San Mateo City Council
April 20, 2026

1 From: Chris Eckert
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 11:51 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>
Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Doug D'Anna Subject: Clarification of Glazenwood Historic District Boundaries and Addresses Mayor, Council and Staff,
In several meetings and conversations recently, there was a question as to the boundaries and number of homes located within the Glazenwood Historic District.

Please reference the attached January 1995 Administrative Report pages 19 and 20 which shows 35 contributors and 2 non-contributors within the district, along with their addresses.

Thank You for considering this.

Chris

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
RATIONALE FOR USING THE 1989 HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY

SUMMARY
The Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance should include the historic properties identified 1989 Historic Building Survey Report in the City's official Historic Resources Inventory. The 1989 survey— conducted professionally with California Office of Historic Preservation guidance and approval— identified ~200 historic buildings and contributors to 2 historic districts (e.g., Downtown and Glazenwood). About 37 properties were identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), with more potentially eligible with more research. The 1989 report has served as the de facto inventory for decades, informing CEQA reviews, project evaluations, and General Plan policies.

New Housing Laws Threaten Unlisted Resources
Recent housing laws, such as AB 130 (2025) and SB 79 (2025, effective July 1, 2026), have streamlined approvals for qualifying infill housing projects by exempting them from full review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—the primary mechanism that would otherwise require the city to identify and evaluate potential impacts on historic resources.

Unlisted resources face higher risk because:
 California's historic preservation relies heavily on CEQA to catch "eligible" (but unlisted) resources via surveys/evaluations.
 Without a robust city inventory (e.g., without the historic resources identified in the 1989 survey), potentially significant buildings are not flagged early and may not be protected.  Streamlining housing permitting prioritizes speed and production; if a resource is not on a register/inventory pre-application, the resource may not be appropriately addressed.  Result: Increased vulnerability to loss before the resources can be formally re-evaluated and nominated for inclusion in the inventory.

Maintaining and updating a robust local inventory through San Mateo's draft ordinance) is key to preserving protections amid these changes.

Key Reasons to Include the Historic Resources Identified in the 1989 Survey in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory
 The Memorandum of Agreement between the 1988 Office of Historic Preservation and the City of San Mateo (adopted by resolution) requires the results be used as the city inventory. The MOA states:

3. ·The City of San Mateo plans to undertake a survey of historic resources within the area of the city designated on the attached map in order to compile an ·inventory of such resources. [emphasis added].

3.7.26 2

2. The City shall:
f. compile and [sic] inventory of historic resources that are of importance to the community;
 The 1989 Historic Building Survey Final Report has long been identified in General Plans and other documents as providing a record of San Mateo’s historic resources.  The 1989 report provides an immediate, vetted baseline of eligible resources (National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historic Resources -- NRHP/CRHR-level), enabling consistent designation, review, and protection under the updated ordinance.  Aligns with the Rincon Consultants May 2025 report, which recommends updating the ordinance for better framework, designation procedures, and alignment with state/federal standards—while recognizing the 1989 survey's ongoing role.  Supports efficiency: Streamlines permitting, access to incentives (e.g., Mills Act), and public awareness without starting from zero.

Flaws in Excluding these Resources
 Leaves known significant buildings unprotected, risking further losses (some post-1989 demolitions already occurred).
 Inconsistent with General Plans; the 2040 General Plan states: “This history is represented in the almost 200 historic resources and two historic districts as identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey. Approximately 37 of these structures are individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.” (General Plan 2040).
 Inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan Policy CD 5.3:
“CD 5.3Historic Resources Definition. Define historic resources as buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, designated resources in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, and resources found to be eligible through documentation in a historic resources report.“
 Creates regulatory gaps and inconsistencies with existing practices, CEQA obligations, and new housing laws.

Why Using the 1989 Survey Data is Appropriate
 Historical significance endures: The survey's methodology remains valid as a baseline per state OHP guidelines and common practice in California cities.  Better than no inventory: Delaying for a full resurvey (costly, potentially $60,000+) risks irreversible harm and stalls ordinance implementation.
 Saves Time and Money: The draft ordinance can include flexible mechanisms—e.g., nomination processes, project-triggered updates, or periodic reviews—to refine it incrementally as funds allow, without invalidating the core data.

