Att 5 - Post Packet Public Comment — San Mateo City Council, January 26, 2026

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT

1 From: Laurie Watanuki < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl
Subject: Comments for San Mateo Historic Context Statement for East San Mateo January 26, 2026

To: [email protected]

cc: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

From: Central Neighborhood Association

RE: Historic Context Study Comments for East San Mateo

The East San Mateo Residential Neighborhood was not included in the Historic Context Study. Please describe and include East San Mateo in the Context Study. When will the missing sections be available for review?

According to the City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey 1989, Hayward Park and East San Mateo have similar subdivision dates, but Hayward Park received more publicity. Both areas have modest residential structures. The building patterns show typical styles of early 20th century which included styles of early 20th century Bungalows of wood or stucco and Spanish Colonial Revival homes and Craftsman styles (City of San Mateo 1989 Building Survey 2.8 East San Mateo and North Central Page 34)

Homes listed from the 1989 building Survey in East San Mateo.

Potentially Eligible homes need to be included in Local Historic Inventory.

510- 512 South Idaho Street was selected for its exceptional design. The designer of this Spanish Colonial small complex incorporated the garages into the main structures and showed a particular concern for individualizing each unit. Very well maintained.

510 South Grant Street duplex showed the design influence of the Craftsmen movement. Very well-maintained and landscaped.

Local Significance

924 S. Eldorado Street house demonstrates how Classical Revival was interpreted for a modest residential building.

938 S. Eldorado is a well-preserved and well-proportioned 1902 Craftsmen Bungalow.

******

2 This is a partial list of pre-war homes on 4th, 5th, and Delaware which are examples of traditional Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, Eastern Shingle Cottage bungalows in East San Mateo (Central Neighborhood). The earliest build date is 1895.

East 4th Avenue has 26 properties 712 to 1028 (4 blocks): 21 Single Family Homes, 2 Duplexs, 3 M/F (dates: 1-1898 & 1905 (Wisnom Home), 1-1900, 1-1904, 6-1907, 1-1912, 1-1924, 3-1925, 3-1926, 1-1952, 1-1959, 6-1999 (Humboldt Square)

*******

East 5th Avenue has 55 properties 604 to 1123 (6 blocks): 38 - Single Family Homes, 10- Duplexes, 7- M/F (dates: 1- 1902, 1- 1906/1907 - 2- 1907, 1- 1912, 2- 1917 - 1- 1920, 1-1921, 1- 1922, 2-1924, 6-1925, 5- 1926, 3-1921-1927, 1- 1928,
1- 1929, 1-1930, 1-1931 1-1932, 1-1939, 1-1941, 2-1957, 2-1958 , 1-1959.

******

S Delaware has 43 properties 501 to 820 (2 long blocks): 30 - Single Family Homes, 11 Duplexes, 1 condo gp- M/F(7 units) (dates 1-1908,1 -1915, 1-1917, 1-1920, 1-1922, 4- 1924, 5-1926, 3-1927, 1-1936, 2-1937, 2-1938, 1-1939, 2-1940, 2-1941, 1-1946, 2-1947, 1-1950, 1-1955, 1-1962 - 1 - 7 Condos - 1981

421 S Eldorado - a Craftsman bungalow built in 1912. When the owner moved in there was a wood-burning stove that had the smoke exiting through the fireplace. The stove had to be removed since it took up almost half the kitchen.

Additional Notes: There are tall palm trees on Fremont and Eldorado Street. A resident David Light who resides at 614 South Fremont was told that this neighborhood had bungalows built as second homes for wealthy families in San Francisco. Supposedly, San Francisco residents rode the train to San Mateo during the cold weather in San Francisco. Many homes in this area have fire places. The palm trees were part of the vacation ambience.

There are many pre-war homes included in this list. We will be analyzing the pre-war homes on our other streets in East San Mateo with early 1900 build dates and will add to this list.

Best,

David Light
Laurie Watanuki
Maurine Killough
Francie Souza
Sharon Prager
Central Neighborhood Association

1 From: Lisa Vande Voorde < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:17 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Alex Khojikian; [email protected] Subject: AGENDA ITEM #16: Pubic Comment on Draft Historic Policies Attachments: Lisa Vande Voorde_ 1_26_26 Public Comment Draft Historic Ordinance and Context Statement.pdf
Dear City Council Members,

Thank you for your effort to update the San Mateo Historic Ordinance and Context statement. I hope you will please consider the following eight points (on the attached PDF) before your deliberations this evening.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Lisa Vande Voorde
San Mateo Resident

Feedback on the Draft Historic Ordinance and Context Statement

1. The ordinance is weaker than current conditions and most other nearby peninsula city ordinances. Make it at least as strong as the current ordinance, and in line with other cities.

2. The ordinance and context statement are too long and too incomplete to give appropriate feedback right now. Residents and stakeholders (and perhaps even council members!) need more time for a more complete understanding in order to provide meaningful comments. The Rincon presentation to the community was less than a week ago. We need to slow this process down, as historic preservation policy should be thorough, thoughtful, and comprehensive.

3. It is inappropriate for a city to refuse to recognize historic resources that have been officially listed on the state register and/or the National Register of Historic Places, as this stance undermines long-established democratic preservation processes, and long-term preservation of its historic resources.

4. As far as homeowner consent, why should San Mateo have more stringent consent requirements than State and Federal regulations? Consent should be designated as more than 50% (50% plus one), similar to other City requirements.

5. Designation criteria needs to be expanded to include all pre-war homes and buildings built prior to 1940-45. The current threshold as drafted for protection of these properties is way too high. Most of these homes are not associated with significant historical events or important people, or built by an important architect. Yet, it IS these homes that contribute to the unique character of our neighborhoods, and they are slowly being eliminated one by one through demolition or significant alteration that permanently scar their original design. These homes are special to San Mateo, singularly representative of an earlier era, give it a sense of place and history, and should be treated as such in the ordinance for proposed modifications to the façade of the property or demolition.

6. Explain in detail what is included in the Historic Resources Inventory, as right now the ordinance does not tell us what is included. The list of city resolutions is not complete and does not address all of the resolutions that address historic resources, so more work is needed. Also, the Historic Resources Inventory MUST include the resources identified in the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report.

7. The Context Statement should reference the Baywood Historic Nomination, the Glazenwood Historic District (identified in the 2010 and 2024 General Plans), and the National and State Register-listed Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District (listed in 2023).

8. The Context Statement is incomplete and missing two sections, including critical policy information.

1 From: Doug D'Anna <d >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:24 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian Subject: Clarifying the Status of the Glazenwood Historic District in the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

AND INCLUSION
Background
 Glazenwood is identified and described as a Historic District in the City’s adopted General Plans, including the 2010 and 2024 General Plans.  The City has relied for decades on the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report, prepared in cooperation with the State Office of Historic Preservation and incorporated into City practice through multiple Council actions.
 Numerous City resolutions—including Mills Act agreements and additions to the Historic Building Survey—explicitly rely on the 1989 Survey as the foundational historic resources inventory for San Mateo.  Despite this history, Glazenwood is not explicitly referenced in the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance or the draft Historic Context Statement.

Issue
 The draft ordinance and draft context statement do not clearly define what is included in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
 The absence of explicit references to Glazenwood creates administrative ambiguity, even though the district is already identified in Council- adopted General
Plans.
 This omission creates uncertainty regarding how Glazenwood will be treated administratively, despite its identification as a historic district in council adopted general plans.
 The draft Context Statement is incomplete, missing required sections and failing to reference known historic districts and nominations, including:
o Baywood Historic Nomination
o Glazenwood Historic District
o Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District (State and National Register- listed)
Why This Matters

2  General Plans are binding law. Administrative documents and ordinances must be consistent with them.
 Leaving Glazenwood out of the ordinance framework:
o Creates uncertainty for residents, staff, and decision-makers o Invites inconsistent interpretation and enforcement
o Undermines reliance on long-standing City records and surveys o Sets a precedent that adopted General Plan designations can be treated inconsistently without explicit Council action.  The City has previously recognized that historic resources identified in the 1989 Survey form the backbone of its preservation framework, including eligibility determinations and Mills Act participation.

Point of Clarification Requested
We respectfully request Council clarification on the following:
 That historic districts identified and described in the City’s adopted General Plan— including Glazenwood—are included in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, regardless of whether they are individually restated in the draft ordinance.
 That the Historic Resources Inventory includes the resources identified in the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report, as relied upon in prior Council resolutions and agreements.

Specific Requests
We respectfully ask the Council to:

1. Direct staff to explicitly clarify, in the ordinance findings or staff report, that Glazenwood’s General Plan designation remains fully operative.

2. Require completion and correction of the Historic Context Statement before adoption, including explicit references to Glazenwood and other recognized historic districts.

3. Confirm that the Historic Resources Inventory includes the 1989 Survey resources, including districts and contributors, NOT just selectively listed resolutions.

Bottom Line
This is not a request for a new designation or new policy.

It is a request to affirm existing Council intent, preserve consistency with adopted law, and prevent unintended erosion of Glazenwood’s historic district status through omission.
3 Sincerely,

Doug D’Anna
Resident, Glazenwood Historic District
1 From: < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 3:02 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); City Mgr
Subject: Historical Consent versus Speedbump consent
Attachments: HistoricalConsent_vs_SpeedBumpConsent.pdf
Hello City Council Members,
As you consider drafting the City’s ordinance for Historical Districts and consider the Consent required for nomination approval, please consider existing precedent for City actions in other areas.

I am attaching an example from a recent City decision regarding the installation of a speed bump on a city street. Note that the City demands that an active majority of people affected must actively participate in the process as opposed to only examining people who responded to the query. It is not enough to simply note that people did not respond. NON-RESPONSES SHOULD BE COUNTED AS NOMINATION REFUSAL.

