Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, January 26, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

72935831v1
any potential district that includes single-family residential homes, unless affirmative consent is first obtained from the homeowners.
(3) Consent Threshold and Process: For potential single family residential districts, consent will be determined in a similar manner as the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program: a survey will be mailed to all households in the area, and at least 50% of households in the proposed program area must respond to the survey. Of those responding, at least 67% must support the proposed program.

We believe these conditions are both reasonable and narrowly tailored to allow for the City to accomplish its goal of updating its historic preservation program, while also balancing the property rights of City residents. To assist the City Council with proceeding in this manner, we have attached a revised resolution labeled as Option 4. Option 4 simply directs staff to proceed with the Historic Policy Update subject to these requested terms.

Thank you in advance for your consideration, and we look forward to presenting our proposal in greater detail at tomorrow’s hearing.

Very truly yours,
DANIEL FREEDMAN of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
DF:df
cc: Alex Khojikian, City Manager, City of San Mateo
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager, City of San Mateo Less Red Tape
694 of 1110
OPTION 4
72935838v1

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. (2025)

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR TASKS AND SUPPORT RELATED TO A CITYWIDE

HISTORIC POLICY UPDATE
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2024, the City Council directed staff to prioritize an update of the City's historic policies and procedures, including an update of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and preparation of a Citywide Historic Context Statement; and WHEREAS, in August 2024, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for historic policy support services from qualified historic professionals was issued; and
WHEREAS, in October 2024, following a review of proposals and follow-up interviews, staff identified the proposal from Rincon Consultants, Inc. as being the best suited to support the City's historic policy update effort; and
WHEREAS, the proposal from Rincon Consultants, Inc. for historic policy support services, including community outreach and engagement, is for an amount of $285,843; and WHEREAS, a 15% contingency, in the amount of $42,900, is included in the event that additional services are required during the course of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council requires that any Historic Preservation Ordinance prepared or proposed in connection with these services be subject to certain specified provisions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA,

HEREBY RESOLVES THAT

1. This fund appropriation is not a project of CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not impact the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(5).

2. The appropriation of $328,743 from the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) to the Historic Policy Update project is approved.

3. Any Historic Preservation Ordinance prepare in connection with these services or the Historic Policy Update project shall include the following:
(a) The City shall only survey, designate, or list a resource on a local register, survey, or list, with property owner consent or upon the application of the property owner. (b) No Historic Context Statements or surveys shall be performed or proposed for any proposed district composed of primarily Single-Family Residential homes, unless affirmative consent is first obtained from the homeowners. (c) For potential single family residential districts, consent will be determined in a similar manner as the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program: a survey will be mailed to all households in the area, and at least 50% of households in the proposed district area must respond to the survey. Of those responding, at least 67% must support the proposed district.
695 of 1110
73587065v1
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Daniel Freedman
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
Ref: 84281-0001
August 25, 2025
Prasanna W. Rasiah
City Attorney
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: LRT's Requests and Guidance on Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Dear Mr. Rasiah:

I submit this letter on behalf of Less Red Tape (LRT), a coalition of homeowners, residents, and concerned citizens, to provide comments on the City’s efforts to prepare a new historic preservation ordinance. As the City Council has specifically directed, any historic designation enforced by the City of San Mateo should include explicit consent from the property owner. We want to underscore that this consent requirement must be understood to apply to both the City’s new historic designation process and the City's processing of applications under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If it is not, project opponents can too easily interrupt even simple remodeling projects by asserting that the residence is a historic resource under CEQA, either individually or as part of an alleged district - even if the home was never actually designated as a historic resource by any agency. In other words, due to the loose standards provided under CEQA, anything is potentially historic, irrespective of what rules are set forth in the City's new ordinance. Accordingly, Less Red Tape makes the following requests to assure the City of San Mateo protects a homeowner's right to consent to historic designations and to not have "historic preservation" thrust on homeowners by neighborhood advocates:

A. Consent under the City Ordinance for Landmarking or Register Listing.

In agreeing to proceed with this effort to update the City's historic preservation ordinance, the City Council made it clear that a guiding principle must be property owner consent for historic designations and districts. Given this guidance, this simple requirement should be clearly stated in the ordinance to prevent future disputes and ensure that property owners retain control over historic nominations. For district designations, the new ordinance should require an affirmative written consent of no less than a super-majority of the title-record property owners within the district. Other cities across the state have implemented similar requirements, and there is no reason why San Mateo could not do the same.

B. Closing the CEQA “Backdoor” for Historic Designation.

Irrespective of what is ultimately included in the new City ordinance, CEQA provides a separate and equally powerful avenue for preservation advocates to argue that a project 696 of 1110
August 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

73587065v1
impacts an alleged historic resource. Even if a particular property has never even been considered for listing on a historic register, CEQA can still be used to thrust historic preservation on a homeowner at the last minute. This is not a theoretical idea, late-hit historic claims under CEQA occur regularly across the state, causing unnecessary delays, increased costs, and needless litigation risks. In fact, it's what triggered the historic review for 415 Fairfax Avenue, whereby the Community Development Department required the homeowner to prepare a costly historic evaluation simply to prove that the home proposed for demolition was not a historic resource.

The City should and can resolve this situation. Without any clear justification, the City has been treating its Single Family Design Review (SFDDR) as a discretionary action that requires CEQA review, when it really is not. A quick review of the SMMC Sec. 27.08.032 illustrates that, while the City does have the ability to review and consider projects that trigger design review, it does not have authority to condition such approvals and is in fact mandated to approve them if certain narrow findings can be made. Moreover, the scope of the design review authority does not address environmental impacts, and thus, the review is properly considered ministerial for the purposes of CEQA notwithstanding the fact that the agency does retain some discretionary authority. In McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 379, for example, the agency's power to conduct an aesthetic design review did not make a project discretionary because the agency “lack[ed] ... any discretion to address environmental effects.” (Id. at p. 94.)
In summary, we request that the City’s historic preservation ordinance be drafted with the following key provisions:
(i) Property owner consent should be explicitly required for all designations under the ordinance, with a supermajority vote required for districts. (ii) Clarify that SFDDR is not subject to CEQA, and that no historic evaluations are required for any property unless it is officially listed in the local register.

By adopting these provisions, the City could ensure that historic preservation remains a voluntary, consent–driven process while reducing unnecessary delays, costs, and litigation risks. If there are legal or technical reasons why these provisions cannot be adopted, could you please clarify why so that Council and the public can fully understand the relevant considerations? Thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance.

Very truly yours,
DANIEL FREEDMAN of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
DF:df
697 of 1110
August 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

73587065v1
cc: Councilmember Nicole Fernandez, City of San Mateo
Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki, City of San Mateo Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash, City of San Mateo
Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine, City of San Mateo
Mayor Rob Newsom Jr., City of San Mateo
Community Development Director Zachary Dahl, City of San Mateo Alex Khojikian, City Manager, City of San Mateo
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager, City of San Mateo 698 of 1110
699 of 1110
From: Alex Khojikian
To: Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger
Subject: Fw: Rincon report
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2025 6:41:38 PM
FYI
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Richard Delaney
Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2025 6:07 PM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirco-Godycki Subject: Rincon report
I have read sections of the Rincon report. It looks like a cut and paste from other reports they have.

At the city council meeting we all attended they were instructed to only work with those who gave express affirmative consent to being in a historic districrt. It makes no sense to rehash all those options. The message from the cit council was clear.
700 of 1110
701 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 10:51 AM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Margo Nayyar; Kassandra Gale
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: Questions for tonights Council meeting.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

FYI
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Zachary Dahl
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 10:34 AM
To: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Questions for tonights Council meeting.

Hi Alex,
My responses to Rob’s historic policy questions have been added below in red.

Thanks.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 8:35 AM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Questions for tonights Council meeting.

Hi there, please see historic questions below. Can you please provide draft responses that we can share with the mayor prior to tonight‘s meeting? Thanks.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 8:14:50 AM
To: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions for tonights Council meeting.

702 of 1110
2 Alex,
FYI, here are some of my questions for tonight, feel free to share with staff so that they have advanced notice. Thanks!!
Historic Preservation Ordinance:

1.) For Neighborhoods that want to form a Historic District- why did we not have a Public Meeting to determine what consent should look like: ex: a.) 50%+1 vote of voters in the proposed district, b.) at least 50%+ 1 of the property owners in the proposed district, c.) 66.7 (2/3rds of the voters) in the proposed district.

Staff will be conducting community outreach to help guide the final policy decision on this, but given the strong opinions on this topic, we wanted to get parameters from the Council on both consent and district designation framework first:
• Should the Historic Preservation Ordinance include a mechanism to designate historic districts locally? If yes, should owner support be required and at what level? • 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? Based on Council’s direction on these two questions, we will be engaging the community to help inform the recommendation that we bring forward in the updated ordinance.

2.) Did Rincon study this request- because I don't see the results/suggestions of what different consent formulas could look like, but rather have suggested:
• Affirmative/expressed consent requires the property owner’s clear agreement to designation. • Owner veto would not allow for designation to occur over the property owner’s objection. • Protest provisions would allow a city to designate a historic property over an owner’s objection, if a supermajority of the reviewing body votes to do so. (A supermajority- 4/5 votes- of the planning commission, or the newly formed historic resources commission, OR the City Council? Who is the reviewing body?)
Consent within a historic preservation ordinance generally takes one of the three forms outlined in the AR, which is why we are seeking input from Council on which form of consent you want to include in the updated ordinance. The second part of the question is related to how Council wants it to be applied – to all historic designations or just to historic district designations. We are also seeking direction from Council on how to approach the local historic district designation process (3rd question) and this will help inform how we engage with the community and collect input that informs the recommendation that we bring forward in the updated ordinance.

2.) What are some of the challenges to having the Historic Ordinance being so out of date? As has been exemplified by the community dialogue about this issue over the past two years, there have been many challenges with the current state of our Historic Preservation Ordinance, including:
• Lack of clarity about the City’s regulations and requirements, which has lead to public confusion and misinformation.
• Lack of a clear process for how to review projects with an eligible historic resource and how to process local designation requests.
703 of 1110
3 • Inconsistency with state and federal requirements, which undermines the integrity and public perception of our local ordinance.

3.) Mills Act Housing- has this been addressed? When have these homes last been visited? Here’s the update on the Mills Act contract administration that was shared in the City Council Weekly Update on 5/23/25:

Mills Act Contract Administration Update
There currently are two active Mills Act contracts within the City of San Mateo. The contracts are for the historic properties 37 E. Santa Inez Avenue and 70 De Sabla Road. When these contracts were originally executed, they were filed by Staff at the time but not flagged for any follow-up or periodic reviews, which resulted in Planning Staff not tracking them over time. Once these Mills Act Agreements were pulled as part of community records requests and background research for the Historic Policy Update Effort, they were flagged by Staff for needing follow-up to bring them in current compliance.

Letters sent by certified mail have gone out to both property owners requesting meetings with each to discuss contract terms, schedule inspections and verify maintenance activities/ requirements. Based on reviews of aerial photography and drive-by inspections, each property appears to be maintained and in good upkeep. These conditions will be verified once inspections of each property has been completed.

It should also be noted that the City is seeing approximately $5,000 annually in reduced property tax revenue, not $52,000, as a result of these two Mills Act contracts.

4.) Rather than assign more responsibilities to the Planning Commission, could the City form a Historic Resources or Historic Landmarks Commission for San Mateo? Yes, the City could establish a new commission (i.e. historic commission) to review historic projects and designation requests if that’s what the majority of Council wants. However, given that there will likely not be many historic projects/designations that require the reviewing body’s input over time, this commission may not hold many meetings and creation of a new commission would require additional staff time to manage and support. Also, the reviewing body could be established as an advisory body, which is how most of these bodies in other jurisdictions are established, which would allow for the Council to have the final say on designation applications. For these reasons, staff made the recommendation to assign these advisory responsibilities to the PC rather than establish a new commission. We will provide more information about this as part of the presentation this evening and proceed however the Council wants us to with regard to the reviewing body that’s defined in the updated ordinance.

5.) For this question- what is easier?: 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? IF additional criteria that are unique to the city's history & development- what does that look like? If Council wants us to further explore local designation criteria, we can definitely fold it into our community outreach and staff analysis, and bring back options for consideration in the draft ordinance update. This is something that would be informed by community input and the information in the Citywide Historic Context Statement, but we wanted to get direction from Council before spending any time on this work. 704 of 1110
4 6.) Historic Signage- there is old signage of Bailey's Carpets on the side of their old building, and on Talbot's Toyland. These signs will be lost as the buildings are eventually removed, could we require the developers to document these historic signs with pictures so that we don't lose the history if/when the building are removed?
Yes, the updated ordinance could definitely include requirements for how to evaluate/document/memorialize historic elements, such as signage, that are being proposed for removal as part of a new development.

Transportation Questions:

1.) Where is an overview of the Bicycle Master Plan that shows us the low conflict (bike routes- not removing lanes of traffic or parking), but high reward/yield. Alex (you) mentioned about 49% of the projects fall into this category, can we prioritize these?

2.) SAFETY is paramount- are we looking at Ped/Bike accident data to evaluate the most urgent needed areas & how are we doing with identifying school zones that need more signage & enforcement?

3.) Are we considering the impacts of Measure T's development in transit corridors & concentrated population growth against removing lanes of traffic & parking in these zones?

4.) East to West transit, including applying pressure for the resumption of TransBay Express connecting Hayward BART to San Mateo CalTrain, and bike/ped overpass Hillsdale Blvd, and development of more Safety from Delaware to Bridgepoint (19th Ave corridor.)

5.) Safe Ped Sidewalks and crossing. (Far more Ped accidents than Bike.) What are we doing to be sure that sidewalks are maintained and dangerous crossing are made safer?

6.) Street light- LED conversion? Identifying areas that need better lighting?

7.) We seem to have LOST bike & scooter share programs? Why is this? Any opportunity to bring them back?

8.) Improved blue placard (Handicapped) parking for downtown, so that people can frequent the pedmall restaurants & shops.

9.) More short term 15 min parking &/or food delivery parking in areas of restaurants- not just downtown, but ex: 25th Ave, & Bay Meadows

10.) Parking Permits &/or utilization help for North Central- so that they have some relief!

11.) Has the City reviewed/considered a dedicated Bike/Pedway, ex 10' wide (5' N & 5' S) protected bike lane that would connect all 3 train stations on the East side of the rail lines? In the space behind Bay Meadows businesses, behind the gravel parking lots across from the Event Center (they would give us permission), behind Public Storage, then make Pacific Ave 1-way, south to north only, and use the south bound lane as the Bike/Pedway. It would have very few East/West crossings, and would resemble the behaviors of the Netherlands, Germany & Scandinavia.
705 of 1110
5 Rob Newsom Jr.
ᑠ⨶఑≉·⣣᳃ نیوسوم روبرت
Mayor & Council Member- District 3
330 W. 20th Ave. San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7000 | [email protected]
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 706 of 1110
June 2, 2025
City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWŽůŝĐǇhƉĚĂƚĞ
īŽƌƚĂŶĚWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝů^ƉĞĐŝĂůDĞĞƟŶŐ
June 2, 2025, 5:30pm
Dear Mayor Newsom & Council Members:
/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƚŚĂŶŬƚŚĞƐƚĂīĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌǁŽƌŬƚŽĚĂƚĞŽŶƚŚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞand to ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƚŚĞ ƐƚĂīƚŽĐŽŶƟŶƵĞwith the development of ĐůĞĂƌĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƟŽŶĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĂŶĚƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘
It is vital that we mĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚǇŽĨŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘If we don’t want our city to look like a soulless new town in ƚŚĞŇĂƚůĂŶĚƐŽĨTexas, ǁĞŶĞĞĚƚŽƚĂŬĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůǇ͘tĞŚĂǀĞƐŽŵĞunique historic ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐs ĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶĂŶĚƐŽŵĞďĞĂƵƟĨƵůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐƚŚĂƚtruly enrich our city, and they need to be protected.

WůĞĂƐĞĞĚƵĐĂƚĞƐƚĂīĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŵĞĂŶŝŶŐŽĨhŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ͘/ƚĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚŵĞĂŶŶŽƚŚŝŶŐĐĂŶďĞ ĚŽŶĞƚŽĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘/ƚƐŝŵƉůǇŵĞĂŶƐǇŽƵŶĞĞĚƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞǀŝƐŝďůĞĨĂĐĂĚĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŬĞǇĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ. You can modernize such ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐs inside ŝŶǁĂǇƐƚŚĂƚďĞƐƚĮƚǇŽƵƌůŝĨĞƐƚǇůĞ͘ 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 ďĞĂƵƟĨƵůcustom-made, double-pane, windows that are ĞŶĞƌŐǇĞĸĐŝĞŶƚĂŶĚeasy to open ďƵƚůŽŽŬůŝŬĞƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůŽŶĞƐ. We lived in a 1906 townhouse on Capitol Hill in tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ, D.C. that was extensively renovated by removŝŶŐ ŵŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞŵĂŝŶŇŽŽƌĞǆĐĞƉƚĨŽƌĂǁĂůŬǁĂǇ which overlooked a ĚƌĂŵĂƟĐŬŝƚĐŚĞŶĂŶĚĚŝŶŝŶŐƌŽŽŵŝŶĂĚƌĞĚŐĞĚ-out basement below. The 20-foot ĐĞŝůŝŶŐƐ and exposed brick walls made the old house very contemporary, but the exterior appearance of the townhouse ĚŝĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞ. tĞƌĞĐĞŶƚůǇǀŝƐŝƚĞĚƚŚĂƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ, ĂŶĚŝƚǁĂƐƐƟůůůŽǀĞůǇǁŝƚŚĂůůƚŚĞŽůĚĨĂĐĂĚĞƐ͘These are examples of how homeowners can tƌĞĂƐƵƌĞƚŚĞďĞĂƵƟĨƵů and valuable homes in their ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚwith all the comforts of a new home ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƌĞŶŽǀĂƟŽŶƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞs. It is a win-ǁŝŶƐŽůƵƟŽŶĨŽƌ everyone.

WůĞĂƐĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ with a well-ĐƌĂŌĞĚŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘zŽƵƌĂĐƟŽŶƐƚŽĚĂǇǁŝůůďĞĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞĚďǇ ĨƵƚƵƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͘
Thank you.

Sincerely,
707 of 1110
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident
708 of 1110
June 2, 2025
City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWŽůŝĐǇhƉĚĂƚĞ
īŽƌƚĂŶĚWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝů^ƉĞĐŝĂůDĞĞƟŶŐ
June 2, 2025, 5:30pm
Dear Mayor Newsom & Council Members:
/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƚŚĂŶŬƚŚĞƐƚĂīĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌǁŽƌŬƚŽĚĂƚĞŽŶƚŚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞand to ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞƚŚĞ ƐƚĂīƚŽĐŽŶƟŶƵĞwith the development of ĐůĞĂƌĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƟŽŶĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĂŶĚƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶĐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘
It is vital that we mĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚǇŽĨŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘If we don’t want our city to look like a soulless new town in ƚŚĞŇĂƚůĂŶĚƐŽĨTexas, ǁĞŶĞĞĚƚŽƚĂŬĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůǇ͘tĞŚĂǀĞƐŽŵĞunique historic ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐs ĚŽǁŶƚŽǁŶĂŶĚƐŽŵĞďĞĂƵƟĨƵůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐƚŚĂƚtruly enrich our city, and they need to be protected.

Sincerely,
709 of 1110
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident
710 of 1110
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
March 25,2025
Mr. Rob Newsom, Mayor
Mr. Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Subject: Defamation of Heritage Alliance by the City of San Mateo Dear Mayor Newsom and City Attorney Rasiah:

We, the Board of Directors of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, are writing to you about the serious and defaming allegations made against Heritage Alliance on March 17, 2025, and the use of false information as a basis for voting to send a letter to the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The City Council members repeatedly claimed SMHA reneged on a supposed “agreement.” We are asking for a retraction of your false statements, a retraction of the SHPO letter, and a public apology.

During the City Council Special Meeting discussion of Agenda Item #5, “Letter to California Office of Historic Preservation – Approval”, Council Member Nicole Fernandez requested the City Council approve a letter to SHPO requesting an 18-month deferral of the review of the Baywood Historic District nomination. What follows are direct quotes and time stamps from the video recording.

Council Member Danielle Cwirko-Godycki spoke in support of the letter, stating at 1:38:33, “The Heritage Alliance said they would not continue with submission of their application if the City moved forward with an expedited local process and updating our historic ordinance.

Unfortunately, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has gone back on their word, and submitted their application anyway”. That allegation is patently false; we never said this, therefore we never went back on our word.

Council Member Loraine continued the false narrative, declaring at 1:46:34, “I am disappointed in the Heritage Alliance’s decision to continue this application because the idea of what came before Council was with that agreement in mind.” The Heritage Alliance states again, for the record, there was NO such agreement ever made.