Designating the 1989 survey as the inventory is pragmatic, legally sound, and fiscally responsible— honoring San Mateo's heritage while advancing the ordinance's goals.

3.7.26 3

DETAILED DISCUSSION
Argument for Including the Historic Resources Identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Results as the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory The Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of San Mateo represents a critical opportunity to strengthen the protection of the city's cultural heritage by formally designating the historic resources identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Final Report as the foundational Historic Resources Inventory. This survey, adopted as part of the city's General Plan update, identified approximately 200 significant buildings and structures, including contributors to two historic districts (such as the Downtown Historic District). In addition, about 37 properties were identified as eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). By explicitly incorporating these properties into the ordinance as the initial inventory, the city can ensure continuity with established preservation policies, provide immediate safeguards for known resources, and create a practical framework for future updates—all while addressing budget constraints. Below, is an of outline the rationale for this inclusion, highlights of the flaws in excluding these identified resources, and an explanation why relying on this older data is not only acceptable but prudent when funding for comprehensive updates is unavailable.

The 1989 survey was a methodical, citywide effort conducted in alignment with standard historic preservation practices, evaluating buildings based on criteria similar to those of the NRHP and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). It involved fieldwork, archival research, completion of site forms, and assessments of architectural, historical, and cultural significance, resulting in a documented list of resources that has served as the de facto basis for project reviews, CEQA compliance, and planning decisions for over three decades.

Designating these results as the official inventory in the draft ordinance would:
 Establish a Clear, Actionable Baseline: The survey's findings provide a ready-made, vetted list that can be integrated into the ordinance's designation procedures. This avoids starting from scratch and aligns with the ordinance's goals of enabling authority, creating a historic preservation commission, and implementing appeals/enforcement mechanisms, as recommended in the May 2025 Historic Preservation Ordinance Research and Analysis Report by Rincon Consultants.
 Enhance Efficiency and Consistency: By codifying the survey as the inventory, the ordinance can streamline reviews for alterations, additions, or demolitions of listed properties, using tools like Secretary of the Interior’s Standards reviews. This builds on the city's existing practices, where the survey already informs evaluations of buildings over 50 years old.  Support Incentives and Public Engagement: An inventory rooted in the 1989 survey facilitates access to programs like the Mills Act for property tax relief, encouraging owners to maintain historic properties. It also promotes public awareness and tourism, as seen in other California cities (e.g., Los Angeles' Survey LA, which evolved from older surveys into a dynamic inventory).

This approach treats the survey not as a static document but as the core of a tiered system, allowing for future additions or refinements through nomination processes outlined in the draft.

3.7.26 4
Flaws in Not Including Identified Resources in the Inventory Excluding the 200+ resources identified in the 1989 survey from the draft ordinance's inventory would undermine the city's preservation framework and expose valuable heritage to unnecessary risks. Key flaws include:
 Loss of Protection for Known Assets: Without formal inclusion, these buildings—many of which meet NRHP and/or CRHR eligibility criteria—could face unregulated alterations or demolitions, especially given new housing laws, such as AB 130 and SB 79(see below). Since 1989, some surveyed structures have already been lost, as noted in community discussions (e.g., letters in the San Mateo Daily Journal highlighting the disappearance of buildings and the need to reassess value). This creates gaps in coverage, particularly for underrepresented histories or architectural styles, leading to irreversible cultural erosion.  Inconsistency with Legal and Policy Obligations: The current ordinance (Chapter 27.66 of the San Mateo Municipal Code) already relies on the survey for applicability to individually eligible buildings and district contributors. Omitting it from the draft would create discrepancies, potentially violating CEQA requirements for evaluating impacts on historic resources during project reviews. It could also conflict with the General Plan's historic elements, fostering perceptions of arbitrariness and eroding public trust, as criticized in the 2025 Rincon report for the ordinance's outdated dependencies.
 Inefficient Resource Allocation and Missed Opportunities: Not incorporating the survey may mislead developers. Including the resources would result in evaluations on a case-by-case basis, when resources are threatened. Lack of a complete inventory risks losing resources, could delay developments, increase costs for property owners, and overlook incentives like tax credits, ultimately weakening the ordinance's effectiveness in balancing preservation with economic development.