The impact of a home being included in a historical district is far for more serious than the addition of speed bump in a neighborhood. It should be AT LEAST as difficult to get approval for a historical district to be approved as it is for a speed bump to get approved.

Please see attached flyer from San Mateo’s Public Works Department regarding the decision to disallow a speed bump.

Kind regards,
Shawn Fahrenbruch

1 From: James Isaacs
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 5:24 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Rob Newsom; Lisa Diaz Nash; Nicole Fernandez; [email protected]; City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject:

Historic District Ordinance Discussion
Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council,
My wife and I have lived in San Mateo since 1989. We lived in Shoreview, Baywood and currently San Mateo Park. We raised our family here and built our careers here. We appreciate all of the hard work of the planning commission to sensibly arrange growth in our community and your leadership in governance of our fine city. You are not appreciated enough, so thank you! The discussion around the Historic District Ordinance is troubling to many. I live in San Mateo Park, it was laid out in the 1880s, and our house was built in 1906. I am a history buff and I like traditional design, but there is very little that is truly 'historic' in San Mateo Park. Since we moved in 22 years ago just about every house in the neighborhood has been re-modeled internally, given a new facade, or rebuilt from the ground up in a more 'modern' look. It would be a constructive deceit to say that this a historic district, particularly if the purpose of this is to restrain higher density buildings which current regulations out of Sacramento are indicating.

My son is the one who convinced me that we have to do higher density building even in traditionally single family areas, like San Mateo Park where he grew up, "Dad, if I ever expect to afford to buy a house here, we're going to have to build more of it, including in San Mateo Park." He's right. It has to change. I used to not think this way but I do now.

Please ensure the final ordinance requires real affirmative consent from a clear supermajority of property
owners for any new historic district designation (for example, 2/3 or 3/4 “yes” votes), rather than a passive or minimal petition threshold. This protects both property rights and community trust, consistent with the Council’s earlier position that any district should be based on explicit owner consent rather than an opt-out or vague process.

Thanks for your consideration, and thanks for all you do.

Best,

James Isaacs

1 From: Aida Kedefors < >
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 1:44 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk; Alex Khojikian;
Subject: Agenda Item Request: Funding for Glazenwood Historic District Focus Group I respectfully request that the City allocate funding to conduct a focus group specifically for the Glazenwood residential historic district before the draft Historic Preservation documents move forward, to ensure that resident input is obtained and included in the administrative record.

Thank you.

Aida Kedefors
Glazenwood resident

1 From: Desiree LaBeaud < >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 2:03 PM
To: Clerk; Alex Khojikian; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: GLazenwood focus group
Hi,
I was on the meeting last night about historic neighborhoods and was alarmed that to find out that Glazenwood isn’t considered historic and I was told when I recently purchased my home. I request that the City allocate funding to conduct a focus group specifically for the Glazenwood residential historic district before the draft Historic Preservation documents move forward so that resident input is obtained and included in the administrative record.

Thank you,
Desiree

Desiree LaBeaud
(she/her/hers)

Our funding has been significantly affected by changes in Federal priorities. Please share this link with others who may appreciate our research and
impact: https://my.supportlpch.org/fundraiser/6513248?is_new=true

"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” -African proverb

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” -Amish saying

1 From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 11:50 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Rob Newsom
Cc: Prasanna Rasiah; Zachary Dahl
Subject: Public Comment On Agenda Item 16, Historic Preservation Policy--Oppose Unless Amended
Attachments:
2026.1.26 Public Comment on Historic Preservation Ordinance in San Mateo.pdf Good morning San Mateo City Council Members,

Please see the attached comment
on behalf of the Housing Leadership Council regarding the City's Draft Historic Preservation Policy. As written, the ordinance will undermine the city's long-tern housing goals for the reasons described in the letter. However, we are optimistic about the direction the city seems to be headed and the clear prior direction of the city council.

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!

January 25, 2026

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

San Mateo, CA 94403

To the honorable San Mateo City Council,

HLC exists to work with communities and their leaders to produce and preserve quality affordable homes. To that end, we have opposed efforts to create a historic district in the Baywood neighborhood, as such efforts are motivated by a small group of residents who have explicitly stated their intent to limit future housing construction near them.

However, we supported direction from San Mateo’s City Council to craft a historic preservation policy emphasizing homeowner consent and reasonable standards of qualification. The goal of any good historic ordinance is to recognize history is a living process, one that preserves features essential in a community while also creating safeguards to ensure the process cannot be abused to block neighborhood change, such as much-needed housing.

As written, San Mateo’s draft Historic Preservation Ordinance fails to fulfill the City Council’s direction and balance preservation with future housing needs. The ordinance includes unclear language that could be interpreted to, in practice, allow virtually any property older than 50 years old to be included in sweeping historic districts, which would then be subject to discretionary approval processes. In cases of major alterations–itself an unclear definition –these processes might add tens of thousands of dollars to most modest home modifications and render new construction infeasible in large areas of the city.

To ensure San Mateo’s draft Historic Preservation Ordinance reflects the intent of the City Council, we recommend the following principles and changes:

1. Creating historic districts should be a collaborative, community-driven process, meaning residents have a say about whether or not they will be subject to the restrictions of a district. We can only support an ordinance that amends Section 27.66.070(a) to unambiguously require affirmative, written consent by a super majority of residents and property owners within any district before an application can qualify for review by the city. As written, Section 27.66.070 has legal ambiguities regarding the threshold for consent (see more info in the footnote).1 After the city’s study session last 1 To submit an application for a historic district, Section 27.66.070(a)(1)(C) requires "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." But the petition does not seem to have any binding impact on the

week, we hope that Rincon will clarify the ordinance based on clear prior council direction and community input.

2. As written, the ordinance allows the planning director to require a Historic Resource Evaluation on properties older than 45 years even if they are not a designated historic resource or district. This is codifying a uniquely restrictive section of the California Environmental Quality Act in local law for no obvious reason, especially considering no other state has similar restrictions and CEQA may be amended in the future to exclude them. Section 27.66.090 of the ordinance should be removed to ensure that properties without a historic designation are not subject to unnecessary costs imposed on such properties.

3. The criteria for designating a historic resource or district should be rigorous, affecting only properties with a unique and unambiguous relevance to the history of San Mateo.

Right now, the ordinance as written copies the loose standards used by the state of California rather than applying a rigorous definition for qualification--meaning most any property older than 50 years old could be declared historic.2 In Appendix A below, we recommend rewritten standards for Sections 27.66.040 and 27.66.060 to only include properties older than 100 years that have one-of-a-kind architectural features or relation to a singular, transformative event in state or local history.

4. Once a property has been designated historic, the owner becomes subject to onerous requirements. The majority of exterior alterations or new construction that might be made on a Listed Resource of Contributor would require a discretionary Certificate of Appropriateness, even if the alteration would otherwise be ministerial. Section

27.66.100 should be amended to include limitations on the discretionary review process, including a ministerial process for new construction that does not otherwise affect the structures of a historic resource, permit timelines similar to the Permit Streamlining Act (90-day maximum delays between periods of review), and a maximum of two public hearings by relevant approval bodies.

In order to ensure the historic preservation process does not conflict with local housing needs, the historic districting process should be clear and predictable, with strong safeguards to prevent abuse. Historic districts should not be created without clear resident consent, and historic resources of any kind–whether districts or individual resources–should meet high standards for public benefit and historical relevance.
2 To understand just how loose and subjective the state criteria for historic resources are: Under the state standards, not a single application to create a historic resource or district has been denied by the state Historic Resources Commission in at least the past decade. actual outcome of the decision to designate a historic district; that decision is based solely on whether or not the district meets the the designation criteria and eligibility requirements listed in sections 27.66.060 and 27.66.050, which are basically copied and pasted from the highly subjective state requirements.

However, the ordinance is ambiguous; Section 27.66.060(a)(1) seems to have clear standards for majority approval for “listed resources,” but it reads like it applies exclusively to individual resources, not districts. The definitions section clarifies that "Historic Resources" includes districts, but it's not clear that Section 27.66.060 actually includes districts given that there is a separate section about districts.

Appendix A

Purpose: Propose clearer standards for historic districting in San Mateo and California.

The current standards for historic districting in San Mateo are essential copied and pasted from the loose criteria used by the California State Historic Resources Commission, reading as followed:
(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.

Furthermore:
(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. (the prior section)
(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.

Essentially, any property older than fifty years old would be eligible to be designated a historic resource, and the criteria for eligibility are so broad that any property could likely be listed as a historic resource.

HLC proposes the following criteria for section 27.66.040 instead:

A property shall be considered eligible for historic preservation status only if it meets one or more of the following criteria. Each designation must be supported by clear, specific, and professionally verified evidence that the property is unique, irreplaceable, and of extraordinary public historic value.

1. Site of a Singular Historic Event or Defining Moment The property must be the sole or primary remaining location directly tied to a singular, transformative event in the City of San Mateo, California, or U.S. history. General associations with broad trends or categories (e.g., "postwar development," "mid-century architecture") are insufficient unless the property is the only known or last remaining physical representation of that trend in the state.

2. Unique Association with a Historically Transformative Individual The property must be the only surviving property closely associated with the peak period of activity or residence of a person whose achievements changed the course of local, state, or national history. Peripheral associations (e.g., temporary visits or minor ties) are not sufficient.

The property's significance must be supported by primary sources and academic consensus.

3. Architectural Rarity and Irreplaceability
The property must be an exceedingly rare or one-of-a-kind example of a particular architectural style, method, or period, or the single best surviving work of an architect whose contribution has been recognized as defining or transformative in the architectural history of San Mateo or California. Generic examples or mass-produced designs do not qualify.