Mayor Newsom goes on to say at 1:52:00, “I would have appreciated if the pause was at least held until we had another meeting.” Respectfully, Mayor Newsom, Heritage Alliance slowed the nomination for eight months, but did not agree to stop all work or wait until the end of the City 711 of 1110
Mr. Rob Newsom
Mr. Prasanna Rasaiah
March 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

process. There was never an agreement between the City of San Mateo and the Heritage Alliance to enter into any such pause.

It is important to note that Heritage Alliance did choose to delay submitting the revised Baywood nomination to SHPO in May 2024 and to not pursue consideration by the State Historic Resources Commission in August 2024. Heritage Alliance independently delayed the submittal as a demonstration of good faith for the benefit of our initial discussions for the City to prioritize the General Plan requirement to update the historic preservation ordinance and prepare a context study in 2024, rather than waiting another five years.

The potential agreement was requested by the City as a way to calm down the rhetoric and consternation in the community. The discord is a direct result of the incorrect information LRT was spreading and continues to spread in the community. We had been working towards an agreement; however, Less Red Tape abruptly pulled out of negotiations, the process towards an agreement ground to a halt, and was never resumed. The effort to collaboratively forge an agreement between Heritage Alliance, the City, and LRT failed because the City, as well as LRT, did not agree to the actions required on their part to make the agreement viable, and a true agreement on a pre-defined pause, possible. Heritage Alliance requested that LRT stop spreading inaccurate information and cease their divisive campaign against the historic district and that the City provide accurate information to counteract LRT’s inaccurate information.

While we voluntarily paused our nomination activity, Heritage Alliance repeatedly told the City Manager that our pause was not a long-term pause, we would not stop all work, and we would not wait until the end of the City process. It is not clear what the City Manager communicated to Less Red Tape and the Council members. It is clear, however, there was no specific communication to Council members as to the nature of the pause. Heritage Alliance also communicated to each member of the City Council what our pause consisted of on numerous occasions.

Heritage Alliance asked City Manager Alex Khojikian (via email the day after the 3/17/25 City Council special meeting) to provide evidence of the agreement referenced throughout the Council meeting. Mr. Khojikian replied:

Page 3 ends

Every Council member on the dais repeated the misinformation about the agreement to pause the nomination process, giving it more credence when it shouldn’t have had any. This misinformation was used as the basis to approve a motion for Mayor Newsom to send the letter to SHPO.

The repeated false statements that Heritage Alliance reneged on an agreement defames the Heritage Alliance and harms our reputation in the community. Heritage Alliance sees this as a serious matter that needs to be addressed and rectified immediately. We ask that the City take these actions:

1. Retract or rescind the letter sent to the California SHPO. Delaying the State’s decision will only extend the false statements, discord, and animosity.

2. Retract the false statements made at the City Council Special Meeting alleging bad faith by our organization. The City needs to make a public statement announcing that there was not “an agreement to pause” the Baywood nomination by Heritage Alliance.

3. Mayor Newsom should issue an apology, both in public and in writing, to the Heritage Alliance, its Board, and its membership for the false comments made that defame our organization. The apology should be on behalf of the entire City Council and City staff.

Board President Laurie Hietter is available to you to provide any additional information or documentation needed.

We look forward to your prompt response and action on this matter.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter, for
The San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Laurie Hietter, President
Lisa Vande Voorde, Secretary
Dianne Whitaker, Director
Laurie Watanuki, Director
Ruthmary Cradler, Director
Tom Lease, Director
cc: City Council
City Manager
713 of 1110
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
January 16, 2025
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
SUBJECT: Support for Context Study and Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council Members:

The San Mateo Heritage Alliance strongly urges the approval of the proposed scope of work to prepare a context study and to update our historic preservation ordinance. The current ordinance, dating back to 1993, and the outdated 1989 Historic Building Survey are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of our growing city while preserving its rich historical legacy.

The Importance of a Context Study
x Economic and Efficient: A context study is far more cost-effective than a detailed survey of each historic property, providing a broad understanding of our city's historical assets at a fraction of the cost.
x Framework for Preservation: It will lay down the groundwork necessary for a citywide historic resources understanding, informing not just preservation but also future development. x Policy Informed by Study: The study will directly influence the updating of our preservation policies and ordinance, ensuring they reflect the current state and significance of our historical resources.
x Strategic Planning: By understanding the type, quantity, and location of our historic resources, we can make informed decisions that balance growth with preservation.

The Necessity to Update the Historic Preservation Ordinance x Cultural and Economic Benefits: As noted in our current ordinance, preserving our history is not just about nostalgia; it's crucial for enhancing our community’s economic, cultural, and aesthetic value.
x Criteria for Preservation: An updated ordinance will clearly define processes and criteria for designating and protecting local historic districts, something missing in our current framework.

The current ordinance does not recognize or apply to the new Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District or the pending Baywood Historic District. x Legal Clarity and Protection: It will provide a robust legal framework to recognize, protect, and manage historic resources, ensuring they are considered in development reviews. 714 of 1110
City Council
January 16, 2025

Page 2 ends

2 The Urgency of Action
x Time is of the Essence: Over three decades have passed since significant action was taken on historic preservation in San Mateo. Delaying further will only increase costs and risks losing more of our heritage.
x Resource Allocation: With budgets potentially tightening, acting now is prudent to leverage existing funds for maximum impact.

Balancing Historic Preservation with Housing Needs
x Compatibility with Modern Needs: Historic properties and districts can accommodate modern housing solutions like ADUs, expansions, and remodels, proving that preservation does not hinder but can complement urban development.
x Selective Designation: The criteria for historic designation are stringent, ensuring only truly significant structures or neighborhoods are protected, thus not broadly impeding new housing developments.

In conclusion, the time to act is now to safeguard San Mateo’s historical narrative while fostering growth. Approving this scope of work will not only protect our past but also enrich our future. We urge you to ignore the misinformation and support this initiative for the benefit of San Mateo's cultural heritage and its residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
715 of 1110
From: Martin McTaggart
To: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: FW: Historic Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:49:14 AM
From: Steve Lesley
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:36 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Ordinance
City of San Mateo Historic Code
Dear City Council
I read that the City of San Mateo is considering a Residential Historic Ordinance.

As a 35 year resident of San Mateo and as an architect, I ask that you please consider the long term consequences of historic designations to houses. In my opinion, a blanket historic label of an area or neighborhood is the wrong approach. Once designated “Historic”, then any remodeling or additions can become very complicated, expensive, or prohibited. There is value to modernizing within the already strict zoning codes that can require designing within the existing style of the house or neighborhood. I have experienced designing a standard 100 year old junkie non-descriptive looking house with other jurisdictions that was located within a historic neighborhood that became a very expensive and lengthy process. At some point old homes in disrepair need to be remodeled and updated.

I hope that this ordinance will be very careful in designating a house as “Historic”, and only be used on an individual basis and not cover an entire neighborhood.

Steven Lesley
San Mateo, CA 94403
716 of 1110
From: Martin McTaggart
To: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: FW: Historic Ordinance
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:49:14 AM
From: Steve Lesley
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:36 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Ordinance
City of San Mateo Historic Code
Dear City Council
I read that the City of San Mateo is considering a Residential Historic Ordinance.

I hope that this ordinance will be very careful in designating a house as “Historic”, and only be used on an individual basis and not cover an entire neighborhood.

Steven Lesley
San Mateo, CA 94403
717 of 1110
718 of 1110
901 Laurel Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
January 5, 2026
Mr. Zachary Dahl, Community Development Director
Mr. Alex Khojikian, City Manager
City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Street
San Mateo, CA 94403
Dear Director Dahl, City Manager Khojikian, and Members of the City Council, As new owners in Glazenwood, we are wriঞng to express our strong support for maintaining Glazenwood's historic district designaঞon.

We bought our home here specifically because of the integrity of the neighborhood's 1920s Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and with the understanding that it was part of a locally designated historic district that provided protecঞons. The shared commitment to thoughul design and conঞnuity is central to Glazenwood's idenঞty and value.

As an architect, I understand that historic designaঞons involve both restricঞons and benefits. What's essenঞal in such maers is that decisions rest with those most directly affected—the property owners and neighborhood residents themselves—not with outside advocacy groups, regardless of their policy posiঞons.

The June 2024 survey conducted by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance demonstrates overwhelming resident support: 88% of residents are aware of Glazenwood's historic status, 88% are proud to live in the district, 41% said the designaঞon influenced their decision to buy, and only one respondent expressed a negaঞve view. This data makes clear where Glazenwood residents stand.

While we understand quesঞons have been raised about the district's formal administraঞve status, the consistent voice of actual Glazenwood residents shows strong support for maintaining and strengthening the protecঞons we value. We encourage the city to clarify and formalize the designaঞon of Glazenwood as a historic district, including the review and permiমng process, as it updates the Historic Preservaঞon Ordinance as part of the Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040.

We appreciate the city's efforts to provide strong planning processes that protect and support San Mateo's impressive historic resources while moving the city forward into the future.

Sincerely,
Thomas B Braham, FAIA Gregory M. Zinkl, Ph.D., J.D.

Glazenwood Residents since 2025
C: Doug D’Anna via email
719 of 1110

Initial Draft Update
San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance
San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66

As part of the City’s Historic Policy Update Effort, the Historic Preservation Ordinance will be updated to align with current statewide best practices, General Plan 2040 and community priorities. This initial draft update to the Ordinance is responsive to early public comments and aligned with City Council direction. The goal is to publish this draft for community review and input in December and January.

This input will be considered ahead of the final draft that is published ahead of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings in 2026.
720 of 1110
2 Sections:

27.66.010 Purpose and Intent

27.66.020 Definitions

22.66.030 San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory

27.66.040 Designation Criteria

27.66.050 Eligibility Requirements

27.66.060 Procedure for Designating Listed Resources

27.66.070 Procedure for Designating Historic Districts

27.66.080 Criteria and Procedure for Removing a Listed Resource or Historic District Designation

27.66.090 Procedure for Development Proposals

27.66.100 Certificate of Appropriateness

27.66.110 Design Guidelines

27.66.120 Incentives for Preserving Historic Resources

27.66.130 Duty to Keep in Good Repair

27.66.140 Enforcement and Penalties

27.66.010 Purpose and Intent
The intent of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to promote the protection, enhancement, preservation, and use of historic resources within San Mateo, recognizing they are of economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further recognized that the economic, cultural and aesthetic character of the City will be enhanced by honoring its heritage and ensuring that future generations can experience and appreciate it. The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
(a) Designate, preserve, protect, and enhance the City’s historic resources. (b) Foster public awareness and encourage public understanding of the City’s past through the recognition and use of historic and cultural resources. (c) Preserve a variety of architectural styles, patterns of development, and design trends that reflect phases of the City’s history and encourage complementary design and construction to inspire a diverse and livable urban environment.
(d) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character of the City by encouraging the preservation and maintenance of historic resources.
(e) Avoid demolition of the City’s historic resources, where feasible, through preservation, rehabilitation, or other available and appropriate alternatives. (f) Fulfill the City’s responsibility under state and federal regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

27.66.020 Definitions
(a) Alteration, major. Any significant changes or modifications of a Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, including but not limited to changes to or modifications of structural, architectural details or visual characteristics; additions; and placement or removal of any significant objects affecting the significant exterior visual and/or historical qualities of the property. Examples include:
(1) Any demolition or relocation of a historic building or structure, or removal of a significant feature of a Historic Resource.
(2) Any project that requires a permit that significantly alters or changes the street-facing elevation or side elevation of a Historic Resource, including major changes to windows 721 of 1110
3 and doors and their openings, the application of new exterior cladding or coating that changes the appearance, design, or texture of a property, and the addition of dormers and other architectural features.
(3) Any addition of square footage to a building elevation that faces a street. (4) New construction on a property containing a Listed Resource or a Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory that could affect its visual appearance.
(b) Alteration, minor. An alteration that has been determined to have limited potential to affect the defining character and architectural style of a Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. In no case shall minor alterations involve actions including new construction or full or partial demolition of a Listed Resource. Examples include:
(1) Any demolition or removal of insignificant exterior features of a Listed Resource, including additions, windows, doors, and exterior siding material that is non-original or otherwise lacking in historic integrity.
(2) Any project that requires a permit that does not substantially change the exterior character-defining features of a Listed Resource, including re-roofing in a different material that replicates the existing or original roofing, replacement windows and doors matching the design and materials of the existing or original windows and doors (when it is infeasible to repair) and minor additions on secondary or rear elevations. (3) In Historic Districts listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, demolition and alteration of detached garages and other accessory structures built within the period of significance on contributor properties and new construction of such structures on any Listed Resource (districts and individual properties). (4) Any alteration determined minor by the Community Development Director. (c) Certification of Appropriateness. The administrative approval document issued by the City to approve an alteration to a Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.
(d) Character-Defining Feature. Character-defining features are visual aspects, physical qualities, and characteristics of a historic resource that help to convey its significance and may include the building’s shape, structural details, materials, and decorative features. (e) Construction. The act of expanding an existing building or structure or the erection of a new principal or accessory building or structure on a property. (f) Contributing Resource or Contributor. A building, structure, site, or object within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory that retains enough of its original location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey the district's historical or architectural significance. The resource contributes to the designated district's historical significance and dates to its period of significance. (g) Demolition. The complete destruction or removal of a building, structure, or improvement, removal of more than 50 percent of the perimeter walls, or substantial removal of a structural wall of a street-facing elevation of a structure or building that may have an adverse effect on the significance of a property.
(h) Eligible Historic Resource. Resources found to be eligible for designation as a historic resource at the federal, state, or local level based on substantial evidence, but not formally designated. 722 of 1110
4 (i) Historic District. An area containing a concentration of historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or other resources that are unified historically, culturally, or architecturally. A historic district may contain both “contributing” and “non-contributing” resources. (j) Historic Resource. Includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, sign, district, or landscape feature which is historically, culturally, architecturally and/or archaeologically significant. Historic resources may also include, but are not limited to, resources listed in the:
(1) National Register of Historic Places;
(2) California Register of Historical Resources;
(3) San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.
(k) Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE). A historic resources evaluation (HRE) is a report, prepared by a qualified professional, which documents, identifies, and evaluates, based on the appropriate evaluative criteria, potential historic resources, including buildings, structures, objects, and districts, for their eligibility for designation. (l) Improvement. Any building, structure, landscape feature, or object physically located on real property or that constitutes a physical addition or physical alteration of real property or any part of such alteration.
(m) Integrity. The ability of a property, structure, site, or building to convey its identity through its physical features and how they relate to its historic context and the basis of its significance. A measure of integrity is not the same as an assessment of condition. (n) Listed Resource. Individual resource listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. (o) Non-contributing Resource. A building, structure, site, or object within a historic district that does not possess significant qualifications or characteristics of a contributing resource due to such factors as age or level of alteration, but which has been included within the geographic boundary of a historic district.
(p) Owner. The person or entity (public or private) appearing on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of San Mateo or person/entity providing proof of ownership. (q) Qualified Professional. An individual who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A) in history, architectural history, or historic architecture.
(r) San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. A list of individual Listed Resources and Historic Districts in San Mateo, designated by the City under the provisions of this chapter. (s) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties codified in 36 CFR, Part 68, which serve as the guidance for work on historic resources.

27.66.030 San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory
(a) The resolutions adopting designations and deletions of Listed Resources shall be known as the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.
(b) Listed Resources and Historic Districts locally designated as of the date of enactment of Ordinance No. 2022-10 §§ 2, 3; Ord. No. 2010-15 § 15; Ord. No. 1995-13 § 3; Ord. No. 1993- 21 § 1, inclusive of the Downtown Historic District, codified in this chapter are included in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.
723 of 1110
5 (c) Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources adopted by local resolution.

27.66.040 Designation Criteria
Prior to approval for listing in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, the City Council shall find that the historic resource satisfies one or more of the criteria outlined below, and retains its historic integrity.
(a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of San Mateo’s or California’s history and cultural heritage; or (b) Is associated with the lives of persons or communities important to San Mateo’s or California’s past; or
(c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

27.66.050 Eligibility Requirements for Listing
(a) Listed Resources. To be eligible for consideration as a Listed Resource, the resource must be at least fifty (50) years old and meet at least one of the criteria outlined in Section 27.66.040. (b) Historic District. To be eligible for consideration as a Historic District, at least XX percent of the buildings in the proposed historic district (excluding accessory buildings) must be at least fifty (50) years old or otherwise meet the requirement of Section 27.66.040. In addition, no more than XX percent of the buildings in the proposed district may be non-contributing. Noncontributing buildings may be included as part of a historic district only to the extent that they are determined to be essential to the geographic integrity of the district. The [reviewing body] shall make determinations identifying non-contributing buildings as part of the review process.

27.66.060 Procedure for Designating Listed Resources
(a) Application for Listed Resources. The City shall make available an application for listing historic resources in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. (1) Owner Consent. Nominations to add a Listed Resource to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be made only by application of the property owner or property owners representing a majority or controlling interest on which the resource is located. The property owner may request that a resource be listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory by submitting a completed application to the Planning Division. No application shall be accepted without the written consent of the property owner.
(2) Application Review. Listed Resource applications shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to assess if all application materials are provided and if the application is complete, including sufficient information to support the finding that the resource meets the requirements for designation set forth in Section 27.66.050. (3) Designation Recommendation. Listed Resource applications, once deemed complete by the Planning Division, shall be reviewed by the [reviewing body] at a public meeting.

The [reviewing body] shall determine whether the resource meets one (1) or more criteria for approval as a historical resource to be listed on the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory and, based on this determination, provide a recommendation to 724 of 1110
6 the City Council. The [reviewing body] shall adopt a resolution stating its recommendation, focusing on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.40, and incorporating its reasons for the recommendation.
(4) Designation Action. Following the recommendation from [reviewing body], the City Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the application. Following the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution to approve or deny the application based on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.40. If the application is approved by City Council, the resource shall be added to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.

27.66.070 Procedure for Designating Historic Districts
(a) Application for Historic District Designation. The City shall make available an application for listing a Historic District in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. (1) Owner Notification and Consent. Nominations to add Historic Districts to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be made by a property owner or group of property owners in a potential historic district. The property owner(s) may request that a district be listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory by submitting a completed application to the Planning Division. The application shall include the following:
(A) The application form and requisite support materials outlined in the application instructions.
(B) Documentation that notification of the pursuit of the application was provided to all potentially affected property owners in the proposed district via mailed notice. Mailed notice shall be provided to every occupant and owner of property as listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership assessment roll within the proposed Historic District.
(C) Documentation by petition establishing at least XX percent of property owners in the proposed historic district as listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership assessment roll support the potential designation by affixing their signatures to the petition.
(2) Application Review. Historic District applications shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to assess if all application materials are provided and if the application is complete, including confirmation of owner consent and sufficient information to support the finding that the Historic District meets the requirements for designation set forth in Section 27.66.050.
(3) Community Meeting. Once an application has been deemed complete, the applicant will host a community meeting prior to any public meetings to consider the designation.

The purpose and intent of the meeting is to provide information about the proposed Historic District and designation process. Mailed notice shall be provided to every occupant and owner of property as listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership assessment roll within the proposed Historic District. Such notice shall be provided at least 10 days prior to the community meeting date. (4) Designation Recommendation. Once an application has been deemed complete by the Planning Division and a community meeting has been held, it shall be reviewed by the [reviewing body] at a public meeting. The [reviewing body] shall determine whether the historic district meets one (1) or more criteria for approval as a historical resource to be listed on the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory and, based on this 725 of 1110
7 determination, shall be recommended to the City Council that the application be approved or denied. The [reviewing body] shall adopt a resolution stating its recommendation, focusing on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.40, assessing the historical significance of those contributing resources identified in the proposed district, affirming that no more than XX percent of the buildings in the district are noncontributing, and incorporating its reasons in support or denial of the application.

Mailed notice shall be provided to property owners and occupants within the Historic District at least 10 days prior to the [reviewing body] meeting date. (5) Designation Action. Following the recommendation from [reviewing body], the City Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the application. Following the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution to approve or deny the application based on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.40. If the application is approved by City Council, the Historic District shall be added to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided to property owners and occupants of properties within the Historic District at least 10 days before the meeting date. Mailed notice of the decision shall be provided to property owners and occupants of properties within the Historic District within 30 days following the decision.

27.66.080 Criteria and Procedure for Removing a Listed Resource or Historic District Designation
(a) The City Council may approve removal of a Listed Resource from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory by one of the following methods:
(1) Application for Removal. Removal of a Listed Resource designation may be sought by the owner of a property on which a Historic Resource is located. Applications must be accompanied by such documentation as required by the Planning Division and demonstrate that the Listed Resource does not possess, or no longer possesses, a minimum level of significance necessary for listing as outlined in Section 27.66.040. (2) Removal Following Destruction. The Planning Division may seek removal of designation to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory where a Listed Resource has been destroyed.
(b) Delisting Recommendation. Upon completion of an application to remove a Listed Resource, the request shall be reviewed by the [reviewing body] at a public meeting. The [reviewing body] shall determine if the Historic Resource meets the conditions to warrant removal and provide a recommendation to City Council that the application be approved or denied. (c) Delisting Action. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the [reviewing body] to remove a Listed Resource from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the application. If the City Council approves an application, such approval shall be made by resolution.
(d) Historic District Delisting. The process to remove a Historic District from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall follow the same process that is required to designate a Historic District as outlined in Section 27.66.070.

