City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting
POST PACKET
PUBLIC COMMENT
June 2, 2025
City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20
th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Historic Policy Update Effort and Preserva�on Ordinance City Council Special Mee�ng
June 2, 2025, 5:30pm
Dear Mayor Newsom & Council Members:
I would like to thank the staff for their work to date on the Historic Preserva�on Ordinance and to encourage the staff to con�nue with the development of clear designa�on criteria and to include a separate historic preserva�on commission for the review process.
It is vital that we maintain the integrity of our community. If we don’t want our city to look like a soulless new town in the flatlands of Texas, we need to take historic preserva�on seriously. We have some unique historic buildings downtown and some beau�ful neighborhoods that truly enrich our city, and they need to be protected.
Please educate staff and the public about the meaning of historic preservation. It doesn’t mean nothing can be done to a building. It simply means you need to maintain the visible facades and the key architectural elements of historic buildings. You can modernize such buildings inside in ways that best fit your lifestyle.
Facades and architectural elements are crucial. My current home in Baywood has a renovated kitchen as well as other updated areas. We replaced the windows with beau�ful custom-made, double-pane, windows that are energy efficient and easy to open but look like the original ones. We lived in a 1906 townhouse on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. that was extensively renovated by removing most of the main floor except for a walkway which overlooked a drama�c kitchen and dining room in a dredged-out basement below. The 20-foot ceilings and exposed brick walls made the old house very contemporary, but the exterior appearance of the townhouse did not change. We recently visited that neighborhood, and it was s�ll lovely with all the old facades. These are examples of how homeowners can treasure the beau�ful and valuable homes in their neighborhood with all the comforts of a new home through renova�ons within the interiors of their homes. It is a win-win solu�on for everyone.
Please support historic preserva�on with a well-cra�ed ordinance. Your ac�ons today will be appreciated by future genera�ons.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident
1 Chantal Eaton
From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 2:40 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Rob Newsom; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Adam Loraine
Subject: 6/2/25 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: Historic Policy Update Effort & Preservation Ordinance
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I want to start by saying how pleased I am that the City is going forward with updating the Historic Preservation Ordinance. It has been a long-time coming, and already positive strides have been made. The Historic Policy Update Effort on the City website is a great start in terms of educating the public. The nascent FAQ section already dispels misinformation about historic resources being spread by Less Red Tape, and the Digital Time Capsule is a great way to both make the community more aware of the history of San Mateo, and participate in sharing its historic past through personal photos and memories of what makes San Mateo so special.
That said, I’d like to provide my input on the questions you are being asked to address at tonight’s Study Session, and hope that my points will be considered as you make your decision:
Should staff proceed with drafting updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance to identify the enabling authority, establish a reviewing body (the Planning Commission), provide procedures for designation or resources, recognize the economic effects of designation, describe appeals and enforcement provisions and include a set of concise definitions?
I do NOT agree with establishing the Planning Commission as the review body. The Planning Commission has a very poor record when it comes to protecting historic resources in our City. Not only that, several Planning Commissioners have gone on record in public comment at City Council meetings, in LTEs and comments in the San Mateo Daily Journal, and on social media platforms including Nextdoor, Facebook, Instagram, and X expressing their views against historic preservation. At least three of the five members of the current Planning Commission consider themselves YIMBYs – an organization known to advocate against historic preservation. Given this track record, this critically important task should go to another reviewing body, such as a commission or small committee consisting of members with expertise in historic preservation, planning, and historic consulting. While it may work in other cities, designating the already biased Planning Commission of OUR city is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Should the criteria for a local historic designation conform to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) requirements, or should additional criteria be included to acknowledge the city’s unique history and development?
I would like to see a combination of BOTH the CRHC requirements, AND additional criteria. This would better serve our close to 200 year-old history and our close to 100-year old homes that contribute so much to the character and feel of our neighborhoods.
Should the Historic Preservation Ordinance include a mechanism to designate historic districts locally? If yes, should owner support be required and at what level?
Yes, the ordinance should include a mechanism to designate local historic districts. However, I do NOT support owner consent. It is the JOB and the RESPONSIBILITY of the CITY to identify, preserve, and protect historic resources. It is NOT the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER. Furthermore, cities have
2 long held the power to regulate land use under zoning laws and preservation ordinances. Requiring homeowner consent could set a precedent that weakens local authority over planning and land-use decisions.
What form of owner consent should be included in the Historic Preservation Ordinance – affirmative/expressed consent, owner veto, or protest provisions? And, should the owner consent requirement apply to all local designations or just to historic districts?
As stated above, NO form of owner consent should be included in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. It is the duty of our City to identify, protect, and preserve our historic resources. That duty applies to a PROPERTY, not the OWNER of the property. Owners change hands, the property and its historic value to the community lasts forever. Local designations, historic districts and designation of individual historic structures protect architecture and cultural history that belong to the broader community, not just individual homeowners.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide public input, and I hope you find it valuable as you determine the direction you are asked to take on behalf of not just our City, but for our historic resources that cannot speak for themselves.