To qualify:
● The property must retain a high degree of integrity.
● It must be the only comparable surviving structure in the state.

4. Irreplaceable Source of Archaeological or Prehistoric Knowledge The site must contain wholly unique, undisturbed archaeological evidence that is demonstrably unavailable from any other known location in the state. This determination must be based on an independent archaeological survey conducted within the past 10 years, adhering to state-recognized professional standards.

Furthermore, we recommend amending Section 27.66.050 to read:
(c) Listed Resources. To be eligible for consideration as a Listed Resource, the resource must be at least one hundred (100) years old and meet at least one of the criteria outlined in Section 27.66.040. (the prior section)
(d) Historic District. To be eligible for consideration as a Historic District, at least 75 percent of the buildings in the proposed historic district (excluding accessory buildings) must be at least one hundred (100) 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 Planning Commission shall make determinations identifying non-contributing buildings as part of the review process. 1 From: Zachary Dahl
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 2:57 PM
To: Martin McTaggart; Chantal Eaton
Subject: Fw: Section 27.66.090 should be eliminated from the ordinance Email to add to post agenda public comments.

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development

From: Andrew Ryan < >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 9:59 AM
To: Richard Delaney < >
Cc: Historic Policy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Section 27.66.090 should be eliminated from the ordinance

In fact, this lie that it is necessary to comply with state law by the city is exactly what I predicted the city would say in my email to city council yesterday.

Staff, who is either lying or incredibly dumb about laws work, says that they need this provision because of CEQA. But CEQA is state law and already gives them this power for CEQA review.

San Mateo doesn't need Section 27.66.090 anymore than San Mateo needs a city law making murder illegal, because this is already covered by state law as the California Penal Code.

This provision is a power grab by unelected bureaucrats to ensure MORE power than the state already gives them, plain and simple.

Stop the lies.

--andrew

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 9:11 AM Richard Delaney wrote:

There is no real reason to have it. It gives the planning department the power to decide what is historic and to ignore owners consent, the facts the matter, and the actual true history of the property.

The statement that was made last night was that it was necessary to comply with state law is not accurate. If it is state law no ordinance is required. As it stands the section only adds confusion and doubt into the process.

From: Brian Sampson < >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 11:44 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Alex Khojikian
Subject: Agenda Item Request: Funding for Glazenwood Historic District Focus Group City of San Mateo Clerk and Council Members,
I live in the Glazenwood neighborhood and one of my neighbors has brought to my attention a potential change to the historic district status of our neighborhood. I have been made aware that they have already reached out to request a focus group be made to gather feedback on any potential change from the Galzenwood residents. Given that the residents of the neighborhood will be the primary ones affected by any change, this seems prudent.

I respectfully request that the City allocate funding to conduct a focus group specifically for the Glazenwood residential historic district before the draft Historic Preservation documents move forward, to ensure that resident input is obtained and included in the administrative record.

Thank you for your consideration,

Brian Sampson

San Mateo

1 From: San Mateo Forward >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:43 AM
To: San Mateo Forward
Cc: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Draft historic policies & council direction
Attachments: Historic District letter 1_26_26 (1).pdf
Dear Mayor Fernandez and Councilmembers:

Please find attached San Mateo Forward's letter regarding item 16 on tonight's agenda. We ask the City to pause adoption, substantially narrow the Historic Context Statement, finalize ordinance safeguards first, and revamp the outreach program with a clear focus on the actual policy choices before Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

San Mateo Forward

1 From: Kolja Schluetter < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 12:15 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Historic Policy Cc: Zachary Dahl; Planning Commission
Subject: Request for legal safeguards in Historic Context Statement and draft ordinance Dear San Mateo City Council and Project Team,

As a follow up to my initial letter, I am writing to request that specific legal safeguards be added to both the Draft Historic Context Statement and the accompanying historic preservation ordinance before either document advances toward adoption.

As currently drafted, the Historic Context Statement functions as more than a neutral background document and creates a material risk that non-designated properties could be treated as “potential historical resources” for planning and CEQA purposes. Disclaimers alone are not sufficient to address this risk unless they are paired with clear, binding limitations in both the Context Statement and the ordinance.

To reduce legal exposure, prevent misuse, and provide clarity for homeowners, applicants, and City staff, I respectfully request the following changes. Without these changes consent will be significantly eroded.

1. Additions to the Historic Context Statement
The Context Statement should include clear, operative language stating that:
 The document is a narrative reference only and does not identify, designate, determine, or imply historic eligibility of any property, site, structure, district, or landscape.  The document may not be used, cited, or relied upon to support CEQA determinations or claims of historical resource status.
 References to architectural styles, neighborhoods, development patterns, social history, or cultural themes do not constitute identification of contributors, potential contributors, or eligible resources.
 In the event of any conflict, the adopted ordinance controls.

In addition, eligibility-style language should be removed entirely. This includes references to CRHR or NRHP criteria, integrity thresholds, or statements suggesting that properties, patterns, or areas may be eligible or warrant further study.

2. Additions to the ordinance
The ordinance should clearly limit what the City will treat as a historical resource for planning and CEQA purposes. Specifically, only the following should qualify:
 Properties formally designated as local landmarks
 Properties within locally designated historic districts  Properties listed on the California Register of Historical Resources

2  Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places

The ordinance should further state that:
 Non-designated properties shall not be treated as historical resources or potential historical resources for CEQA, discretionary review, demolition review, or project conditioning.  The Historic Context Statement may not be used as evidence of historical significance or eligibility.
 City staff, consultants, boards, or commissions may not independently determine historic eligibility outside the formal designation process.
 No historic survey, evaluation, or eligibility analysis of a privately owned property may be initiated or required without the written consent of the property owner, unless the property is already designated or listed.
 Compliance with the ordinance and reliance on designated resources constitutes the City’s complete consideration of historical resources under CEQA.

3. Importance of sequencing
These limitations should be adopted concurrently with, or prior to, adoption of the Historic Context Statement. Adopting an expansive context document without binding ordinance guardrails creates avoidable legal risk and unnecessary uncertainty.

These changes are necessary to ensure historic preservation policy is precise, defensible, and consistent with CEQA, state housing law, and basic principles of due process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Kolja Schluetter
On Jan 20, 2026 at 7:27 PM -0800, Kolja Schluetter < , wrote:

Dear San Mateo Council Members and Project Team,

I have reviewed the Draft Historic Context Statement (November 2025), the accompanying draft ordinance framework, and the outreach conducted to date. My comments are not a critique of historic preservation as a goal, but of how this effort is currently structured, sequenced, and implemented.

As drafted, the combined approach creates unnecessary legal risk, policy imbalance, and public distrust.

1. Historic Context Statement – scope and downstream risk The Historic Context Statement goes well beyond its intended role as a neutral reference document. It repeatedly elevates broad development patterns, subdivision layouts, neighborhood form, and social history from contextual background to independently

3 significant resources. This shifts preservation review away from discrete, evaluable resources toward open-ended, neighborhood-scale claims and materially lowers the threshold for asserting historical significance.

Although the document states it does not designate resources, its structure and language invite pre-designation eligibility arguments. By exhaustively mapping themes and associations while emphasizing that CRHR eligibility does not require NRHP-level integrity, the document enables almost any property older than roughly 45 years to be argued as historically eligible, even when physical integrity or architectural merit is weak. This effectively turns context into de facto regulation without legislative safeguards.

The heavy reliance on non-physical attributes such as association, feeling, setting, and cultural narratives further increases subjectivity and uncertainty. The extensive discussion of cultural and ethnic history, while important, is framed in a way that strongly ties social history to physical location. As written, code-compliant redevelopment can be challenged on the basis of alleged cultural erasure or displacement even where no designated resource exists. This moves preservation review into socio-political adjudication rather than objective resource evaluation.

Finally, by broadening what may constitute a “potential historical resource,” the City is materially increasing CEQA exposure. Projects that would otherwise qualify for ministerial or streamlined review can now be forced into discretionary review or an EIR. This risk is foreseeable and should be acknowledged directly.

2. Ordinance – missing guardrails and due process
Several elements of the draft ordinance require substantial correction before adoption.

First, the consent process for historic district applications is fundamentally flawed. Relying on applicant-collected petition signatures is not verifiable and is inconsistent with every other City process involving neighbor consent. The City, not the applicant, must manage notification and consent verification. A supermajority threshold of at least two-thirds of affected property owners should be required, with non-responses counted as no consent. This is consistent with existing City practice, for example the installation of public street speed bumps requires 67% approval of affected homeowners.

Second, if an applicant attempts to bypass the local process by submitting a district application directly to the Office of Historic Preservation, the City Manager should be required to formally notify OHP that the City does not support the application. This should explicitly include the pending Baywood state application.

Third, there should be no new standalone Historic Preservation Commission. Oversight should remain within the Planning Department to avoid duplicative bureaucracy and maintain accountability within existing structures.

4 Finally, contributor status must be properly researched and documented. Drive-by or superficial assessments are inadequate. If a homeowner disputes contributor classification, the applicant must be required to meaningfully revise the application and address contrary evidence.

3. Outreach – failure to meet Council direction
The outreach conducted to date does not comply with Council’s direction from last year.

Rincon and staff were explicitly tasked with collecting input on the ordinance itself.

Instead, meetings focused largely on general sentiments about San Mateo.

Rincon’s own materials show only 163 community member touchpoints, many of which represent repeat participants counted multiple times. With the exception of the mobile workshops, attendance was dominated by SMHA and LRT members. This is not a broad or representative cross-section of the community. Critically, Council-directed questions, such as what consent thresholds are meaningful to residents, were not addressed at all.

In effect, approximately $60,000 was spent to hear from roughly 95 new voices about what they like about San Mateo, not about the policy choices at issue.