27.66.090 Procedure for Development Proposals
Community Development Director Review. The Community Development Director may require a Historic Resource Evaluation for any development proposal involving the demolition or modification of character-defining features of buildings or structures over 45 years old that are not designated or have not been identified in a previous historic resource survey adopted by the City Council. A Historic Resource Evaluation may inform the adoption of the appropriate environmental determination pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 726 of 1110
8 27.66.100 Certificate of Appropriateness
(a) No person shall demolish, construct, move or alter any Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Approval of such work shall be required even if no other permits or entitlements are required by the City. In approving an application, the final approval body may impose conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary or appropriate to ensure that the integrity of the resource is maintained.
(1) Design Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as amended from time to time, are incorporated by this reference.

Work proposed for a Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District shall be in compliance with these standards. Where applicable, locally adopted design standards or guidelines shall apply in addition to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
(b) Zoning Administrator Review. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to review and approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove Certificates of Appropriateness for the following types of projects, provided that the projects do not result in any significant impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), subject to public notice and to appeal of the final action to the [reviewing body]:
(1) Minor Alterations.
(2) Projects that: (1) do not adversely affect a Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, or (2) are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and for which no public purpose would be served by requiring [reviewing body] review.
(c) Exemptions. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for the ordinary maintenance and repair of any Listed Resource or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, so long as maintenance and repair does not involve change in exterior design, material, or appearance. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for construction, reconstruction, alteration, or demolition that the Building Official certifies is required to protect public health or safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. (d) Economic Hardship. At the time of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant may apply for an Economic Hardship Exception. The application shall include proof of economic hardship from the owner of the property, and documents and/or testimony to substantiate a claim of economic hardship as required by the Community Development Director. The approval of an Economic Hardship Exception shall be based on the findings that:
(1) The owner of the property is qualified as low-income or very-low income; and (2) Denial of the Economic Hardship Exception would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of, or economic return on, the designated resource; or
(3) Denial of the Economic Hardship Exception would cause the owner to suffer unreasonable damage in comparison to the benefit conferred to the community by the designated resource.

27.66.110 Design Guidelines
In addition to the Certificate of Appropriateness requirements outlined above, all exterior modifications of individually eligible and contributor buildings in the Downtown Retail Core subarea of the Downtown Area Plan shall conform with the Downtown Retail Core and Downtown District Design Guidelines. 727 of 1110
9 27.66.120 Incentives for Preserving Historic Resources To foster preservation and encourage participation in the City’s historic preservation efforts, the following incentives are available to Listed Resources or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory:
(a) State Historical Building Code. Any alteration made for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or relocation of such properties shall be made according to the requirements of the state historical building code pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 18950, et seq.
(b) Mills Act. The City Council may authorize the use of contracts pursuant to California Government Code Section 50280 et. seq., also known as the Mills Act. Such contracts may be entered into at the sole discretion of the City Council based on the recommendation of the [reviewing body] for the specific intent to promote the continued preservation of historic properties.
(c) Additional Incentives. The City Council may authorize the use of additional incentives, as appropriate, to encourage the preservation, reuse, and rehabilitation of the City’s historic resources.

27.66. 130 Duty to Keep in Good Repair
The owner of a resource listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall keep in good repair the exterior portions of all such buildings, structures, or improvements, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration of any exterior improvement or essential exterior architectural features. They shall also maintain properties in compliance with San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.14 and the protective treatment standards of the International Property Maintenance Code.

27.66.140 Enforcement and Penalties
(a) Time to Correct. Prior to assessment or initiation of any penalty for any violation of this chapter, the Zoning Administrator shall provide written notice of noncompliance to property owners.

Notice shall be sent by certified and regular mail. Following mailing of the notice, property owners shall have 30 calendar days to correct the violation or to inform the City that there is a financial hardship, or why an extension is warranted. Additional time to correct the violation may be allowed where the property owner is exercising due diligence in acting to correct noticed violations. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to place reasonable and/or necessary conditions on such an extension to ensure timely correction of the violation. (b) Work Stoppage. In addition to any other fines, penalties or enforcement provisions set forth in this chapter, failure to comply with an approved application shall constitute grounds for immediate stoppage of the work involved in the noncompliance until the matter is resolved. (c) Violation Penalty. In addition to the foregoing remedies, and any other remedies available by law, the City Attorney may enforce the provisions of this article by seeking injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin or to cause the correction or removal of any violation of this chapter. 728 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
Engagement Summary
Version 2 Updates are in Purple Text
Overview
The City of San Mateo is in the process of developing a Citywide Historic Context Statement and updating its Historic Preservation Ordinance. To inform this work, the City developed an Outreach and Engagement Strategy focused on multiple entry points for community participation and offering a range of opportunities for residents, organizations, and interested parties to share input and perspectives that inform the update process. Through the engagement conducted thus far, community members have shared their views of the future of historic preservation in San Mateo and identified places and themes that hold historical and cultural interest.

The project started in February 2025, with outreach initiated in the summer, and will extend through Spring 2026. To date, the project team has conducted a City Council Study Session, two three focus groups, one community workshop, online outreach, and three mobile workshops. These activities correspond to the first two three engagement phases:
x Project Launch and Early Focus Groups, and
x Community Storytelling and Draft Development, and
x Release of Draft Documents for Review
The project is now entering the Release of Draft Documents for Review Feedback on Drafts phase, during which additional community feedback will continue to refine and strengthen the draft materials.

In addition to defined engagement events, the City has received numerous emails and comments from community members, demonstrating San Mateo’s strong interest and investment in shaping the future of historic preservation.

Summary of Participation and Activities
The City implemented a multi-faceted strategy that combined digital communications, printed materials, and in-person events to raise awareness and invite participation in the project. The approach emphasized accessibility and visibility by creating multiple entry points for residents, stakeholders, and organizations to learn about the project and share their input.

Participant Identification and Outreach Methods
Participants were reached through a blend of targeted outreach and citywide communications:
729 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
2 x Targeted invitations for workshops and website participation were sent to members of neighborhood associations, local preservation advocates, cultural organizations, and prior participants in planning and preservation efforts.
x Broader community participation was encouraged through general City communications including e-blasts, newsletters, and social media posts.
x Mobile workshop pop-up locations were strategically selected to engage residents from different parts of the city and to reach people who might not typically participate in formal meetings.

Community Engagement Activities
The City hosted several opportunities for direct community participation:
x City Council Study Session
x Two Three virtual focus groups with targeted stakeholder audiences x One virtual community workshop open to all residents
x Three in-person mobile workshops held at community events and public spaces x A Digital Time Capsule, an online interactive platform to collect stories and historic information from the community
These activities built momentum across engagement phases, beginning with focused discussions among key stakeholders, followed by broader community engagement through workshop events.

Outreach and Communications
To sustain visibility throughout the engagement period, the project team coordinated a range of digital and physical outreach tools, including:
x Three project e-blasts distributed through City email lists x Three e-blasts announcing the release of draft documents for review and promoting the draft review workshop
x Creation of a project webpage on the City’s website
x Draft documents uploaded to the project webpage
x Two City newsletter features highlighting project milestones x Three social media posts through City channels
x A project postcard promoting the Digital Time Capsule – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish x A project fact sheet summarizing background and goals – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish x A workshop flyer advertising the first community workshop – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish x A workshop flyer advertising the draft review workshop – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish x Installation of collateral materials and information boards in four static locations throughout the city, including City Hall, the Main Library, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, and the Senior Center.
x Distribution of flyers and postcards at the Central Recreation Center Table 1 provides a summary of the events held thus far and the estimated number of participants. 730 of 1110
731 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
4 Comparison to Outreach & Engagement Strategy Goals
The Outreach and Engagement Strategy established participation goals of:
x Reaching at least 20 attendees per workshop
x Collecting 50 Digital Time Capsule contributions
x Engaging 8-10 participants per focus group
x Expanding email sign up list from a baseline of 36 subscribers by 10% To date, the project has exceeded goals for community workshops, reaching approximately 137 residents through the first workshop and subsequent mobile workshop events. Pivoting from a second traditional workshop to a series of mobile workshops proved effective in diversifying the voices heard in this round of engagement.

The project’s email list has grown from 36 to 90 178 subscribers, far surpassing the growth target and demonstrating strong interest in staying informed as the project advances. To date, the Digital Time Capsule has received 11 community posts and 13 reactions, marking early but meaningful online participation. The first two focus groups were intentionally smaller in scale, providing opportunities for key stakeholder groups, including representatives from Less Red Tape and the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, to share their perspectives directly. The third focus group reached its goal of engaging at least 8 members involved in the business and development community.

Activities Overview
The engagement program included a mix of focus groups, a community workshop, mobile workshops, and digital engagement. Each activity was designed to gather input on key themes while ensuring that participation opportunities were accessible, inclusive, and interactive.

Focus Groups
The City hosted two virtual focus groups in July 2025 with residents representing different viewpoints and experiences related to historic preservation in San Mateo. The City hosted a third virtual focus group in December 2025 with members of the business and development community. Each session lasted approximately one hour and was facilitated by the consultant team with support from City staff.

Discussions were recorded for note-taking purposes only and analyzed thematically to identify shared concerns, priorities, and ideas. The full analysis for each focus group is attached to this report as Appendix A, with summaries provided below.

Focus Group #1: Residents Cautious of Preservation Efforts Participants, primarily from or interested in the Baywood neighborhood, discussed concerns about the fairness and transparency of historic designation processes and their impact on property rights. They emphasized the need for owner consent, clear and objective design standards, and predictable procedures for evaluating historic resources.

While participants expressed frustration with perceived inconsistencies and costs of compliance with historic preservation regulations, they also supported developing a Historic Context Statement so long as it could not be used to justify new designations without consent. The discussion highlighted the importance of education and communication to promote public confidence in the process and ultimate project deliverables.

Key Takeaways:
732 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
5 x Desire for transparency, owner consent, and local control x Concern about financial and procedural burdens
x Conditional support for a context statement focused on education, not regulation Focus Group #2: Residents Supportive of Preservation
This group emphasized the importance of preservation in maintaining San Mateo’s character and identity. Participants called for stronger implementation tools, professional oversight, and clearer design compatibility standards to ensure consistency between planning and building review.

They also encouraged a more inclusive approach to preservation that recognizes cultural and social histories, as well as opportunities to align preservation with housing, sustainability, and equity goals through adaptive reuse and education.

Key Takeaways:
x Preservation seen as essential to community identity
x Need for stronger tools, standards, and professional oversight x Support for inclusive, educational, and adaptive approaches Focus Group #3: Business/Development Community
Participants stressed the need for clear, practical guidance and flexibility in the ordinance to avoid stifling development. They expressed concerns about economic and business viability due to uncertainty and rigid rules that can make projects financially unfeasible.

They also called for updates to plans and surveys to reflect current architectural trends and economic conditions while still honoring historic character. Additionally, participants noted that overlapping planning documents create friction and lack clarity, and they expressed a strong desire for an integrated, unified regulatory framework.

Key Takeaways:
x Need for flexibility and clear, practical guidance in the ordinance x Preservation of cultural identity while encouraging creative modernization x Establish a clear hierarchy among the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Downtown Specific Plan, and other zoning codes
Overall Observations
Together, the two three focus groups reflect a spectrum of perspectives, from those seeking flexibility and property rights protection to those prioritizing stronger safeguards for historic resources and inclusiveness to ensure the context statement reflects San Mateo’s diverse communities. Both All groups underscored the need for clarity, transparency, and education, reinforcing the City’s goal of developing balanced policies that protect community character while maintaining fairness and trust.

Community Workshop
The first community workshop, Preservation and Regulation 101, introduced residents to the City’s Historic Policy Update process and built a shared foundation for future discussions. The virtual event aimed to educate participants on key preservation concepts, including historic context statements, 733 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
6 ordinance structure, and the relationship between preservation and development, while collecting early feedback on community priorities. Spanish interpretation was available during the meeting.

The session combined a presentation on preservation laws and local regulations with three interactive activities designed to encourage reflection and discussion. The activities are summarized below, with compiled contributions available in Appendix B.

Warm Up: I Can’t Imagine San Mateo Without…
Participants began by sharing short reflections on what defines San Mateo’s character and what aspects of the city they most value. Common responses included references to beautiful neighborhoods, Central Park, trees, and the diverse community and historical figures of San Mateo.

Participants highlighted beloved places such as the Japanese Tea Garden, the Benjamin Franklin Hotel, and the Downtown Historic District.

Digital Time Capsule: People, Places, and Events
The next activity invited participants to identify people, places, and events they believe future generations should remember about San Mateo. Submissions highlighted well-known local institutions such as San Mateo’s schools, Talbot’s Toys, and Draeger’s Market, as well as community figures like Claire Mack, Tom Brady, and members of the city’s Japanese community. Participants also highlighted beloved everyday places that hold personal or collective meaning, including the Central Library, Downtown San Mateo Post Office, B Street, and Bay Meadows. The exercise linked historical storytelling with the technical goals of the context statement, which include highlighting patterns of development, centralizing historical information, providing a consistent framework for evaluating a property, and offering a more robust picture of San Mateo’s history -- capturing the city’s lived experience alongside its architectural heritage.

Preservation Priorities Exercise
In small breakout groups, participants discussed four key themes shaping preservation policy:
flexibility for homeowners, protection of historic landmarks, cultural equity and representation, and transparency and predictability. Using a “Preservation Dollars” framework, groups were asked to allocate limited resources across these priorities, sparking discussion about trade-offs and shared values. Most groups emphasized transparency and predictability as their top priority, followed closely by protection of historic landmarks and cultural representation. The activity revealed broad community interest in clearer processes and more inclusive recognition of San Mateo’s heritage.

Participation and Outcomes
Approximately 42 residents attended the workshop, representing a range of neighborhoods and interests. An exit survey was provided via the virtual platform; however, only seven participants provided responses, limiting the usefulness of the results for a broader analysis of representation. The virtual format also presented challenges: some attendees experienced technical difficulties, and several expressed a preference for a more traditional Q&A format rather than the interactive activities used. We incorporated this feedback into our planning for the second workshop, which led us to shift to a series of in-person mobile workshops designed to provide more direct interaction and opportunities for real-time questions and discussion.

Key takeaways included:
x Broad recognition of San Mateo’s cultural and architectural diversity x Desire for transparent, consistent, and educational preservation processes 734 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
7 x Support for inclusive storytelling and representation in the Historic Context Statement x Interest in balanced policies that protect heritage while allowing reasonable flexibility for property owners
Full results from group activities and whiteboard outputs are included in Appendix B.

Mobile Workshops
Following the first community workshop, the City shifted from a traditional meeting format to a series of mobile workshops, sometimes referred to as “pop-ups,” designed to reach residents in familiar, everyday settings. This pivot reflected lessons from early engagement. While the virtual workshop successfully built understanding among those already interested and was available to residents who may not feel safe or comfortable attending a gathering in person, broader participation required meeting people where they are.

The mobile format provided more accessible, casual opportunities for conversation and participation, particularly for residents who may not attend formal meetings or have limited time to engage online.

As shown in Table 1, offering touchpoints at varying times of day helped reach residents with differing schedules. Rather than convening another single event, the City opted for multiple small-scale, inperson touchpoints that collectively expanded reach and visibility across the community.

Activities and Content
Each pop-up featured a set of multilingual (English, Chinese, and Spanish), visually oriented displays introducing the two components of the Historic Policy Update, the Historic Context Statement and the Historic Preservation Ordinance, along with printed postcards with QR codes linking to the project website and Digital Time Capsule. Staff and consultants were present to answer questions, collect input, and provide educational context about the project.

The core activity invited participants to respond to the same people, places, and events prompts introduced during the virtual workshop. Using sticky notes, attendees shared the names of individuals, landmarks, and local stories that they felt best represented San Mateo’s heritage. This approach allowed the team to continue building the community narrative started online and identify recurring themes across engagement formats.
735 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
8 Outcomes and Observations
The mobile workshops generated meaningful one-on-one conversations about the City’s history, identity, and preservation goals. Many participants used the opportunity to learn about the broader Historic Policy Update effort and how it connects to housing, land use, and community character policies under other City efforts.

The mobile workshop format proved effective in:
x Broadening participation to include residents encountered in public spaces rather than through formal events;
x Reinforcing education on the City’s preservation framework; and x Gathering qualitative feedback that complemented earlier workshop and digital engagement results.

These events demonstrated the value of informal, interactive outreach in maintaining visibility for the project and building trust through direct dialogue. The mobile workshop materials and results are available in Appendix C.

Online Engagement
Digital engagement opportunities ensure that residents can participate in the Historic Policy Update at their own pace and through familiar online platforms. The City’s Project Website and Digital Time Capsule served as the primary interactive tools, inviting community members to sign up for updates and share stories, memories, and reflections about the people, places, and events that define San Mateo’s identity.

As of November 2025, the Digital Time Capsule has received 11 posts and 13 reactions, representing a small but insightful sample of community input. The content reflects a wide range of input, from neighborhood landmarks and local businesses to historic photos of families and homes, that will inform the Historic Context Statement.
736 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
9 Beyond the Time Capsule, the City maintained a consistent online presence to keep residents informed throughout the process. Project updates were shared through the City’s website, email and print newsletters, and social media channels, helping to build awareness and invite continued participation in upcoming project phases. Together, these tools provided accessible entry points for engagement and helped sustain visibility and transparency between live events.

Upcoming Engagement
The next community workshop is scheduled for January 21st, 2026, and will be a two-hour draft review session. Participants will review the Draft Historic Context Statement and Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance with a historic preservation expert, with ample opportunities to ask questions throughout the session.

A second City Council Study Session is scheduled for January 26th, 2026, and will focus on reviewing the draft documents.

In February, two focus groups are planned: one with members of the Youth Activities Commission and another with residents from underrepresented communities. The City will continue to distribute e-blast updates to the project email list, providing information on the project, key dates, and opportunities for public feedback.

Key Takeaways
Community input from the focus groups, workshop, mobile pop-ups, and digital engagement activities revealed a consistent set of priorities centered on trust, transparency, and inclusivity in the City’s historic preservation efforts. Participants expressed a strong desire for clear, fair, and predictable processes that balance property owner rights with the shared value of protecting San Mateo’s neighborhood character.
737 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
10 Across all activities, residents emphasized the importance of broadening preservation narratives to include the city’s cultural, social, and architectural diversity. Many encouraged the City to recognize not only landmark properties, but also everyday places that hold community meaning, such as gathering spaces like Central Park, local businesses, and institutions that reflect San Mateo’s evolving identity. Participants also identified the need to align preservation with housing goals. A recurring theme across all engagement formats was the need for education and clear communication to improve public understanding of how historic preservation works and have confidence that the process is fair and objective.

These insights have directly informed the Historic Context Statement and Historic Preservation Ordinance update. Detailed summaries and raw data from all engagement activities are included in the appendices.

Attachment List:
x Appendix A: Focus Group Summaries
x Appendix B: Workshop Responses
x Appendix C: Mobile Workshop Responses
x Appendix D: Digital Time Capsule
x Appendix E: Public Comments
738 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
Appendix A
Focus Group Summaries
739 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com
Focus Group 1 – Thematic Analysis
Community Group: Less Red Tape
Date: July 9, 2025
Location: Virtual
Facilitators: Kassandra Gale and JulieAnn Murphy
Overview
This document presents a thematic analysis of the first focus group conducted as part of the San Mateo Historic Policy Update effort. The session included residents affiliated with the Less Red Tape group, primarily from the Baywood neighborhood. The discussion centered on concerns related to historic preservation, property rights, and the implications of state and local designation processes.

Emergent Themes
Distrust in the Historic Designation Process
Participants repeatedly expressed skepticism about how historic designations are determined. x Quotes:
o “We think the whole thing is being weaponized against us in Baywood.” o “They will find a way of making Baywood historic when it doesn’t have the attributes.” o “The drive-by assessment by Page and Turnbull is grossly inaccurate.” x Sub-themes:
o Inconsistent application: Reference to Glazenwood being treated as historic without formal designation.
o Lack of site-specific knowledge: Concerns about “drive-by” assessments and lack of permit review.
o State-level rubber-stamping: Perception that the State approves nearly all nominations without scrutiny.
o Consultant bias: Belief that consultants are hired to justify preordained outcomes.

This theme reflects a deep concern about fairness, transparency, and accuracy in the designation process.

Demand for Owner Consent and Local Control
A strong, consistent demand emerged for affirmative, written consent before any property is designated historic.
x Quotes:
o “No home would be included… without individual consent.” o “No third-party nominations.”
o “Why not 100% approval like an HOA?”
x Sub-themes:
740 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
2 o Affirmative consent vs. passive inclusion: Strong opposition to opt-out or assumed consent models.
o Third-party nominations: Rejection of any process that allows non-owners to initiate designations.
o Consent thresholds: Suggestions for 80% or 100% thresholds before a district nomination can proceed.

This theme emphasizes personal agency and property rights as central to participants’ values.