Sincerely yours,
Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo Resident
From: Shirley Melnicoe
To: Clerk
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:17:01 PM
Attachments: I letter 6-1-2025.docx
Please include my comments in the Council Members packets for tonight's meeting on the Historic Preservation Ordinance meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m.
Thank you.
Best,
Shirley Melnicoe
--
From: Shirley Melnicoe
To: Clerk
Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:17:01 PM
Attachments: I letter 6-1-2025.docx
Please include my comments in the Council Members packets for tonight's meeting on the Historic Preservation Ordinance meeting scheduled for 5:30 p.m.
Thank you.
Best,
Shirley Melnicoe
--
From: Tom Lease
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: I searched Consent for Historical Update…
Date: Friday, May 30, 2025 6:23:28 PM
In general, requiring owner consent for individual historic property designations is not recommended and is rarely included in historic preservation ordinances. While some ordinances may have included such provisions in the past, it's generally considered counterproductive to historic preservation efforts.
Why owner consent is discouraged:
It can lead to inconsistencies:
If consent is required, it creates a system where individuals can choose whether or not to be bound by preservation regulations, which undermines the purpose of a consistent ordinance.
It can be difficult to enforce:
If consent is required, it can be challenging to designate properties that are deemed historically significant but for which owner consent is not obtained.
It can be seen as a loophole:
Property owners can use the consent requirement to avoid preservation regulations, effectively negating the ordinance's purpose.
From:
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Alex Khojikian
Subject: Historic Policy Study Session, June 2, 2025
Date: Monday, June 2, 2025 12:42:21 PM
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I have concerns regarding the Historic Ordinance Staff Report, specifically the recommendation to add the responsibilities of creating the changes to, administering, and managing the Historic Preservation Ordinance and its operational aspects to the Planning Commission.
I am also concerned, as is city staff, about individual property owners being allowed to opt out of designation by the city as a Historic Resource and thus not be held to any associated requirements. A staff clearly reports, it is not a simple matter and has long-term considerations.
I am concerned that if the City Council grants to the Planning Commission the powers and responsibilities to update the Historic Ordinance, and administrate the operation of the ordinance, it could easily lead to extreme ethics issues.
The Staff Report states:
In summary, identifying the reviewing authority to review and apply the provisions of a historic preservation Ordinance is a vital component and can be achieved through establishing a separate review body or embedding the responsibilities with an existing reviewing body. Given the City’s current mix of Committees and Commissions, tasking an existing body with these responsibilities would make the most sense right now. Thus, staff recommends utilizing the Planning Commission as the City’s local review body for the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
I base this concern on the well-documented behavior of some current members of the Planning Commission.
One commissioner has been involved, as an acolyte and award recipient, from a well-funded local/state/national special interest organization that opposes Historic District designations.[1] The #1 candidate recommendation for fill a soon to be vacant Planning Commission seat self- proclaimed, “I am a YIMBY”[2]
, during the interview for the seat.
One current Planning Commissioner has spoken during “Public Comments” strongly and angrily opposing the destination of Baywood as a Historic District.
A current Planning Commissioner has an extremely critical Letter to the Editor, published in the San Mateo Daily Journey, again opposing Historic District designation and stating extremely misleading information.[3]
As part of our city leadership, the facts certainly should have been known to this commissioner.
I strongly believe that sufficient and demonstrated bias against Historic Districts is present, and could continue, in the Planning Commission. This would undoubtedly result in the residents of San Mateo not being served as required by the city’s charter or the rules/Code of Conduct.
Please consider the staff’s concerns about allowing property owners to opt in or out of being subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. I find it hard to grasp the concept that an individual can decide what laws they care to comply with. Currently there are many enforced rules, with penalties for violations, which are for the public good. Some are for safety such as the fire sprinkler retrofit requirements, but others are simply bothersome and expensive to comply with. Can an individual simply write city hall and opt-out? The City Council should equally apply the Historic Preservation Ordinance as any other law, without an opt-out/opt-in option. I firmly believe that doing anything else would invite ethics issues
I recognize the purpose of commissions is to create a system of city governance that includes qualified residents, not necessarily experts in the subject matters coming before a commission. The revision of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as well as the administration of the ordinance clearly requires a higher level of subject matter knowledge than simple interest in the quality of life in our city. It will take significant study of historic architecture, the history of the city, and state and federal standards and regulations. It will take someone with some level of positive enthusiasm about historic preservation to be effective and have enough knowledge to perform the required duties and make judgments without bias.
My concern is that the ordinance, if not developed with great care, could lead to ethics and Code of Conduct violations. If it can be predicted, it may be avoided. The bias of some members of the current Planning Commission is clearly a call for caution.
I know San Mateo residents are encouraged by the recent efforts of our City Council to regain trust, this is one of the first tests to prove you are serious about it.
