San Mateo City Council
May 4, 2026

NEW FORMALISM
New Formalism is an American architectural style that combined updated classical elements with modernist forms and technologies. First appearing in Edward Durrell Stone’s American Embassy in New Delhi in 1954, New Formalism broke from the minimalism of the modernist International style and worked classical forms, proportions, and motifs into the style. Focusing on monumental forms, the style takes liberties with the aesthetics and philosophies of the past, while adapting the technology and features of the present into massive forms often used in the context of civic and institutional buildings. New Formalism represents a radical and historically oriented departure from the rigid culture of the modernist movement through the embracing of classical precedents. 520
Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2025
Period of Significance: 1954–1970s
Associated Property Types: Commercial, Civic and Institutional Representation: New Formalism-style buildings are somewhat rare in San Mateo because of the relatively short window of popularity of the style and its typically reserved application for commercial and occasional civic and institutional property types. Because of the rarity of the style, the qualifying thresholds for historic integrity are lower in comparison to other styles of architecture.

Locational Information: Examples of New Formalism-style buildings are represented in a handful of buildings along El Camino Real.

Character-Defining Features:
• Large volumes
• Rectangular massing
• Strictly symmetrical facades that use full height colonnades • Formally landscaped plaza
• Classically derived details such as arches, columns, and entablatures • Modern-inspired details such as honeycomb screens, shell forms, and folded plates • Often three or more stories in height
• Integrated parking lot: subterranean or above grade
• Flat roof, usually with a heavy and extending overhand • Set on a podium
520 McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 654–692; City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources, SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—L.A. Modernism, 1919–1980 (Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, August 2021), 190-201, https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/4f67bd39-631a-4f26-9a52-cd5809a66655/LA_Modernism_1919-1980.pdf 643 of 976
Architectural Styles
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 168

POSTMODERN
Postmodern architecture emerged in the late twentieth century and moved away from the modernist principles of the previous period. A resurgence in interest in earlier styles and classicism led to the application of a style that incorporated classical and historic references, while also integrating elements of irony, ornament, play, and symbolism.521 In many cases, references to previous period architecture is eclectic, and based on the use of mundane and vernacular materials.

Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2025
Period of Significance: mid-1960s–2000s
Associated Property Types: Residential, Commercial, Civic and Institutional Representation: Post Modern-style buildings are somewhat rare in San Mateo because the City’s development generally predates the style.

Locational Information: Examples of Postmodern-style buildings are represented in a handful of buildings is disparate locations throughout the city and tend to be the result of later, infill development.

Character-Defining Features:
• Typically more than one story
• Use of exaggerated or abstracted ornamentation
• Selectively references earlier era vernacular or classical design features • Typically incorporates an unorthodox use of material
• Displays eclectic, contrasting, or colliding materials or graphic patterning • May include sculptural forms
521 City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources, SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—Postmodernism, 1965–1991 (Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2018), 1, https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/a03c2624-ea2e-4d4b-b41c-df38d78713d3/Postmodernism_1965-1991_2.pdf 644 of 976
Architectural Styles
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 169

BAY TRADITION REGIONAL STYLES
The Bay Tradition (also known as Bay Area Regional Tradition) developed in three phases between the late nineteenth century and mid-twentieth century. These styles are regional interpretations and began with the First Bay Tradition between the 1880s and 1920s. This style adapted the East Coast Shingle style to the Bay Area’s climate and brought an eclectic mix of forms to residential and institutional architecture that varied from the formality of the Classical Revival and Beaux Arts. The First Bay Tradition featured the natural materials (shingles and shakes) of the Shingle style and asymmetry. It was common to see houses with brick bases and shingles exteriors with limited classical or Gothic-influenced ornamentation.

The Second Bay Tradition developed during the growth of the Modern Movement, from the 1930s to the 1950s. Buildings with clean, Modern forms were clad with wood siding (horizontal or vertical), or shingles, often flat roofs, and adapted to emphasize indoor-outdoor connection within the site, or to adapt to complex site conditions. The Third Bay Tradition emerged in the 1960s and if typically traced to The Sea Ranch development along the coast of northern Sonoma County. Also clad in wood materials, this third iteration of region style often feature forms that were similar to barns, with gable or pitched roofs. More so than the First and Second Bay Traditions, the Third Bay Tradition became favored for use in multifamily residential architecture, such as condominium developments and in some cases campus housing.

Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2025
Period of Significance: First Bay Tradition (1890s–1920s), Second Bay Tradition (1930s–1950s), Third Bay Tradition (1960s–1970s)
Associated Property Types: Residential, Commercial, Civic and Institutional Representation: Bay Tradition Regional-style buildings are not uncommon in San Mateo because the style evolved over time, but does not appear to be especially popular. Because of the relative rarity of the style, the qualifying thresholds for historic integrity are lower in comparison to other, more common styles of architecture.

Locational Information: Examples of Bay Tradition Regional-style buildings are present in many neighborhoods in San Mateo, because of its repetition and evolvement through time. First and Second Bay Traditions are more common in San Mateo’s earliest developed neighborhoods like Central San Mateo and early subdivisions like Hayward Park and Eastern Addition. Later examples may be present in many later subdivisions, including more recently developed neighborhoods, with commercial examples along El Camino Real.
645 of 976
Architectural Styles
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 170
Character-Defining Features:
• Exposed wood, concrete, and or/or steel structural components, especially posts and beams • Simple geometric volumes
• Unornamented wall surfaces
• Flat, cantilevered roofs
• Wide overhanging eaves common but not required
• Use of bright or contrasting colors
• Spandrel glass in floor to ceiling windows
• Open floor plans
• Integration with the outdoors through overhanging trellises, pergolas, atriums, and planters 646 of 976
Architectural Styles
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 171
This page intentionally left blank.
647 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 172

ARCHITECTS, LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS, DEVELOPERS, AND

BUILDERS
This section provides brief biographies of design, construction, and development professionals identified through research for the Historic Context Statement. Identified projects associated with each individual or firm and located within the city of San Mateo are listed below each biography. This is not a comprehensive list of design, construction, and development professionals with examples of work in San Mateo and is limited to those who were introduced in the narrative.

ARCHITECTS
Armet & Davis
Architects Louis Armet and Eldon Davis gained prominence as Los Angeles-based designers of commercial buildings featuring mid-twentieth century, Googie styling. Armet and Davis graduated from the University of Southern California School of Architecture in 1929 and 1942, respectively.

Their practice was established in 1947 and became synonymous with the proliferation of Googie style architecture that appeared along commercial corridors and in commercial districts during post-World War II decades. The firm is credited as designer of over 4,000 restaurants, including prototypes for chains, such as Denny’s and Bob’s Big Boy, along with notable properties, including Norm’s, Pann’s, and Mel’s coffee shops in Los Angeles. In 1972, associate Victor Newlove became a partner in the firm, and it became Armet Davis Newlove. Louis Armet died in 1981, and the practice continued and was led by Davis and Newlove. After Davis’ death in 2011, Newlove continued the practice as Armet Davis Newlove & Associates.522 An example of their work in San Mateo includes:
• Villa Square Coffee Shop (1965)
John Knox Ballantine, Jr.

John Knox Ballantine, Jr. was born in Illinois in 1893. He moved to California in 1913, eventually setting up his practice in Berkeley at 1512 La Loma Street. He was a member of the AIA and served on the State Association of California Architects.523 He specialized in residential design and designed both elaborate and economical houses. He worked with the G.W. Williams Company to design houses with small footprints for the Sunnybrae neighborhood. The houses were constructed with light units from the Soule Steel Co. and finished with an exterior stucco.524 The unit construction allowed a house to be completed on a short schedule, conducive for tract development. Ballantine died in 1974. Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• Sunnybrae tract homes (1930s–1940s)
522 Los Angeles Conservancy, “Armet & Davis,” accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.laconservancy.org/learn/architectbiographies/armet-davis/. 523 The Architect and Engineer, 1936, accessed February 19, 2026, https://www.usmodernist.org/AECA/AECA-1936-10-1937-03.pdf. 524 House and Garden, Vol. 76, No. 2, 12, August 1939, accessed February 19, 2026, https://www.usmodernist.org/HG/HG-1939-08.pdf. 648 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 173
Campbell & Wong
The firm Campbell & Wong was established by John Carden Campbell and Worley Wong in 1946 and remained active until 1968, when Wong reorganized the practice with architect Ronald Brocchini as Wong & Brocchini. The duo worked in Northern California, with Campbell as designer and Wong as architect. Documentation of their body of work indicates they focused on residential projects, including single-family and multifamily designs for private homeowners and institutions such as University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Santa Cruz, and California State University, East Bay (formerly Hayward). Campbell in particular was known as an early adopter of the A-frame and was awarded for several designs by the AIA.
525 An example of their work in San Mateo includes:
• Lauriedale Apartments (c. 1965)
Ernest Coxhead
Ernest Coxhead was born in Eastbourne, England in 1863. He attended the Royal Academy and Architectural Association in London. In 1886, he moved to Los Angeles with his brother and opened an architecture practice, which they relocated to San Francisco in 1890. During his early career, Coxhead focused on church design in the Bay Area before focusing on residential designs and was involved in the emerging Arts and Crafts style. After a brief time in France, where he served as the Chief of University Extension Field Work of the Fine Arts Department at the University School of Architecture in Beaune, France, Coxhead returned to California and lived in Berkeley until his death in 1933.526 An example of his work in San Mateo includes:
• Coxhead House (c. 1893)
Herbert E. Goodpastor
Herbert E. Goodpastor was born in Marysville, California in 1901. He graduated with an architecture degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 1926 and became a licensed architect in 1932.