Fear of Financial and Practical Burdens
Participants described the cost, complexity, and impracticality of maintaining or modifying historic homes.
x Quotes:
o “It costs a lot of money… extremely difficult, extremely time-consuming.” o “Trying to pick it up and put a new foundation under it would be worse than tearing it down.” x Sub-themes:
o Cost of compliance: Preservation described as 4-5 times more expensive than rebuilding. One participant said, “I will never do that again.”
o Structural feasibility: Examples of homes with foundational issues or extensive modifications that are impractical to preserve.
o Time and complexity: Preservation seen as time-consuming and technically difficult. o Impact on resale and inheritance: Concerns about burdening future owners or heirs.

This theme reveals a pragmatic concern about the real-world implications of preservation.

Desire for Clear, Protective Ordinances
Participants want specific, enforceable local rules that protect homeowners from unintended consequences.
x Quotes:
o “We want ordinances that give us the maximum flexibility.” o “What kind of protections can the city give us so we’re not lost?” o “Objective design standards… that trumps CEQA.”
x Sub-themes:
o Objective design standards: Proposed as a way to balance flexibility with neighborhood character.
o Appeals process reform: Frustration with perceived “unlimited appeals” and lack of finality. o Flexibility within designation: Questions about whether homeowners can rebuild in different styles.
o Examples from other cities: Huntington Beach cited as a model for more permissive policies.

This theme reflects a proactive interest in shaping policy to reflect community needs. 741 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
3 Confusion and Need for Clarity
There was frequent mention of uncertainty and lack of understanding about how designations work and what they mean.
x Quotes:
o “We don’t understand the process.”
o “All the uncertainty of it is very troubling.”
o “We want to know what our right is to challenge a contributor status.” x Sub-themes:
o Terminology confusion: Terms like “contributor” and “non-contributor” were not well understood, and participants wanted to know how these labels affect their rights. o Process opacity: Participants didn’t know how decisions were made or who had authority. “We don’t understand the process” was a recurring sentiment. o Desire for education: Several participants asked for clearer criteria and examples of what qualifies as historic.

This theme highlights a gap in communication and education between officials and residents.

Conditional Support for Historic Context Statement
Participants showed interest in local history, but only if the context statement is not used to justify unwanted designations.
x Quotes:
o “There is value there… pulling the history together will be very interesting.” o “As long as that’s not a starting point for somebody to make a nomination.” o “We’re not anti-history.”
x Sub-themes:
o Interest in local history: Participants were genuinely curious about San Mateo’s past— mentioning schools, estates, parks, and notable residents. o Fear of misuse: The context statement was seen as a potential “launchpad” for unwanted designations. “As long as that’s not a starting point for somebody to make a nomination…” o Desire for caveats: Participants wanted explicit language stating that the context statement cannot be used to justify designations without consent. o Examples of valuable history: Mention of schools, estates, parks, and local celebrities.

This theme reflects a nuanced position: appreciation for history, but concern about how it’s applied.

Social Division and Emotional Strain
Participants described emotional distress and neighborhood conflict resulting from the historic designation debate.
x Quotes:
o “This has been tearing our neighborhood apart.”
o “People wouldn’t even look each other in the eye.”
o “You’ve got frightened people on this call.”
742 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
4 x Sub-themes:
o Neighborhood conflict: Participants described how the historic designation debate had “torn the neighborhood apart.”
o Loss of trust: Some felt betrayed by neighbors or advocacy groups. “People wouldn’t even look each other in the eye.”
o Urgency and fear: The tone was often anxious, even combative. “We’re already at war here,” one participant said.

This theme underscores the human and relational cost of policy decisions.

Contextualization
Ordinance Reform as a Tool for Protection
x Participants view the ordinance update as their primary line of defense against unwanted designations and restrictions.
x The update must address classification clarity, appeals processes, and design flexibility, especially for neighborhoods like Baywood that are already under scrutiny.

Context Statement as a Double-Edged Sword
x While the historic context statement is intended as a planning and educational tool, participants fear it could be used to justify future designations.
x The city must clearly define the purpose and limits of the context statement to avoid further erosion of trust.

Community Engagement and Trust Building
x The focus group itself is part of the city’s community engagement strategy, but the emotional tone of the discussion reveals deep mistrust.
x The update process must go beyond technical revisions and include relationship repair, transparent communication, and ongoing dialogue.

Economic and Practical Realities
x The ordinance must account for the financial and logistical burdens of preservation, especially in older neighborhoods like Baywood.
x Policies that ignore these realities risk being seen as punitive or elitist.

Need for Education and Clarity
x Participants’ confusion about terms like “contributor” and “non-contributor” underscores the need for plain-language explanations in both the ordinance and public materials. x The update effort should include educational components to demystify the process and criteria.

Social Cohesion and Neighborhood Health
x From the participants perspective, the Baywood case illustrates how historic preservation efforts can fracture communities when not handled with care.
743 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
5 x The policy update must be sensitive to social dynamics, offering voluntary pathways and conflict resolution mechanisms.

Historic Examples
Buildings and Structures
x St. Matthew’s Catholic Church – located on the border of Baywood; noted for its architectural and historical significance.
x Former Mayor’s House on Delaware – possibly already historic; mentioned as a point of interest. x Gatehouse of the Parrott Estate – near Crystal Springs Lake; described as a quaint, surviving structure from the estate
Parks and Natural Features
x Arroyo Park – near Baywood, along Crystal Springs Creek; noted for its charm and a historical anecdote about a famous person staying there.
x Crystal Springs Creek – Runs through Arroyo Park and the Parrott Estate area x Crystal Springs Lake – Near the Parrott Estate gatehouse Schools
x San Mateo High School – Attended by notable figures like Merv Griffin and Lynn Swann. x Serra High School (Junípero Serra High School) – Originally located at the site of St. Bartholomew’s; later moved to 20th Avenue.
x Aragon High School – Mentioned in the context of local school history.

Estates and Historical Areas
x Parrott Estate – A large historical estate that extended into Hillsborough; includes the gatehouse and was once owned by Elon Musk.
x Tobin Clark Estate – Mentioned in relation to the location of St. Matthew’s Catholic Church.

Commercial and Cultural References
x Downtown San Mateo – Referenced for its historical shops and commercial evolution. x Hillsdale / Bohannon Family – Noted for their role in San Mateo’s development, especially in the Hillsdale area.

Notable People and Residences
x Tom Brady’s Childhood Home – Suggested as potentially historic. x Merv Griffin’s Childhood Home – Also suggested as potentially historic. x Lynn Swann – Mentioned as a notable alumnus of San Mateo High School. x Barry Bonds – Attended Serra High School.
744 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com
Focus Group 2 – Thematic Analysis
Community Group: San Mateo Heritage Alliance
Date: July 16, 2025
Location: Virtual
Facilitators: Kassandra Gale and JulieAnn Murphy
Overview
This document presents a thematic analysis of the second focus group conducted as part of the San Mateo Historic Policy Update effort. The session included residents affiliated with the San Mateo Heritage Alliance group. The discussion centered on community experiences with historic preservation, challenges in current policies and processes, and ideas for making preservation more inclusive, effective, and aligned with broader city goals.

Emergent Themes
Sense of Place and Community Identity
Participants emphasized the emotional and aesthetic value of San Mateo’s historic neighborhoods, expressing concern that new development is eroding the city’s unique character. x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “San Mateo was known as the City of Beautiful Homes and City of Trees” o “A lot of people are just really tired of the same retail chains, no matter where they go. San Mateo really is unique. It has a unique asset, and we should be doing everything we can to protect it and value it for the value it has for the community.” o “I think that’s why there is such high value in a lot of these neighborhoods—because they are unique, and they’ve been well taken care of for decades.” x Sub-themes:
o Nostalgia for past eras: Participants referenced specific decades as benchmarks for neighborhood character.
o Visual coherence: Concerns about mismatched signage and architectural scale disrupting the city’s aesthetic.
o Loss of uniqueness: Fear that new development is making neighborhoods feel generic.

Frustrations with the Preservation Process
Participants described procedural gaps and inconsistencies in how preservation is implemented, particularly between planning and permitting stages.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “There’s always the gap between when planning approves something and building permits it.

And the building department is often left out of the learning.” o “Having the ordinance require building staff to understand more.” x Sub-themes:
745 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
2 o Process breakdowns: Disconnect between planning and building departments. o Loss of institutional knowledge: Perception that staff support has declined over time. o Ambiguity in rules: Ordinance seen as unclear or inconsistently applied.

Call for Stronger Tools and Oversight
Participants advocated for clearer standards, enforcement mechanisms, and professional oversight to ensure preservation goals are met.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Need a mechanism that’s not a guideline, that’s a standard, to require compatible building.” o “The oversight body should have educated people, architectural historians, and regulatory specialists that understand the city’s current regulations and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation.”
o “I think we need a different tool.”
x Sub-themes:
o Accountability mechanisms: Desire for both incentives and penalties. o Professionalization: Oversight should be led by experts, not generalists. o Clarity and consistency: Need for enforceable standards for compatibility.

Concerns About Development Pressures
Participants expressed anxiety about the pace and nature of development, especially when it threatens historic structures or neighborhood cohesion. x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “It looks like a lot of these neighborhoods, frankly, are becoming profit centers.” o “Prometheus owns individually eligible buildings which is a threat to the downtown.” o “These developers come and go. They take what they can, and they’re off to the next communities.”
x Sub-themes:
o Loss of historic assets: Specific sites cited as at risk. o Unbalanced growth: Concern that development is outpacing preservation. o Support for adaptive reuse: Seen as a compromise between growth and conservation.

Education and Public Awareness
Participants highlighted the need for broader public understanding of preservation and more visible recognition of historic and cultural assets.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “These are values that really matter. The education has to be there.” o “We need consistency of signage in the downtown historic district.” x Sub-themes:
o Community stewardship: Education as a tool for cultivating care and responsibility. o Cultural visibility: Signage and storytelling to honor diverse histories. o Transparency and trust: More open processes to build public confidence. 746 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
3 Inclusive and Cultural Preservation
Participants emphasized the importance of expanding preservation efforts to include cultural and social histories, particularly those of underrepresented communities. x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Our city is 130 years old, we have historic resources across the city, in all neighborhoods.” o “We would like to see more plaques and signs to reflect some of the ethnic communities here in San Mateo.”
x Sub-themes:
o Beyond buildings: Emphasis on intangible heritage and lived experiences. o Equity in recognition: Inclusion of marginalized communities in preservation narratives. o Redefining significance: Broader criteria for what is worth preserving, reflecting diverse cultural values.

Alignment with Broader City Goals
Participants saw opportunities to integrate preservation with housing, sustainability, and equity goals, rather than treating them as competing priorities.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Adaptive reuse – protecting historic downtowns, encourage and maintaining front facades?” o “From an environmental standpoint, you’re tearing down—and a lot of times, most of the time— they’re throwing away amazing timber and tiles.”
x Sub-themes:
o Adaptive reuse as a bridge: Supports both housing and environmental goals. o Preservation as sustainability: Reuse of materials and embodied energy. o Policy alignment: Desire for integrated planning across city departments.

Contextualization
Acknowledge the Emotional and Cultural Significance of Historic Resources x Refine to emphasize the community-wide emotional impact, not just individual attachment, reinforcing the need for preservation as a shared value. x Highlight the importance of communicating both the risks of loss and the benefits of preservation in clear, relatable terms.

Rebuild and Sustain Public Trust with Transparent, Empowering Policies x Expand to include ongoing engagement mechanisms beyond ordinance adoption, such as advisory committees, or regular public reporting.
x Stress the need for clarity in decision-making processes to avoid perceptions of arbitrary or biased enforcement.

Establish Clear, Enforceable Design Compatibility Standards x Stress integrating preservation as a key strategy to maintain community character amid housing expansion pressures.
747 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
4 x Encourage flexible, innovative approaches such as adaptive reuse and context-sensitive infill to achieve dual goals.

Center Community Interests to Mitigate Developer Influence x Specify mechanisms like community benefit agreements or enhanced public review to ensure developers are accountable.
x Recommend policies that support local investment and partnerships to build long-term neighborhood stewardship.

Strengthen Legal Frameworks with Clear Protections and Enforcement x Emphasize closing loopholes with explicit, codified standards rather than relying on discretionary guidelines.
x Include provisions for monitoring, reporting, and penalties to ensure consistent enforcement.

Preserve and Enhance the Social and Economic Fabric Connected to Historic Places x Highlight the role of preservation in supporting economic vitality through small businesses and tourism.
x Suggest incorporating strategies to improve public spaces and pedestrian infrastructure that complement historic character.

Places Referenced
Buildings and Structures
Individually eligible buildings owned by Prometheus
Referenced as part of a concern about development pressures and the need for better tools to protect historic assets.

Important Buildings for Ethnic Communities
x Chingley Laundry at South Claremont and 1st Avenue
x Noah’s Diner
Good examples of façade maintenance or rebuilds that maintain the original architectural style x Saint Matthew’s Hotel
x Belmont Building on 4th Avenue
x West part of the 100 block of 3rd Avenue
x Casa Baywood
x 5456 North Ellsworth
748 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
5 Parks and Natural Features
Heritage trees
Mentioned in the context of preservation guidelines and the desire to protect natural features that contribute to neighborhood character
Historic Areas
Historic downtowns
Discussed in relation to adaptive reuse and maintaining front facades.

B Street
Cited as an example of a historically significant area being affected by development, with concerns about it being “split.”
Commercial and Cultural Areas
Retail sameness and signage in downtown
Examples of how commercial development is undermining historic character and visual coherence.

Plaques/signage for ethnic communities
Suggested as a way to honor cultural history and increase visibility of underrepresented narratives. 749 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com
Focus Group 3 – Thematic Analysis
Community Group: Business/Development Community
Date: December 11, 2025
Location: Virtual
Facilitators: Kassandra Gale and JulieAnn Murphy
Overview
This document presents a thematic analysis of the third focus group conducted as part of the San Mateo Historic Policy Update effort. The session included business owners and members of the development community. The discussion centered on community experiences with historic preservation, challenges in current policies and processes, and ideas for improving preservation to be more practical, inclusive, and aligned with city goals.

Emergent Themes
Need for Clear, Practical Guidance
Participants repeatedly emphasized the importance of clarity in the Historic Preservation Ordinance and related processes, noting that ambiguity and conflicting codes discourage investment and slow projects.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Provide a roadmap, and then everyone knows what can and or can’t be done” o “Needs to be really clear…give clear guidelines to the staff.” o “Create supplemental application materials that make it clear on, like a checklist on what’s required.”
x Sub-themes:
o Lack of transparency: Developers struggle with unclear timelines and requirements. o Desire for practical tools: Checklists, flowcharts, and FAQs were suggested. o Frustration with overlapping plans: Participants want integration of zoning, design standards, and historic ordinances.

Flexibility vs. Rigidity in Historic Preservation
Participants expressed concern that overly rigid rules could stifle creativity and economic vitality, advocating for adaptive reuse and modern design elements that respect historic character. x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “You have to be really careful when you write the ordinance not to stifle cool development.” o “There has to be some kind of flexibility there.”
o “Allow modern additions like rooftop lounges or glass elevators if they complement historic intent.”
x Sub-themes:
o Adaptive reuse: Support for creative modernization within historic contexts. o Avoiding “freeze-dried” preservation: Participants want interpretation, not replication. 750 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
2 o Economic pragmatism: Flexibility seen as essential for attracting tenants and revitalizing downtown.

Conflicts Between Codes and Standards
Participants highlighted systemic issues where ADA compliance and Historic Building Code requirements clash, creating barriers to renovation and occupancy. x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “ADA code and Historic Code have no ability to harmonize” o “The language is vague, and it leaves a lot of authority with the local building official.” o “Every tenant walked away, and it is still vacant to this day.” x Sub-themes:
o Regulatory tension: Lack of harmonization between accessibility and preservation standards. o Local discretion: Outcomes depend heavily on building officials’ interpretation. o Business impact: Code conflicts can lead to abandoned projects and vacant properties.

Economic and Business Viability Concerns
Participants stressed that uncertainty and rigid rules increase costs and deter investment, making projects financially unfeasible.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Prevents offices or businesses from coming to the area.” o “Wherever clarity doesn’t exist… we have to hold a more significant contingency.” o “Ordinance should not kill business development.”
x Sub-themes:
o Risk management: Developers factor in contingencies when rules are unclear. o Ordinance as an economic tool: Preservation policies must consider financial realities. o Tenant attraction: Flexibility and clarity are key to revitalizing commercial spaces.

Outdated Plans and Ordinances
Participants noted that existing plans and surveys are decades old and fail to reflect current architectural trends or economic conditions.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Maybe it’s time for another survey?”
o “The old downtown plan… doesn’t necessarily age with time.” o “Signage ordinance feels outdated—why can’t we have neon signs?” x Sub-themes:
o Aging standards: 1989 survey and design guidelines no longer align with today’s needs. o Cultural evolution: Desire for modern aesthetics alongside historic character. o Regulatory refresh: Calls for updating signage and façade rules to encourage vibrancy.

Community Information and Clarity
Previous residential historic resources designation efforts have sparked tension and misinformation, creating social friction and uncertainty for the current project. 751 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
3 x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Some neighbors don’t talk to other neighbors because of this.” o “I can’t separate fact from fiction.”
o “People think they won’t be able to remodel their homes.” x Sub-themes:
o Polarization: Strong opinions for and against historic districts. o Knowledge gaps: Misunderstandings about what designation entails. o Need for education: Clear communication to dispel myths and reduce conflict Desire for Coherence Across Multiple Plans
Participants questioned how various planning documents interact and called for integration to reduce complexity.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “How do these different plans… play together?”
o “There are multiple plans and guidelines that govern how a project gets done.” x Sub-themes:
o Fragmentation: Overlapping documents create inefficiency. o Hierarchy confusion: Lack of clarity on which plan takes precedence. o Consolidation: Strong desire for a unified regulatory framework.

Aesthetic and Cultural Identity
Participants valued San Mateo’s historic character but also wanted vibrancy and modernization to keep downtown appealing.
x Quotes and Paraphrases:
o “Make downtown cool.”
o “Respect existing architecture.”
o “Allow creative signage and storefronts.”
x Sub-themes:
o Preservation of charm: Maintain scale and sense of place. o Modern vibrancy: Incorporate contemporary design elements. o Cultural branding: Historic identity as an economic and social asset.

Contextualization
Provide Clear, Practical Guidance
x Develop explicit, codified standards supported by user-friendly tools such as checklists, timelines, and flowcharts.
x Consolidate overlapping plans (zoning, design standards, historic ordinances) into a single roadmap to reduce confusion.
752 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
4 Embed Flexibility While Preserving Historic Character x Allow adaptive reuse and modern design elements that complement historic intent, such as rooftop additions or creative façades.
x Include language that permits deviations when they meet preservation goals and enhance economic vitality.

Resolve Conflicts Between Codes
x Create clear pathways for reconciling ADA compliance with Historic Building Code requirements. x Provide training for local officials on flexibility provisions and negotiation under the California Historic Building Code.

Support Economic Viability
x Incorporate economic impact considerations into ordinance revisions to avoid creating financial disincentives.
x Streamline approval timelines and clarify appeal processes to reduce risk and encourage investment.

Modernize Outdated Standards
x Update design guidelines and signage rules to reflect contemporary aesthetics while maintaining cultural identity.
x Refresh historic surveys and context statements to align with current architectural trends and community needs.

Foster Community Understanding and Reduce Division
x Launch educational campaigns to clarify what historic designation means for property owners. x Provide transparent communication tools to dispel myths and reduce neighborhood tensions.

Integrate Multiple Planning Documents
x Establish a clear hierarchy among the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Downtown Specific Plan, and other zoning codes.
x Develop a unified guidance resource that explains how these plans interact during project review.

Preserve Cultural Identity While Encouraging Vibrancy
x Highlight the role of historic character in shaping San Mateo’s unique sense of place and economic appeal.
x Encourage creative signage, storefront improvements, and public space enhancements that complement historic architecture.
753 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
5 Places Referenced
Downtown San Mateo
B Street
x Context: Participants noted it as the area “where it’s at” for historic character and referenced past city-led work (e.g., the Vendome Hotel renovation).

Vendome Hotel
x Mentioned as a significant historic resource the city previously “redid,” signaling precedent for citybacked preservation and reuse.

Baywood Theater (former San Mateo Theater)
x Case study raised about its modernized façade and questions on whether such updates would still be approved under the revised ordinance.
x Highlights tension between preservation and contemporary design.

Benjamin Franklin Hotel / Ben Franklin Building (downtown) x Brought up in the context of ground-floor use (retail expectations vs. other uses) and ideas for rooftop activation and a glass elevator as a modern addition that distinguishes new from old while animating the street.

Medical Arts Building (downtown)
x Referenced regarding painting and refresh processes and how guidance can conflict or lack clarity, used as an example of the need for straightforward procedural steps.

Wisdom Hardware > First Watch/Baywatch storefronts (B Street area) x Noted in an architectural reminiscence tied to earlier renovations (e.g., moment frame addition) and storefront transformations--useful as a micro-case of historic-era commercial ground floors evolving.

Old City Hall on the plaza
x Discussed as a site where participants imagined more creative ground-floor interventions, while respecting the historic narrative (including existing interpretive art on the façade).