Conclusion
Taken together, the Historic Context Statement, ordinance draft, and outreach process reflect a flawed sequencing and an imbalance between preservation objectives, housing obligations, and property rights. The current approach expands regulatory reach, lowers evidentiary thresholds, and defers critical policy decisions while exposing the City to avoidable legal and political risk.

I strongly urge the City to pause adoption, revise the Historic Context Statement to clearly separate background history from eligibility frameworks, complete and tighten the ordinance guardrails, and conduct ordinance-focused outreach that reflects the broader community.

Thank you for considering these comments. I would welcome further discussion.

Best regards,

Kolja Schluetter
1 From: Bebe >
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:46 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

YOUR VOTERS CARE ABOUT HOUSING
As you know, aﬀordable housing is a top issue for San Mateo Residents. Yet the proposed language for the Historic PreservaƟon secƟon of the Municipal Code was wriƩen by people clearly looking to exert their discreƟonary control over a wide-swath of properƟes which will slow down development.

COUNCIL DESERVES A CHOICE ON HISTORIC ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Today, only one version of the Historic Ordinance is being presented to you and that version wants the opƟon to control remodel decisions over every house in San Mateo built before 1981! Since you can't possibly be expected to read and edit every line of the draŌ, you should have a choice.

In addiƟon to the current version, Council should be able to consider a version which meets city requirements but is wriƩen by land-use experts. Experts who support appropriate historic preservaƟon but who are inƟmately familiar with how historic preservaƟon language has been weaponized against housing development up and down the State. The language for informing owners and consent would also be stronger.

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/aﬀordable housing.

Thank you for supporƟng this path,

Bebe Young
Baywood Home Owner
________________

1 From: Zachary Dahl
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 9:30 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fw: Liability Risk & Proposed Language for Non-Consensual Districts Attachments: Historic_Resources_Reform_Act_Omnibus_Memo_With_Updates w flag.pdf; Response to request for reclassification_419 Jackson St (ElliottF)_2025-07-18 (1).pdf Did you get this comment?

Zachary Dahl, AICP
Director, Community Development

From: Frank Elliott
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Historic Policy <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko- Godycki <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>
Subject: Liability Risk & Proposed Language for Non-Consensual Districts

Dear Zach and Consultant Team,
I asked a question last night that may have been obscured by a subsequent remark. That aside, my question remains valid and unanswered.

My Request to the City:

As part of this ordinance process, please add a provision that addresses the gap regarding "contributor" classifications for non-locally created districts. Here is the suggested language:
"If the OHP or an outside body approves a nomination that includes classifications of 'Contributor' , the City shall presume that classification is incorrect if the owner challenges it."
The Risk to the City: Beyond the impact on homeowners, without this provision, the Staff and City may open themselves to potential lawsuits,
or at minimum a lot of unnecessary conflict. Currently, there is no due process or governmental verification of these classifications. If the City enforces regulations based on unverified third-party data, you assume the liability for that data.

The GREATER Context: In my opinion, the only new residential districts the City will realistically need to handle are those processed at the State level, as the local consent threshold will likely prove to be a difficult barrier for proponents to overcome. The catalyst for this whole process was to help a situation like Baywood, and yet this draft ordinance ignores that situation entirely. I hope Staff and Council will spend time addressing non-consensual districts and how we can mitigate the effect on owners. WHY

ARE WE CREATING AN ELABORATE ORDINANCE FOR DISTRICTS THAT WILL NEVER BE CREATED LOCALLY?
But to focus on this specific request regarding contributor classifications, here are the facts that I am currently living:

1. The State (OHP) Does Not Verify Classifications

2 I previously contacted the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) regarding re-classification for my property. Their written response was clear (email attached):
"The nomination belongs to the applicant. Therefore, any changes must be directed to the applicant and preparer, who are copied on this message. Should they make changes to the nomination, they would provide the amended nomination to our office for review." Furthermore, in a direct Zoom meeting with OHP staff, they confirmed to me that they do not review these individual "contributor" classifications in detail. They may do a cursory review, but rely entirely on the nominator and their consultant. While Page & Turnbull is a respected firm, they work for the applicant, not the State.

The Reality: The State accepts the list provided by the applicant. They do not have the resources (nor is it part of their process) to independently verify if my home—or any home—is correctly labeled.

2. The Nominator Refuses to Correct Errors
The OHP forwarded my request for changed classification to the nominator. Approximately five months later, I heard back from the nominator, Laurie Hietter (San Mateo Heritage Alliance), with a form letter stating (letter attached):
"After careful consideration of all available information, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has decided not to revise property classifications at this time." Several others received an identical letter. This letter confirms that determinations were made from the "public right-of-way" only, with no indication that the new information I provided (regarding exterior changes or permit history) was reviewed by a professional historian.

3. The Lack of Rigor vs. Permanent Consequence
I have two direct questions for Rincon: 1) For a district of 444 homes, how much time is realistically spent validating each individual property? Based on public information regarding the Baywood nomination budget, it appears less than $100 per property is allocated for this vetting. 2) Is it appropriate for a drive-by assessment costing $100 or less to result in a permanent "Contributor" label that restricts a homeowner’s property rights forever?
Conclusion
Specifically, the burden should be on the Nominator (or the City) to prove that the home retains integrity using the same strict Secretary of the Interior (DOI) Standards that you intend to impose on homeowners. Why should a Nominator be allowed to use a "drive-by" standard to put me on the contributor list—ignoring prior alterations that fail the DOI test—while I am held to that exacting standard just to get a permit?
I hope you see the inconsistency in this process and will not put added burdens on homeowners who find themselves in districts they did not consent to. The Council has been clear: they want consent for districts and do not want to facilitate the bypass of local control. This one change in the ordinance, will substantially reduce the burden of unwanted designations.

Thank you,
Frank Elliott

1 From: Chris Eckert < >
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 7:00 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian
Subject: Agenda Item Request: Funding for Glazenwood Historic District Focus Group Dear City Clerk, City Manager and Honorable City Council Members,

Thank you for helping ensure that Glazenwood is included.

Chris Eckert

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
December 3, 2025
Mr. Frank Elliott

Subject: Request to Reclassify Property in the Proposed Baywood Historic District Dear Mr. Elliott:

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the potential reclassification of your property from a contributing resource to a non‐contributing resource within the proposed Baywood Historic District.

We appreciate your engagement with this important process and your ste wardship of this historic
neighborhood. The San Mateo Heritage Alliance retained Page & Turnbull, a qualified architectural history firm, to conduct a professional evaluation of the properties in the historic district. The evaluation of properties was conducted from the public right‐of‐way and followed the stand ards and guidelines established by the National Register of Historic Places and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The evaluation documented the property’s architectural characteristics and analyzed its historic integrity in relation to the seven aspects recognized by the National Register, within the context of ho
w it supports the historic district:

1. Location

2. Design

3. Setting

4. Materials

5. Workmanship

6. Feeling

7. Association
As the National Register Bulletin states, a property need not retain all seven aspects to contribute to the overall significance and integrity of the historic district. After thorough analysis, Page & Turnbull concluded that your pro
perty retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing resource to the proposed Baywood Historic District.

Separately, OHP staff have reviewed the draft district nomination and confirmed that the proposed Baywood Historic District meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination also received an independent peer revie
w by a second state historian.

Historic preservation does not mean preserving properties in amber. Historic regulations recognize that owners make changes to their properties over time. Not every alteration automatically compromises a property’s ability to convey its historic character or its ability to contribute to a historic district. While your property
may have sustained some previous alterations, at present, the professional evaluation finds that your property continues to contribute to the historic and architectural significance of the district.

December 3, 2025

Page 2 ends

2 After careful consideration of all available information, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has decided not to revise property classifications at this time. The Office of Historic Preservation will contact you directly once their formal review of the nomination is complete. Following that review, we plan to host community informational meetings to answer questions.

We are here to be a resource to the
community and to educate the public about the importance of preserving the rich heritage of the Baywood neighborhood and the City of San Mateo.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: Amy Crain, California Office of Historic Preservation Christina Dikas Brobst, Page & Turnbull
Barrett Reiter, Page & Turnbull

Thank you for helping ensure that Glazenwood is included.

Chris Eckert

January 25, 2026

San Mateo City Council
Via email: [email protected]

Re: Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Members of the City Council:

I write as a twenty-year resident of San Mateo in the Beresford Park area, concerned about the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. Please consider the following comments and proposed revisions to the draft ordinance.

1. The City should expand its review to address the current Baywood dispute by considering relief to residents involuntarily included in historic districts.

The ordinance may be irrelevant to the current Baywood dispute if Baywood is not likely to be designated locally as a historic district. A supermajority favoring local designation is unlikely because, apparently, a majority of Baywood residents oppose the state listing.

Accordingly, the City should expand its review to consider how to provide relief to homeowners involuntarily included in historic districts through state or federal eligibility determinations. Please consider the suggestions below as part of that expanded review.

2. The City should treat design review as ministerial.

Even if no districts are designated locally under the proposed ordinance, Baywood is likely to become subject to CEQA’s historic impact assessment and mitigation mandates because it is likely to be found “eligible” for listing in the current state OHP process. The City can and should avoid unwanted and contentious consideration of historic resource impacts to buildings in historic districts for which the owner does not seek historic resource protection. It can do so by treating its Single Family Dwelling Design Review as exempt from CEQA.

The CEQA process, including its historic resource provisions, applies only to discretionary decisions. The City has been unnecessarily treating design review as a discretionary decision that triggers CEQA review. The City can and should revise its design review provisions to clarify that design review does not trigger CEQA review, and thus does not require consideration of historic resource impacts under CEQA.