Based in Sacramento, he opened his own practice in 1935 but placed his practice on hiatus while he served in World War II. His early practice appears to have focused on residential architecture. By the mid-century, however, his work was mostly focused in the Sacramento area where he worked on several commercial, civic, and institutional buildings, all in the Mid-Century Modern style. He was a past president of the Central Valley Chapter of the AIA. He was a delegate to the AIA’s California Council and was a past president of the Sacramento Society of Architects. He died in 1964.527 Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• 425 Edgewood Road (1934)
• 406 Edgewood Road (1936)
525 San Francisco Planning Department, “Campbell & Wong (1946-1986) Firm of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies. Accessed December 23, 2025, https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-andpreservation-professionals-collection-biographies#info. 526 UC Berkeley, Environmental Design Archives, “Ernest Coxhead Collection,” accessed February 19, 2026, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf087001g5/.
527 “Herbert Goodpastor Services Monday,” The Sacramento Union, December 7, 1964, https://www.newspapers.com/image/999641920/?article=4764d18e-8e13-4dbb-b161- d1bf5378428e&terms=%22herbert%20goodpastor%22.
649 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 174
Grimes and Schoening
Grimes and Schoening was an engineering and architectural firm composed of architects Gerlad M.

Grimes and Herman A. Schoening.528 The partnership, which was active in the area in the late 1920s, appears to be an iteration of several firms that included Grimes, including Grimes & Scott and Grimes, Lockwood & Schoening, all of which practiced in the Bay Area and specialized in residential work. An example of their work in San Mateo includes:
• 639 Fordham Road (1930)
Leonard Michaels and Associates
Leonard Michaels was born in London England in 1919. He attended Jesus College at Cambridge University, where he studied architecture. During World War II he joined the British Royal Navy.

Following World War II, he worked in London designing public housing projects and published his thesis Contemporary Structure in Architecture. He immigrated to the United States in 1950 and worked for a short time for architect Eric Mendelsohn in San Francisco before opening his own firm.

He worked on residential, commercial, and institutional designs. He lived in San Mateo for many years before his death in 2008.529 Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• Peninsula Temple Beth El at 1700 Alameda de las Pulgas (1956) • San Mateo Central Park Recreation Building (1965)
• The Towers at 20 West 3rd Avenue (1980)
Lewis P. Hobart
Lewis P. Hobart was born in St. Louis in 1873. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in architecture from University of California, Berkeley. Eventually opening his own practice in San Francisco, his work was heavily influenced by his training at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Hobart was very involved in the rebuilding of San Francisco after the 1906 Earthquake and is credited with many of the city’s notable buildings.
530 His work included many churches, civic and institutional buildings, and private residences. He died in 1954. In San Mateo, his work includes:
• Mills Hospital (1914 and 1928)
Miller & Steiner
San Mateo-based architects Elmer Jay (E. Jay) Miller and Robert D. Steiner led residential, institutional, and commercial projects in Peninsula communities during the mid-twentieth century.

Miller was born in Michigan and worked for the State of California Division of Architecture by 1940 and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II.531 Steiner was born in San Francisco and served in 528 Building and Engineering News, October 27, 1928,
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Building_and_Engineering_News/JiaCEr92qo4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22gerald+grimes%22+archit ect&pg=RA19-PA6&printsec=frontcover.
529 “Leonard Michaels Obituary,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 19, 2008, https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/leonardmichaels-obituary?id=7229590. 530 UC Berkeley, Environmental Design Archives, “San Francisco Blueprint Collection, 1906-1961,” accessed February 19, 2026, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c851469f.
531 “Elmer Jay Miller” in U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947, accessed via Ancestry.com December 20, 2025, https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2238/records/18470230. 650 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 175
the Navy during World War II.532 While less is known about Miller’s architectural training, Steiner graduated from Stanford University in 1935 and apprenticed with noted architect Gardner Dailey before forming the partnership Miller & Steiner Architects. Miller and Steiner designed over 500 buildings, with multiple San Mateo projects rendered in varying Modern styles.533 Steiner was also known as a custom home designer on the Peninsula. Both Miller and Steiner resided in Hillsborough, where Steiner was a founding member of the Hillsborough Architectural Design Review Board and served as a consultant for the Town of Hillsborough. After Miller’s death in 1982, Steiner continued the practice until his retirement in 1993 and transitioned to limited consultation until his death in 1998.
534 Examples of their work in San Mateo include:
• Commercial building for Algodon Company at 4thand Ellsworth avenues (1952) • The Benevolent Protective Order of Elks (Elks) Lodge No. 1112 at 229 West 20th Avenue (1958)
• Bank of America’s A.P. Giannini Memorial Branch 300 South El Camino Real (with Wurster Bernardi & Emmons) (1963)
• Martin Luther King Community Center at 725 Monte Diablo Avenue (c. 1965) • Multiple commercial buildings at Borel Place (1960s)
Ernest Norberg
Ernest Norberg was born in Nebraska in 1890 before relocating to San Francisco as a young boy with his family. Following the 1906 Earthquake, Norberg moved to Burlingame and commuted to high school in San Francisco. He and his brother John studied architecture, eventually opening a practice together in San Francisco and then Burlingame. Norberg worked for many years for the Army Corps of Engineers and was known as “Colonel Norberg.” He served as director of the State Association of California Architects.535 He was noted as having “designed most of the outstanding buildings erected in San Mateo and Burlingame in the last few years.”
536 Norberg was very involved in his community
until his death in 1979 at the age of 89. Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• San Mateo High School at 506 North Delaware Street (1927) • Casa Baywood Apartments at 212 South El Camino Real (1929) • First Church of Christ, Scientist at 150 North El Camino Real (1928) • Medical Arts Building at 205 East 3rd Avenue (1929)
• Del Cerrito Apartments at 212 Eaton Road (1930)
Willis Polk
Willis Polk was born in Jacksonville, Illinois in 1867. He lived for many years in Kentucky and relocated several times during childhood before moving to San Francsico in approximately 1888. There, he was part of an architectural firm with his father, also Willis and brother, Daniel. The firm was called Polk and Polk. Willis served as chief designer and Daniel oversaw draftsmen. Daniel left the firm in 1897 to 532 “Robert D. Steiner.” SFGate. April 23, 1998, accessed December 20, 2025, https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Robert-Steiner3008718.php. 533 “Robert D. Steiner.” SFGate. April 23, 1998.
534 “Robert D. Steiner.” SFGate. April 23, 1998.
535 Architect and Engineer, Vol. 111 No. 1, October 1932, https://www.usmodernist.org/AECA/AECA-1932-10-1933-03.pdf. 536 “Architect Designs Major Buildings,” The San Francisco Chronicle, May 10, 1930, https://www.newspapers.com/image/1237350449/?match=1&terms=%22ernest%20norberg%22%20%22architect%22. 651 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 176
go to art school in Los Angeles, and the firm closed following financial troubles in 1898. Polk went on to work for several partnerships before founding a solo practice, Willis Polk and Company, in 1910.537 Based in San Francisco, the firm specialized in high-end residential design in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights and Nob Hill neighborhoods. Polk, a resident of 458 Turner Terrace in San Mateo, died suddenly of a heart attack in 1924. An example of his work in San Mateo included:
• St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church (1910)
Powers, Daly & DeRosa
Powers, Daly & DeRosa was a Long Beach-based architectural firm comprised of Gordon Powers (1916–2017), Austin Daly (1919–2006) and Pasquale DeRosa (1922–1999), who specialized in designing bowling alleys. They designed their first bowling alley in 1953 in Riverside. They were pivotal in introducing the idea of bowling alleys as entertainment centers that included amenities like cocktail lounges, restaurants and coffee shops, billiard rooms, and daycare centers. They designed 72 bowling centers across the United States and introduced a design concept that was replicated by others.538 An example of their work in San Mateo includes:
• Bel Mateo Bowl at 4330 Olympic Avenue (1956)
Robert M. Sherman
Architect Robert M. Sherman was born in San Francisco and remained a Bay Area resident throughout his career. In 1964, Sherman was appointed to the State Board of Architectural Examiners and held the post until 1999. He was also elected to the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Building Design in 1965 and taught at Cañada College in Redwood City. 539 Sherman died in 2008 at
age 92. While documentation of Sherman’s career appears to be limited, his body of work included several commercial and institutional buildings in San Mateo, as follows:
• Villa Hotel at 4000 South El Camino Real (1955–1956)
• Bel Mateo Food Center at 51 41st Avenue (1956)
• Building for San Mateo Boys’ Club at 200 North Quebec Street (1956)540 William Toepke
William Toepke was a prolific Bay Area architect. Born in San Francisco in 1870, he began practicing architecture in 1886 and formed a partnership with C.I. Havens in 1897 that continued through 1915.