Other San Mateo districts and landmarks (beyond downtown) Glazenwood/Hayward Park
x A historic neighborhood referenced by residents; involved in recent incidents with the entry pillars at 9th Avenue (one toppled by a vehicle)
x Raised questions about responsibility and replacement in the right-of-way; relevant to ordinance clarity and maintenance protocols.
754 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
6 Baywood Historic District (residential)
x Repeatedly cited as an area where misconceptions about historic designation affect neighbor relations and remodel expectations.
25th Avenue Business District
x Perceived by participants as having a “walk back in time” architectural feel – suggested to be included in citywide context and guidance.
37th Avenue and 41st Avenue Corridors
x Mentioned as additional commercial areas with historic elements that merit consideration in the context statement and potential ordinance impacts.

External examples informing local discussion (outside San Mateo) San Carlos Depot/Depot Café (San Carlos train station plaza) x Cited as a cautionary tale: multiple prospective tenants walked away due to unresolved conflicts between ADA requirements and historic code, underscores the need for reconciliation pathways in San Mateo’s ordinance.

Vine Street Victorians (Paso Robles)
x A participant’s 1888 local-register Victorian home used to illustrate a pragmatic approach: interior modernization was feasible while the city focused on exterior review, reinforcing the value of flexible, common-sense preservation practices.
755 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
Appendix B
Workshop Responses
756 of 1110
757 of 1110
758 of 1110
759 of 1110
760 of 1110
761 of 1110
762 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
Appendix C
DŽďŝůĞ tŽƌŬƐŚŽƉ ZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ
763 of 1110
Chavez Supermarket
764 of 1110
Night on B Street
765 of 1110
Farmer’s Market
766 of 1110
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
Appendix D
Digital Time Capsule
767 of 1110
768 of 1110
769 of 1110
770 of 1110
771 of 1110
772 of 1110
773 of 1110
774 of 1110
775 of 1110
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
Appendix E
Public Comments
776 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 8:31 AM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Kassandra Gale; Margo Nayyar
Cc: Sung Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: Less Red Tape's official response to the SMHA's restarting of the Baywood Historic District
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Sharing as an FYI. I’ll let you know how tonight’s Council discussion goes. Here’s a link to the CC meeting agenda if you want to look at the draft letter to OHP and other comments that have come in. https://sanmateo.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=9448 Thanks,
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7207 | [email protected]
From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 4:02:21 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]> Subject: Less Red Tape's official response to the SMHA's restarting of the Baywood Historic District Dear City Council and City Manager,
Less Red Tape has received confirmation this week that the SMHA has restarted the Baywood National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination at the OHP this week. While we don’t know yet exactly what was filed, this act by the SMHA is a clear breach of the deal we reached to pursue a local process in lieu of the state-level NRHP process. In light of this development, and the City Council’s special session on Mar 17 2025 to discuss sending a letter to the OHP asking them to defer the Baywood nomination, we would like to ask three things from the City:

1. Not one penny spent on the Rincon contract or a local historic district process until the SMHA withdraws the Baywood nomination. When I got up in front of City Council in January and called the SMHA “bad actors,” some criticized me, saying the SMHA was cooperating with the City. We knew better. The SMHA never intended to stop their application. The SMHA simply wants unchecked power to create
historic districts around the city as cheaply and easily as possible. Trying to negotiate with or appease the SMHA is a waste of time and money. What is the point of developing a local process if the SMHA will keep subverting it by going directly to the state?

2. City cooperation with Less Red Tape on opposing the Baywood nomination. 777 of 1110
2 We have been fighting this since the beginning, pouring thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars of our own money. We have worked closely with members of the City Council, City staff, and developed strong grassroots networks throughout the city. We have made great progress, but in conjunction with the City, we can, together, be a much more effective force. Having the unified opposition of the municipal government and the affected homeowners will be very powerful. Indeed, the only historic district nomination to ever be pulled by the OHP, in Alameda, was such a case. If this is amenable to the Council, we can discuss what forms this collaboration might take.

3. Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash must formally absent herself from the March 17 special session as part of her “recusal,” or else formally end her pretense at recusing herself.

As you know, Councilmember Nash has been “recusing” herself from votes specifically related to the Baywood historic district. We use quotes because she has been an active participant in discussions, and her ardent support for the district is documented in PRA requests. While Nash has no legal reason to recuse, at least according to the City Attorney, she has tried to appear “neutral” on the matter by claiming to "recuse" herself. Since the March 17 special session is solely dedicated to Baywood, Lisa Diaz Nash should not attend in any capacity, much less cast a vote. Alternatively, she can end her phony “recusal” and stop this farce.

Thank you for listening. We are deeply concerned about these new developments and wish to try to move forward in a constructive way. We want peace among our neighbors and historic preservation done the right way: with consent and input from local residents about what is worth preserving and how to preserve it. The SMHA are bullies and bad actors who are exploiting a weak set of state laws to attempt to enact their own agenda.

Thank you,
Andrew Ryan on behalf of Less Red Tape, a Baywood community organization * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 778 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:48 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Margo Nayyar; Kassandra Gale
Cc: Somer Smith; Sung Kwon
Subject: [EXT] FW: Planning Department procedures for Historic Districts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Sharing for awareness. Any thoughts on his assessment of how CEQA applies? Thanks.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:32 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Sung Kwon <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planning Department procedures for Historic Districts Hi Zachary,
Thank you for your response. However, I believe there are a few misunderstandings that we hope the City can clarify.

First, it seems we both agree that Glazenwood is not a formally adopted historic district and is not protected under any City ordinance. This is a good starting point. Surely you can see why we are deeply concerned that if Rincon’s work is allowed to proceed, even if it does not specifically identify new historic districts, the results of Rincon’s work could be easily used by the City to create new de facto historic districts, just like the City has done with Glazenwood.

Regarding CEQA, I would like to clarify the process for identifying historic resources. Under CEQA, there are three types of “historic resources,” each with specific requirements:

1. Mandatory Resource / CEQA Guideline 15064.5(a)(1): A mandatory resource must either be "listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission." Glazenwood has neither been listed nor determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, so this provision is inapplicable.

2. Presumed Resource / CEQA Guideline 15064.5(a)(2): A presumed resource must be specifically identified in a local register as "officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government" pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution (PRC Sec. 5020.1(k)). As we agree, Glazenwood has not been formally designated as a district by the City of San Mateo. Moreover, since Glazenwood’s survey is over five years old, it cannot be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory in its current form. Therefore, this provision also does not apply. 779 of 1110
2 3. Discretionary Resource / CEQA Guideline 15064.5(a)(3): This provision allows the lead agency to determine, on a case-by-case basis, that a property not listed on a local register and not found eligible for the California Register can still be considered a historic resource for CEQA purposes.

However, this determination must be “supported by substantial evidence,” and such decisions can be appealed to the City Council. The City cannot simply presume that any property in Glazenwood qualifies as a historic resource. Each property must be individually evaluated, and the determination must be backed by substantial evidence. If the Planning Department makes such a determination, it could be subject to appeal.

Therefore, when the City states that it “currently has two identified districts” in its Historic Resources handout, this is inaccurate. To the extent the City has authority to apply historic resource standards to Glazenwood, it can only assert such authority under CEQA and because it has not been formally listed locally and/or deemed eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission.

Thank you for your attention to these points. I look forward to discussing this further. I am available to meet in person or virtually, whatever works for you.

Best regards,
Andrew Ryan
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:49 AM Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> wrote:

Morning Andrew,
I’m following up on your earlier email inquiry. The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is only used when a property is formally designated as a resource or a district. However, the status of “eligible” means that a property hasn’t been designated by the City but that it meets certain criteria (like age and historical importance) that make it a candidate for listing at the state and/or national level, or for local historic designation. This means that the City could consider it for local designation but that it also has to be evaluated under CEQA when a project on the property is proposed. Also, there’s no such thing as “formally eligible.” A property either does, or does not, meet the criteria for being eligible, and this is based on an evaluation using the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources standards.

With regards to Glazenwood, you are correct that staff has not be able to find any record that it was locally designated as a historic district, so it is not an officially designated historic district. However, based on the documented information and evidence on the Glazenwood Neighborhood, including in the City’s past General Plan, it does meet the criteria for being an eligible historic district. Thus, this information has to be considered when a project is proposed that is subject to environmental review. Also, as has been communicated previously to LRT and at public meetings, Rincon is working on the preparation of a Citywide Historic Context Statement, but this work does NOT include identification of potential historic districts.

City Council and City Attorney included as a BCC.
780 of 1110
3 Thank you.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director | Community Development Dept.
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7207 | [email protected]

From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Frank Elliott City Mgr <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Department procedures for Historic Districts

Dear Mr. Dahl,
As the local historic designation process proceeds, we urge the City to affirm that restrictions for historic districts and individual historic resources will apply only to those areas that are officially recognized as being “formally eligible” or “listed” on a local, state, or federal registry, starting with Glazenwood.

Glazenwood currently has no legal historic district status at the federal, state, or local levels. Yet, the City of San Mateo’s Planning Department treats it as if it were listed as “eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.” The Planning Department has simply adopted an opinion and turned that opinion into code enforcement, which is not how the law is supposed to work. The ambiguous status enforced by the City benefits neither the City nor homeowners, but merely adds unnecessary expense, delays, and uncertainty to development and remodeling projects.

We respectfully request that the City instruct the San Mateo Planning Department to immediately cease treating Glazenwood—and similarly, Baywood—as part of a Historic District.

For reference, on page 32 of the “1989 Historic Building Survey” conducted by the City, Glazenwood is noted as "appears eligible for nomination as a National Register district.” However, merely stating that Glazenwood “appears eligible” confers no legal status as a historic district and no legal “eligibility” status, as “eligibility” is a specific legal status with regards to the National Register of Historic Places which can only be granted by the Department of the Interior. Numerous other individual properties in San Mateo are also in this same “gray area” status.

Should the City decide to pursue a local, state, or federal process to formally designate Glazenwood as a historic district, per the Council’s direction in January 2025 that any local process include affirmative homeowner consent, we request that the residents of Glazenwood be asked to provide affirmative consent for such a designation.

As demonstrated by the issues in Baywood, lacking strong community support can lead to significant conflicts among neighbors and within the broader community. Historic district status can confer certain rights but also imposes considerable obligations on residents and the City, and therefore should be implemented only with careful deliberation.

As the local process moves forward—and as Rincon identifies potential historic districts through their context statement work—we request that the planning department apply historic district procedures only to those areas that are officially recognized.
781 of 1110
4 We welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter in more depth.

Regards,

Andrew Ryan
A member of Less Red Tape, a Baywood community organization https://lessredtape.com

* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 782 of 1110
From: Andrew Ryan
To: Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger; Frank Elliott; Historic Policy; Somer Smith Subject: Please take the SMHA propaganda out of the City"s "Historic Policy Update Effort FAQs" Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:48:18 AM
The City website is a new, separate entry for "Historic Policy Update Effort FAQs" -- https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/97533/FAQs-Historic-PreservationOrdinance -- on the city's historic policy web site (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4877/Historic-Policy-Update-Effort) that contains misinformation and missing information.

We ask that you thoroughly review this FAQ and remove all misinformation, errors, and halftruths. Leaving this misinformation up confuses residents Specifically:

1. Remove all information about "historic districts" from this FAQ and keep it strictly about the mechanics of the development of the new ordinance. There is already a Historic Districts FAQ on your website which is decent and factual.

2. One piece of misinformation is in the question "Would being in a historic district change my property value?". The answer implies that being in a historic district increases your property values. The truth is -- and you know this -- no one knows for sure, it's much more complicated, and this answer doesn't go into any of the many negatives of being in a historic district that DEFINITELY come along with being in a historic district. Implying that being in a historic district raises property value is straight up SMHA propaganda.

3. Another piece of misinformation is in the question "Who decides what is historic?" Nowhere in this answer is "Owner Consent" mentioned, yet the City Council has reaffirmed TWICE now that owner consent will be a mandatory part of the ordinance.

4. Still another piece of misinformation is in the question "Will I still be able to renovate my house if it is designated as historic?". The answer here is incomplete and wrong, and more clearly answered in your other FAQ under the entry "Are there added permits or construction requirements that could increase costs for a proposed project affecting a contributor to a historic district?"

5. Yet another piece of misinformation: under the question "Will this affect what kinds of buildings or businesses are allowed in the future?" the answer states "Preservation focuses on the physical character of buildings and neighborhoods, not land use." We all know this is false, so stop printing the SMHA's propaganda. You'll never be able to rezone a historic district.

If this FAQ was written by Staff, then we have a serious training and knowledge problem inside City Hall.

If this FAQ was written by Rincon, then we are in big trouble because they are supposed to be the "experts."
I believe you have people inside City Hall who know what's up, but for whatever reason you're deliberately choosing to take the SMHA's side here every time and try to ignore what the people, and the City Council, have told you that they want. 783 of 1110
784 of 1110

#

" $

!

!

%

&'(')*
+),-) . %

% /

,''

01*

'
'
'22324546789:;0872<=>7/-?<480;8)67@-
A9-63232/2
&60
/+#
B)>4(CB):.D)')
785 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 8:54 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Kassandra Gale; Somer Smith; Joanna Winter; Sung H. Kwon; Margo Nayyar
Subject: [EXT] FW: Why is a "complete Mills Act program" being developed without Council or public involvement???
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Passing along for awareness.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 3:40 PM
To: Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Why is a "complete Mills Act program" being developed without Council or public involvement??? FYI- see below.

AK
Alex Khojikian
City Manager | City Manager’s Office
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7002 | [email protected]
From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 3:38 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Why is a "complete Mills Act program" being developed without Council or public involvement??? Council, you were recently given this update by staff on the Mills Act program, which currently gives away $52,000/year to two multimillionaire homeowners. Buried in this update was the phrase "staff is working with Rincon to develop a complete Mills Act Program that addresses the process for designation and ongoing administration to maintain compliance".

This update from staff (see below for complete update) is very concerning because neither the City Council nor the general public have been asked to give ANY direction as to the fate of the Mills Act in San Mateo. What changes are being proposed? Why are changes being made? Who benefits? Does San 786 of 1110
2 Mateo even need to have a Mills Act (legally, it is not required), and if it does, who should benefit from it and why?
For that matter, what happened to any of the Historic Policy Update Effort community outreach? With regard to ongoing administration of existing Mills Act properties, the contracts are quite clear with regard to what needs to be done by the City, the problem has been the City's negligence and inaction over the last 30 years. No consultant's report can fix that.

Council: It's time to ask City staff some hard questions about the Mills Act. Even better, cancel the two existing contracts and shut this "Welfare For Millionaires" program down.

Andrew Ryan
Baywood homeowner
P.S. Here is the update given to council:

Mills Act Program - The City has two active properties with Mills Act (Historic Preservation) Agreements.

Staff is currently engaged with the owners of both properties (70 de Sabla Rd. and 37 E. Santa Inez Ave.) to prepare updated workplans that detail property maintenance and preservation activities over the next ten years, as required by their agreements. Initial windshield surveys of the sites show that both are in compliance with the requirements of the agreements and well maintained with historic characteristics intact. Staff anticipates that the updated workplans will be completed in September, followed by detailed property inspections. As part of the Historic Policy Update, staff is working with Rincon to develop a complete Mills Act Program that addresses the process for designation and ongoing administration to maintain compliance. No new Mills Act applications will be accepted until the program has been developed and the Historic Policy Update Effort has been completed. * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 787 of 1110
788 of 1110
789 of 1110

2. Glazenwood: already considered a historic district by the City, even though this is an error in the San Mateo General Plan, and the City is refusing (why?) to change designation

3. San Mateo Park: Even older than Baywood, contains many possibly individually historic homes as well as the historic medians designed by John McClaren of Golden Gate Park fame
A proper education and outreach plan would involve meeting directly and consistently with residents of these neighborhoods to give them clarity on how their rights and obligations as homeowners will be affected if they are designated historic.

Yet, none of those meetings have occurred.

Even worse, when my colleague Frank Elliott recently met with Mr. Dahl, he was told that, assuming Baywood is eventually placed on the National Register, Mr. Dahl has no idea how homes in Baywood will be treated under City law and expects bureaucrats at the OHP in Sacramento to guide us! If that’s true, how is that better than the status quo, and what is San Mateo spending money on here exactly?
Council, are you really telling us that we are spending all this money and residents are getting no additional clarity or input about what we can and can’t do with our homes? This is outrageous. The Council is heading for yet another expensive disaster if we do not engage in more outreach and give property owners in this city more clarity.

The three questions I’m asking you to ask yourselves and ask Staff:

1. Why has there not been direct neighborhood outreach to the neighborhoods at greatest risk of being declared historic?

2. Do we even have the right person from the City leading this effort, or should we find a replacement for Mr. Dahl?

3. Is the City really getting any value for its money from Rincon, or do we need to reexamine our commercial relationship and contractual compliance with them? If the Council takes action now, I think we can correct this situation. No laws have been made or changed, and there is still time to engage with key stakeholders. But if you fail to act, I can guarantee that you are creating big problems for years to come that will come back to haunt city residents and future governments and cause more acrimony and even larger expenses.

Andrew Ryan
Baywood Homeowner
790 of 1110
791 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:57 AM
To: Kassandra Gale; JulieAnn Murphy
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Joanna Winter; Somer Smith; Margo Nayyar Subject: [EXT] FW: San Mateo Park participation in historic ordinance outreach (info + hosting offer)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Morning JulieAnn and Kassandra,
Sharing an email from the San Mateo park Association. Let us know what thoughts/response you have to his email, and then we will provide a response at the end of the week when we’re all back from CalAPA.

Thanks!
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Zachary Dahl
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:47 AM
To: Chris Kusber
Cc: SMPNA Board of Directors <[email protected]>; Somer Smith <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>; Joanna Winter <[email protected]> Subject: RE: San Mateo Park participation in historic ordinance outreach (info + hosting offer) Morning Chris,
Thanks for reaching out about the historic policy update effort. Myself and the Planning team are out of the office attending training sessions at the annual state planning conference for the first half of this week. But I have shared your email with our staff and consultant team, and we will provide a more detailed response to you and the SMPNA Board at the end of the week.

City Council moved to BCC.

Have a nice Monday.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Chris Kusber
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 9:01 PM
To: Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
792 of 1110
2 Cc: SMPNA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: San Mateo Park participation in historic ordinance outreach (info + hosting offer) Dear City Council, City Clerk, Mr. Dahl, and Mr. Khojikian, On behalf of the San Mateo Park Neighborhood Association (SMPNA), thank you for your continued work on City ordinances and for your efforts in keeping the community informed.

Over the past week, we’ve heard from San Mateo Park residents who are eager to learn more about the historic ordinance process, updates, and how to participate. In that spirit - and true to our mission to share information with our community - we’re reaching out to request a few details and to offer our help.

Specifically, could you please share:
x Schedule & format – Dates, times, locations, and formats for the upcoming pop-up events and the three planned stakeholder focus groups.
x Communications & notification – The City’s planned outreach (channels, timing, and any mailers) so we can share and potentially amplify, as needed. x Timeline & next steps – Key milestones over the coming months, anticipated dates for a draft ordinance and the citywide historic context statement, and how public input will shape revisions before Council consideration.

We’d also be happy to host. SMPNA can help coordinate a City-led event in San Mateo Park - either as one of your pop-ups or as a dedicated, in-person neighborhood session focused on learning and input. We’re happy to handle logistics (venue coordination, on-site volunteers) and to promote the event through our email list, website, and social channels to help ensure broad, welcoming participation.

Our goal is simple: to be a reliable vessel of information so Park neighbors can learn, ask questions, and share feedback constructively.

If helpful, our board is meeting next Monday, 10/6, and can be made available to compare calendars and discuss dates and logistics.

Thank you for your partnership and for all you do for our community.

Chris
Chris Kusber
President
San Mateo Park Neighborhood Association
sanmateopark.org
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have 793 of 1110
3 received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 794 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 5:11 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Margo Nayyar; Kassandra Gale
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: Historic Policy Study Session, June 2, 2025 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 12:21 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Policy Study Session, June 2, 2025
Dear Mayor Newsom and City Council Members,

Thank you for addressing San Mateo’s ordinance for historic resources. Like many of you, my love for San Mateo is rooted in its beautiful historic architecture and is a key reason why San Mateo is such a highly desirable place to live.

There have been several “generations” of the City Council working on the General Plan over the years; even with widely diverse opinions of each Council body, it is resoundingly clear that they believed historic architecture was important to preserve throughout each of the General Plan iterations.

In revising the ordinance, the City should respect the expertise of our state and national historic bodies, which have processes developed over many years.

The City ordinance should flow easily from the state process so homeowners of historic homes will understand how the processes work together for a cohesive policy.

While it seems magnanimous to include owner consent in the City’s ordinance, it is actually duplicative of the state process. We should not challenge a process that has taken years to put together with something that sounds good, but has no real value for San Mateo, and actually defeats the purpose of what the General Plan is trying to accomplish.

And for me, an owner of a historic home, I have already had to acquiesce to the City when we remodeled our home in 2017. We made several changes to our plans without complaint as we agreed that it was important for our home to continue to align with the rest of the neighborhood. Our consent was not an option; the requirement was complied with.