The most straightforward way to avoid an unnecessary CEQA process for design review would be to adopt objective design standards to facilitate purely ministerial permitting of residential projects. Using objective standards makes it easier to undertake design review and makes it clear that there is no CEQA trigger. Indeed, objective standards are the way many jurisdictions are now streamlining permitting to encourage provision of deeply needed housing. There is no reason for redundant project-level CEQA review of infill projects after the City has already complied with CEQA to adopt its general plan, update its housing element, and adopt its zoning code.

Even if the City does not adopt objective design standards, it should clarify that its Single Family Dwelling Design Review is in intent and practice purely aesthetic. Under McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80, 94, even a discretionary design review limited to aesthetic considerations does not trigger CEQA because City lacks discretion to address environmental impacts. The City should consider amendments to the design review provisions for single-family residences to clarify that CEQA does not apply to design review, as follows:
 Amend SMC Section 27.08.032 to retain only its objective criteria, i.e., the determination whether “the structures, site plan, and landscaping are consistent with the adopted R1 Single Family Dwelling Design Guidelines” and whether the “development meets all applicable standards as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, conforms with the General Plan, and will correct any violations of the zoning ordinance, building code, or other municipal codes that exist on the site. ” (SMC Section 27.08.032(d)(1) and (4).) These are clearly objective criteria and a determination of consistency can be processed ministerially by the Zoning Administrator.
 Amend SMC Section 27.08.032 to eliminate the subjective and standardless findings now required that “[t]he development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City” and “[t]he development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the vicinity, and otherwise is in the best interests of the public health, safety, or welfare. ” (SMC Section 27.08.032(d)(2) and (3).) These vaguely worded findings are not clearly related to design considerations and call for ad hoc and unguided discretion that, in the absence of objective standards, can be exercised arbitrarily.

3. The historic preservation ordinance should exempt projects from the Certificate of Appropriateness where compliance is infeasible.

In case historic districts are eventually designated locally under the proposed historic ordinance, the ordinance should incorporate an exception to compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards where the compliance is infeasible for economic or policy reasons and there are overriding considerations for approval of the project. CEQA provides this off-ramp. The City’s ordinance should not be more exacting than CEQA.

CEQA requires an agency to assess the significance of impacts and adopt mitigation or an alternative where feasible. If mitigation or alternatives are infeasible due to “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, ” the agency may approve the project despite its unmitigated impacts if it finds overriding circumstances. (14 CCR 15091(a)(2).) The overriding circumstances that permit an agency to approve a project despite significant adverse impacts include “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits. ” (14 CCR 15093(a).) The City might find, for example, that provision of housing and construction jobs outweighs some potential impacts to historic resources.

As drafted, Section 26.66.100(a) and (a)(1) of the ordinance would require that every project with a significant impact to a historic resource would have to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness. The only exception is for the unlikely case of a project undertaken by low and very-low income households, i.e., households that most typically rent rather than own their homes. Obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness mandates mitigation measures by meeting the Secretary of interiors Standards. (Draft Ordinance Section 26.66.100(a) and (a)(1).) Those standards are so exacting that demolition is not allowed unless the structure presents a health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated.

However, the purposes section of the draft ordinance indicates that the legislative intent is to consider feasibility, i.e., only to “[a]void demolition of the City’s historic resources, where feasible, through preservation, rehabilitation, or other available and appropriate alternatives. (Draft Ordinance Section 26.66.010(e).)
Accordingly, Section 26.66.100(a) should be revised to add the underlined language as follows: “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 unless meeting the design standards set out in Section 26.66.100(a)(1) is infeasible due to specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. ” This is the same language that permits exceptions to mitigation of significant impacts under CEQA. Again, the City should not impose a more stringent mitigation obligation than is already required by CEQA.

4. The ordinance should provide a lesser mitigation burden for contributors to an historic district than for individually eligible or listed properties.

The ordinance’s definition of significant alterations and its conditions for a Certificate of Appropriateness treat contributors to historic districts as if they are individually listed or eligible historic resources and hold them to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for individually listed resources. The ordinance should be revised to recognize that a single contributor to a historic district may not be individually eligible for listing and that its demolition or alteration might not significantly impact the historic district as a whole.

Failure to recognize this would be contrary to San Mateo’s current treatment of historic districts, which, following CEQA, allows substantial alterations or demolition of contributors, as long as the district retains most of its historic qualities, as follows:

Under CEQA, impacts are usually analyzed to an entire historic district rather than to an individual contributor (unless the contributor itself qualifies as a historic resource). Therefore, substantial alterations or even demolition of a single district contributor that is not individually eligible might not amount to a significant impact

1 From: Oliver Shay < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:34 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D2: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I, Kate C O’Young, am an Owner in District 2. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominations of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been reviewed and approved first by the City/Council via the local process.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

I ask that the Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use attorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighting the weaponization of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the

2 Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

______________

Kate C O’Young (via my son in law, Oliver Shay)
1 From: Paul Labagh < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:44 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email. I await your reply!

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

YOUR VOTERS CARE ABOUT HOUSING
As you know, affordable housing is a top issue for San Mateo Residents. Yet the proposed language for the Historic Preservation section of the Municipal Code was written by people clearly looking to exert their discretionary control over a wide-swath of properties which will slow down development.

COUNCIL DESERVES A CHOICE ON HISTORIC ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Today, only one version of the Historic Ordinance is being presented to you and that version wants the option to control remodel decisions over every house in San Mateo built before 1981! Since you can't possibly be expected to read and edit every line of the draft, you should have a choice.

In addition to the current version, Council should be able to consider a version which meets city requirements but is written by land-use experts. Experts who support appropriate historic preservation but who are intimately familiar with how historic preservation language has been weaponized against housing development up and down the State. The language for informing owners and consent would als o
be much stronger.

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing. We do not believe our thoughts and views are being represented.

Thank you for supporting this path,

Paul Labagh

Get Outlook for iOS

1 From: Liz Hall < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:58 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D2: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt *Hello and noting that this is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email. *

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I am an Owner in District 2. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary! San Mateo already has an existing, known process for gathering owner consent on residential programs...Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS
The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City better than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominations. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors. Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominations of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been reviewed and approved first by the City/Council via the local process.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”. I ask that the Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use attorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighting the weaponization of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hall

2 2
as a theme, suddenly every home in that style across greater San Mateo could get swept up as "historic" without individual review or consent. That's exactly the kind of trap we're trying to prevent.

Finally, I strongly urge that the final Historic Preservation language in the Municipal Code be run through the Less Red Tape team, with direct input from land use attorney Daniel Freedman. He's been battling the weaponization of historic designations up and down the state— he knows exactly where these pitfalls
hide.

Thanks for stepping up to make sure no private citizen (or small group) can tie up their neighbors' properties without full awareness and real owner consent. Property rights matter—let's keep them protected.

Sincerely, Chris Battles District 1 Owner

1 From: Andrew Ryan < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Alex Khojikian; Clerk; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council: The draft historic ordinance MUST address Baywood. It's the whole reason we're here.

This weekend I heard an alarming meme from several councilmembers: that the new historic ordinance was never meant to address Baywood's issues. I want to cut this meme off quickly because it's false, and I think Council and Staff are trying to use it as a cop-out to kick the can down the road and avoid making hard decisions in 2026. Let's address the arguments I've heard in the "we're not touching Baywood" meme:

1. "Council never agreed to make an ordinance just because of Baywood" Totally false. Let's recap what happened. In 2024, when tensions were high around Baywood and national news stories were appearing covering San Mateo in a strongly negative light, City Manager Alex Khojikian asked both the SMHA and LRT for a "truce" while a local ordinance process could be pursued, and the fight over Baywood be moved from the State to the City. Assistant City Manager Christine Horrisberger was present and can validate this. While LRT agreed to the truce and maintained it, SMHA broke the truce and re-submitted their Baywood application to the state in 2024, before the Council even met to consider the new ordinance in 2025.

You're doing this whole ordinance because of Baywood. No way this exists otherwise.

2. "Baywood is being made historic under state law, therefore there's nothing the city can do for Baywood homeowners"
This is completely false. In fact *EVERYTHING* that happens to homeowners is EXACTLY under the City's control. All the state does is say "boop, you're historic." Everything else after that is up to the City:
how permits are granted, how demolitions are handled, how modifications are treated, etc. And the draft ordinance just adds MORE red tape, MORE confusion to this process. Even the dreaded CEQA could, in theory, be bypassed if we made historic home renovations ministerial, since CEQA only applies to discretionary permits. Not saying that's gonna happen, but the point is the City has all kinds of control here.

3. "This is a State process, so the City has no say in what happens." Again, totally false. The OHP in Sacramento is not completely insensitive to how preservation affects local communities. Here's one example of what San Mateo could do: when the City is explicitly asked for comment on Baywood as part of the state process, the City could comment "We are formally opposed to Baywood being a historic district because our local process was not followed first". That's not "interference," that's a city asserting its right to comment to a state agency. The City does this all the time on various matters. For example here is an example of an opposition letter written to the state by the City of Alameda in 2022 for a historic district which was ultimately denied.

2 Council, your voters mostly HATE historic and think it's a waste of government time and money and recognize it as a pure NIMBY move. I know your voters are emailing you this, both at our urging and just on their own. Pro-historic wins you precious few votes in San Mateo, even in conservative areas like Baywood.

Please continue to work with residents to understand what they really want, especially in Baywood .

Unfortunately, Baywood's own representative is unwilling to put aside her own personal biases and advocate for what a majority of what Baywood residents want, so Baywood's interests are not being adequately represented in this process. This puts more pressure on the rest of you on Council, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. I do not envy the job ahead of you but I'm happy to help you all if possible.