In essence, exclusion would render the draft ordinance less protective than the existing ordinance.

Including the resources in the inventory is proactive, protecting tangible resources that have defined San Mateo's identity since the survey's adoption.

Why It Is Acceptable to Use the 1989 Survey Findings
While the 1989 survey is now 37 years old, its age does not invalidate its utility as a foundational inventory, especially in a resource-constrained environment. Historic preservation best practices, as endorsed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and California's Office of Historic Preservation, emphasize that older surveys remain valid baselines because historical significance is enduring— buildings' architectural integrity, associations with events or persons, and cultural value do not "expire." Here's why proceeding with this data is not only okay but strategically sound:
 Better Than No Inventory at All: In the absence of funding for a full resurvey, including the historic resources identified in the 1989 survey provides immediate protections and a structured starting point. Many California municipalities, such as those in San Francisco County or smaller Bay Area cities, successfully rely on surveys from the 1970s or 1980s as inventories, updating them incrementally through project-driven evaluations or grants.  Flexible Mechanisms for Evolution: The draft ordinance can incorporate provisions for selective updates, such as staff-level reviews for minor changes, nomination processes for new resources, or periodic reconciliations (e.g., every 5-10 years as funds allow). The 2025 Rincon report supports this by recommending exemptions for minor work and alignment with CRHR

3.7.26 5
criteria, allowing the inventory to adapt without a complete overhaul. For example, when a planning application triggers a review, targeted assessments can refine the survey's data at no extra city cost.
 Cost-Effective Prioritization: With limited budgets, focusing on high-priority resources (e.g., the 200 identified in 1989) maximizes impact. This avoids the "paralysis by analysis" of waiting for new funding, which could delay the ordinance's implementation. Incentives like the Mills Act can offset owner concerns, and community partnerships can support volunteer-driven updates, as seen in other jurisdictions facing similar fiscal challenges.  Precedent and Legal Soundness: State guidelines allow the use of existing surveys in local inventories, provided they meet basic evaluation standards. The 1989 survey's methodology, rooted in professional historic assessments, meets this threshold, and its integration into the General Plan since adoption reinforces its legitimacy. The 1989 survey was approved by the State Office of Historic Preservation in 1990. Delaying including the resources while waiting for a survey update risks further losses, as evidenced by post-1989 demolitions, making proactive use of available data the ethical choice.

Greater Risks from New Housing Laws
The biggest elevation in risk comes from recent laws exempting many urban infill housing projects from CEQA review:
 AB 130 (2025) creates a broad statutory CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing (up to certain sizes, consistent with zoning/objective standards, etc.). CEQA is the primary mechanism for identifying and mitigating effects on historic resources.  Exemptions generally exclude projects demolishing historic structures listed on national, state, or local registers before the preliminary application (or specific dates like Jan 1, 2025, in SB 79).

If the city excludes the historic resources identified in 1989 (contrary to identification in the city’s General Plans and policies(, they would have no protection.  With SB 79, unlisted eligible resources (not yet designated or inventoried) would fall outside these safeguards. CEQA traditionally required assessing eligibility for California Register listing, even if not formally listed, and mitigating substantial adverse changes.  With CEQA bypassed, there's no mandatory environmental review to flag or mitigate impacts on unlisted historic buildings. Ministerial/streamlined approvals can proceed faster, increasing demolition/alteration risk for older structures not yet surveyed or designated.

Other laws (e.g., refinements to SB 9 lot splits in AB 1061) expand ministerial approvals but limit exemptions to contributing structures in historic districts or designated resources—again, unlisted/eligible ones may not trigger protections.

Conclusion
Designating the historic resources identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report as the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory is a pragmatic, defensible step that honors the city's heritage while accommodating fiscal realities. It transforms a valuable but aging document into a living tool for preservation, ensuring San Mateo's historic fabric endures for future generations. The historic resources in San Mateo, identified in 1989, may be lost through streamlined project reviews if the resources are not listed on the local inventory.

Comments on Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My understanding is that you will be reviewing the draft ordinance, and I wanted to share a few observations that may assist your review and recommendations to the Council. I expect to raise many of these points directly with the Council as well, but if you find merit in any of them, your perspective will carry greater weight than mine alone. I appreciate your time in reviewing this.