There are two Heritage Sycamore trees in our front yard. These trees are not ours; they are the City’s. Even though they are on our property, we have no options as to their care, we are tasked by the City to care for them, which we willingly do because it is so important to the overall look and feel 795 of 1110
2 of this gorgeous neighborhood. We have never been allowed to opt-out or consent on this, although it is a costly requirement, and we never expect to be given choices by the City.

With respect to the General Plan, Council should not consider the Planning Commission as the governing body for the ordinance as this body has a reputation for unilaterally opposing historic preservation because of the false notion that it prevents housing. A more balanced body of leaders needs to be identified to truly carry out the work the General Plan prescribes.

Thank you,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 796 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 2:41 PM
To: Kassandra Gale; JulieAnn Murphy; Margo Nayyar
Cc: Somer Smith; Sung H. Kwon
Subject: [EXT] FW: Please: Require 80% Homeowner Consent for Historic District Designation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

FYI
From: crystal hayling
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:16 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please: Require 80% Homeowner Consent for Historic District Designation

Dear City Councilmembers,
Thank you for your leadership in developing a historic preservation policy that aims to balance the value of our city’s history with the rights of individual homeowners.

As you consider this important issue, I urge you to adopt a policy requiring at least 80% of homeowners to explicitly consent before designating any neighborhood as a historic district. This kind of lasting change to property rights and land use should only proceed with clear and overwhelming support from those directly affected.

Even our residential parking permit program requires 67% support—surely, historic designation, with its far greater implications for homeowners, warrants a higher threshold.

Please ensure that homeowner voices remain central to decisions that shape the future of our neighborhoods.

Warmest regards,
Crystal Hayling
Baywood neighborhood

I'm using dictation! Please excuse typos.
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is 797 of 1110
2 confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 798 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 5:11 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Kassandra Gale; Margo Nayyar
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: Historic Policy Study Session, June 2, 2025 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

From: >
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 12:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Subject: Historic Policy Study Session, June 2, 2025
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. x 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] x 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.
x One current Planning Commissioner has spoken during “Public Comments” strongly and angrily opposing the destination of Baywood as a Historic District.
799 of 1110
2 x 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-c77890518Ư5.html
Respectfully,
Dave Cohen
San Mateo Resident
800 of 1110
3 * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. [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-c77890518Ư5.html
801 of 1110
802 of 1110

"#

$ %

#

$

&
%

& '
%

(
)
)
*

+

#

)%
*

,

)
%
)

%-
%"

.

$
#

'

%

)
$

*
&

&*
' % %-

%
)

%

/01

)

1%
$
-

*
)
)

%

2.

(%%

%

3$

#.

#

$ %

3

,1 ,$1

!"
#$%
&'
./#

01021345
00678
9:;<=>?@<A
B?C<AD
EFF?@>
G
HIAJI@D
KIJC
G
LM>C??N
J>>O=611?M>C??NP?FF<AQPA?R1RI<C199:N9KSJ:TU0:TVDWXY0HKZ>[\E7[]0JHKA^W_Z`[TSC[\Z0:aAT:Y9M999999K><DbU@bRTcd7Z4eNRQc^a9Yf 312 803 of 1110

!

"

#
#

$%%&"

!$%'()

*##

# #"+

!
#
"

,

#
"+

#

#

"

"-.'('/#

) 0-

# 1
223

!

223

#

/$3

4

#

0

!

#

-
#

"
* #

) "
5

!
"
+
"
)

67896:;<<=

*$%%&
>?>@?ABC>>DEFGHIJKLMNJOPMQJORSTTMNLUVWOXWNRYWXQUZ[LQMM\ XLL]KD??M[LQMM\^MTTJO_^OM`?`WJQ?GGH\GYaXHbc>HbdRefg>VYhLijSEik>XVYOlemhnibaQijh>HoObHgG[GGGGGGYLJRpcNp`bqrEhBs\`_qloGgt @?@ 804 of 1110
805 of 1110

"#

$
%

"
&

(

)*+)!

,!-

$

"

$

!/
)
)!

)
#

*
01 2 234542634742 83 49:34:4 2;+

"

!

"
!

)!

$

!

*
<:24

$

!!
#

,!-

)
)

*
014=4>42 ?464= @
014 224 271414A@3B4721@C447@D42 834;

)!

$

!

")
!

!

$

!

!#
)
##

*
F1314= DG32H@43DI4
JKLK
M$
/
)

#
,!-

!
"
!#

N

!O"

*
JKKP
$
$

!

)

*
RSSKG2 8T@4U43A443@<@3:342
,!-

)!

!#

)
!
*
,!-

,
!'!
%
&

V)*
W

!
##

!

)

##
!

XYYZ[\]]Y.

#

)

$

!/
))!

.#!

"$

!))
!

*
RSSK^RSRP_ @ 8A443@<@3RS`Sa
XbXcb\Z.XXdcYMV&

'
!
##
/e
f
!/(!

)
dbb
!

Q*
##
*
b
!bMMVQMfg
V-hXV-"iWjXefkN,lN$X
efi
kmN-g!N,kXVn-VjMMMMMMMf
oho-OplkZQOnMjq \bm
806 of 1110

!"#$%&'()*)%+,-./0123245/)6$#)780+!9)/232:;
<=

0!%+$%")#+!7)#0/$9)>.%-.+)!.#1.6$%&?+@!7)#$&%.+)7 1$#+!/$07$#+/$0+#A+1)B!@%+!@%.%7+1)C(.D)%@!!7 $#+!/$0B$#+/$0+#AE

F
G <HIJK

L

M
E

<

<

8%+1)N9#)%0)!O.>$%&()N/01$6.(B!0"*)%+
P1).9#)%0)!O./).7$(Q(!0.+)7./01$6.(7!0"*)%+7!)#%!+%)&.+)(!%&R#+.%7$%&S!"%0$(R .7!T+)7T!($0QU
V
<

<

<=

<

<

W

X1QC)%)/.(Y(.%23Z3-.++)/#
P1)C)%)/.(Y(.%$#.S!"%0$(R.7!T+)7T!($0Q7!0"*)%+A%!+.#+.OO*)*!U [

JK\K

W
<

<]

^

<

<W

_

!@C)%)/.(Y(.%2343`$+#+1)S!%+$%"$+Qa)0!/7
^

JKbK

<<

c
M

<<

]

<

X1.+ .#S1.%&)7a)0)%+(Q
HfH\fJgHHc\Ihi

<
j
<d k_
cff_

f
fhhi_hdlimHi<n^oHjd[e
beHjd
]n[pele[Hiq
iohhhhhhhd<rmr
Msb[g_
M]qhot \fp
807 of 1110

#$%%
&
'()
#$) !*
+,-(().#$!(-&(%
)(#!(&
!)(/(
&(!)

,$0-(%
#%&1
2) //

(!
(&
!)(/(
&,#)
!)( -34
!
% -5- !-
!6$,7 )(#!
8(!-$&(!"9
:
;#<(!"4- =
!'##&%
/
%
!

>-)
%(!"; ,,
&0#$!& %(

.- %(/*(!"
) )$
- !"$ "

%

$0
) !)(<
,#-(*
!"

8!#)-
%( -
&()
1 ?@AB
C@D

D
D

(
%
)
&
%
-( !
(!)
%

)8 -
%,- !!(!"0

-(!
8 !&#;;$!()*
+,
) )(#!

,
&#<
%;#%
)
!
&
&
1 >-#!"6
) !&(!"0

-(!

#$-&!#)0
$!&#!
(;,-(()-*#% &;(!(
)% )(<
-*1
EAFCA
E
G##$)%

'
&(%
)
&
,
(/( --*)#4- =
!'##&%

(&
!)
&$%(!")

#%&(! !
$,& )
8

(!&( )
&(!)

:(!#!.#!
$-) !)
#;;$!()*
!" "
;
!)
$;; %*1
4(<
!-#!"6
) !&(!"%
#"!()(#! !&%

!) &;(!(
)% )(<

!"

8#!/$
(#! ;#!"%

(&
!)
(

$!&
%
) !& 0-
1.-
%.#$!(-&(%
)(#!(
!

&
&)#%

)#%
)% !
, %
!* !&#!/(&
!
1 ?HIJA

.#$!(-#!/(%; )(#!)
)8 0

!) !
+,-(().#$!(-&
(
(#!)#
!"
() /)
%,$0-(#!
(&
% )(#!8
4- =
!'##&K
-#!"6
) !&(!")%
);
!)

(
)#%(&(
)%()'(--9
I
@AFL
D
D

D
H
L
(!)

$,& )
&M(
)#%(5%

%< )(#!N%&(! !
!&%
- )
&
4 !
% -5- !; )
%( -
8(!-$&(!"; ,,
&&(
)%()0#$!& %(

HO
CJAL
P)(
%
Q$

))
))

.()*!#)Q$(
)-*
!"

#'()

)%
)
&4- =
!'##&/#%;#%
)
! &
&

'()
#$)
+,-(().#$!(- )(#!1
RSRTSUV8RR9TW>XM(
)#%(5#-(*Y//#%)6Z
%*[
-6N$)-##\

)),
9SS#$)-##\1#//(
1#;S; (-S>>X\>[]
X=^RX="*_`aRZ[b)G4YcG.R
Z[+_bdG=]-G4bRXe=Xa>$>>>>>>[)(*f^%f;=:gcbV0\;
:+e>ah cSd
808 of 1110

!"##$
%&'&()
*+,,- . +
/+*0+
+-1)!22*0 0

/30
+
+.*45/!! 3"667-07
+2
03!
+1 -8
,/
+
0-91338
29
":";:<=4"">;#?@A
0!B!-C330 7D!+0-E+7F) .
+ ,
>::) .933!9!2:2:??@.?EG+@H"@/-IJK"DEL MCNM1"+DE!OIPLQMGML"@R!@K?)??????E -$H0$2 SNL=*.2
OR?KT Q:Q
809 of 1110
810 of 1110

!
"!##

$
%&
%'()*
+,- ,.
/(0+1,%$,-+
2%
*

3&3#%45 +6#"4/2
*7
811 of 1110
812 of 1110

!
""!!
#
$%
&%
!

!
'(

!

))
!
!* !)

!""!!
+
%,
%
% %-.
%-
,
-
%

-./#
01"

2) !!
3
*) !
!4))
!

5! #3%/
6&%

7"
)"5 !

)'( !
#
3/-
.

68.%
%-.

%
9

:
;!

<=>
?

.

@
'( 4

)A !

" "
)! "+-
%
%

// .
%%

./
@"

)'( .
%

% .-
%- /

37
%,
")'(
!)

2!!

/
.%

+
7

--%%
B&%
#7%
%
.

/7
%
!
!"2
!!#
C

&6 .
6 .%
-
%%
#
D%
-
6+
; ");E@
>
?
$%

C
%%
F
4!2!
#
GHGIHJKLGGMIJNOPQRSTUQVWTXQVYZ[[TUS\]^V_^UY`^_X\abSXTTc _SSdRMHHTbSXTTceT[[QVfeVTgHg^QXHNNOcN`h_OijGOikYlmnG]`oSpqZrpsG_]`VtluovpihXpqoGOwViOnNbNNNNNN`SQYxjUxgiyzroK{cgfytwNn| JHJ 813 of 1110
814 of 1110

!"
#
$!%
#&
'((!"
)
*+#,+"&
-+,%
)
./ %!!0
, 1!/ %!!02!((
#32#!44+
%
0-5,
67
68&9:;*-< =>'=?,*-#@9A<B=65%=><
C#6
;/-
&D7"D46EF<G043E@C;H
815 of 1110
816 of 1110
817 of 1110
818 of 1110
819 of 1110
820 of 1110
821 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 12:32 PM
To: Margo Nayyar; JulieAnn Murphy; Kassandra Gale
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: It's not consent - It's understanding the consequences of Historic Designation.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

FYI
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Frank Elliott
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 11:58 AM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirco-Godycki ; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Subject: It's not consent - It's understanding the consequences of Historic Designation.

Consent is the key issue—because we’re wary of added restrictions on our property. We are insisting, because we are afraid.

I support celebrating San Mateo’s history, and we should do that in ways that are inclusive and noncontroversial. But under state law, the consequences for property owners are unclear. Many believe it limits remodel options, increases CEQA risk, blocks SB 9, etc. Others say that’s false.

Councilmember Diaz-Nash, you’ve told me—and hundreds of others—that a state finding of historic status can pose no risk, and that local ordinances can prevent new burdens. I’ve challenged that. I hope you’re right, but we should settle that question before taking another step.

Baywood will likely be found historic at the state level—without owner consent.

Council, before spending another dollar, please direct Rincon to draft ordinances that impose minimal or no burdens in cases like Baywood, and have them reviewed by a CEQA attorney. You don’t have to adopt them—just show the option exists.

Other neighborhoods deserve clarity. And until we fully understand the impact on remodel and demolition rights, 100% consent must remain.

Staff: Make sure your process outlines how the community will be able to weigh in on the topic of property restrictions, for the new ordinances. So far your summary report is silent on this topic. 822 of 1110
2 Thank you.
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 823 of 1110
824 of 1110

!"#$%&$'(
)'*$*#+#'!,!"$!#*-

/01213.4

4
4
5

/
11213

4

4

4

4
/1712138

4

4

:

;

5
><=5?
@

A

4

<=5

4 4

<=5

@

4

<=5
C

<=5

4

D
4

>F
?

G9 4

G
4

54

4
4

;

4

4

HIJKLMN
OPQRS
TUVWXTVYZ[\]^_`aT[WbcWXd
ORKePSfgJKKRS
hijkillkmlno
pqrstuvwxyuwz{|
}~tv

rtuv ¡¢£¤£ ¥¦§¨©ªuzwz«¬

!" #$$%&$$% '($)*+,#(- ./"01(*2,3"$4+.5 67(#$+.(*8.-(,&,* # 9:;:<=>?<@A=BCCDEFGHIJKLHJEMNGOPMFIIQ
NMMRS@::IPMFIIQTIUUEVKWX=TVIJ:JDEF:EY:ZZ[QZ\]EC\^_`abEcdCW`_ZMefg_OhAie\`Wcd`<^_jACJkQCaVA^[Z[Zl^Fm?<Zne9eJaokh``fbpqrWf<:X 825 of 1110

!"#$%&'("
)*
+

,

-./0.1102134

56789:;<=>?@AB<CDEFGHIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTU
VWXY9ZB<[\]^_;`]ab^acadefcegZ
h79:Bijk:ilmnCDDPKLoIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTUp:lil<q\r\s\<[CDtOEOuOHvIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTU VwxyWzY9{|f}j~;jmmn\mmnjlm]B<l[jkg;`l<;m
BkjA>lmBklk[l<\<j

,

¡
¢

56789£`j¤@nB¥lrl\<COEoG¦KEKOHIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTU
VWXY9ZB<[\]^_;`]ab^acadeafdbgZ
h79gk\\<<\}\l\nC§SODKOoIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTUpnkl¨<\>Bkkljk=jkCJoGSSKD©QSTQSIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTUp :;<=>?@AB<CDEFGHIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTUpq\n\k]ª\n`CtvOo«IJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTU VwxyWzY9{|f}j~;jmmn\mmnjlm]B<l[jkg;`l<;m
BkjA>lmBklk[l<\<j

¬

¢

®¯°±²³´µ¶·¶¸¹
lm]Z\<\=jkºlm]Z\<\=jk»¼j
½½c|?acmn£sj?^:\<Z\mjB^£¾¿¿c½
ÀdcÁdaaÁÂccaºÃÄÅÆÇÈÄÈÃÉÊËÈÌÍÆÎÏÃÉÐÃÌÑÆÒÆÓÔ

56789{k\<rÕ``lBÖCN U
VWXY9ZB<[\]^_;`]ab^acadeafadgZ
h79q\n\k]ª\n`CtvOo«IJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTU
×z9@\\<[k\Ø\`jCETO«QISKHJGHJGHDÙ«LOHLDRJGPUpÕ``lBÖ{k\<rUpØl``l\<Ú\`r C£<[kjA}]\<;`lj£<<Z;kn]
C¦PÙS§oMISKHJGHJGHDÙ«LOHLDRJGPUp£`j¤@nB¥lrl\<COEoG¦KEKOHIJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTUplm]B;<l`Û:\<Z\mjBÜ CÝKLMÝGÙHJK«IJKLMGNDOHPOLQGRGSTU
VwxyWzY9}j~;jmmn\mmnjlm]B<l[jkg;`l<;m
BkjA>lmBklk[l<\<j
Þßàß1.31/.,
0
0

ßß

-.
ß
ßß
/4 1
/
/
¬31
Þ

ß826 of 1110

!"
#$$
%$&'
$(!)*+
,##$
!-"!#(!($
./$
(&$!

0!
!&-!($
#-'+($#-

)12
34356789:;:<;=2>>=:34;=?=;3@;>6=23>>36682?;=A7<98A73B C4;:623=396=?88;48D;2>6=34;513EF99=;D=?46FGEF66?248?9;?24679?34; 233;>8?34236=?23=3H8?146A;99F99D=;;F;8;;?36F6=36D;34;=68:8D 27=;8E8;F6=?88;2=;>9;334;8A736>9923;469?;=2B I#-+J!"
!$J$
-(

"
!

!-$

!#
&
--!
-

!)
K

!($J-!$#-+$#($ !&
!#!$!

./
LMNOPMNQRSTUQMRVVWXYYNMQTZQRZXQZ[XV\]^_OVS`NSaSPXNQRZVMURPZVNMRRZbUSRZ RZcSZdTeXWSVQMRSXNf
gZhMYSQSMNMaNMNOPMNQRSTUQMRVVWXYYTZiRMPZVVZ[XVXhSNSVQZRSXYXPQSMNjNMQ [SVPRZQSMNXRe
LMNOPMNQRSTUQMRVVWXYYNMQTZPMNVS[ZRZ[WSVQMRSPXYYeVS`NSaSPXNQaMRiURiMVZVMa Ui`RX[ZVXN[hM[SaSPXQSMNVjNMQVUTkZPQQM\]^_jXN[NZZ[MNYePMhiYedSQWQWZ \SQelVZmSVQSN`NZS`WTMRWMM[[ZVS`N`US[ZYSNZV
n67863;?34323>>F679?9;9E=;9E6834;683=<736=922>3682834;86:8368H8?1 2;;34;2:;348D6834;53Eo2F;<23;)pq
!$rs#

"(
$
#)t!-&"+J#!&$#$- &

u vD;wC7=8<799x34;68279383343A=;A=;?34;GEF66?86:8368x9;9E2A;839;22 348yz:873;2;@9738D;446:;8GEF66?)
{|$(}
#-(

$

$

|$--&$!-

)
$(&-!($$-+
¡|&

"!-+"(!&
!
-+(
¢!$#-

)|$
-#£¢(
¤-

#
)¥$
"!
#$

+J&-!-
$"&%+($-

$+&$$
!
rs)J
"
!#(¢
$-!-$(-$

$+$-/¦§-"() ¨¢)))-&

!$))))

$-

$($$
!(!+$$
$©©
ª«¬«®¯°±²®³´´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¹»¶¾¿¸ÀÁ¾·ººÂ
¿¾¾ÃÄ±««ºÁ¾·ººÂÅºÆÆ¶Ç¼ÈÉ®ÅÇº»«»µ¶·«¶Ê«ËËÌÂËÍÎ¶´ÍÏÐÑÒÓ¶ÔÕ´ÈÑÐË¾Ö×ØÐÀÙ²ÚÖÍÑÈÔÕÑÏÐÛ²´»ÜÂ´ÒÇ²ÏÌËÌËÝÏ·Þ°ËßÖªÖ»ÒàÜÙÑÑ×ÓÈ×Ú«É 827 of 1110

!"!
#!$% &'(&)!%(
$%#&!*+#$& ##+
&'+,#$#-'%$.!%#$&/%$##-'01234

56

789:;<=>;?@><;A:B<;CD@<@9:?EEB>F?;@G89:H:I<H:J?;KF9?;C:D=LD@A:M>H:F@:M @<@9:?EEB>F?;@?;MEH:E?H:HGGGN9<LBM@9:K=?O:F9?;C:D@<@9:;<=>;?@><;J@9:K P<LBMEH<Q>M:@9:?=:;M:M;<=>;?@><;@<<LH<II>F:I<HH:Q>:PGR
STUVWXUYZVZ[[Z\]^_`aVUXb[a`bc^XVWbVVWXdefgb`hab`Z`hX]VWUXiZXjakXbgW Wa\Xlmnopqrstroputvpqwxyz{tyot|}~vtt{przvppx

srpstryt
znxyozyywwnpytnpqoyutlqryotrvotnozwwtntxyot|}~puupntrpn zzntppunzypnrtzrxnuwztxpnyrqypryotypwxutyotxpny rtzwwzrtuyz{tzrtuzxtvyortstyyppnyrqypryzyqyotzrtpqtxzpqy yotptrzwwttwpzntoproppxnxtxnvotyotrypzssrptznpunzypnlot|}~ twttyotrvpr{xptnpyztysrpstryroylnpryqnzytwyozyuswnpyyrqtl

5

5

6

5

5

5

6

5

66

yopqyoputpvntrpntny
yopqyutznnqwprnxtstnxtnyrttv
yopqyxqtsrpt

5

6
66

¢£

6

5

5

6

6

6

¤T¥¥X[VXhdUhZ`b`gX¦b`¥Tb¥X
§

65

SaUb`_`XZ¥WcaUWaahhXVXU\Z`XhX^Z¥Zc^XkaUVWX¨b^ZkaU`ZbaU©bVZa`b^ªX¥Z[VXU« cTV`aVkaU\b^^_hX[Z¥`bVXhb[b^agb^WZ[VaUZghZ[VUZgVVWUaT¥W¨ZV_]UagX[[« b^^ ]Ua]XUVZX[[Wb^^cX]UX[T\Xh`a`¬ga`VUZcTVZ`¥kaU]TU]a[X[ak¨®¯T`^X[[VWX aj`XUWb[bkkZU\bVZiX^_ga`[X`VXhVaga`VUZcTVZ`¥[VbVT[°
±

§6

4

5

³
5

6

5

5

5

©X´V¤VX][b`hµZ[Tb^´b\]^X
¶·¸·¹º¹»¼º~½½zw¾putruyo¾|qywpp{
oyys»··pqywpp{lpt¿Àºlpu·uzw·x·mmÁ{mÂÃ½ÂÄÅÆÇÈ½¿ÆÅmyÅ|É¼ ÂÆ¿ÈÆ¹ÄÅ¼½uÊ{½Ç¼ÄÁmÁmÄw¹mv¶uÇnÊÉÆÆ}ËÌ¿º·À
828 of 1110

!