Andrew Ryan
Baywood Homeowner
1 From: Colin Madere < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Historic Policy; Clerk
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Rob Newsom
Subject: Agenda item 16: This is not historic preservation Dear City of San Mateo public servants:

I am wriƟng to you with great concern about what appears to be a mis-use of the concept of “historic preservaƟon”. I strongly believe in preserving historically signiﬁcant buildings or facades. In no way do I nor any of the many neighbors I know in Central (and beyond) believe that creaƟng barriers to repair or remodel typical homes from the last 100+ years serves a public good, and I am very well aware of the extra Ɵme, costs and barriers to doing so when a property is designated “historic". I would further say that most residents would not consider tearing down an “average” home of any age of less than 150 years should consƟtute anything more than a simple check if it has a speciﬁc (not generic) historic signiﬁcance to the area (unless you have full city populaƟon survey contradicƟng this?). Every home does not have speciﬁc historic signiﬁcance. Every home in any neighborhood in this city does not. Therefore enƟre neighborhoods should NEVER fall under any language used in ordinances around historic preservaƟon.

Please do not spend more tax dollars or city Ɵme on this issue. We have far more important issues to handle. We have a funding shortage on major infrastructure and safety projects, do we not? Please direct your aƩenƟon there.

Directly: Do not mark or designate or include my home in any ordinance or language or referred to language as “historic” without my or ANY owner’s express consent. NO referring to “Context Statements” in historic ordinances.

Thank you for your consideraƟon,

Colin Madere

Central resident for over 12 years

1 From: cathie lesjak
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 2:19 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D1: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I am an Owner in District 1. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the

2 Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

Cathie Lesjak
1 From: daniel ikeda < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:11 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the Ɵme to put in strong informed consent protecƟons and make sure historic resource nominaƟons don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominaƟons.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary! San Mateo already has an exisƟng, known process for gathering owner consent on residenƟal programs...Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an addiƟonal disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominaƟons of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been reviewed and approved ﬁrst by the City/Council via the local process.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,
Dan & Jackie Ikeda

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: daniel ikeda < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:10 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/aﬀordable housing.

Thank you for supporƟng this path,
Dan & Jackie Ikeda

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Rick Bonilla
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:51 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Adam Loraine; Clerk Subject: Historic preservation, stop the housing grab!
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

1. CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary! San Mateo already has an existing, known process for gathering owner consent on residential programs...Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should actually be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

2. NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS
The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City better than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominations. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

3. NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

2 I ask that the Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use attorney Daniel Freedman who has been fighting the weaponization of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

RICK BONILLA

1 From: Connie Weiss < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:32 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Policy Effort: San Mateo Historic Ordinance, Item 16 on 1/29/26 Agenda Hello San Mateo City Council Members,
I attended the San Mateo Historic Policy Virtual Workshop last week. I appreciate the work Rincon has done and the challenges they have had to manage in putting the draft ordinance together. Here is some background and critical issues to consider when determining the next steps in developing the ordinance:

1. A conversation between neighbors about historic properties began in 2023. Almost immediately, a small group of people, who would become Less Red Tape (LRT), decided to use misinformation and fear mongering to scare the daylights out of Baywood residents as the community began the process to become a historic district. Numerous meetings were held to discuss the fact-based aspects of becoming a historic district, including several hosted by the Baywood Neighborhood Association (BNA). Then the real dirty tricks by LRT began. In an attempt to intimidate and cause fear, several neighbors were viciously attacked by LRT members with lies and distortions. BNA stopped discussing the historic district as the issue was becoming so contentious it distracted from BNA’s focus of being a neighborhood uniting force. Our District 1 representative decided to recuse herself in any discussions on a Baywood historic district. This left only the Heritage Alliance to address the lies, fear mongering, and smears of this group. Heritage Alliance pleaded with the City to be the neutral body to make the truth known. The City dragged their feet. Heritage Alliance was the sole body to fight the misinformation, but fear is a very hard thing to overcome, especially when it comes to something as crucial as one’s home and perhaps largest investment. And sadly, there came a time when Heritage Alliance became vilified, but it continues to do everything possible to fight the misinformation.

2. Those devoted to special interest groups that focus on opposing historic districts are now attending meetings and repeating the lies of LRT. Rincon has valiantly tried to manage the combative atmosphere these groups have caused by answering questions truthfully, and patiently re-answering when the original answer isn’t deemed acceptable by those unable to accept facts. In addition to attendance by the LRT leaders on Wednesday night, there was solid representation of the YIMBY crowd, where they dutifully followed the YIMBY national mandate to oppose any historic districts. The main YIMBY talking point is that historic districts prevent housing (which they DO NOT). The results of the polls at the meeting reflect the fear instilled into residents by LRT, and th
e bullying by them and YIMBY representatives in skewing the polls on the call.

3. It is a clear mandate of fair and equitable governance that in your decisions during Monday night’s meeting, you must consider the following:
a. A super-majority vote, if adopted, will ensure San Mateo will lose all of its historic properties over time. The outside interests have no regard for the beauty our architecture bestows on our City. They are interested in building, and only building, and they want nothing in their way to stop them. San Mateo will lose its soul. The state and national processes for historic designation allow for a community’s approval to become

2 a historic district. Let them do their job. Don’t try to duplicate or negate the years of expertise they provide.
b. And some questions: (1) Why should City Council have to make a resolution to include state or federally listed properties in the inventory? By default, they should be included in that inventory. (2) Where did the idea of a vote come from? Residents don’t vote whether or not to be included on state or federal flood zones, fire hazard zones, or wetland and riparian zones. (3) There is a huge omission in the draft ordinance in that there is no recognition of state and federally listed properties. Nor is there any provision documenting that the City has many eligible properties that they have not addressed for over 30 years. Is that really in line with the General Plan goals and policies? c. As to the focus groups, it would seem to be a no-brainer to ensure a focus group of Glazenwood residents was arranged, but it was not. Glazenwood residents love being in a historic district; they have direct experience in maintaining their homes under Historic District designation. Why were they left out? Why couldn’t the positive input they would have provided been reflected in the discussion? d. Further to the Glazenwood historic district designation, why is a City Staff Director unilaterally deciding that because a piece of paper cannot be found, Glazenwood is not a historic district but only “eligible”? I hope the Council will remind this person that he is not deputized to make such a decision. A ton of time was spent asking questions about this last Wednesday night and he only dug in deeper with his opinion. e. As part of this ordinance, I urge the Council to form an independent body of experts on historic architecture, not leave it to City staff or an existing Commission, such as Planning, that is well known for their anti-historic stance. This should be in the hands of experts, not anti-historic district ideologs.

Thank you for considering this information before moving forward with the Historic Ordinance. The City Council should
NOT let the future of historic preservation in the City of San Mateo suffer because of the misinformation and deception promoted by LRT and YIMBY lobbyists.

Sincerely,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident

1 From: Kevin Cullinane >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:22 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporting this path,

________________

Regards,

Kevin Cullinane
SC Properties

1 From: Kevin Cullinane < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:21 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as th e OHP does no independent due diligence of
nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owner’s awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

_______________

Regards,

Kevin Cullinane
SC Properties

1 From: Barbara Alexander < >
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/aﬀordable housing.

Thank you for supporƟng this path,
Barbara Alexander
________________

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Kolja Schluetter
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 12:15 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Historic Policy Cc: Zachary Dahl; Planning Commission
Subject: Request for legal safeguards in Historic Context Statement and draft ordinance Dear San Mateo City Council and Project Team,

2  Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places

These changes are necessary to ensure historic preservation policy is precise, defensible, and consistent with CEQA, state housing law, and basic principles of due process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,

Kolja Schluetter
On Jan 20, 2026 at 7:27 PM -0800, Kolja Schluetter , wrote:

Dear San Mateo Council Members and Project Team,

As drafted, the combined approach creates unnecessary legal risk, policy imbalance, and public distrust.

2. Ordinance – missing guardrails and due process
Several elements of the draft ordinance require substantial correction before adoption.

3. Outreach – failure to meet Council direction
The outreach conducted to date does not comply with Council’s direction from last year.

Rincon and staff were explicitly tasked with collecting input on the ordinance itself.

Instead, meetings focused largely on general sentiments about San Mateo.

In effect, approximately $60,000 was spent to hear from roughly 95 new voices about what they like about San Mateo, not about the policy choices at issue.

Thank you for considering these comments. I would welcome further discussion.

Best regards,

Kolja Schluetter
1 From: Hanish Rathod
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporting this path,
Hanish
________________

1 From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 2:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash, who ignores the interests of those in her district ) plus Clerk,

We need strong informed consent protecƟons and make sure historic resource nominaƟons don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominaƟons.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. Our house was listed as a contributor in the current applicaƟon for a Baywood historic district, without our consent even though there was an addiƟon, remodel and eliminaƟon of some windows and addiƟons of others. The OHP have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owner’s awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

____Jean Garcia___________

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Jamie Curry Hwang
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 4:49 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I STRONGLY disagree with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,
Jamie Hwang

--
There are those that give with joy, and that joy is their reward - Khalil Gibran

1 From: Hoa Le
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2026 6:10 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,
Hoa Le

1 From: Mike Feng < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic? Consent should be 2/3 FOR and Nominations shouldn't bypass the City NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,
Michael Feng
21 year resident of San Mateo

1 From: Peter Stone < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:36 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Subject: Re: Council should have a choice on the Historic Ordinance Language Dear City Council Members:

I am writing as a fed-up San Mateo resident who is tired of seeing City Hall captured by the private priorities of Lisa Diaz Nash and her husband, Mike Nash, at the expense of the rest of us.