Toepke resided in San Mateo and served as a San Mateo trustee and moved his San Francisco-based practice to 19 South B Street in his later years.541 His work included several residential, commercial, and civic and institutional designs. Some of his work in San Mateo included the following, among many more:
537 Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Willis Jefferson Polk,” accessed March 30, 2026, https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/490/. 538 Peter Moruzzi, “Covina Bowl,” National Register Draft Nomination Form, Los Angeles Conservancy, April 2016, https://www.laconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ca_los-angeles-county_covina-bowl.pdf. 539 “Robert M. Sherman, Sr.,” San Mateo Daily Journal, April 15, 2008, updated April 1, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/obituaries/robert-m-sherman-sr/article_83dcf132-455f-522b-97c6-81fb0edb01b0.html. 540 “Boys’ Club Lunch Will Hear Hoover,” June 24, 1956, accessed January 5, 2026 at https://www.newspapers.com/image/1239934904/; Advertisement for Bel Mateo Center, The Times, May 9, 1956, 1A, https://www.newspapers.com/image/38878107/?match=1&terms=robert%20m%20sherman%20architect 541 “William H. Toepke Architect, Dies,” Redwood City Tribune, July 29, 1949, https://www.newspapers.com/image/842232330/?match=1&terms=william%20toepke%20%22san%20mateo%22. 652 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 177
• San Mateo Central Fire Station (1940)
• Baywood Elementary School (1939)
William Henry Weeks
William Henry Weeks was a prominent Bay Area architect. He was born on Prince Edward Island, Canada in 1864. As a young man, he worked as an architect at the Brinker Institute in Denver, Colorado before relocating to San Francisco in 1905. In the following years, his business flourished in the rebuilding of the aftermath of the 1906 Earthquake. He gained prominence as designing the most Carnegie libraries in California. He designed using many architectural styles popular during the twentieth century. His work in California was prolific. He died in 1936.542 In San Mateo, he designed the following buildings:
• San Mateo Bank at 164 South B Street (1924)
• Benjamin Franklin Hotel (present-day Draper University) at 36 East 3rd Avenue (1926) Welton Becket & Associates
Welton Becket was born in Seattle, Washington in 1902. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Washington in 1927, after which he studied at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. He returned to Seattle in 1930 and opened a firm with University of Washington classmate Walter Wurdeman. In 1933, the two moved their practice to Los Angeles and formed a partnership with Los Angeles architect Charles Plummer. The firm gained public attention following their award-winning design at the Pan Pacific Auditorium in 1935, which facilitated their entry into Hollywood film circles and led them to several commissions for residential designs for many Hollywood industry players. Plummer died in 1939 and the firm continued as Wurdeman & Becket.

The firm prospered in the World War II era and they designed several Mid-Century Modern department stores, offices, and commercial buildings. After Wurdeman’s death in 1949, the firm became Welton Becket & Associates and grew substantially, opening offices in San Francsico, New York, Houston, and Chicago. Becket developed the concept of “total design,” in which the firm was responsible not only for architectural design, but also for master planning, engineering, interiors, furniture, fixture, landscaping, and signage. Becket died in 1969. Leadership of the firm was assumed by his son, and the firm was purchased in 1987, becoming Ellerbe Becket Inc. 543 An example of their work in San Mateo includes:
• Hillsdale Shopping Center (1954)
Wurster Bernardi & Emmons
The San Francisco-based architectural firm Wurster Bernardi & Emmons (WBE) was established in 1945 as an outgrowth of architect Williams Wurster’s practice, with former draftsmen Theodore Bernardi and Donn Emmons rising to positions as partners. WBE became one of the most prolific designers of Modern and Second Bay Tradition-style architecture in the Bay Area during the midtwentieth century, during which time Wurster served as Dean of Architecture at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and later the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a pivotal figure 542 Patrick McGrew, “Bank of San Mateo, San Mateo County, California” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form (Washington, D.C: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997). 543 Michael Houser, “Welton D. Becket,” Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, accessed February 20, 2026, https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/research-and-technical-preservation-guidance/architect-biographies/bio-for-welton-d-becket. 653 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 178
in the formation of that school’s College of Environmental Design. 544 Under Bernardi and Emmons’
leadership, WBE led projects involving institutional, commercial, and residential architecture, as well as master planning. Major works included collaboration with De Mars & Reay on San Francisco’s Golden Gateway Redevelopment Project in the 1960s, several Modernist residences in San Francisco, Cowell College at University of California, Santa Cruz and participation in the development of Bank of America’s World Headquarters in San Francisco in 1967, a few years after their work involving San Mateo’s A.P. Giannini Memorial Branch. While the firm was founded by Wurster, who is identified among the most influential Modernist architects in the Bay Area during the twentieth century, both Bernardi and Emmons also attained great recognition for their roles in shaping regional architecture.

Bernardi served as the firm’s lead designer in the years leading up to its expansion as WBE and ran the firm’s West Coast work while Wurster held academic leadership roles.545 Emmons’ designs were published in professional journals, and he served as chief architectural consultant for BART during the system’s planning in the mid-1960s.546 Examples of their work in San Mateo include:
• Bank of America’s A.P. Giannini Memorial Branch (with Miller & Steiner) (1963) • Woodlake Apartments at 900 Peninsula Avenue (1966)

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Nagao Sakurai
Nagao Sakurai immigrated to the United States in the 1950s and within a decade contributed notable landscape architecture design to properties in San Mateo. He returned to the United States after World War II, having previously represented Japan at the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco and the New York International Exposition in 1939. During the formative years of his career, Sakurai was appointed Chief Gardener at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo and held that post for two decades. His work in San Mateo includes a 1957 commission for a private residential garden, as well as the well-known Japanese Garden within Central Park, completed in 1966. These projects occurred in the same period that he designed the Shikyeon (Hannah Carter Japanese Garden) in Los Angeles with Kyoto Garden designer Kazuo Nakamura. As noted by The Cultural Landscape Foundation, “Sakurai became one of the leading post-war designers of Japanese gardens in the country at a time when Japanese culture was just beginning to regain acceptance after World War II.” 547 Sakurai’s
additional works include the Zen Garden in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco; the Japanese Rock Garden at Micke Grove Regional Park, Lodi, and the Nishinomiya Japanese Garden at Manito Park, Spokane, Washington.548 Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• Garden for Yoshiko Yamanouchi residence at 1007 East 5th Avenue (1957) • Japanese Garden at Central Park (c. 1966)
544 San Francisco Planning Department, “Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons (WBE) (1945-present) Firm of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies, accessed December 23, 2025, https://sfplanning.org/project/architectureplanning-and-preservation-professionals-collection-biographies#info. 545 San Francisco Planning Department, “Bernardi, Theodore C. (1903-1990) Architect of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies, accessed December 23, 2025, https://sfplanning.s3.amazonaws.com/default/files/Preservation/biographies/Bios_DEF.pdf. 546 San Francisco Planning Department, “Emmons, Donn (1910-1997) Architect of Merit,” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies, accessed December 23, 2025, https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-andpreservation-professionals-collection-biographies#info. 547 “Nagao Sakurai,” The Cultural Landscape Foundation, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.tclf.org/pioneer/nagao-sakurai. 548 “Nahao Sakurai,” The Cultural Landscape Foundation. 654 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 179

BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS
David D. Bohannon
Developer David Bohannon was a prolific builder of housing and related shopping centers in the San Francisco Bay Area between the 1930s and 1950s. The Bohannon Companies reports that Bohannon developed over 25,000 residential properties in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties.

Major developments included San Mateo’s Hillsdale neighborhood, built between 1941 and early 1950s, with a pause due to World War II, as well as the San Lorenzo Village in unincorporated Alameda County, which was built initially from 1944 to 1951 with 3,000 houses and has been evaluated as NRHP-eligible by Caltrans. Bohannon also led development of wartime housing in Richmond and in San José.
549 In particular, Caltrans notes that Bohannon emerged as an influential “operative” builder, who achieved mass production of housing through deftly orchestrating lumber sourcing and on-site fabrication, which resulted in an average of 400 houses built per year between 1944 and 1951.550 Beyond developing neighborhoods, Bohannon was heavily involved in construction and real estate industry organizations, including the National Association of Home Builders.

Bohannon’s development company has continued and remains affiliated with Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo as Bohannon Companies. Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• Hillsdale and Park Western neighborhoods and Hillsdale Shopping Center (1941–c. 1951) Conway & Culligan/Culligan Development Company
Thomas J. Culligan, Jr. founded the Culligan Development Company in the late 1940s and built houses, shopping centers, and commercial properties in the Peninsula region during the post-World War II decades.
551 Culligan’s career in development began with partner Andrew J. Culligan as Conway and Culligan. That firm was responsible for developing over 3500 houses between South San Francisco and Redwood City by 1954 and led the development of the San Mateo Village subdivision to the southeast of E. Hillsdale Boulevard in 1948.
552 During the 1950s, Culligan Development
Company developed a subdivision of single-family houses designed by an unidentified architect, known as the Polo Club subdivision.553 This relatively small tract was located near the geographic center of the city, just west of the existing City Hall campus and south of what was then the Borel Estate.554 This subdivision preceded the larger Fiesta Gardens subdivision that was widely advertised in local newspapers around 1955. Examples of their work in San Mateo include:
• San Mateo Village, vicinity of East Hillsdale Avenue and Saratoga Drive (1948) • Polo Club subdivision, vicinity of West 20th Avenue and Spurway Drive (1953) • Fiesta Gardens (1955)
549 “A Family. A Company. A Continuing Legacy,” Bohannon Companies, accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.ddbo.com/about-us.; Andrew Hope, “Evaluating the Significance of San Lorenzo Village, A Mid-20th Century Suburban Community,” CRM Journal (Summer 2005), 50-61, accessed January 5, 2026,
https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/si_postwwii_sanlorenzovillage.pdf. 550 “A Family. A Company. A Continuing Legacy,” Bohannon Companies, accessed January 2026, https://www.ddbo.com/about-us. 551 “Company Information,” Culligan Management Company, Inc., accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.culliganmgmt.com/about/. 552 “$9,000,000 Development for 19th Avenue,” The Times, January 22, 1954, https://www.newspapers.com/image/51856466/?match=1&terms=culligan%20development; “San Mateo Village Celebrates,” The Times, October 27, 1948, https://www.newspapers.com/image/38904942/?match=1&terms=%22san%20mateo%20celebrates%22%20. 553 “Polo Club Opens Sunday,” The Times, August 8, 1953, https://www.newspapers.com/image/38977671/?match=1&clipping_id=188263594. 554 Culligan Opens New Development,” The Times, May 27, 1953, https://www.newspapers.com/image/38976313/?match=1&clipping_id=188258496. 655 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 180
Joseph Eichler
Joseph Eichler was born in New York City in 1900 and moved to California in 1925. Eichler began a career in real estate development and building relatively late in life, when he established the Sunnyvale Building Company in 1947.555 While Eichler initially built prefabricated houses, he shifted to hiring professional architects and landscape architects to design housing and landscaping in the late 1940s. Architects S. Robert Anshen and William Steven Allen (Ashen + Allen), Claude Oakland, Jones and Emmons, and landscape architects, including Thomas Church, Kathryn Stedman, and Robert Royston consulted with Eichler.556 Eichler neighborhoods typically feature several models of contemporary post-and-beam house with flat or low-pitched roofs, projecting eaves, integrated garages, atriums, and open floor plans. By 1954, Eichler constructed around 1,800 houses. Eichler constructed two separate tracts in and directly adjacent to the city of San Mateo, including 19th Avenue Park (1955–1956) and unincorporated neighborhood The Highlands (1955–1956), which remains the largest single tract Eichler developed.557 Eichler’s company developed over 11,000 houses in California, as well as several townhouse and high-rise developments, with 32 tracts in Palo Alto alone and additional tracts in Bay Area communities, including Castro Valley, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Rafael, among others.558 An example of his work in San Mateo includes:
• 19th Avenue Park (1955–1956)
L.C. Smith
Laurence Clinton (L.C.) Smith was a major developer and contractor in San Mateo County during the mid-twentieth century. Smith was born in Rutherford, Napa County and grew up in Palo Alto. He began a career in business in San Mateo County in the early 1930s, where his father owned property in the present-day Parkside area and in the area that was eventually developed with the present College of San Mateo campus. Smith’s companies, L.C. Smith Co., Concar Ranch & Enterprises, and the Polhemus Corporation combined to own extensive acreage between the Bayshore Freeway and Polhemus Road. L.C. Smith Co. reportedly paved or built hundreds of miles of highways, including Highways 92, 280, and 380.559 Known by friends as “Laurie,” Smith’s nickname was applied to San Mateo’s Lauriedale neighborhood and related shopping center developed in the mid-1960s. Beyond his business enterprises, Smith was heavily involved in community affairs and fraternal organizations.