"

#

$

%

#

&
'()*+,--./00
123456789:58;<83=:>4?2@97A@BB868:B4C:DD96E<F:84BGHIIJKKKLM@A89:58<7>:74N8<F:84CHOOJKKK P69834;9<884794D698B4:Q4NHRRJKKKP694Q:B@:8<676PRRR36F4NS 69:DD96E<F:84BGHOKKD4936F4L T8HUKKV36@9J83<N4W@:84N8696@>3BGXKF<7@84N6P94Q<4;D49D96D498GL YZ[Z\]^_\`a]bccdefghijklhjemngopmfiiq
nmmrs`ZZipmfiiqtiuuevkwx]tvijZjdefZeyZzz{qz|}ec|~ecwzm oa
|w\~acjqcva~{z{z~f_\z
Y
jwxZx
829 of 1110
830 of 1110
831 of 1110
832 of 1110
Historic District FAQ – What Homeowners Need to Know
(Draft Proposal for City Website / Public Materials)
Q: If my home is in a historic district, what does that mean for projects? It means your project may be reviewed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (see attached for more detail). If your plans follow those standards, they are usually approved. If they don’t, your project could be delayed, conditioned, or even denied — and in some cases, a neighbor or outside group can file a legal CEQA challenge.

Q: What kinds of projects are usually safe (approved if done in-kind or in a compatible way)?
x Interior work: Kitchens, baths, wiring, plumbing, HVAC — all okay. x Roof replacement: Using the same materials, pitch, and color. x Windows/doors: Replacing in the same style, size, and material. x Rear additions: Smaller additions at the back of the home, designed to match. x Garage doors: Replacing with a similar paneled or carriage-style door. x Porches: Repairing or restoring to original design.
x ADUs: Small, rear-yard units that match the house in scale and style. x Solar panels: Allowed if placed out of sight (rear roof slope). California law may extend more flexibility.
x Routine maintenance: Painting, gutters, fences, landscaping (as long as compatible). x Demolition of a non-contributor, presuming the replacement is consistent with the historical character of the neighborhood.

Q: What kinds of projects are most likely to be challenged or denied? x Demolition: Tearing down a contributing home. (Note: Contributor status is identified in the district nomination. While that classification can be challenged, it is generally treated as controlling.)
x Major additions: Adding a full second story to a one-story ranch/bungalow. x Roof changes: Altering rooflines, materials, pitches, or adding big front-facing dormers. x Facade changes: Removing porches, enclosing entries, or altering street-facing elevations.
x Windows/doors: Installing vinyl/aluminum windows, oversized picture windows, or modern glass/steel front doors.
x New openings: Adding/removing prominent windows or doors on the front façade; frontfacing French/sliding doors. x Garage doors: Modern flush steel or glass-paneled doors that change the streetscape. x Exterior materials: Replacing wood siding with stucco, stone veneer, or synthetic finishes.
x Large/visible solar panels: On front or street-facing roof slopes. x Oversized ADUs: Units that dominate the lot or alter the character of the street. x Landscaping/site changes: Removing historic walls, site layouts, or mature trees that define district character.
833 of 1110
Historic District FAQ – What Homeowners Need to Know
Q: Why does this matter?
x If your project strays from DOE standards, staff may require you to hire a historic consultant (several thousand dollars), revise plans, or go through extended CEQA review.
x If staff are not satisfied with the historian’s report, they may require a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before advancing the project. An EIR can take a year or more and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. x A neighbor or outside group can also challenge your project under CEQA, even if the City approves it. If you lose that challenge, you will be obligated to pay the challengers’ legal fees.
x These factors can lead to months or years of delay and tens of thousands (or more) in added costs.

Q: How can I reduce risk?
x Stay as close as possible to DOE standards for visible changes. x Keep large additions or modern elements to the rear or less-visible sides. x Use materials that match the original character of your home and district. x Talk to City staff early and ask what elements are considered “character-defining.” 834 of 1110

6RPHU 6PLWK
)URP
=DFKDU\ 'DKO
6HQW
7XHVGD\ 6HSWHPEHU

30
7R
.DVVDQGUD *DOH
-XOLH$QQ 0XUSK\
0DUJR 1D\\DU
&F
6RPHU 6PLWK
6XQJ + .ZRQ
-RDQQD :LQWHU
6XEMHFW
):
0LQLVWHULDO ,WHPV LQ )XWXUH +LVWRULF 'LVWULFWV
ēÍŘĖĲČ ťēĖŜ èĺııôĲť ÍŜ ÍĲ >´Iϟ ®ô èÍĲ ċŪŘťēôŘ îĖŜèŪŜŜ Íť ĺŪŘ ıôôťĖĲČ ĲôƄť ſôôħϟ ēÍĲħŜϟ
¾ÍèēÍŘƅ "ÍēīϠ I

"ĖŘôèťĺŘϠ
ĺııŪĲĖťƅ "ôŽôīĺŕıôĲť
&ƌŽŵ͗ &ƌĂŶŬ
ůůŝŽƚƚ
^ĞŶƚ͗ dƵĞƐĚĂǇ͕ ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ ϵ͕ ϮϬϮϱ ϭϮ͗ϯϱ WD
dŽ͗ WƌĂƐĂŶŶĂ ZĂƐŝĂŚ фƉƌĂƐŝĂŚΛĐŝƚǇŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
Đ͗ ĂĐŚĂƌǇ ĂŚů фǌĚĂŚůΛĐŝƚǇŽĨƐĂŶŵĂƚĞŽ͘ŽƌŐх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ DŝŶŝƐƚĞƌŝĂů /ƚĞŵƐ ŝŶ &ƵƚƵƌĞ ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ FĖ ŘÍŜÍĲĲÍϱ
®ô ťÍīħôî ÍæĺŪť ťēô ċôÍŜĖæĖīĖťƅ ĺċ ıÍħĖĲČ Ŝĺıô ĖťôıŜ ıĖĲĖŜťôŘĖÍī ſĖťēĖĲ ēĖŜťĺŘĖè îĖŜťŘĖèťŜ ſĖťē ťēô ĺŘîĖĲÍĲèô ŪŕîÍťôϟ ´ĺŪ īôť ıô ħĲĺſ ťēÍť ÍĲ ĺŘîĖĲÍĲèô èēÍĲČô ſĖīī æô ŜŪæĤôèť ťĺ ( ŘôŽĖôſϠ ÍĲî
ŕŪŘŜŪĖĲČ Í èĺŪŘŜô ťĺ ıÍħô Íîîôî ĖťôıŜ ıĖĲĖŜťôŘĖÍī èĺŪīî ıÍħô ťēô ( ŘôŽĖôſ ıĺŘô èēÍīīôĲČĖĲČϟ I
ēôÍŘî ƅĺŪŘ èĺĲèôŘĲϠ æŪť ſĺĲîôŘ Ėċ ťēôŘô ıĖČēť æô Í ŜĺīŪťĖĺĲ ťēÍť ĺċċôŘŜ Ŝĺıô īÍťĖťŪîôϠ ſĖťēĺŪť îŘÍıÍťĖèÍīīƅ ĖĲèŘôÍŜĖĲČ ťēÍť èēÍīīôĲČô ĺċ ŪŕîÍťĖĲČ ťēô ĺŘîĖĲÍĲèôϟ

ĺŪīî ťēô
Ėťƅ èŘôÍťô Í ŕŘĺŜŕôèťĖŽô īĖŜť ĺċ ıĖĲĖŜťôŘĖÍī ĖťôıŜ ťēÍť ſĺŪīî Íŕŕīƅ ťĺ ÍĲƅ ēĖŜťĺŘĖè îĖŜťŘĖèťϠ ĖĲèīŪîĖĲČ ťēĺŜô îôŜĖČĲÍťôî ĖĲ ťēô ċŪťŪŘôϦ IĲŜťôÍî ĺċ ıÍħĖĲČ æīÍĲħôť ÍīīĺſÍĲèôŜϠ ťēô ĺŘîĖĲÍĲèô èĺŪīî æô ŜôīċϱīĖıĖťĖĲČ æƅ ťƅĖĲČ ıĖĲĖŜťôŘĖÍī ÍŕŕŘĺŽÍī ťĺ ſēÍť ĖŜ ÍīŘôÍîƅ ċĺŪĲî ÍıĺĲČ èĺĲťŘĖæŪťĺŘŜ ĖĲ Í ŕŘĺŜŕôèťĖŽô îĖŜťŘĖèťϟ >ĺŘ ôƄÍıŕīôϠ èēÍĲČôŜ ŜŪèē ÍŜ ſĖĲîĺſ ĺŘ îĺĺŘ ŘôŕīÍèôıôĲťŜϠ ÍîîĖťĖĺĲÍī ſĖĲîĺſ ĺŕôĲĖĲČŜϠ ŜôèĺĲîϱŜťĺŘƅ ÍîîĖťĖĺĲŜϠ ĺŘ ŘĺĺċϯŜĖîĖĲČ ıĺîĖċĖèÍťĖĺĲŜ èĺŪīî æô ťŘôÍťôî ÍŜ ıĖĲĖŜťôŘĖÍī ГĖċ ťēĺŜô ċôÍťŪŘôŜ ÍŘô ÍīŘôÍîƅ ŕŘôŜôĲť ĺĲ ĺťēôŘ èĺĲťŘĖæŪťĺŘ ŕŘĺŕôŘťĖôŜ ĖĲ ťēô îĖŜťŘĖèťϟГ ēĖŜ ſĺŪīî ČĖŽô ēĺıôĺſĲôŘŜ ŕŘôîĖèťÍæĖīĖťƅϠ ŘôîŪèô ťēô æŪŘîôĲ ĺċ îĖŜèŘôťĖĺĲÍŘƅ ŘôŽĖôſϠ ÍĲî ŕôŘēÍŕŜ ŕŘĺťôèť îĖŜťŘĖèť ĖĲťôČŘĖťƅϠ ŜĖĲèô ťēô æôĲèēıÍŘħ ſĺŪīî ÍīſÍƅŜ æô ťēô ôƄĖŜťĖĲČ èĺĲťŘĖæŪťĺŘ Ŝťĺèħϟ >Řĺı Í

( ŜťÍĲîŕĺĖĲťϠ ŕôŘēÍŕŜ ťēô
Ėťƅ èĺŪīî ÍŘČŪô ťēÍť ťēô ĺŘîĖĲÍĲèô ĖŜ Ĳĺť ôĲÍæīĖĲČ ēÍŘıċŪī èēÍĲČôŜ ĖĲ ťēô ÍæŜťŘÍèťϠ æŪť ŜĖıŕīƅ ŜťÍĲîÍŘîĖƏĖĲČ ſēÍť ēÍŜ ÍīŘôÍîƅ æôôĲ Íèèôŕťôî ÍŜ èĺĲŜĖŜťôĲť ſĖťē èĺĲťŘĖæŪťĺŘ ŜťÍťŪŜϟ Iť ŜôôıŜ ĖĲèĺĲ èĺŪīî ēôīŕ ČĖŽô ŪŜ ČŪĖîÍĲèô ĺĲ ťēĖŜϟ I ĤŪŜť ſÍĲť ťĺ ıÍħô ŜŪŘô ťēĖŜ èĺĲèôŕť ĖŜ ČĖŽôĲ ċÍĖŘ èĺĲŜĖîôŘÍťĖĺĲϠ ĺŘ ÍĲƅ ĺťēôŘ ıĖîîīô ŕÍťē ťēÍť ŘôîŪèôŜ èĺıŕīĖèÍťĖĺĲŜ ċĺŘ ēĺıôĺſĲôŘŜϠ ÍĲî ťēô
Ėťƅϟ Iċ ôŽôŘƅťēĖĲČ ſĖťēĖĲ Í ēĖŜťĺŘĖè îĖŜťŘĖèť ĖŜ îĖŜèŘôťĖĺĲÍŘƅϟϟϟϟ IťДŜ Í ſĖîô ĺŕôĲ îĺĺŘ ċĺŘ èēÍīīôĲČôŜϠ îôīÍƅŜϠ ÍĲî Íîîôî èĺŜťŜϟ 835 of 1110

I ħĲĺſ ťēĖŜ ĖŜ Í èĺıŕīĖèÍťôî ťĺŕĖèϠ IДî ĤŪŜť ÍŕŕŘôèĖÍťô Ėť Ėċ ťēĖŜ èĺĲèôŕť ϼĺŘ ŜĺıôťēĖĲČ ŜĖıĖīÍŘϽ ĖŜ ČĖŽôĲ Ŝĺıô èŘôÍťĖŽô ťēĺŪČēťϟ Iť ſĺŪīî Ŝôôı ťēô ÍŕŕŘĺŕŘĖÍťô ťĖıô ťĺ ÍîîŘôŜŜ Ėť ĖŜ ÍīĺĲČ ſĖťē ťēô èĺıŕŘôēôĲŜĖŽô ēĖŜťĺŘĖè ĺŘîĖĲÍĲèô ŪŕîÍťôϠ ſēĖèē ĖĲ ÍĲî ĺċ ĖťŜôīċ ſĖīī īĖħôīƅ ŘôŗŪĖŘô Í ( ŘôŽĖôſϟ
>ŘÍĲħ
ϡ ôŘ ƅĺŪŘ ŜŪČČôŜťĖĺĲϠ I ıôť ſĖťē [ÍŪŘĖô FĖôťťôŘ īÍŜť ſôôħϠ ÍĲî ſĖťē ["b ťēô ſôôħ æôċĺŘôϟ ®ô ċĺŪĲî Ŝĺıô èĺııĺĲ ČŘĺŪĲîϠ ÍĲî Íīī ÍČŘôô ťēÍť ČŘôÍťôŘ èīÍŘĖťƅ ÍŘĺŪĲî ŕŘĺèôîŪŘôŜ ċĺŘ ēĖŜťĺŘĖè îĖŜťŘĖèťŜ ſĺŪīî æô ēôīŕċŪī ťĺ Íīīϟ [ÍŪŘĖô ÍĲî I ŕīÍĲ ťĺ ċĺīīĺſϱŪŕ ſĖťē Ŝĺıô ħĖĲî ĺċ ĤĺĖĲť ıôıĺ ċĺŘ ťēô ĖťƅДŜ èĺĲŜĖîôŘÍťĖĺĲϟ
836 of 1110
837 of 1110

!$

%

&'()(*+,-.-((/0.,1(-/.2()345565557.)8.9:()1:+0(:+-;<+;(0'+0,9=1:>)(,0+0(, (?9,09-;,0+0(;<9/(:9-(,+-/)(7:(@0,A().,1(@979@9-1<07).=0'(1<8:9@BC.0(6@.-,(-0 1).29,9.-,*()(+1)()(D<9,90(,(08>@.<-@9:B
EB&'(F:+*9-0'(G).@(,,HI;-.)9-;J(>K0+L('.:/(),

%

PQR
ST

&'9,=9,,(,0'(1.9-0(-09)(:>H0'(,(;).<1,
1(),9,01)(@9,(:>8(@+<,(0'(9),<8,0+-092(9-1<0@.-09-<(,0.8(9;-.)(/B
!

!

!

VB&(@'-9@+:W9,<-/(),0+-/9-;,XY9+,
%

Z
#

[

%
ST

!
\

!R
!

+8,.:<0(:>-.,0+L(9-0'(79-+-@9+:+-/1)+@09@+:
8<)/(-,0'(,()(,0)[email protected],1:+@(.-1).1()0>.*-(),B

`Ba+0(L((19-;XW9,,9-;G.:9@>b109.-,
Q

cd&IbCefghfK&
ijikjlmniiokpqrstuvwxtyzw{ty|}~~wxvyx|{ v{ww
vvuojjw
v{www~~tyywjt{jqqrqrir|iv}iy{iryrq qqqqqqvt|pxpmq ljk
838 of 1110

!"
#
$%
#"& '()* '(
+,

-

/
/

0

0
1.
2345
/

71
7

/
1 1

89 (*:';

'<='>?;
@;

> 'A

+B
>;;
1
0

/
/

/

1.
5

DEA>;">
F''

'>;> GH>I
+J 1

.F''

'>;%
A'
H
0

K 1

1L

6
0

1

/
.

ME<><
N#
*
#
O("

;(
(*

I%'<G
+P

.

K
#
Q
#'<G(R
(H

*
(*

I
'<G

0
.

7
0
7

1 .

STUV
WUXYZ[\XZZU]^_`a^VT\bVWcZUV^Xd_ZdU_eZ\fUc[`g\cVTZh^V`i jE<><
>k
"
>;:>&';' > (
+P

l
/

/

.
1
5-

/0

mO(

& G
%
&(
#+B

//1 n
l
o

K

/
VZpV

N&(&;"
'(q'Q*"?;'&
<><
R
'
( #(
*
(*

;Iq9>F>
(H';;Q>&
>*

#'& >?;

(" &(R
+/

K1
/
055
/
0
/
055

/

.

0 05

-P

/
r
/

/
/
0
ls t
1
l

l
:
>uE;;'(
vwvxwyz{vv|x}~

|wwww~~~vv ¡¢ £v¤¥¦ ¡v§~~~~~~~} }¨©¢zª¨¤§~« xwx
839 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 5:01 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Margo Nayyar; Kassandra Gale
Cc: Sung H. Kwon
Subject: [EXT] FW: Community supported historic preservation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

FYI
Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Gene Alston
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 4:49 PM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirco-Godycki ; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Subject: Community supported historic preservation
Dear Mayor Newson and Councilmembers,
I urge you to follow through on the previous commitment to include a clear homeowner consent requirement (above 80% affirmative consent) in any update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, especially for creating historic districts.

As your own staff report shows, cities like Glendale and South Pasadena require homeowner support before designating districts. San Mateo should do the same.

Requiring consent is not a legal mandate, but it is good policy. A consent-based process ensures that historic preservation is achieved through collaboration, not coercion.

Without consent, as the report also clearly outlines, residents could face costly permit hurdles, CEQA reviews, or resale complications, without ever agreeing to be part of a historic district.

Preservation should be a partnership, not an imposition. Please protect property rights and require homeowner consent for any future historic district designations.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue,
Gene Alston
Baywood Homeowner
* PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 840 of 1110
841 of 1110
842 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 5:06 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Margo Nayyar; Kassandra Gale
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: Public Comment on Special Meeting Agenda Item 1: Historic District CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Special Meeting Agenda Item 1: Historic District Good evening city council members. Thank you to staff and the council for your work navigating the complexities of historic preservation.

In order to ensure historic preservation harmonizes with the housing needs of current and future San Mateo residents, HLC supports the following components of any historic ordinance:
x Affirmative consent by the owner for any property to be designated history, and supermajority (2/3) affirmative consent of all property owners included within a proposed district, with the costs for officially acquiring such consent to be born by the applicants seeking to create a historic resource.
x Allow ADUs and duplexes to be built ministerially within historic districts x Embed decision-making authority in the planning commission rather than creating an independent commission
x Clarify the criteria for listing a historic resource to be more specific and tailored to the needs of San Mateo than the broad, easily abused California Register of Historic Resources Criteria. HLC can provide suggestions for language as the process evolves.

The council should set a high bar for the standards of historic preservation to ensure San Mateo can honor its heritage without smothering its future. As the staff report notes, "CEQA restrictions apply whether a resource is determined to be eligible for or actually listed on the CRHR. These CEQA restrictions require environmental review to determine whether a proposed development project may have a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the resource." Historic preservation will only 843 of 1110
2 maintain its integrity so long as it clearly emphasizes making history accessible for all, not making housing more difficult to build.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.hlcsmc.org
650.242.1764
Facebook • Twitter • LinkedIn • Instagram • Become A Member! * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 844 of 1110
845 of 1110
846 of 1110

!
"
#$%&
'(')'*'+,
-.
!/0"

345/

!"6
!"65/

7. 892:

;"<

$
;7=

> ?