The Baywood “historic district” push is not about history. It is about power, control, and protecting one wealthy enclave from change while the city burns time and money on “process theater.” The fact that the Mayor’s own household is deeply entangled in this effort is a glaring conflict of interest, and everyone on this council knows it.

I am sick of watching staff hours, consultant dollars, and political capital poured into a vanity of useless projects that ex ist
to give a small circle of insiders more leverage over their neighbors’ property. Ordinary residents are struggling with real issues: crime, homelessness, filthy and unsafe streets, traffic, schools under pressure, and a brutal cost of living. Instead of tackling those important issues, you are pouring fuel on a manufactured “heritage” drama for one of the richest neighborhoods in the city.

I attended the City Council meeting last January, where you approved a historic district preservation consulting contract with Rincon Consultants for a total not-to-exceed amount of approximately $328,000. Last Thursday I attended the Rincon virtual meeting, and I believe that you’ve already incurred $550K. My understanding is that we’re already running a multi-million deficit, and taxes go up every single year. This is just more government regulation and more waste! We don’t have revenue problems at the Federal, State, or Local levels. We have spending problems!

In 2022, the Council voted 4-1 to install the Humboldt / Popular lanes as part of a federal-funded safer project. By early 2025 you voted 3-2 to partially remove the lanes and spend up to ~$2 million to restore roughly half the parking, while proposing a less-protected bike-boulevard alternative.

Why are you so incompetent?

Let me be crystal clear:
- Shut down the Baywood historic district process and any related “heritage” overlays immediately - Stop burning staff time and legal resources to engineer special protections for the Mayor’s neighborhood - Refuse any new commission, design review, or overlay that gives politically connected homeowners a veto over by-right projects
- Start cutting waste and lowering the tax and fee burden instead of inventing new layers of government to micromanage private property

You were not elected to be hall monitors for rooflines and paint colors.

You were elected to keep this city safe, clean, and
functional, and to respect the basic principle that residents – not a handful of well-connected activists and their spouse – decide what happens on their own lots within the law.

I expect you to end this Baywood historic-
district nonsense, stop enabling conflicts of interest around the Nash household, and get back to doing the core job you were elected to do.

Respectfully,

Peter R. Stone

2 On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 8:59 PM Peter Stone wrote:

NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

REPRESENT YOUR VOTERS
Council should have a choice. And their choice should support what their voters want...more/affordable housing.

Thank you for supporting this path,

________________

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Allison MacQueen Felder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 9:40 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Vote No on Historic Ordinance
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am a home owner in District 2 (home built in 1948). This starter home was a total fixer upper when we bought it and required extensive work, both inside and outside. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners adequately.

This restrictive ordinance will cause less building in San Mateo, less remodeling, and extensive red tap for what aim??
This ordinance seeks to embrace the past instead of readying San Mateo for future population growth and a modernization of existing housing stock.

Thank you.

Allison MacQueen
North Shoreview Resident

Norma Formanek

January 26, 2026

VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] cc: [email protected], [email protected] SUBJECT: Initial Draft Update San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Council Members:

The draft Historic Preservation ordinance is overly broad and contains ambiguities that must be resolved before it can be evaluated for Council action. I will address only section 27.66.100, Certificate of Appropriateness, which places broad new burdens on homeowners and the City.

Scope of the Ordinance. The ordinance would require the owner of a “Contributing” home in an Historic District to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness for virtually any “alter[ation]” to
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. (Definitions, Major Alteration)
This requirement applies even if “no other permits or entitlements” are needed. As a result, any “visual” change to my home not requiring a permit today would likely trigger the Certificate requirement.

As drafted, this clause seems also to mean:
 Alterations that are “structural” and “visual” are covered, whether or not they are also historic .

 The Ordinance isn’t limited to changes to the home’s exterior or to street elevations. The reference to “exterior” in the above definition appears to apply only the “placement or removal” of a significant “object,” not to changes to the building itself. Three limitations to street elevations are narrow:
demolition; work requiring a permit on street-facing or side elevations but only if the structure is a Historic Resources, not a Contributor; and addition of square footage (see 27.66.020(a)(2), (a)(3) and (g). Addition of a backyard deck, for example, would appear to be trigger City review.
 The Certificate is required for “new” construction on a property that contains a Historic Resource or Contributing Property if that construction “could affect its visual appearance,” whether or not it does. This seems to support media speculation that this entire effort is an end-run around the State’s recent adoption of laws encouraging development of ADUs, in which case litigation seems inevitable. Then again, it may just be an example of early drafting that needs tightening up.
 The “exemption” for repair and maintenance applies only if the work is determined (by whom?) not to involve “change in exterior design, material, or appearance. Simply repainting a home would at a minimum require someone to “determine” that the paint doesn’t result in an “alteration.”  Even so-called “Minor Alterations” that have been “determined to have limited potential to affect the defining character and architectural style of a Listed Resource or Contributor” require a certificate.

Is it the City’s intent to place such broad range of new restrictions on home ownership?
Who Decides? The Ordinance draft doesn’t tell us who decides whether a Certificate of Appropriateness is needed or will be granted. It refers to unnamed “reviewing” and “approval” bodies, which the City may not yet have decided. That decision must consider important questions such as:
 What is the role of the City’s professional staff? The Zoning Administrator is given limited power to review and approve Certificates, but that is subject to both public notice and further review by the “reviewing body.”  What subject-matter expertise will required of the officials charged with enforcement of this ordinance? Does the City have sufficient resources for timely processing of applications?
 How will the objectivity of the decision-maker be ensured. Many cities “outsource” historic preservation review. Does San Mateo intend to do that and if so, how?
 Are there any objective, measurable standards under which a Certificate can be denied?
 What recourse does the homeowner have after denial?
Crafting ordinances that are clear and workable for both the City and its residents is a complex process. If this Ordinance is to go forward, it needs significant rethinking, redrafting and public comment to allow the Council to make a reasoned decision. I urge the Council to take that time and not rush to adoption of an overbroad and ambiguous set of regulations.

Sincerely,

Norma Formanek

1 From: Kira Tsu
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D5: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I am an Owner in District 5. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the

2 Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

Kira Tsu
1 From: Jon New
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:21 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D2: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council, plus Clerk,

I am a homeowner in District 2, and personally, I think the historic designations are a tremendous waste of city resources. Not only is this obviously a ploy to deny housing, but the idea of strongly limiting what people can do on their own property is appalling, and quite frankly, unamerican. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not
protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

Please add language to the Historic Ordinance whereby the City Manager requests that the OHP inform them immediately of any nominations of resources within their City Limits and that the OHP does not approve any historic resources that have not been review ed
and approved first by the City/Council via the local process.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE
City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be cons idered
“historic”.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

Jonathan New

______________

1 From: Liz Magnee-Schalch
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D3: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I am an Owner in District 3. It has come to my aƩenƟon that the new Historic PreservaƟon Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staﬀ to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

I ask that the Historic PreservaƟon Language in the Municipal Code be reviewed and approved by the Less Red Tape team with support from land use aƩorney Daniel Freedman who has been ﬁghƟng the weaponizaƟon of historic districts up and down the State.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,
Liz Magnee- Schalch
______________

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Maria Sagullo < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 12:16 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D1: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt No historic district pls!
Dear San Mateo City Council, plus Clerk,

I am an Owner in District 1. It has come to my aƩenƟon that the new Historic PreservaƟon Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

NO BYPASS OF CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The OHP in Sacramento doesn't know the buildings of a City beƩer than the locals. And as you know, the OHP does no independent due diligence on nominaƟons. As a result, they have rubber stamped "historic" buildings up and down the state nominated by NIMBYs and controlling neighbors.

Thank you for ensuring that private ciƟzens can't encumber their neighbors properƟes without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

Maria Monica Sagullo

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Michelle Hudson < >
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:12 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Subject: Historic Ordinance - Consent should be 2/3 and Nominations shouldn't Bypass the City Dear Members of San Mateo City Council,

I disagreed with the City spending $500K to update the Historic Ordinance. However, since we are here, now is the time to put in strong informed consent protections and make sure historic resource nominations don't bypass City Processes / the Council as the OHP does no independent due diligence of nominations.

CONSENT SHOULD BE AT LEAST THE SAME AS THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS 67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel and spend more money on this than necessary. San Mateo already has an existing, known process for gathering owner consent on residential programs, namely Parking Permits. The threshold for historic resources should be higher. "Historic" is an additional disclosure at sale, the pool of buyers for historic homes is smaller than for homes not historic and historic homes cost more to maintain and insure.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Michelle Hudson
Baywood Homeowner

1 From: Belinda Steyer
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Subject: DISTRICT #5: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Nash) plus Clerk,

I am an Owner in District FIVE. It has come to my attention that the new Historic Preservation Ordinance Language in the Municipal Code may not protect Owners Adequately. Please carefully check the language in these three areas.

1. CONSENT AT LEAST THAT FOR PARKING PERMITS!
67% must support. At least 50% must respond to the survey.

3. NO REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE City Council directed Staff to not put Owners at risk of their homes being made “historic” by reference. For example, “Spanish Colonial Revival” is an example of a historic home. My understanding is that if the Ordinance references the Context Statement and the Context Statement includes “Spanish Colonial Revival”, then all Spanish Colonial Revival homes in greater San Mateo could now be considered “historic”.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens can't encumber their neighbors properties without the Owners awareness and consent!

Sincerely,

Belinda Steyer

2 1
From: Maggie Trinh
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:21 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Strong Opposition to Historic Preservation Language Dear San Mateo City Council (less Lisa Diaz Nash) plus Clerk and City Attorney,

I am a homeowner in District 3 writing as an individual. I recently learned that there is an effort to designate homes as "historic" using Historic Preservation Language in the Municipal Code that could potentially affect many, if not most, homes across the city. This is a giant step backwards when we are trying to build more, not less, housing, to address the acute housing shortage and affordability crisis in the region.