Smith died in 1973 at age 69.560 Examples of his work in San Mateo include:
• 19th Avenue Park (land acquisition from Leslie Salt Company in early 1950s before housing construction by Joseph Eichler, 1953–1955)
• Lauriedale neighborhood (1965–1966)
555 Page & Turnbull, Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines, Final Draft – February 2018, 34, accessed December 23, 2025, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/historic-preservation/eichler-guidelines-finalrevised-markup-reduced.pdf. 556 Page & Turnbull, Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines, 34-35. 557 Marty Arbunich, “X-100 History: In the Beginning,” accessed January 5, 2026, https://www.eichlerx-100.com/history. 558 Mary Brown, Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement, Final Draft January 12, 2011. San Francisco Planning Department, 134-136, accessed December 23, 2025, https://sfplanninggis.org/docs/Historical_Context_Statements/Modern%20Architecture%20Context%20adopted%20Jan%202011.pdf. 559 “Donor Spotlight: Concar Enterprises, Inc.,” The HEART of San Mateo County, Vol.3 Issue 2 (Summer 2010), 2, online, accessed December 23, 2025, https://www.heartofsmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/HEART_Newsletter_Summer2010ForWeb.pdf. 560 “Highway Builder - L.C. Smith, Bay Area Developer, Dies,” San Mateo Times, August 3, 1973, https://www.newspapers.com/image/52109811/?clipping_id=187353557. 656 of 976
Architects, Landscape Architects, Developers, and
Builders
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 181
G.W. Williams Co.

George W. Williams founded G.W. Williams Co., Ltd. in 1923 as a residential and commercial development company. The firm, based in San Mateo, developed housing in the San Francisco Bay Area, first focused on single-family residences in San Mateo. In 1946, the company reformed as G.W.

Williams Co. and focused on housing subdivisions in the Bay Area and Sacramento, including the construction of apartments. George W. Williams III joined the firm in 1952 and Scott W. Williams joined in 1977, becoming its president in 1992. In 2024, the fourth generation, Sean W. Wiliams was named president. The firm continues to operate today.561 Examples of their work in San Mateo include:
• Williams Place (1929)
• Sunnybrae (1939–1940s)
561 “Materials Related to George W. Williams Co.,” The San Mateo County Historical Association Online Collections Database, accessed February 20, 2026, https://historysmc.pastperfectonline.com/Archive/61701C61-E56B-4966-8E55-930215510300. 657 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 182

GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING

SIGNIFICANCE

DESIGNATION CRITERIA
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP is the official federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. NRHP properties have significance to the history of their community state, or the nation. Properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. Per 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Integrity
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several of these seven qualities, if not all, defined as follows:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
658 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 183
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance.

Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing.

California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and Title 14 Section 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code 5024.1[b]).

Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance. Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility. Generally, the OHP recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility.

A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: 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
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Integrity
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Resources eligible for the CRHR must meet one of the significance criteria, outlined above, and retain enough of their historic appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historical resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP but may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. 562
562 California Office of Historic Preservation, “Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf. 659 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 184
San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance
Under municipal code Chapter 27.66, properties may be eligible for the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) as a Landmark or Historic District. A Landmark or Historic District may include any combination of residential, commercial, civic and institutional, transportation, industrial, or cultural and ethnic properties. A property is eligible for listing in the San Mateo HRI if it includes one of the following:
(a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of San Mateo or California’s history and cultural heritage (b) Is associated with the lives of persons or communities important to San Mateo or California’s past
(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 (d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history Integrity
To be eligible for listing in the San Mateo HRI, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Eligible resources must retain enough of their original location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey historical or architectural significance.

PROPERTY TYPES AND DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Precontact (Before 1769)
The various shell mounds, burial sites and habitation sites recorded in San Mateo indicate a period of indigenous occupation. Any structures constructed by this population disappeared when EuroAmerican occupation of the area grew. It is possible, however, that there are previously unknown subsurface archaeological resources present. Such resources, if present, may be encountered during the course of ground-disturbing activities, like construction or grading. Any artifacts dating to this period may have potential to yield information important to prehistory and be eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or San Mateo HRI under Criterion D/4/d.

Spanish and Mexican Period (1769–1848)
Few, if any, built environment resources from these periods of development are still extant in San Mateo. Any properties identified as constructed between 1769 and 1848 may have significance as a rare, surviving example property from its time and a lesser threshold of integrity for assessing significance may be suitable.

It is possible, too, that historic-era archaeological resources may be present. Such resources, if present, may be encountered during the course of ground-disturbing activities, like construction or grading. Any artifacts dating to this period may have potential to yield important information and be eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or San Mateo HRI under any Criterion. 660 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 185
Early Settlement (1849–1893)
The dominant themes of San Mateo’s Early Settlement period (1849–1893) are the transformation of former rancho lands into residential estates by many of the region’s wealthy class. Residential development was limited to when large landholders subdivided their holdings. The city’s first residential subdivision was developed in the Central/North Central neighborhood and extended from San Mateo Creek southward to 5th Avenue and eastward to present-day Eldorado Street.

Commercial development was sparse, first limited to a stagecoach stop along the old trading route and mission trail (present-day El Camino Real). Following the arrival of the railroad in 1864, improvements to the city’s early infrastructure followed and included expanded commercial development, mostly concentrated along the railroad tracks. A commercial downtown began to emerge during this period, beginning along Main Street and Railroad Avenue, with a major thoroughfare along B Street. With increasing population, the city’s earliest civic and institutional development was established with the founding of fraternal organizations, a library, schools, and churches. During this period, the city saw little industrial activity outside of related infrastructure projects.

Residential Properties
Residential buildings constructed between 1849 and 1893 primarily consisted of large single-family houses, mostly associated with the city’s early influential families. Of these grand estates, none are extant. Residences that are extant from this period are concentrated in the city’s earliest residential subdivisions, concentrated on the east side of Railroad Avenue in the Central/North-Central neighborhood that generally emerged following the arrival of the railroad in 1864. They are typically one and two-story wood frame residences. While exact dates of construction proved difficult to confirm, available mapping and the architectural styles seen from this period indicate that they were likely developed during the city’s Early Settlement period.

Associated Architectural Styles
Residential architectural styles associated with the Early Settlement period (1849–1893) include the following:
• Gothic Revival (Carpenter’s Gothic)
• Italianate
• Folk National
• Folk Victorian
• Queen Anne
• Colonial Revival
Significance Requirements
Table 3 discusses the significance of residential buildings from San Mateo’s Early Settlement period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for a residential property built during the city’s Early Settlement period (1849–1893) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Early Settlement period (1849–1893). 661 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 186
Table 3 Significance Requirements for Residential Properties from the Early Settlement Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of Residential Development, specifically San Mateo’s pattern of early residential development in the city’s Central/North Central neighborhood, if they are clearly important within the associated context. This period was characterized by development of the town site as depicted in Polhemus’ 1862 map and expansion into previously undeveloped sections of the city north of San Mateo Creek, in the North Central neighborhood, following the arrival of the railroad in 1864.

B/2/b Persons Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include a prominent pioneer, business owners, merchants, artists, or city officials. Under this Criterion the residence should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder, such as Robert Wisnom. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features. Architectural significance should be considered for different property typologies, including simple residences.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Residential buildings or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of residential development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely that such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
To be eligible for listing, a residential property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as part of the Early Settlement theme. While most buildings undergo change over time, alterations should not substantially change the essential character of the buildings. Properties dating to this period are relatively few, and therefore discretion is warranted when considering integrity.