Before getting into specific sections, there are two broader issues that affect multiple parts of the ordinance and would benefit from clarification.

1. Consistency of Terminology: “Resource,” “Property,” and “District” The ordinance uses the terms “resource,” “property,” and “district” throughout, but they do not appear to be used consistently. This creates confusion in how different provisions apply.

At the federal level, the term “property” includes all resource types, including districts (i.e., buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts). It is unclear whether the ordinance intends to adopt that same definition or use a narrower meaning. A few examples are noted below, but the entire document should be reviewed for consistency on how these terms are used.

2. Council Authority and Consent – Clarifying Policy Intent If the Council already has the authority to designate by resolution, then it is unnecessary to restate that authority in the ordinance? Doing so could create confusion by implying that the authority is limited to the parameters described in the ordiance.

Suggestion 1: Clarify if Council has the authority to create resources by resolution outside the ordinance.

Suggestion 2: Clarify if the Council wishes to retain the right to designate by resolution without consent.

Suggestion 3: Consider adding a consent requirement within the ordinance, for any resources designated by resolution.

3. Ambiguity in “Designation by Resolution”
Building on the terminology issue noted above, the ordinance provides that the City Council may include in the Historic Resources Inventory: “properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources… by resolution.” (Section 27.66.030(c)).

If council already has this power, this provision can be removed.

Given the ambiguity mentioned above around the term “properties,” clarity would help whether this provision applies to a) Individual properties only, or b) Entire districts. Also clarify if consent is part of the resolution process.

Comments on Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

Point of reference: even if a majority of Baywood objects to its national listing, and it is found “eligible”, it will automatically be listed on the state register. If so, then Baywood could be determined to be part of the local inventory, by council resolution, under this provision of the proposed ordinance.

4. Landmark vs. District Pathway – Unintended Overlap
As noted above regarding terminology, the ordinance defines “historic resource” to include districts, while landmark designation procedures apply to “resources” (Section 27.66.060). This creates a potential overlap where a district could be designated through the landmark pathway.

Further, only a simple majority is needed for landmarks.

Suggestion 1: Clarify whether districts can be landmarked.

Suggestion 2: For landmarks in general, consider a 60% threshold for consent, for consistency with council guidance on districts.

5. Clarifying Scope: CEQA vs. Local Ordinance
The ordinance indicates that its provisions apply only to resources listed in the local Historic Resources Inventory, however it does not explicitly exclude other resources (state and federal).

Those other resources might be governed de-facto under the ordinance.

Suggestion: Consider clarifying that resources not included in the local inventory are governed under applicable state law (including CEQA), and not by this ordinance, to provide clarity for the public and staff.

6. Establishing Significance – Clarifying the Two-Step Framework Preservation practice, reflected in guidance from the National Park Service (National Register Bulletin 15), follows a two-step evaluation process, even if it is not always described in those exact terms. Bulletin 15 explains that properties must first be evaluated within a defined historic context and shown to be significant within that context. The criteria are then applied to determine how the property is significant, and integrity is evaluated to determine whether the property conveys that significance.

Step 1 – Establish Significance (Context): What is the historic context? Is the resource meaningfully important within that context?
Step 2 – Apply Criteria and Integrity: Does the resource meet one or more of the criteria (A, B, C, or D)? Does it retain integrity sufficient to convey that significance? The criteria are not intended to operate as a standalone checklist—they are applied after significance is established. The current draft appears to rely solely on whether a resource

Comments on Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
“satisfies one or more of the criteria,” without explicitly requiring a threshold determination of significance (Section 27.66.040). For a more detailed explanation, see addendum.

Suggested clarification: “The City Council shall first determine that the resource has significant historical, architectural, or cultural value to the community, and shall find that the historic resource satisfies one or more of the criteria outlined below, and retains its historic integrity.”
Note, there seems to be considerable confusion (including for me) on this fine point, please consider very clear language in the ordinance.

7. Time Limits for District Nominations
The ordinance does not establish a defined timeline for processing district nominations (Section

27.66.070). Open-ended processes can: a) Prolong uncertainty for property owners, and b) Allow consent efforts to extend indefinitely. Consider establishing a defined timeline (e.g., 6–12 months), including milestones and expiration if deadlines are not met.