[1]
The special interest organization’s opposition to designation of Historic Distracts is well-discussed as part of their tenets.
2 The YIMBY organization’s opposition to designation of Historic Distracts is well-discussed as part of their tenets. 3 https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/san-mateo-s-priorities-need- recalibration/article_277bc350-e26e-4d53-a43f-c77890518ff5.html
Respectfully,
Dave Cohen
San Mateo Resident
[1] The special interest organization’s opposition to designation of Historic Distracts is well-discussed as part of their tenets.
[2] The YIMBY organization’s opposition to designation of Historic Distracts is well-discussed as part of their tenets. [3] https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/san-mateo-s-priorities-need- recalibration/article_277bc350-e26e-4d53-a43f-c77890518ff5.html
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
June 2, 2025 Via Email
City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council Members:
San Mateo Heritage Alliance applauds the City of San Mateo for prioritizing the first work on historic preservation since the mid‐1990s. The proposed historic ordinance update will provide benefits to the city and bring our ordinance up to modern standards.
The City
of San Mateo’s four‐page historic preservation ordinance was written 30 years ago and is narrowly focused on the downtown historic district and individual buildings eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Glazenwood Historic District, newly listed Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District, and the potential for additional historic districts
are not adequately considered. Heritage Alliance is optimistic that the Cityʹs robust public engagement program will result in a sensible yet effective historic preservation ordinance. We do not want an overly complex ordinance or program (e.g., the San Francisco or the Palo Alto programs). We look forward to the public engagement process in the hope that it will educate the public and dispel misinformation.
Education is Necessary Prior to Making Determinations
Before the community can vote on aspects of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the City must first educate the community about how proposals to historic resources are currently processed.
The process does not seem to be onerous. A significant majority (94%) of those surveyed in the Glazenwood Historic District value the historic designation and preservation measures, indicating widespread appreciation for the neighborhoodʹs heritage. 88% support historic protection ordinances to preserve the architecture of homes in the district.
Similarly, the Council should not provide direction on the consent issue until the effects of designation on properties are known through definition of the ordinance. Most jurisdictions do not have a consent requirement. In fact, consent for surveys is counter to state and federal laws requiring identification of historic resources.
Comments on the Agenda Report Request for Council Direction
1. Should staff proceed with drafting updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance to identify the enabling authority, establish a reviewing body (the Planning Commission), provide procedures for designation or resources, recognize the economic effects of designation, describe appeals and enforcement provisions and include a set of concise definitions? City Council
June 2, 2025
2 a. The decision to move forward with the ordinance and context study was made June 17, 2024 and again on January 17, 2025.
b. We agree that it would be easiest to have an existing City committee or commission to be the reviewing body. However, it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to be the reviewing bod
y when they have publicly expressed their
opposition to historic preservation and historic districts, and have repeatedly expressed the disproven notion that historic preservation (valued at the local, state, federal, national and internation level) is only a means for preventing housing.
Other letter‐writers have provided evid ence as to why the Planning Commissioners should be recused from considering anything related to historic preservation. c. Any governing body should have multiple training classes to ensure they have current knowledge of historic preservation principles, current elements of historic rehabilitation funding programs, and the city requirements.
2. Should the criteria for a local historic designatio n conform to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) requirements, or should additional criteria be included to acknowledge the city’s unique history and development?
a. The state and federal processes for designating historic resources and historic districts are well‐established and effective. They are also time‐consuming and very expensive. Many local jurisdictions establish a loca
l process for locally important
resources that may not rise to the level of state or national importance. San Mateo should have local criteria, in addition to the CRHR requirements.
3. Should the Historic Preservation Ordinance include a mechanism to designate historic districts locally? If yes, should owner
support be required and at what level?
a. Yes, the ordinance should have a mechanism for local designation of historic districts to allow for a process less onerous than the state process. b. Owner support should be similar to the state and other City programs: a simple majority. There is no precedent
for a substantially different level, as shown by the
consultants.
4. What form of owner consent should be included in the Historic Preservation Ordinance – affirmative/expressed consent, owner veto, or protest provisions? And, should the owner consent requirement apply to all local designations or just to historic distri cts? a. The topic of owner consent should be deferred until after the public engagement program has been implemented and the effects of designation can be adequately explained to the Council and to the public.
b. Historic designation is an objective process based on the history and/or architectu re of the property.
c. Eliminate the consent requirement. Most jurisdictions do not have an owner consent in requirement, and it is in conflict with state and federal laws that require decision‐ makers to identify and protect historic resources.
d. Owner consent should not be required to identify historic resources. That is an obligation of the city, as specified in the Genera
l Plan. Policy CD5.2 states:
City Council
June 2, 2025
3 “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.
The General Plan requirement has been in place for many years through at least two General Plans. We are excited that the city is embarking on this program to update the ordinance. We
look forward to the initiation of the public engagement program. I hope the consultant presentation includes a schedule for the program.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: City Clerk