Buildings may qualify as individual resources if they retain a majority of their original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for residential properties from the Early Settlement period:
• Good representative of a style of architecture from the period (Gothic Revival, Italianate, Folk National, Folk Victorian, Queen Anne, and Colonial Revival, but may include other styles) • Retains original roofline and roof form
• Replacement roof material is acceptable, but the roofline form must be generally intact. 662 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 187
• Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors • Replacement of windows and doors is acceptable, as long as they conform to the original door/window pattern and size of opening, especially on primary elevations. • Retains some of its original ornamentation (e.g., spindle posts, trim, decorative verge boards, etc.)
• Retention of original cladding is important but not absolute.

Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable, as long as the essential character, form, and massing of the original building is identifiable.
• Rear/secondary elevation additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Additions that comprise a building’s scale are generally not acceptable. • A number of buildings from this period have had modifications to front porches, including being replaced or enclosed. This is acceptable, as long as the modifications and/or replacement are compatible with the scale and materials of the buildings. Enclosing a porch in an irreversible manner is generally a diminishment of integrity and can alter or obscure character-defining materials and characteristics of a property. The consideration of an enclosed porch should be weighed against the relative rarity of the property type. • Retention of original cladding material is an important aspect of material integrity.

Replacement cladding, however, is acceptable when it does not detract from the historic character of the building.
• Residential buildings that have been converted for commercial use may still be eligible for designation provided that the conversion did not result in changes to character-defining features.
• For historic districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance within its historic context, individual properties may lack individual distinction necessary for individual listing.

Commercial Properties
Commercial properties developed during this period generally followed the arrival of the railroad in 1864, when commercial development shifted from along the mission road (present-day El Camino Real) eastward to the railroad tracks. Early commercial development in the city’s first commercial core, concentrated along Main Street and Railroad Avenue, consisted of general stores, commercial storefronts, workshops, and warehouses. Mostly wood construction, many early commercial properties were vulnerable to fires that took place in 1880, 1883, and 1887 and did not survive. By the end of this period, many surviving wood structures were replaced with brick buildings. Many more buildings constructed during this period were later destroyed during the 1906 Earthquake.

There appear to be very few or perhaps no surviving commercial properties from this period. Those that may date from this period were likely altered over time such that they are not recognizable. 663 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 188
Associated Architectural Styles
Though examples from this period appear to be very rare, typical architectural styles of commercial buildings from this period include the following:
• False Front
• Romanesque Revival
• Gothic Revival
• Italianate
• Queen Anne
• Mission Revival
Significance Requirements
Table 4 discusses the significance of commercial buildings from San Mateo’s Early Settlement period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for a commercial property built during the city’s Early Settlement period (1849-1893) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Early Settlement period (1849–1893).

Table 4 Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties from the Early Settlement Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of Commercial Development, specifically San Mateo’s pattern of shifting commercial development away from the mission trail, eastward following the construction of the railroad in 1864.

Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners and merchants. Under this criterion the commercial property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Commercial buildings or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of commercial development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely that such examples exist.
664 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 189
Integrity Requirements
Commercial properties from this period are rare, and therefore discretion is warranted when considering integrity. Buildings may qualify for designation if they retain a majority of their original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for commercial properties from the Early Settlement period:
• Clear example of commercial architecture from this period • Retains original form and roofline
• Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors • Storefront alterations, particularly in multistory buildings are often acceptable. • Replacement of doors and windows is often acceptable, as long as they substantially conform to the original pattern and size/opening of windows and doors.

Integrity Considerations
• Commercial buildings that retain their original form from this period are exceptionally rare.

Storefronts, in particular, were commonly altered for changing commercial uses and changing tenancy. In multistory commercial buildings, storefront alterations should be considered as acceptable, as long as they are subordinate to the overall character of the building.
• Additions may be acceptable, as long as the essential character, form, and massing of the original building is identifiable.
• Additions associated with demands of a subsequent historically significant context may also be acceptable. However, additions that compromise a building’s scale are generally not acceptable.
• Retention of original cladding material is an important aspect of material integrity.

Replacement cladding, however, is acceptable when it does not detract from the historic character of the building.
• For historic districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance within its historic context, individual properties may lack individual distinction.

Civic and Institutional Properties
The Early Settlement period was a period of growth for civic and institutional buildings in the years before the city’s incorporation. Buildings from this period included a library, churches, schools, and civic group social halls. The city’s first services were also developed during this period, with the establishment of the first fire department in 1887. Early civic and institutional development centered in the city’s commercial core, with churches and schools more likely to be integrated into the city’s emerging residential neighborhoods.

Associated Architectural Styles
• Gothic Revival (Carpenter’s Gothic)
• Romanesque Revival
• Italianate
• Queen Anne
665 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 190
• Colonial Revival
Significance Requirements
Table 5 discusses the significance of civic and institutional buildings from San Mateo’s Early Settlement period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. While most of the buildings from this period are no longer extant, for remaining civic or institutional properties built during the city’s Early Settlement period (1849–1893) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Early Settlement period (1849–1893).

Table 5 Significance Requirements for Civic and Institutional Properties from the Early Settlement Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of civic and institutional development, including social organizations, schools, churches, and city services.

Properties may represent development patterns moving beyond the city’s commercial core but must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners, civil servants, clergy, educators, and institution/chapter founders. Under this criterion the civic or institutional property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Civic and institutional buildings or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of civic and institutional development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely that such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
Civic and institutional buildings from this period are rare, and therefore discretion is warranted when considering integrity. Buildings may qualify for designation if they retain a majority of their original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for civic and institutional properties from the Early Settlement period:
• Clear example of a civic or institutional property from this period • Retains original form and roofline
666 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 191
• Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors • Retains most of its original ornamentation
Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable if the essential character of the original building is recognizable.

In particular, rear additions that have been designed to respect the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Civic and institutional buildings may have been adapted for new uses over time, which is acceptable if the building’s original character remains intact.

Transportation Properties
Transportation properties from this period are extremely rare, having mostly been replaced in the years since. The most important change to transportation during San Mateo’s Early Settlement (1849–1893) was the reduction of stagecoach traffic with the arrival of the railroad to San Mateo in 1864, eventually becoming part of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Despite the arrival of the railroad, offering connectivity from San Francisco to Santa Clara, stagecoach traffic continued to be important for westward travel to neighboring coastal communities and included the construction of three toll roads during this period. As expected, however, rail and road travel developed considerably in the following periods. As such, though the general alignment of the rail line and many roads remain, associated transportation properties constructed during this period are unlikely to survive.

Industrial Properties
Industrial properties constructed during this period were extremely rare. Construction projects like the railroad in 1864 and Crystal Springs Dam in 1887 brought support services to the area for the duration of the projects, but San Mateo did not have a main industrial economic driver like neighboring communities. No industrial properties from this period appear to be extant.

Cultural and Ethnic Properties
Immigrant and ethnic groups contributed traditions and cultural practices to the development of San Mateo’s Early Settlement (1849–1893). Groups present during this period included Irish, Chinese, and African Americans.

Associated Architectural Styles
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups could include any architectural styles from this period.

Significance Requirements
Table 6 discusses the significance properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from San Mateo’s Early Settlement period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. While most of the buildings from this period are no longer extant, for remaining properties built during the city’s Early Settlement period (1849–1893) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Early Settlement period (1849–1893). 667 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 192
Table 6 Significance Requirements for Cultural and Ethnic Properties from the Early Settlement Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their association with San Mateo’s early development and could include built environment resources, such as residences, institutional buildings, schools, and churches that have a strong association with the settlement and migration of immigrant groups or ethnic communities. Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their association with an individual or group significant to San Mateo’s Early Settlement period that were instrumental or made an important contribution to San Mateo or were otherwise active, successful, or influential.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their architecture, including the Asian Eclectic style, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder.

Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of development with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history.

Integrity Requirements
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from this period are rare. Integrity considerations should account for the rarity of such resources. The property should retain sufficient integrity of design, location, feeling, and association to convey immigrant life and community networks dating to the period of significance. However, because properties associated with this theme are rare, a greater degree of change to the property and its environs may be acceptable.

Properties significant under this theme may also be significant under another applicable theme.

The following integrity requirements have been identified for properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from the Early Settlement period:
• Clear representative example of a property type or style associated with a cultural and/or ethnic group from this period
• Has a clear association with an identified cultural and/or ethnic group from this period • Often designed in a dominant architectural style of period Incorporation and Suburban Growth (1894–1940)
The City of San Mateo incorporated in 1894 under a board of prominent local figures. In the decades that followed, the city entered a period of significant growth aligned with broader patterns of suburbanization. Initially home to fewer than 2,000 residents, San Mateo experienced rapid 668 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 193
expansion after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, as displaced San Franciscans relocated to the area. This influx spurred new residential and commercial development, expanded transportation infrastructure, and increased cultural diversity. By the early twentieth century, the city’s population had grown to nearly 20,000, marking a major phase of demographic and physical transformation.

Residential Properties
Residential buildings constructed between 1894 and 1940 are characterized by the transformation of San Mateo from a sparsely populated community to a developing suburb that included development of new areas of the city, formalization of transportation networks, and large-scale civic projects.

Residential growth during this period expanded into the previously undeveloped estates outside the city’s commercial core. It included periods of development, like the growth following the 1906 Earthquake and slowdowns due to nationwide events like World War I and the Great Depression.

Despite these periods, the Incorporation and Suburban Growth Period was one of the city’s most productive periods in terms of residential growth and the accompanying commercial and civic and institutional development.