8. “Eligible Historic Resource” Definition
The inclusion of “Eligible Historic Resource” may introduce ambiguity and expand review beyond formally designated resources (Section 27.66.020(h)). Not clear why this section is in the ordinance. Consider removing this definition or explaining its inclusion (not referenced elsewhere).

9. Application Requirements for District Nominations
There is currently little clarity regarding what constitutes a complete application—particularly for historic districts (Section 27.66.070). Given the significance of district designation, it is important that applications include: a) A clear historic context statement, and b) Property-level documentation sufficient to evaluate integrity and contribution The City may wish to consider referencing National Register nomination standards and forms as a baseline, at least until a local standard is developed, or until the consultant provides a comparable framework. The suggestion is not to require a rigid format, but to ensure a consistent and complete level of analysis is needed before council approves a district.

This concern is practical. How can the Council truly determine significance under the criteria guidelines (Section 27.66.040), and how will staff regulate a district under the Certificate of Appropriateness process (Section 27.66.090), without a complete nomination form.

It does concern me that Glazenwood may be approved without a complete nomination.

Comments on Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

10. Workability of District Regulations
It is important that the regulatory framework remains reasonable and workable in practice, otherwise no one will volunteer to become historic. For example, routine maintenance activities that would typically be ministerial may instead require a Certificate of Appropriateness (Section

27.66.090). Depending on how broadly this is applied, that may be overly rigid.

In addition, it has been suggested that requirements for contributors within districts may be as stringent as those for individually designated properties. The Commission may wish to consider whether that level of equivalency is intentional, or whether a more flexible approach is appropriate for districts.

I ask that the planning commission give significant thought to finding the right balance between preservation and flexibility, to the extent that can be accomplished in the ordinance, and making the appropriate recommendation to staff/council.

Frank Elliott

Addendum: Illustrative Examples of the Two-Step Significance Framework This has been a difficult concept for me to fully grasp, so I used AI to help work through the distinction. Below is a simplified explanation and a couple of examples that helped clarify how this is intended to work.

The key point is that there are really two separate questions: first, whether a property is actually significant within a defined historic context, and second, how that significance is expressed through the criteria. The criteria are not meant to operate as a standalone checklist.

Example 1: 1950s Ranch Home (easier case)
Take a typical 1950s ranch home. Under the current draft language, the analysis could go straight to Criterion (c): the home “embodies the distinctive characteristics” of a 1950s ranch. If it retains its basic form, it could qualify on that basis alone. The result is that an ordinary tract home could be designated simply because it fits the category.

Under the two-step approach, the first question is whether that home is actually important within a defined context, such as post-war suburban development in San Mateo. If it is just one of many similar homes, not especially early, intact, or distinctive, then it is not significant within that context and the analysis stops there. Only if the home is shown to be an important or representative example, such as an early build, highly intact, or associated with a notable

Comments on Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
architect, does it move to the second step, where the criteria and integrity are applied. At that point, designation may be appropriate.

Example 2: Tudor Revival Home (less obvious case)
A Tudor-style home is a bit more subtle, because there is often an assumption that it is inherently significant. Using a criteria-only approach, the home could qualify simply because it represents a recognized architectural style.

Under the two-step framework, the same initial question applies: is this particular Tudor significant within its context? If it is one of many similar homes, modest in design, or altered over time, it may not rise to the level of significance, even though it clearly reflects the style. On the other hand, if it is a high-quality, well-preserved example, associated with a notable architect, or part of a cohesive and historically important grouping, then it may meet the threshold for significance. Only after that determination is made should the criteria and integrity be applied.

Without that first step, the criteria can unintentionally function as a checklist that allows ordinary examples of common building types to qualify.

From: Carol Gillman
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 1:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Doug D'Anna ; Marty Gillman Alysha Gillman

Subject: Glazenwood Residents in favor of affirming Historic District by 77%

Dear Members of the City Council,
In a decision like this, the most important principle is that outcomes should reflect the will of those directly affected.

It is very important to our family, including our grown children who hope to live here after we are gone, to preserve the history and charm of our small enclave of architecturally beautiful homes. The data from within Glazenwood is clear. A verified 77% of homeowners (28 of 36) support the designation, and based on direct neighbor- to-neighbor outreach, that number is expected to surpass 80% by April 20.