A

2 "B
2 C!
2
;"<

$
;

DEF
40*0GH
"
;

<"
;2#
H

0; % ;"<I
C
/!

,
;

JKLMNOPQ

RSTUTVWXYZTK[\X]XUONX]KXYSTPYXLW[^YO_XKNW`SOa[X][W`XLbcWUUXP]XO_TK[T\O_XO KXYSTPYX[TNTdeNcXXfY^YXP]L

gWPaXKXUNQ

hdUWOPPXiTUOPaT

;
;j;

H
kl

@
<

kl
<j;

H

mn')'+! ;;
;m((

$
;
@.&)omp
qrstuuvtwxxx
yyyz{|}z}~z~z{

.
!/0"

!
"
#$%&
'(')n*m*'n.,
-

z{~
{}~z~z{
345/

!"6
{zz{y
}~z~z{7. 892:

~|{~
{~
~{z{7=

> ? 7A

2 "B
2 ~|{~
~{z{

DEF
40*0GH
"
;

<"
;2#
H

0; % ;"<I
C
/!

,
;

JYLiTUOPaTQ

b[^YPTceXXPOU`TY[O`TP[\LW_XP\Tc`da\[W`X\OYXUOSYX]OP][\XYW`SUWaW[NTZ[\X KXdXY[UOXPcTT]WYXW[\XK ZTK`OUUNXUWVWeUX¡ZTK[\X¢O[WTPOUTK£OUWZTKPWOMXVWY[XKYTKW[WY PT[W[YXX`YUWfXNTdKTZZWaXY\TdU]eXaOSOeUXTZ[XUUWPVdYc\X[\XKTKPT[OVW_XPaUOW`X] \WY[TKWa]WY[KWa[\OYUXVOUY[O[dYQTKPT[L

MXVOK]YQ
RP]KXc

¤P¥\dQ¤a[¦§Q¨©¨ªO[¦¦«©¬RJiTUOPaTQhdUWOPPXiOKfY ®¯°±²³´´µ¶·¸±³´¹¸º»³¼½¾¶¹³¶¿¸ÀÁcKT[X«
JKLMNOPQ

b\O_XÂdY[KX[dKPX]ZKT`OPXÃ[XP]X]cTKf[KWSOP]\O_XOYfX]Y[OZZ[TUTTfWP[TNTdKWPdWKNL bcWUUKXYSTP]TPaX[\XWPZTK`O[WTPWYO_OWUOeUXL

gWPaXKXUNQ

¦Ä¦ÅÄ¨§Q¦¦«¬ÅRJbPeTÃÆÇOa\OKNÈO\UÆ¤d[UTTf
\[[SY«ÄÄTd[UTTfLTZZWaXLaT`Ä`OWUÄW]ÄRRfRÉVRRRRRRÊËÌÈÍOS`Ía¨eNR£R£Î¨ÏÍÐV©RciTÃ¦ÑX§ªÍ`Éi¤Òc¤Í¨V¬ÌRÍ¤X[JÅVRRÓPO[W_XÔXKYWTPÕÖ¨Ä¬ 847 of 1110

!"#$#%&'
!((
)'*+$,!-
./0122314555
666789:7:;<=>7?;7@8A

BCDEF*&GHIJ
STUVF
&I'
W!!'#(#$,X$YX!$*Z
[DF'

\]J^P_`;KKM7a8_;K?8N:;<=>7?;7@8ARb*cdef] J;=98g`=`;KN?`hi8j>;KO;hM878<@RbkeIleJmL;9_N?`hi8j>;KO;hM878<@Rbn]op J
SuvwTxVFHy

zI
Ize{
HzzWI |}G&'Z

~

¡¢¢ £¤¥¦ §¨©§¦ª«ª£¬¢¬¦¨¦£§®§¨®¯°±°¢²³´µ³¶·³ ¸¹¶º¶·»~³¼½²¾³³ ¶·³·¿½·³³³³·
¶~½¼»µ¶¼´µ³¼·¶ ¸¹¶º¶·³¼·½½³·³
À³·¸¹¶» ³·
¡¢¢ÁÁÁ«¨ «¬ª¥¢ ÂÃÄ¦Å ¢¨§¤ª¨§£¦¬¤ ¦£¢Æ§§Ã§ ¦®£¦ ¦§£Å«©Ç§Ã¦²µ ¹¶ ¡¢¢ª«§£È «Å§«¬ª¥¢É¤ ¦ÆÊ¦ ªÂ£Å¦ ¢²³³´µ³
¶¶´µ³¸¹¶ ¶·³ËÀ³½µ´µ³µ ¶··¶··ÌÍÎÍ³Ï³µ¸¹¶ º¶·»~·

³À·ÐµµµµµÐÑ´µ³µ³Ï ½¼·Ò»
³½½·»¹¸¹¶¶· ¸Ò¼¼³¶³ÀµÐµ
À³ÐÐµÏÑ
ÓÔ¼´µ³¼Ð³³¼½ ¼³¶·¶¸¹¶»
¹¶ÕÖ³³µ³µ½³·Õ ×ÔÖ¼¶´µ³³³¶·¸¹¶ ¹¶µµ³¼¼³³µ¶
ÕÀ¼½´µ³¸Ò³¶³ ØÙØÚÙÛÜÝØØÞßÚà

ÞÙÙ

Ù
Ù
Ùààà

àààààà

ÛààÛ
à
ØÜ

Û
ßàÚ
àà

ÚÙß
848 of 1110

!"#
"

#$
%

&%

'

()*$ #

+
,
+
%

.%

/
0
'

1
'

2

"

3$

4556789975:;<=7>?@>5=ABA:C9D6E
FA?5=?59G6HA>I79JKJL9KM9N;CG:=EOPEQER;75A:;FES=7AG:F=7B6IT
UVUWVXYZUU[\W]^_`abcdefghfijkfhldmnolbbp
hooqr[VVbnolbbpsbttugvsgbwVwfulVuxV]]p]yz]]]]]]{|}k~fqw~gXaj]]X~z] bcUvY~wym
m~Xz\}]~mvo^Wz]]`fouvvirub`\V\
849 of 1110
850 of 1110
851 of 1110
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org

POINTS FOR HISTORIC POLICY UPDATE FOCUS GROUP
WHAT POLICIES ARE WORKING?

1. 10 years ago there was much more City focus on maintaining neighborhood character in remodeling.

2. Single-family design guidelines were more like standards and encouraged maintaining character of nearby architecture.

3. The updates to the City’s website are a big improvement.

4. The ordinance’s designation of contributors in historic districts is effective in protecting the Downtown.

5. The Downtown storefront maintenance program was effective in improving the downtown storefronts. This was done through Community Development in the past.

6. Duplex Design Guidelines and Small Multi-Family Design Guidelines exist, which should be followed to maintain character of nearby architecture.

7. The new Mi Rancho Market building on B Street took the art-deco style architecture and signage design from the original Blu-White Laundry building. We should do more of that in the Downtown.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

1. Expand ordinance to address the Yoshiko Yamanouchi Historic District and historic districts throughout the City.

2. Identify a clear process for how properties in an out of a historic district are treated.

3. Provide education to the Building Department and Community Development staff to ensure appropriate procedures are followed for building and other permits.

4. Provide Building and CDD staff with a checklist for historic preservation.

5. Designate an educated staff person to address historic preservation.

6. Identify measures and procedures that will preserve neighborhood architecture if not in a historic district.

7. Conduct a survey to identify important resources—update the 1989 Historic Building Survey.

8. Identify protection measures for properties 100 years old or older.

9. Identify what would make a heritage home in San Mateo.

10. Prohibit horizontal fences in pre-war era neighborhoods.

11. Develop a sign ordinance for the Downtown Historic District for more consistency and compatibility with the architecture. Examples might include:
a. Prohibit plastic signs
b. Use traditional materials and fabrication (that would have been available in the 1920s and ‘30s).

12. Define maintenance to include repainting peeling paint, fading signs, repairing cracks, cleaning sidewalks.
852 of 1110
2 13. Ensure the updated ordinance recognizes and includes contributors as part of existing and future historic districts as historic resources, and that the ordinance applies to them as well as individually-eligible properties.

14. Include provisions for how historic properties in existing and future historic districts are maintained, altered, and/or developed. These provisions should apply to contributors as well.

15. Provide guidelines to ensure new developments adjacent to historic districts be compatible in terms of architecture and scale.

16. The new ADU’s and detached garages with Single Family homes should match the architectural style, color, materials of the primary home.

17. Consider context and require new development projects to blend in better architecturally with the older residential neighborhoods and the Historic Downtown.

18. The Downtown could use a maintenance program to assist some owners with their storefronts.

WHAT COULD BE MORE EQUITABLE OR EFFECTIVE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION?

1. Update the Mills Act process to reflect current rules and don’t charge exorbitant fees.

2. Publicize the Mills Act program to assist homeowners in older neighborhoods to rehabilitate and maintain their homes.

3. Educate the equity priority communities about the benefits of historic preservation and available grant funding.

4. Assist and encourage homeowners in equity priority neighborhoods to preserve and maintain their properties.

5. Educate and coordinate with the Downtown library’s community liaisons (African-American, Iranian American, Japanese American, Hispanic, etc.)

6. Use qualified individuals instead of the Public Relations Commission for oversight.

7. Make the process as clear and transparent as possible.

HOW PRESERVATIONI MIGHT BETTER REFLECT THE FULL HISTORY AND IDENTITY OF

THE CITY

1. More plaques and signs to reflect the Japanese-American laundries (Blu-White, etc.), AfricanAmerican diner (Noah’s), etc. The Ching Lee Laundry display is a good example—would love to see more.

2. Install a sign to welcome people to the Downtown Historic District, markers on the district street signs, etc.

3. The new Mi Rancho Market building on B Street took the art-deco style architecture and signage design from the original Blu-White Laundry building. We should do more of that in the Downtown.

4. Ensure new buildings in the Downtown reflect the Objective Design Standards and are compatible with nearby architecture.

5. Consider the historic nature of the shopping districts in San Mateo and protect their historic nature—25th Avenue, 37th Avenue, 42nd Avenue, etc.

PRIORTIES FOR PROTECTION

1. Protect the few remaining buildings built before 1900 (or pre-war)

2. Historic Downtown

3. Hillsdale train station building
853 of 1110
3 4. Japanese gardens (in Central Park and private homes)

5. Bank of America building and mural at 3rd and El Camino

6. Redevelopment of the Masonic Building on Ellsworth to housing KEY POINTS TO INCLUDE IN ORDINANCE—INITIAL IDEAS

1. Compatibility of architecture and with surroundings

2. Contributors must continue to be defined as historic resources

3. Ongoing education of City staff and community

4. Consider requiring compatible signage and materials (e.g., traditional materials rather than plastic) for new signs in the Downtown Historic District (see other historic downtown sign ordinances)

5. Maintenance must include maintaining materials of facades (no peeling paint, repair cracks)

6. Consent should be consistent with other City practices (majority)

7. Discourage removal of historic elements from buildings

8. Encourage using high-quality materials (e.g., not architectural foam, foam trim, or foam molding that degrades quickly)

9. Ensure members of the reviewing authority have appropriate backgrounds and include at least one architectural historian
854 of 1110
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN SAN MATEO’S HISTORY
x Juan Bautista DeAnza Expedition
x John Parrott Family
x Robert Wisnom Family
x Borel Family
x Alvinza Hayward—gold mining millionaire, 800 ac estate x Doc Reybold—early developer (Mitch Postel has information) x David Bohannon
x Takahashi Family
x Yamanouchi Family
x A.P. Giannini
x Dr. James Hutchinson
x Claire Mack
Celebrities with San Mateo Connections
x Merv Griffin—talkshow host, media mogul
x Barry Bostwick--actor
x Keith Carradine--actor
x Kris Kristofferson—singer/songwriter
x Tom Brady—football player lived on Portola and went to Serra High School x Greg Gutfeld-comedian/talkshow host
x Michael Trucco--actor
x Dennis Haysbert (5 seasons of the show 24)
x Alicia Silverstone—went to SM High School
x Neal Schon (Journey)
IMPORTANT PLACES IN SAN MATEO’S HISTORY

1. Location of the Mission hospice

2. Pony Express stop

3. Rail station

4. B Street and then 3rd Avenue early development that occurred after the Parrot and de Guigne estates were sold

5. Bay Meadows

6. St. John’s Cemetery

7. Carnegie Library

8. Peninsula Studios

9. Noah’s Diner

10. San Mateo Bank

11. St. Matthew’s Catholic Church

12. St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
855 of 1110
2 13. San Mateo Buddhist Temple (founded in 1909)

14. Japanese Christian Church (established in 1924), which later became Sturge Presbyterian Church

15. Hillsdale Mall

16. Pederson and Arnold Lumber

17. Ah Sam’s

18. Baywood Elementary

19. San Mateo High School

20. Central Park

21. Baywood, San Mateo Park, Hayward Park, Aragon neighborhoods Music
Pacific Recording Studios, also known as Pacific Recorders, located at 1737 S El Camino Real. x Founded: The studio was founded in 1968 by Paul Curcio, co-founder of the band the Mojo Men.
x Significant location in the development of the San Francisco sound, hosting recordings by many notable artists, including:
o Santana
o The Grateful Dead
o The Doobie Brothers
o Moby Grape
o Taj Mahal
o Santana.

The Grateful Dead's Aoxomoxoa LP and Santana's debut album were both recorded here.

Technological Innovation
Pacific Recording was the first 16-track studio in the Bay Area, utilizing an Ampex MM-1000 16-track recorder. The chief engineer, Ron Wickersham, also designed and built the mixing console for the studio.

San Mateo County Fairgrounds
Many famous bands played at the San Mateo County Fairgrounds IMPORTANT EVENTS IN SAN MATEO’S HISTORY
x Juan Bautista DeAnza Expedition camp on San Mateo Creek in 1776 with Franciscan priests x In 1793, Franciscan friars from nearby Mission San Francisco de Asís (also known as Mission Dolores) established an outpost at San Mateo Creek to support the mission's activities, including livestock herding and food production. The outpost was called the mission hospice x Pony Express station
x Rail station in first peninsula railroad from San Mateo to San Jose x San Mateo becomes a city in 1894
x Alvinza Hayward estate sold—Hayward Park developed
x Peninsula Hotel burned down—Glazenwood developed
856 of 1110
3 x John Parrott heirs sell his estate in April 1927, allowing the Baywood commuter suburb and downtown to develop
x Carnegie Library built
x Street car service begins
x Bay Meadows Race Track opens
x Hillsdale Mall opens
x Bay Meadows is demolished and redeveloped
857 of 1110
1 JulieAnn Murphy
From: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 9:16 PM
To: JulieAnn Murphy; Kassandra Gale; Margo Nayyar
Cc: Sung H. Kwon; Somer Smith
Subject: [EXT] FW: Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District & Imperial Laundry CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Passing along this email for our time capsule.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development
From: Laura W
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 5:20 PM
To: Time Capsule <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurie Hietter >; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]> Subject: Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District & Imperial Laundry To the Rincon Consultants.

I would like to submit these photographs to the time capsule.

Photos 1 & 2 - Imperial Laundry - on 1st and B Street
In 1908, Tetsuo Yamanouchi opened the Imperial Laundry at 218 - 1st Avenue San Mateo. The space was rented from the Wisnoms a pioneer San Mateo family. In addition to the family of five children, the laundry also employed as many as seven other people. The Yamanouchi home was at the corner of 1st Ave and Ellsworth Street. Tetsuo Yamanouchi had been educated and trained as a Zen Buddhist priest in Japan, and he became the spiritual leader in 1909. The living room of the home was the beginning of the San Mateo Buddhist Church. His wife Yoshiko organized the Buddhist Sunday School, the Buddhist Women’s Association, and the Young Buddhist Association. When the small congregation outgrew the living room, an adjacent storefront on 1st Avenue was rented for $40 a month by Tetsuo Yamanouchi. When Tetsuo Yamanouchi died in 1936, his wife Yoshiko took over the laundry business and successfully operated it until the family returned to San Mateo at the end of World War II. It was unusual in those times for the wife to take over a business, but Yoshiko was determined the business would go on.

In 1940, the business was moved from its original location to a new facility at 46 B Street.

During World War II, the family was incarcerated in Topaz, Utah. The business was leased by friends during the war. Hasuko and Masashi Max Watanuki, the daughter and son-in-law took over the management of the business after the war and the name of the business was changed to Blu-White Laundry because the connotation of the word “imperial” may have been perceived as a negative. The name likely came from the appearance of the building which was white with blue trim. The new building was designed by William H Rowe and built by Hugh H.

MacDonald.
858 of 1110
2 Yoshiko Yamanouchi remained active in the San Mateo Buddhist Temple and in her Buddhist and Civic life.

Photo 3 - Yoshiko Yamanouchi House - Historic District - Katsura Walk-way In December 2023, the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House at 1007 East 5th Avenue San Mateo was listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criteria A & B in the areas of Ethnic Heritage/Asian/Japanese and social History/Woman’s History for its association with a prominent member the Issei generation in San Mateo’s Japanese American Community, from early 20th century to today.

The picture below is the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District which has nine contributors: The Entrance Gate, House, Katsura Building, Katsura Garden, Katsura Walk-way, Storage Room and Pump House, Patio and Swimming Pool, West Side Garden. The Japanese style Hill and Pond and Garden was completed in 1958 by landscape designer Nagao Sakurai. The second structure and garden on this site was completed in 1968, by architect and designer Kodo Matsubara, scholar of Japanese sukiya-styled architecture. The Yoshiko Yamanouchi House is one of only three properties nationwide spotlighted in the recent National Register publication “Best Practices Review.”
An added note: After the completion of the Japanese Hill and Pond Garden at the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House, Nagao Sakurai assisted the Japanese gardeners who built the Japanese Tea Garden in Central Park in San Mateo.

Laurie Watanuki
San Mateo, CA
Photo 1 Photo of 1st Avenue and B Street - Courtesy of Hasuko Yamanouchi Watanuki Collection Photo 2 Photo of the Imperial Laundry in 1909 - Courtesy of Hasuko Yamanouchi Watanuki Collection.

Photo 3 Photo Courtesy of Laurie Watanuki
Bibliographical references:

1.Bradley, Denise & Ward Hill - Historic Resources Evaluation Report for 1007 East 5th Avenue San Mateo, CA.

2.Best Practices Review - Nominating Properties for Cultural Significance under Criterion A. Issue 6 January 2024.

3.Building a Community. The story of Japanese Americans in San Mateo County. Gayle K. Yamada, Dianne Fukami.

Photo 1
859 of 1110
3 860 of 1110
4 861 of 1110
5 * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 862 of 1110
863 of 1110
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 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
864 of 1110
865 of 1110
866 of 1110
OPTION 4
72935838v1

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. (2025)

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR TASKS AND SUPPORT RELATED TO A CITYWIDE

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA,

HEREBY RESOLVES THAT

1. This fund appropriation is not a project of CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not impact the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(5).

2. The appropriation of $328,743 from the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) to the Historic Policy Update project is approved.

Page 3 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Hi Alex,
My responses to Rob’s historic policy questions have been added below in red.

Thanks.

Hi there, please see historic questions below. Can you please provide draft responses that we can share with the mayor prior to tonight‘s meeting? Thanks.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 8:14:50 AM
To: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions for tonights Council meeting.

874 of 1110
2 Alex,
FYI, here are some of my questions for tonight, feel free to share with staff so that they have advanced notice. Thanks!!
Historic Preservation Ordinance:

2.) What are some of the challenges to having the Historic Ordinance being so out of date? As has been exemplified by the community dialogue about this issue over the past two years, there have been many challenges with the current state of our Historic Preservation Ordinance, including:
• Lack of clarity about the City’s regulations and requirements, which has lead to public confusion and misinformation.
• Lack of a clear process for how to review projects with an eligible historic resource and how to process local designation requests.
875 of 1110
3 • Inconsistency with state and federal requirements, which undermines the integrity and public perception of our local ordinance.

It should also be noted that the City is seeing approximately $5,000 annually in reduced property tax revenue, not $52,000, as a result of these two Mills Act contracts.

5.) For this question- what is easier?: 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? IF additional criteria that are unique to the city's history & development- what does that look like? If Council wants us to further explore local designation criteria, we can definitely fold it into our community outreach and staff analysis, and bring back options for consideration in the draft ordinance update. This is something that would be informed by community input and the information in the Citywide Historic Context Statement, but we wanted to get direction from Council before spending any time on this work. 876 of 1110
4 6.) Historic Signage- there is old signage of Bailey's Carpets on the side of their old building, and on Talbot's Toyland. These signs will be lost as the buildings are eventually removed, could we require the developers to document these historic signs with pictures so that we don't lose the history if/when the building are removed?
Yes, the updated ordinance could definitely include requirements for how to evaluate/document/memorialize historic elements, such as signage, that are being proposed for removal as part of a new development.