The city experienced several annexations during this period, adding to its residential growth that included the transformation of former estate lands, as well as semi-rural land for suburban housing.

Residential buildings constructed during this period primarily consisted of single-family houses that are typically one and two-story wood frame residences. During this period multifamily housing also emerged and included apartment towers and garden apartments. Suburban expansion later in the period included subdivisions based on principles established by the Federal Housing Administration, which included some modern building materials, like steel. Residential architectural styles included popular revival styles like American Colonial Revival, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival and French Eclectic. It also included the emergence of new architectural styles, like Craftsman, Art Deco, and Streamline Moderne and the restrained style of Minimal Traditional.

Associated Architectural Styles
Residential architectural styles associated with the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940) include the following:
• Colonial Revival
• Mission Revival
• Spanish Colonial Revival
• Tudor Revival
• French Eclectic
• Craftsman
• Art Deco
• Streamline Moderne
• Minimal Traditional
Significance Requirements
Table 7 discusses the significance of residential buildings from San Mateo’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for a residential property built during the city’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940) to 669 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 194
be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940).

Table 7 Significance Requirements for Residential Properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI) Type of Significance Description of Significance A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of Residential Development, specifically San Mateo’s pattern of expanding development from the subdivision of former estate holdings and semi-rural properties, including those areas that were annexed in 1909, 1927, and 1929. This period is characterized by the development of large residential tracts. Many private residences were constructed during this period, including many by speculative development. Groups of residences may be better able to convey these patterns than individual structures, though some properties may qualify individually for their architectural merits or associations with prominent individuals (see below).

B/2/b Persons Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Under this Criterion the residence should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design New residential design trends were emerging during this period and residential buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

Architectural significance should be considered for different property typologies including simple residences
D/4/d Information
Potential
Residential buildings or ruins of residential buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local residential development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples exist
Integrity Requirements
To be eligible for listing, a residential property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as part of the Incorporation and Suburban Growth theme. While most buildings undergo change over time, alterations should not significantly change the essential historic character of the buildings. A residential property must retain essential physical features that made up its character during its period of significance. Buildings may qualify as individual resources if they retain a majority of their original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for residential properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period:
• Good representative of a style of architecture from the period 670 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 195
• Retains original roofline and roof form
• Substantially retains original pattern of windows and doors • Retains some of its original ornamentation (e.g., cornices, trim, decorative verge boards, elaborations, etc.)
• Replacement roof material may be acceptable, but the roofline form must be generally intact.
• Replacement of windows and doors is acceptable, as long as they conform to the original door/window pattern and size of opening, especially on primary elevations. • Retention of original cladding is important but not absolute.

Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable as long as the essential character, form, and massing of the original building is identifiable.
• Rear/secondary elevation additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Additions that comprise a building’s scale are generally not acceptable. • Retention of original cladding material is an important aspect of material integrity.

Replacement cladding, however, is acceptable when a majority of the character-defining features are retained.
• The retention of original windows enhances integrity of materials, particularly on streetfacing elevations. However, window replacement is a common intervention. Thus, the fact that a building does not retain its original windows does not preclude it from being eligible for listing, so long as the building retains its original pattern of windows and replacement windows are compatible.
• For historic districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance within its historic context, individual properties may lack individual distinction. 671 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 196
Commercial Properties
Commercial growth during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period was characterized by rapid expansion and growth to respond to San Mateo’s increasing population. During this period, the previous period’s commercial buildings were replaced by more permanent construction. The city’s commercial district experienced considerable damage from the 1906 Earthquake, contributing to its rebuilding and expansion. This period’s development was also influenced by the rise of the automobile. As a result, San Mateo’s business district began shifting away from Railroad Avenue toward El Camino Real, a major vehicular thoroughfare.

During this period, commercial development began to include auto-oriented businesses like garages, machine shops, and gas stations. It also began to include recreation and entertainment, like theaters, a theme park, and Bay Meadows racetrack.

Associated Architectural Styles
Commercial architectural styles associated with the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940) include the following:
• Colonial Revival
• Classical Revival
• Renaissance Revival
• Mission Revival
• Spanish Colonial Revival
• Tudor Revival
• Art Deco
672 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 197
Significance Requirements
Table 8 discusses the significance of commercial buildings from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth (1894–1940) period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for a commercial property built during the city’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth (1894–1940) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period. Many commercial buildings from this period are listed in the San Mateo Downtown Historic District.

Table 8 Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of Commercial Development. San Mateo’s pattern of commercial development from this period included changes to the commercial core that expanded development westward, toward El Camino Real. A large number of commercial buildings were developed during this period and represent a period of rapid growth for the city.

Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners and merchants. Under this criterion the commercial property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Commercial buildings or ruins of commercial buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local commercial development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
To be eligible for listing, a commercial property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as part of the Incorporation and Suburban Growth theme. While most buildings undergo change over time, alterations should not significantly change the essential historic character of the buildings. A commercial property must retain essential physical features that made up its character during its period of significance. Many commercial buildings from this period have been altered over time, leaving few examples of intact properties that retain their original storefront configurations and 673 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 198
materials. Discretion is warranted when considering eligibility. The following integrity requirements have been identified for commercial properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period:
• Clear example of commercial architecture from this period • Retains original form and roofline
• Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors. Storefront alterations may be acceptable.
• Replacement of doors and windows is often acceptable, as long as they substantially conform to the original pattern and size/opening of windows and doors. • Retains some original ornamentation, if applicable
Integrity Considerations
• Commercial buildings that retain their original form from this period are uncommon.

Storefronts, in particular, were commonly altered for changing commercial uses and changing tenancy. In multistory commercial buildings, storefront alterations should be considered as acceptable, as long as they are subordinate to the overall character of the building.
• Additions may be acceptable, as long as the essential character, form, and massing of the original building is identifiable.
• Additions associated with demands of a subsequent historically significant context may also be acceptable. However, additions that comprise a building’s scale are generally not acceptable.
• Retention of original cladding material is an important aspect of material integrity.

Replacement cladding, however, is acceptable when it does not detract from the historic character of the building.

Civic and Institutional Properties
The city’s growing population naturally increased the demand for expanded services and institutions.

Many civic and institutional buildings were constructed at San Mateo’s downtown commercial core, while many were also constructed within the city’s new residential neighborhoods. Properties included churches for many denominations, reflecting the city’s growing diversity. Like commercial properties of the time, buildings were constructed in the popular architectural styles, with some being constructed by well-known architects like Willis Polk.

Associated Architectural Styles
Civic and institutional buildings constructed during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period include the following styles:
• Colonial Revival
• Classical Revival
• Renaissance Revival
• Mission Revival
• Spanish Colonial Revival
674 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 199
Significance Requirements
Table 9 discusses the significance of civic and institutional buildings from San Mateo’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for properties to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940).

Table 9 Significance Requirements for Civic and Institutional Properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of civic and institutional development, including social organizations, schools, churches, and city services.

Properties may represent development patterns moving beyond the city’s commercial core. Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners, civil servants, clergy, educators, and institution/chapter founders. Under this Criterion the civic or institutional property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Civic and institutional buildings or ruins of buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local civic and institutional development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
Civic and institutional buildings from this period may qualify for designation if they retain a majority of original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for civic and institutional properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period:
• Clear example of a civic or institutional property from this period • Retains original form and roofline
• Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors • Retains most of its original ornamentation
675 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 200
Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable if the essential character of the original building is recognizable.

In particular, rear additions that have been designed to respect the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Prior replacement of doors and windows may be acceptable, if the replacements conform to the original size and location of the openings. All other character-defining features must be retained.
• Civic and institutional buildings may have been adapted for new uses over time, which is acceptable if the building’s original character remains intact.

Transportation Properties
Similar to many cities throughout California, San Mateo’s development pattern was influenced by advancements in transportation technology. During this period, San Mateo’s development became more focused on daily transit, and included the introduction of the streetcar. The increased influence of the automobile also dictated more roadway development, including establishing El Camino Real as a highway followed by the construction of the Bayshore Highway along San Mateo’s eastern edge.

Improved connections also resulted in new train stations and the construction of transbay access with the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge.

While these transportation developments and projects were an important factor in San Mateo’s expansion, they did not produce significant buildings that are part of the architectural fabric of the city today. Extant properties from this period may include overpasses, bridges, culverts, and associated municipal infrastructure and utilities.

Significance Requirements
Table 10 discusses the significance of transportation properties from San Mateo’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for properties to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940).
676 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 201
Table 10 Significance Requirements for Transportation Properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI) Type of Significance Description of Significance A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Transportation properties from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of transportation development, including roadways, culverts, bridges, and associated utility infrastructure. However, given the ubiquity of these types of properties and improvements, a property would have to demonstrate exceptional significance.

B/2/b Persons It is highly unlikely that transportation or infrastructure properties from this period would be associated with a
significant individual to be eligible under this criteria.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Transportation properties from this period may be significant as an example of a particular architectural style or innovative method of construction or engineering, or as the representative work of a master architect or prominent builder, though it is likely rare.

D/4/d Information Potential Transportation buildings or ruins of buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local transportation development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
The following integrity requirements have been identified for properties associated with transportation properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period:
• A property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to convey its association with its reason for significance. • If the transportation property is eligible for its design, it should retain the distinctive character-defining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Replacement of materials in-kind is not likely to result in loss of integrity.

Industrial Properties
Industrial properties constructed during this period were extremely rare. Similar to the period before, there was little industrial development in San Mateo during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period. Industry was largely limited to a plant of the Leslie Salt Refining Company. San Mateo did not factor in significantly to other major industries during this period. No industrial properties from this period appear to be extant.