While outside perspectives may be submitted, they are not rooted in living here day to day. The residents themselves have spoken with unusual clarity: At the January 21st meeting, at the community meeting with the Mayor, our council member Lisa Diaz- Nash, and staff, and through our signed petition. We certainly appreciated the meeting and being able to express in person how special our small historic district is to its residents.

We have done construction twice on our home, and we were enthusiastic about preserving the nature of the home and fitting in with the charm of the neighborhood. Yet, we were able to make the interior more livable for modern life while preserving some of the beautiful moldings etc. We found no downside to considering our remodel and addition part of a historic district.

This is a rare level of consensus. We ask that you recognize it and affirm our historic district on April 20.

Warmest Regards,
Carol Gillman
(And Marty & Alysha Gillman)

From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:31 PM
To: Zachary Dahl; Sung H. Kwon; Joanna Winter Somer Smith Cc: Alex Khojikian Christina Horrisberger
Subject: FW: Glazenwood - affirming a historic district Kindly see the below public comment, please include with the agenda report.

Best wishes,
Martin
From: Aida Kedefors
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:01 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Glazenwood - affirming a historic district
Dear Members of the City Council,
A verified 77% of homeowners in Glazenwood support the designation of our district as historic.

Perspectives outside of the district may try to influence your decision but they do not live here. As a resident of Glazenwood, I ask that you consider the will of those in our neighborhood and approve the historic designation on A pril 20th.

Thank you.

Aida Kedefors
San Ma
teo

From: JOHN SAVAGE
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 3:08 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: The continuous designation of Glazenwood as a City Historic Neighborhood

When I purchased my home in Glazenwood in 2005, I was intrigued with its historic significance of my chosen purchase as I have always been a history buff.

The designation is significant, meaningful, and appropriate for the area like no other in the City.

The pillars that once enhanced the property of the estate of Alvinsa Hayward still remain to remind its residents and the city of the uniqueness of the neighborhood.

We look forward to seeing that designation reaffirmed as scheduled on April 20.

John Savage

From: marc schellenberg
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:55 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: marc schellenberg
Subject: Glazenwood Residents Speak: 77% Support Affirming a Historic District

Dear Members of the City Council,
In a decision like this, the most important principle is that outcomes should reflect the will of those directly affected.

The data from within Glazenwood is clear. A verified 77% of homeowners (28 of 36) support the designation, and based on direct neighbor-to-neighbor outreach, that number is expected to surpass 80% by April 20.

While outside perspectives may be submitted, they are not rooted in living here day to day. The residents themselves have spoken with unusual clarity: At the January 21st meeting, at the community meeting with the Mayor, our council member Lisa Diaz- Nash, and staff, and through our signed petition.

This is a rare level of consensus. We ask that you recognize it and affirm our historic district on April 20.

Sincerely,
Marc Schellenberg

San Mateo

From: brenda litwin
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 11:42 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Glazenwood Historic Designstion

Dear city council,
I have lived in my house at for 30 years and definitely support our historic designation. We are a very special close knit caring neighborhood group. We look out for each other, help one another, and have a neighborhood contact list with which we share interesting information.

Enclosed is a picture of the plaque on the Pillar at the corner of Rosewood and 9th Avenue. This plaque to me shows the city how proud we Glazenwood residents are of our neighborhood.

Because the pillars designating the entrances of Laurel, Hayward, and Rosewood were in horrible shape back in 2009 our neighbors bonded together and organized a repair committee. Neighbors who were able to each personally contributed funds to repair and repaint these historic pillars dating back to the Peninsula Hotel. Some neighbors used their wood working skills and handyman skills while the rest of us formed painting parties on different weekends for each street. When completed the plaques were installed. Many of the original repair crew still live in Glazenwood.

Some of the residents have changed but the spirit of our neighborhood has not. New residents fit right in because everyone cares and we look out for each other.

Thank you,
Brenda Litwin

From: Gregory ZINKL
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 3:03 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Clerk <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Subject: Glazenwood Designation: Completing the Council's January 2026 Direction

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

I am writing to respectfully request that the curative designation resolution for Glazenwood be brought forward and adopted before the Historic Preservation Ordinance vote. I am a Glazenwood resident who is incredibly proud of our new city (arrived August 2025) and much of the rich history and architectural significance of San Mateo and Glazenwood.