Historic homes cost more to maintain and insure. We need to make it easier to build, not harder. An overwhelming majority of homeowners do *not* want their house designated as historic, especially houses barely older than Diet Coke, rollerblades, and Cabbage Patch Kids.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Maggie Trinh

1 From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Adam Loraine; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Clerk
Subject: San Mateo Heritage Alliance Comments on the draft Context Statement and Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachments:

1.26.26SMHA CommentsonContextandOrdinance.docx.pdf
Good afternoon,

Please see the attached comments on the Historic Context Statement and the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration.

Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
www.smheritage.org
Protecting Our Past for a Better Future
M m m

1 From: Joel Scott
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:26 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: D1: Historic Ordinance - Consent, No Local Bypass, No Ref to Context Stmt NOTE: This is NOT an AI-generated message and I am a real person. You can verify this by replying to this email.

Dear San Mateo City Council and City Clerk,
I am a homeowner in District 1. It has come to my attention that proposed updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance may not adequately protect property owners. I ask that the draft be carefully reviewed and clarified in the three areas below.

1. CONSENT (AT LEAST THE PARKING PERMIT STANDARD)
At a minimum: (i) 67% of affected property owners must affirmatively support designation, and (ii) at least 50% of affected property owners must respond to the survey/ballot.

San Mateo already has a known process for obtaining owner consent for residential programs (parking permits). A historic designation can create additional permitting complexity and cost, ongoing maintenance/insurance issues, and a reduced pool of prospective buyers. The consent standard for any historic designation should be at least as protective as existing City programs.

2. NO BYPASS OF THE CITY FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE NOMINATIONS The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is not positioned to evaluate San Mateo properties better than local processes. As you know, the OHP have approved "historic" buildings up and down the state with no independent due diligence on nominations. This is problematic and raises serious concerns for homeowners impacted by the "historic" designation.

Please add clear language requiring that the City Manager be notified immediately of any OHP nomination affecting property within City limits, and that the City will not support (and requests OHP not to approve) any nomination that has not first been reviewed and acted on through the City’s local process.

3. NO INCORPORATION OF THE “CONTEXT STATEMENT” BY REFERENCE My understanding is that if the Ordinance incorporates the Citywide Historic Context Statement by reference, then broad categories included in that Context Statement (e.g., “Spanish Colonial Revival”) could be treated as presumptively “historic” in a way that risks sweeping in large numbers of homes without clear, individualized review and affirmative owner consent. Please ensure the Ordinance does not incorporate the Context Statement by reference in a way that expands designation scope, and clarify that the Context Statement is informational/guidance only and does not itself create designations.

2 I ask that the final Historic Preservation Ordinance language be reviewed with input from the Less Red Tape team and land use attorney Daniel Freedman, given their experience with the downstream impacts of historic designations on owners and communities.

Thank you for ensuring that private citizens cannot impose significant encumbrances on their neighbors’ properties without owners’ clear awareness and affirmative consent.

Sincerely,
Joel Scott

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
January 26, 2026
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Street
San Mateo, CA 94402
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Historic Cont ext Statement and Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Mayor Lorraine and Members of the City Council:

Thank you for preparing the draft Citywide Historic Context Statement and draft Historic Preservation Ordinance as part of implementing the 2040 General Plan. The San Mateo Heritage Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide input and urges the City to ensure these documents maintain—and ideally strengthen—San Mateo’s longstanding commitment to historic preservation.

San Mateo’s preservation framework has developed over decades through City Council resolutions, General Plan policies, cooperative agreements with the State Office of Historic Preservation, the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report (accepted by the State in 1990), and subsequent ordinance updates (originally adopted in 1993, expanded citywide in 1995, refined in 2010, and aligned with state law in 2022). The 1989 Survey remains the foundational record for identifying resources, evaluating districts, and supporting programs like the Mills Act.

KEY COMMENTS
The draft documents are incomplete and risk weakening existing protections:

1. Incomplete Documents and Non-Compliance with State Guidance The Historic Context Statement lacks required sections (including critical policy content) and fails to reference known historic districts, nominations (e.g., the proposed Baywood Historic District, now advancing toward National Register listing), and other elements of San Mateo’s preservation history. Meaningful public review requires complete, consistent documents. The draft Ordinance omits several elements recommended in the State Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Bulletin #14, including:
• Identification of enabling authority with qualified experts (e.g., architectural historians and architects)
• Establishment of a dedicated Historic Preservation Commission with qualified members • Appeals procedures
• Severability clause
City Council
January 26, 2026

Page 2 ends

2 • Clear policies on what the City considers important to preserve • Detailed definitions (e.g., major/minor alterations, adverse effect, Historic Resources Inventory, character-defining features, important architectural styles, design trends, complementary design)
ACTION: The missing information must be included in the Statement and Ordinance and provided for meaningful public review.

2. Weakened Protections Compared to Current Practices and Neighboring Cities The draft is minimalist and reduces safeguards relative to existing regulations (as described on the City’s website) and ordinances in comparable cities like Palo Alto, Burlingame, and Redwood City. Notable differences include:
• No dedicated, qualified historic commission (all three neighbors have one) • Stringent owner-consent requirements (supermajority for districts; owner-only nominations), unlike neighbors’ more proactive and city-led processes with fewer consent hurdles
• Arbitrary percentage thresholds for contributing properties in districts (inconsistent with state/federal practices, which define districts by geography and integrity, not fixed percentages)
• Discretionary Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs) for buildings over 45 years old (weakens current CEQA-informed requirements)
• Reliance on outdated surveys (e.g., 1989 Survey >35 years old; standard validity is 5–10 years) without mandating updates
• Broad exemptions for safety-related work (buildings can often be repaired without exemption)
• Weak enforcement, penalties, maintenance definitions (“good repair” should specify full paint coverage, repair of exposed wood, etc.), and incentives (expand beyond Mills Act basics, e.g., reduced fees, grants)
ACTIONS:

1. Include an architectural historian and architect to be the reviewing body.

2. Follow state and federal policies using >50% approval for owner consent in historic districts.

3. Remove provision for an arbitrary percentage of properties that must be contributors in historic districts.

City Council
January 26, 2026

Page 3 ends

3 3. Failure to Recognize State- and Federally-Listed Resources It is profoundly inappropriate—and contrary to shared cultural heritage, democratic processes, and community well-being—for the City to disr egard or exclude properties listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places. These listings already reflect rigorous, expert evaluation (including owner consent where applicable) and should trigger ordinance protections without requiring redundant local adoption. The ordinance must apply to development projects.

ACTIONS: Revise the ordinance to ensure that State and National Register properties are included in the inventory and are subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

4. Unclear Historic Resources Inventory
The draft does not clearly define the Inventory or fully incorporate prior Council actions, surveys, and resolutions (e.g., omitting key references to the 1989 Survey, 1990 General Plan, Mills Act implementations, Glazenwood and Downtown Historic Districts, Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District, survey-identified contributors, and proposed Baywood Historic District). The 1988 resolution 113 to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Office of Historic Preservation identified the 1989 Survey as the city historic resources inventory states “2. The City shall f. compile and [sic] inventory of historic resource that are of importance to the community;” This omission risks inconsistent enforcement, erosion of long- standing records, and loss of public confidence.

5. Identify Glazenwood as a local historic district. Glazenwood, identified in multiple General Plans and Housing Elements as one of two historic districts, must not be downgraded through administrative ambiguity. Glazenwood is listed as a historic district in the 1989 Survey, and as specified in the 1988 Memorandum of Agreement, is part of the city inventory.

ACTIONS: Identify Glazenwood as an historic district, similar to the Downtown Historic District.

6. Other Specific Improvements/Actions Needed
• Strengthen purpose/intent to align fully with General Plan policies CD 5.1–5.6 (remove or clarify ambiguous terms like “use” of resources; define “where feasible,” “infeasible,” and “appropriate alternatives” for avoiding demolition) • Add local designation criteria highlighting San Mateo’s special features (e.g., pre-1950 homes, Eichlers, Downtown integrity, “City of Beautiful Homes” legacy) • Require review by qualified architectural historians for exterior modifications to older buildings (not just staff)
City Council
January 26, 2026

Page 4 ends

4 • Mandate timelines for all review steps to prevent delays. • Include community education provisions during designations (with knowledgeable staff at meetings to counter misinformation, as seen in Baywood discussions) • Revise consent to match state/federal norms: allow nominations by anyone (as historic value is a public good), but require owner consent for individual listings and majority (>50%) support for districts.
• Expand incentives, detail Mills Act processes, define/enforce “good repair,” and strengthen penalties/abatement.
• Apply HREs mandatorily for relevant projects; tie Certificate of Appropriateness conditions explicitly to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; exempt interior work with unchanged openings.

Requested Actions
We respectfully request that the City Council direct staff to implement the above actions including:
• Clarify and confirm that the Historic Resources Inventory includes all resources and districts identified through prior Council actions, the 1989 Survey, and state/federal listings (without requiring redundant local adoption for the latter).
• Direct staff to complete and correct both the Context Statement and Ordinance, incorporating the above refinements, for additional public review before adoption. • Ensure the final documents are at least as protective as current practices and comparable to those in Palo Alto, Burlingame, and Redwood City—robust, equitable, expert-driven, and balanced with housing and property rights goals.

These changes seek continuity with existing Council intent, not new expansions. They would enhance transparency, legal defensibility, and effectiveness while honoring San Mateo’s irreplaceable architectural and cultural heritage.

Thank you for your commitment to this important work. We look forward to reviewing the revised drafts.

Sincerely,

Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance

San Mateo City CouncilJanuary 26, 2026

San Mateo City Council
January 26, 2026