and developing other tools to support clear understanding of requirements for projects associated with designated and eligible historic resources.
The Historic Resources Program needs to be updated as soon as possible so that the City finally takes control over what it is responsible for in the first place -- protecting San Mateo's historic resources.
I urge you to do this in
not just the most expeditious way with Option 1, but in the most comprehensive way, by combining both Option 1 and Option 2.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo Resident
24 of 31
25 of 31
From: l watanuki
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Martin Taggart
Subject: Historic Policy Workplace and Timelines
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:18:19 AM
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and Members of the City Council,
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
I strongly support Option 1 Prioritize Actions CD5.8 and CD 5.9 where adequate focus will be given to address Historic Preservation City-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance needs to be brought up to date.
The San Mateo Building Survey has not been
updated since 1989, over 35 years. This is long overdue. The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District in the Central Neighborhood needs to be added to that survey.
Options 2 and 3 will not provide enough guidance across the City to have any effect.
We need a clear and
comprehensive process to guide historic designations and to establish a a consistent approach for surveying and identifying eligible historic resources.
It is important for San Mateo to maintain its special identity and to do this City-wide.
Thank you.
Laurie Watanuki
26 of 31
From: Connie Weiss
To: City Council (San Mateo); Zachary Dahl; Clerk
Subject: For Monday, June 17th Special Meeting: Historic Preservation Ordinance Date: Saturday, June 15, 2024 4:59:09 PM
Hello Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
For the more than 25 years I've lived in San Mateo, I've loved the rich history our city has to offer via its historic architecture. We don't have to look any further than the most recent formal recognition of the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District. There have to be several other jewels within our City that also should be preserved while still planning for growth and progress in ensuring a vibrant city with affordable housing.
I strongly support Option 1, Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9, where adequate focus will be given to address historic preservation City-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work. My hope is that Option 2 is included in Option 1, but if it isn't, please consider approving both Option 1 and Option 2 as they contain key foundations for historic preservation.
In my opinion, Options 2 and 3 by themselves do not go far enough to unify the community, and the fractured environment we are currently experiencing will continue, and I’m pretty sure no one wants that.
Proceeding with Option 1 (which hopefully includes Option 2), the City will truly lead this effort and make a positive impact on everyone in the city. You already have awareness of the importance of historic preservation in every San Mateo neighborhood, so now is the time to harness that support and interest in updating the ordinance.
Thank you,
Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident
27 of 31
From: Michael
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Historic District Preservation Ordinance - Support for Option 1 Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 3:25:27 PM
Dear Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members,
I am writing to strongly support Option 1, Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9, where adequate focus will be given to address historic preservation City-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work.
Historic preservation across San Mateo is important to all San Mateans, so please make this a priority. The current ordinance is outdated and only covers a small portion of the city.
Thanks - Michael Weinhauer
28 of 31
From: Martha Park
To: Zachary Dahl; City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: The City Ordinance on Historic Preservation
Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 3:33:20 PM
Mayor Diaz Nash and City Council Members,
I am writing regarding updating The Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the options proposed by the City.
I support Option 1. The focus should be historic preservation city-wide, and neighborhoods should be
given guidance in terms of how to implement historic
preservation. Options 2 and 3 will not provide enough direction.
Presently there is a lot of discord around the issue of historic preservation, and now is the time for the City to get more involved.
Thank you,
Martha Park (Baywood Resident)
29 of 31
From: George California
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Zachary Dahl
Cc: Derby, Olya
Subject: Option 1, City of San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 3:55:55 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
In regard to the update of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, we are strongly in support of Option 1 to Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9. This is the only Option whereby adequate focus is given to City-wide historic preservation and rightly provides City neighborhoods with a workable template for implementation.
Options 2 and 3 do not suffice to unify the community, and would ensure that the fractured environment we are currently experiencing will continue.
Selecting Option 1 will place San Mateo in the vanguard of addressing historic preservation in a unified and just manner.
There is broad support in the community for elevating historic preservation in support of our City's wonderful history, as well as its bright future.
Thank you for all your efforts in maintaining The City of San Mateo as a livable and beautiful destination.
__________________________
George Derby
San Mateo, 94401
30 of 31
June 17, 2024
TO: Mayor Diaz- Nash
Deputy Major Newsom,
Council Members Hedges, Lorraine and Lee
RE: Item 2: Study Session – Historic Policy Work Plan and Timeline – Overview and Council Direction
June 17, 2024 San Mateo City Council Meeting
The City of San Mateo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance has not been updated since the early 1990’s, and currently covers only the Downtown and Glazenwood, located in Hayward Park. As it is the City’s responsibility to define land use regulations within historic districts, it is time for San Mateo to update its Historic Preservation Ordinance to apply to the entire City.
The City of San Mateo currently has the attention of many of its neighborhoods and residents across the City interested in having the 1990’s Historic Preservation Ordinance brought up to date. This widespread support will help San Mateo craft an ordinance that can bring our City together to protect our historic resources.
Option 1 presented in the City Manager’s report: Prioritize Implementation of Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.9, where adequate focus will be given to address historic preservation city-wide and give neighborhoods a template from which they can work.
Thank You,
Dianne Whitaker
San Mateo
31 of 31