At the January 26, 2026 study session, the Council gave clear direction: the Glazenwood documentation gap should be resolved through a curative resolution, and that resolution should be in place before the new ordinance framework — including its owner-consent requirements — goes into effect. That direction reflected a sound distinction. Glazenwood is not a neighborhood seeking new designation. It is a neighborhood whose long-established status was inadvertently left without a corresponding resolution in the City's records. Two General Plans, the California Register (Glazenwood Residential Historic District, California Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory, OTIS ID 411749, evaluation date January 1989), and over 35 years of city communications have consistently treated Glazenwood as a designated historic district, as documented in coverage of the January 26 study session and confirmed by Council members' own statements at that meeting.

Tom (Braham) and I bought our home at in part relying on the representations in the public record (including web searches and cross-checking with reputable news sources) that Glazenwood is a historic district. We have made, and will continue to make, renovation and investment decisions accordingly. To ignore the previous assertions and allow the new, not yet approved, statute to apply retroactively to Glazenwood — a neighborhood whose historic status has been formally acknowledged by the City for over 35 years — would be to effectively impose a regulatory rollback on property owners who made purchasing decisions in reliance on the City's own representations. I understand that in California, courts have recognized that property owners may have cognizable interests in regulatory frameworks they relied upon at the time of purchase. The City should not place itself in the position of having created that exposure.

Fairness requires that the process match the circumstances. The new consent threshold is an appropriate safeguard for new designations proposed over the objection of property owners. It was not designed — and should not be applied — to neighborhoods whose historic status predates the current policy discussion by three decades.

Completing the January 26 direction before the ordinance vote is the straightforward, equitable path. I urge the Council to follow through on their direction, including acting such that the resolution would be binding before the new ordinance framework is put in place, and to do it without any further delay.

I appreciate your service - thank you.

Sincerely,

Gregory Zinkl

San Mateo, California 94401

From: deborah athens
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 7:29 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Glazenwood Residents Speak: 77% Support Affirming a Historic District

Dear Members of the City Council,
In a decision like this, the most important principle is that outcomes should reflect the will of those directly affected. The Glazenwood community is a clear example of a rare level of consensus. We ask that you recognize this and to affirm our historic district on a final vote on April 20.

The data from within Glazenwood is clear. A verified 77% of homeowners (28 of 36) support the designation, and based on direct neighbor-to-neighbor outreach, that number is expected to surpass 80% by April 20.

While outside perspectives may be submitted, they are not rooted in living here day to day. The residents themselves have spoken with unusual clarity on multiple occasions, including: the January 21st meeting; the community meeting with the Mayor, our council member Lisa Diaz-Nash, and staff; and through our signed petition.

Please honor this and re-affirm our historic district on April 20.

Most sincerely,

Deborah & Thomas Athens, 30-year Glazenwood homeowners
San Mateo

From: wayne feinstein
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 5:59 AM
To: c
[email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: l ; C ity Council (San Mateo)
<[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for San Mateo Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 2026

Members of the Commission:

Regrettably, I am unable to join the meeting next week, but I do want to offer comments on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance you’ll consider that evening.

*Expand the extremely limited 2026 Historic Resources Inventory that excludes many known significant resources (including the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House District, Glazenwood Historic District, circa 1865 Japanese-American Community Center on South Claremont, Japanese Gardeners Association Hall on East 5 th Avenue, San Mateo Masonic Lodge).

*Reduce the onerous and inequitable process for adding properties or districts— only property owners can initiate, with high costs and a 60% owner support threshold

*Include development review procedures for properties not on the limited inventory—otherwise, there is no evaluation or protection for demolition, additions, or major alterations on most older buildings

*Provide clear definition and authority for the Historic Resources Commission

*Provide meaningful economic incentives and a clear process for the Mills Act program

*Include economic penalties for noncompliance (the Draper Building/Benjamin Franklin Hotel has been out of compliance with their permits for 2 years with unpermitted mechanical equipment on the roof)

*Make the ordinance consistent with state and federal best practices and the 2040 General Plan

Thank you for your consideration to these proposed improvements to the draft you are now considering.

Wayne Feinstein

Wayne Feinstein

San Mateo, CA 94402

--