Att 2 - Outreach and Engagement Summary Report — San Mateo City Council, January 26, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

72935831v1
any potential district that includes single-family resi dential 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 hous eholds 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 resident s. 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 considerat ion, 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 Mana ger, City of San Mateo
Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager, City of San Mateo Less Red Tape

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 Requ est 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 Consultant s, 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 re quires that any Historic Preser vation 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 im pact 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 Or dinance 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 surv eys shall be performed or proposed for any proposed district composed of primaril y Single-Family Residential homes, unless affirmative consent is first obtained from the homeowners. (c) For potential single family residential districts, c onsent 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 surve y. Of those responding, at least 67% must support the proposed district.
73587065v1
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Daniel Freedman
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floo r
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 specif ically 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 designa tion process and the City's proces sing of applications under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If it is not, project op ponents 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 alle ged 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 fo r Landmarking or Register Listing.

In agreeing to proceed with this effort to update the City's hi storic 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 ensu re that property owners retain control over historic nominations . For district designations, the ne w ordinance should require an affirmative written consen t 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 incl uded in the new City ordinance, CEQA provides a separate and equally powerful avenue for preservation advocates to argue that a project 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 regist er, 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 sta te, 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 th e 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 situ ation. Without any clear justification, the City has been treating its Single Family Design Review (SFDDR) as a di scretionary 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 abil ity to review and consider projects that trigger design review, it does not have au thority 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 envir onmental impacts, and thus, the review is properly considered ministerial for the purposes of CEQA notwithsta nding 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 hi storic preservation ordinance be drafted with the following key provisions:
(i) Property owner consent should be ex plicitly 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 c ould ensure that historic preservation remains a voluntary, consent–driven process wh ile reducing unnecessary delays, costs, and litigation risks. If there are legal or technica l reasons why these provisions cannot be adopted, could you please clarify why so that Council an d 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

August 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

73587065v1
cc: Councilmember Nicole Fern andez, 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

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.

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.

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.
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.

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: 25
th 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.

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 e- mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

June 2, 2025

City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20
th 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,

Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident

June 2, 2025

City Council Members
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20
th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWŽůŝĐǇhƉĚĂƚĞ
īŽƌƚĂŶĚWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ
ŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝů^ƉĞĐŝĂůDĞĞƟŶŐ
June 2, 2025, 5:30pm

Sincerely,

Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident

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. 20
th 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 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:

”The only agreement I am aware of is the Rincon Agreement for Historic Preservation Services that the Council approved on January 21, 2025.”

On that we agree. There was no agreement. Yet, Mr. Khojikian sat silent throughout the Special Meeting proceeding, never mentioning that the City did not have such an agreement with the Heritage Alliance. As confirmation, please see the attached email from the City Manager to Laurie Hietter.

Mr. Rob Newsom
Mr. Prasanna Rasaiah
March 25, 2025

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

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
January 16, 2025
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20
th 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.

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

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

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

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. 20
th 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 posi ঞons.

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

San Mateo City CouncilJanuary 26, 2026

San Mateo City Council
January 26, 2026