Cultural and Ethnic Properties
Immigrant and ethnic groups expanded significantly during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940). Groups present during this period included Chinese, African American, and included the arrival of significant Japanese and Filipino populations. 677 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 202
Associated Architectural Styles
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups could include any architectural styles from this period, including the emergence of Asian Eclectic architectural styles and ornamentation.

Significance Requirements
Table 11 discusses the significance properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from San Mateo’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940). To be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period (1894–1940).

Table 11 Significance Requirements for Cultural and Ethnic Group Properties from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth Period Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI) Type of Significance Description of Significance A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their association with San Mateo’s incorporation and suburban development and could include built environment resources such as residences, institutional buildings, schools, and churches that have a strong association with the settlement and migration of immigrant groups or ethnic communities.

Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their association with an individual or group significant to San Mateo’s Incorporation and Suburban Growth period that were instrumental or made an important
contribution to San Mateo or were otherwise active, successful, or influential.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information Potential Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of development with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history.

Integrity Requirements
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from this period are not common. Integrity considerations should account for the rarity of such resources. The property should retain sufficient integrity of design, location, feeling, and association to convey immigrant life and community networks dating to the period of significance. However, because properties associated with this 678 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 203
theme are less common, a degree of change to the property and its environs may be acceptable.

Properties significant under this theme may also be significant under another applicable theme.

The following integrity requirements have been identified for properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from the Incorporation and Suburban Growth period:
• Clear representative example of a property type or style associated with a cultural and/or ethnic group from this period
• Has a clear association with an identified cultural and/or ethnic group from this period • Often designed in a dominant architectural style of period World War II and Post-War Development (1941-1979)
During World War II, the San Francisco Bay Area played a vital role in coastal defense, military training, and wartime industry, with heightened security and rapid construction of defense facilities following the Attack on Pearl Harbor. While the war stimulated economic growth and resulted in increased development of all property types in San Mateo, it also led to discriminatory policies, most notably the forced relocation of Japanese Americans. In the postwar decades, San Mateo experienced substantial population growth and suburbanization, characterized by the subdivision of former estates, transformation of the downtown with mid-twentieth-century architecture, and construction of much of the city’s existing built environment. This period also saw expanded cultural and institutional development, including new religious congregations and consolidation of the College of San Mateo, alongside major transportation investments facilitated the decentralization of commerce and increased regional connectivity.

Residential Properties
Residential buildings constructed between 1941 and 1979 were completed in the post-World War II building boom. Residential development during this period expanded San Mateo’s suburban character beyond its earlier developed residential neighborhoods and is largely characterized by tract developments. In the years following World War II, the city’s population grew and the geographic boundaries expanded with annexation of newly subdivided areas for new suburban neighborhoods.

Residences during this period were constructed in large numbers and marketed to prospective buyers.

Residential buildings during this period primarily consisted of single-family houses but also included many examples of multifamily housing, like garden apartments, larger scale apartment complexes, and condominium buildings, offering a greater variety in housing types than constructed in previous periods. Residential architectural styles included Streamline Moderne, Minimal Traditional, Ranch Style, Mid-Century Modern, and Second and Third Bay Tradition.

Associated Architectural Styles
Residential architectural styles associated with the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979) include the following:
• Streamline Moderne
• Minimal Traditional
• Ranch Style
• Mid-Century Modern
679 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 204
• Second and Third Bay Tradition
Significance Requirements
Table 12 discusses the significance of residential buildings from San Mateo’s World War II and PostWar Development period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for a residential property built during the city’s World War II and Post-War Development period (1941– 1979) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be:
(1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development (1941–1979).

Table 12 Significance Requirements for Residential Properties from the World War II and Post-World War II Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of Residential Development, specifically San Mateo’s pattern of expanding development into new suburban residential tracts. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event.

Groups of residences may be better able to convey these patterns than individual structures, though some properties may qualify individually for their architectural merits or associations with prominent individuals (see below).

B/2/b Persons Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Under this Criterion the residence should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Residential properties may be eligible as distinctive examples of an architectural style from the World War II and Post-World War II period.

Examples may include designs that involved innovation or the use of new technology and materials.

Residential properties from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect.

Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features. Architectural significance should be considered for different property typologies including simple residences. However, unique, custom designed residences are more likely to be individually eligible than those that were built on designs replicated in many suburban tracts.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Residential buildings or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of residential development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely that such examples exist.
680 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 205
Integrity Requirements
To be eligible for listing, a residential property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as part of the World War II and Post-War Development period. While most buildings undergo change over time, alterations should not significantly change the essential historic character of the buildings. A residential property must retain essential physical features that made up its character during its period of significance. Buildings may qualify as individual resources if they retain a majority of their original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for residential properties from the World War II and Post-War Development period. • Good representative of a style of architecture from the period • Given the prevalence of residential properties from this period, eligible individual resources or historic districts should have a high degree of historic integrity. • Retains original roofline, roof form, and general massing • Substantially retains original pattern of windows and doors • Replacement or removal of exterior material is acceptable to the degree that it does not substantially alter the historic character and original style of the building.

Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable, as long as the essential character, form, and massing of the original building is identifiable. Changes to overall massing and form (such as a second story addition to a single-story residence) are likely to result in a lack of integrity to support individual eligibility or as a district contributor.
• Rear/secondary elevation additions that have respected the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Retention of original cladding material is an important aspect of material integrity.

Replacement cladding, however, is acceptable when a majority of the character-defining features are retained.
• The retention of original windows enhances integrity of materials, particularly on streetfacing elevations. However, window replacement is a common intervention. Thus, the fact that a building does not retain its original windows does not preclude it from being eligible for listing, so long as the building retains its original pattern of windows and replacement windows are compatible.
• For historic districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance within its historic context, individual properties may lack individual distinction. • Given the prevalence of suburban residential development during this period, most residential neighborhoods of this era are not likely to rise to the level of significance for listing as historic districts. Exceptionally intact examples with distinctive examples of a period architectural style (such as Mid-Century Modern) may be eligible as historic districts. 681 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 206
Commercial Properties
Commercial growth during the World War II and Post-War Development period was characterized by the emergence of neighborhood and regional shopping centers, modern bank branches in the central business district, motels, road-side restaurants, and office tower/campus developments that supported growing professional sectors. Increased commercial development grew along El Camino Real as well as integrated into San Mateo’s new and expanded suburban neighborhoods. Much of the commercial development of this period featured auto-centric design that included access to thoroughfares, ample parking, and drive-through options. Commercial architecture included the popular styles of the period like Mid-Century Modern, Corporate Modern, and New Formalism.

Associated Architectural Styles
Commercial architectural styles associated with the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979) include the following:
• Mid-Century Modern
• Corporate Modern
• New Formalism
682 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 207
Significance Requirements
Table 13 discusses the significance of commercial buildings from the World War II and Post-War Development (1941-1979) period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for a commercial property built during the city’s World War II and Post-War Development (1941– 1979) period to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development period.

Table 13 Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties from the World War II and Post-World War II Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of Commercial Development. Properties may be significant if they had a particularly influential role in suburban retail and shopping center development, roadside and/or drive through elements associated with the auto-centric retail trends of the period, or the emergence of corporate/professional campus buildings and office parks. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historic event.

B/2/b Persons Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners and merchants. Under this Criterion the commercial property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. Commercial properties may be eligible as distinctive examples of an architectural style or type of construction. Such properties may include automobile-oriented businesses with distinctive architecture of building typologies. Typical examples of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility.

Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Commercial buildings or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of commercial development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely that such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
To be eligible for listing, a commercial property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance as part of the World War II and Post-War Development (1941–1979) theme. The following integrity requirements have been identified for commercial properties from the World War II and Post-War Development period:
683 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 208
• Clear example of commercial architecture from this period • Retains overall form, massing, proportion, and materials and features that convey the original design
• Retains the essential aspects of integrity necessary to convey its association with its reason for significance.
• Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors. Storefront alterations may be acceptable if they maintain the overall original style of the building. • Replacement of doors and windows is often acceptable, as long as they substantially conform to the original pattern and size/opening of windows and doors. • For roadside and auto-oriented properties to be eligible, their relationship to the roadway should be intact.

Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable, as long as the essential character, form, and massing of the original building is identifiable.
• Retention of original exterior material is an important aspect of material integrity.

Replacement of some exterior material may be acceptable, but replacement of exterior cladding, alteration of openings, or alteration of distinctive exterior features have the potential to diminish the integrity of the property.
• For corporate campus/office park properties, setting and associated features like designed landscape features may contribute to the overall campus design and should be considered as character-defining when evaluating for historic integrity.

Civic and Institutional Properties
During the World War II and Post-War Development period, San Mateo upgraded civic facilities to accommodate its growing population. Additionally, institutional uses, including medical and educational facilities, schools, libraries, fraternal organizations, and churches were all significantly expanded during this period. Additionally, Coyote Point transformed from a Merchant Marine Cadet Basic Training School to temporarily housing for the College of San Mateo before being developed as the Coyote Point Yacht Harbor and Marina.

Associated Architectural Styles
Civic and institutional buildings constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development period include the following styles:
• Mid-Century Modern
• New Formalism
Significance Requirements
Table 14 discusses the significance of civic and institutional buildings from San Mateo’s World War II and Post-War Development period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for properties to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979). 684 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 209
Table 14 Significance Requirements for Civic and Institutional Properties from the World War II and Post-World War II Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of civic and institutional development, including social organizations, schools, churches, and city services.

Properties may represent development patterns responding to the city’s growing population and the accompanying establishment of new social, religious, civic, and cultural organizations. A property may also be eligible as the site of a historical event. Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners, civil servants, clergy, educators, and institution/chapter founders. Under this criterion the civic or institutional property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Civic and institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact character-defining features, forms, or construction methods. A property should be a fine example of its style and era and embody the characteristics that make the style significant. A typical example of an architectural style of the period is not sufficient for eligibility.

Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Civic and institutional buildings or ruins from buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of civic and institutional development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely that such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
Civic and institutional buildings from this period may qualify for designation if they retain a majority of original features. The following integrity requirements have been identified for civic and institutional properties from the World War II and Post-War Development period:
• Clear example of a civic or institutional property from this period that retains essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to convey its significance • Retains original form, roofline, and general massing. • Substantially retains the original pattern of windows and doors • Retains most of its original ornamentation. A property may be eligible if some materials have been removed or replaced but should still maintain its original design and character. 685 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 210
Integrity Considerations
• Additions may be acceptable if the essential character of the original building is recognizable.

In particular, rear additions that have been designed to respect the scale of the original building are generally acceptable.
• Prior replacement of doors and windows may be acceptable, if the replacements conform to the original size and location of the openings. All other character-defining features must be retained.
• Civic and institutional buildings may have been adapted for new uses over time, which is acceptable if the building’s original character remains intact.

Transportation Properties
During this period, San Mateo’s development responded to the growing population, increased development, and physical expansion. Much of this infrastructure supported travel at a regional scale: road, freeway, or rail. Additionally, development in downtown included major projects designed to accommodate vehicular traffic and parking demand. While these transportation developments and projects were an important factor in San Mateo’s expansion, they did not produce significant buildings that are part of the architectural fabric of the city today. Extant properties from this period may include overpasses, freeway interchanges, bridges, culverts, and associated municipal infrastructure and utilities.

Significance Requirements
Table 15 discusses the significance of transportation properties from San Mateo’s World War II and Post-War Development period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for properties to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979). 686 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 211
Table 15 Significance Requirements for Transportation Properties from the World War II and Post-World War II Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Transportation properties from this period may be significant for their associations with the theme of transportation development, including roadways, culverts, bridges, and associated utility infrastructure. However, given the ubiquity of these types of properties and improvements, a property would have to demonstrate exceptional significance.

B/2/b Persons It is highly unlikely that transportation or infrastructure properties from this period would be associated with a significant individual to be eligible under this criteria.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Transportation properties from this period may be significant as an example of a particular architectural style or innovative method of construction or engineering, or as the representative work of a master architect or prominent builder, though it is likely rare.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Transportation buildings or ruins of buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local transportation development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
The following integrity requirements have been identified for properties associated with transportation properties from the World War II and Post-War Development period:
• A property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to convey its association with its reason for significance. • If the transportation property is eligible for its design, it should retain the distinctive character-defining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Replacement of materials in-kind is not likely to result in loss of integrity.

Industrial Properties
Industrial properties constructed during this period are rare and industrial development during this period was limited. San Mateo did have several nursery properties during this period that were later developed. The city did develop light manufacturing businesses along the U.S. 101 corridor, including on frontage roads South Amphlett Boulevard, North Amphlett Boulevard, and adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad corridor further to the west.

Significance Requirements
Table 16 discusses the significance of industrial properties from San Mateo’s World War II and PostWar Development period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and the San Mateo HRI. In order for properties to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979). 687 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 212
Table 16 Significance Requirements for Industrial Properties from the World War II and Post-World War II Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Industrial properties from this period may be significant for their associations with patterns of industrial development, or as the site of a significant historic event. Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Industrial properties from this period may be significant for their association with persons important to the history of San Mateo. Such persons may include prominent business owners or entrepreneurs.

Under this criterion the industrial property should: (1) be clearly associated with the person during the period that they gained prominence within their profession or group and (2) be compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in question in order to identify which property best represents that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.

C/3/c Architecture/Design In rare instances, industrial properties from this period may be significant as a distinctive example of a particular architectural style or as the representative work of a notable architect or builder.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Industrial properties or ruins of buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local industrial development may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
The following integrity requirements have been identified for properties associated with industrial properties from the World War II and Post-War Development period:
• A property should retain the essential aspects of integrity and enough physical features to convey its association with its reason for significance. • If the industrial property is eligible for its design, it should retain the distinctive characterdefining features of the style, type, or method of construction. • Replacement of materials in-kind is not likely to result in loss of integrity.

Cultural and Ethnic Properties
Immigrant and ethnic groups continued to expand during the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979). Groups present during this period included African Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Tongan, and Latino.

Associated Architectural Styles
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups could include any architectural styles from this period. They may also include Asian Eclectic properties. 688 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 213
Significance Requirements
Table 17 discusses the significance properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from San Mateo’s World War II and Post-War Development period. To be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be: (1) located within the boundary of the city from the period and (2) be constructed during the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941–1979).

Table 17 Significance Requirements for Cultural and Ethnic Properties from the World War II and Post-World War II Period
Criteria
(NRHP/CRHR/HRI)
Type of
Significance Description of Significance
A/1/a Events/Patterns of
Development
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their association with San Mateo’s World War II and Post-War Development period and could include built environment resources, such as residences, institutional buildings, schools, and churches that have a strong association with the settlement and migration of immigrant groups or ethnic communities. It may also include properties that were the site of a historic event. Eligible properties must be clearly important in the associated context.

B/2/b Persons Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their association with an individual or group significant to San Mateo’s World War II and Post-War Development period that were instrumental or made an important contribution to San Mateo or were otherwise active, successful, or influential.

C/3/c Architecture/Design Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from this period may be significant for their architecture, as evidenced by intact characterdefining features, forms, or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original features.

D/4/d Information
Potential
Properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups or ruins of buildings that have the potential to yield important information about construction methods and materials, or patterns of local cultural and ethnic groups may be significant for their potential to provide information important to history. It is unlikely such examples exist.

Integrity Requirements
Properties associated with specific cultural and ethnic groups from this period are somewhat rare.

Integrity considerations should account for the rarity of such resources. The property should retain sufficient integrity of design, location, feeling, and association to convey immigrant life and community networks dating to the period of significance. However, because properties associated with this theme are less common, a degree of change to the property and its environs may be acceptable. Properties significant under this theme may also be significant under another applicable theme.

The following integrity requirements have been identified for properties associated with cultural and ethnic groups from the Early Settlement period:
689 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 214
• Clear representative example of a property type or style associated with a cultural and/or ethnic group from this period
• Has a clear association with an identified cultural and/or ethnic group from this period • Often designed in a dominant architectural style of period • These properties may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and a lower threshold of integrity may be appropriate when assessing eligibility • A property may have some alteration to its design but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group, so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance Modern San Mateo (1980–2026)
Development in San Mateo since 1980 has been largely defined by its proximity to the expansion and growth of region as it relates to Silicon Valley and the technology industry. Development in recent years has been slower compared to the two previous periods of initial development and expansion.

Nonetheless, the City has continued to see development of all property types.

Properties built after 1980 are generally not yet age-eligible for listing. The “fifty-year rule” is the principle that properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not generally considered eligible for listing in NRHP. NRHP and CRHR do not include properties important for their contemporary impact and visibility, as it is rarely possible to evaluate historical impact immediately after an event occurs or a building is constructed. The passage of time is necessary to gain adequate perspective.563 However, such properties will qualify for NRHP and CRHR if the property is of exceptional importance.564 Resources that convey exceptional importance may be reflected in a range of resources which the community has an unusually strong associative attachment. To be listed in the San Mateo HRI, a property must be at least 50 years old.

As such, registration requirements for this period of development have not been developed and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ascertain if they meet the threshold of exceptional importance for listing in NRHP or CRHR.
563 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998): https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB22- Complete.pdf
564 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997a): https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 690 of 976
Guidance for Assessing Significance
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 215
This page is intentionally blank.
691 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 216

REFERENCES
Acena, Albert A. “Chinese Americans in San Mateo County.” La Peninsula Vol. XLIII, No. 2, 2015. _____. “'Invisible Minority’ No More: Filipino Americans in San Mateo County.” La Peninsula, Vol.

XXXVII, No. 1 (Summer 2008), 8, 17.

Ah Sam Floral Co. “A San Mateo Institution.” Accessed October 7, 2025. https://www.ahsam.com/about/our-history/?srsltid=AfmBOopRiH0t5hG3EjBQ93X5- eXai6crhL3LwqBs1gAoQwwgURRwXPZC.

Alexander, Philip, and Charles P. Hamm. History of San Mateo County. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Publishing Company, 1916.

Architecture California. “Around the State: San Mateo.” July/August 1985.

Architect and Engineer. Vol. 111, no. 1. October 1932. https://www.usmodernist.org/AECA/AECA1932-10-1933-03.pdf. _____. 1936. https://www.usmodernist.org/AECA/AECA-1936-10-1937-03.pdf.

Arbunich, Marty. “X-100 History | In the Beginning.” Eichler X-100, online, 2020. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.eichlerx-100.com/history.

Architectural Resources Group. Saint Matthew’s Episcopal Church Historic Resource Evaluation. 2010.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. History of California. San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft & Company, 1885.

Bay Area Census. “San Mateo, Decennial Census Data.” Accessed October 9, 2025. https://census.bayareametro.gov/historical-data/1860-1940/san_mateo.\ _____. “Population: San Mateo.” Accessed October 15, 2025. https://census.bayareametro.gov/population?location=san_mateo. _____.“San Mateo, Decennial Census Data 1980.” Accessed October 9, 2025. https://census.bayareametro.gov/historical-data/1980/san_mateo. _____.“San Mateo, Decennial Census Data 1990.” Accessed October 9, 2025. https://census.bayareametro.gov/historical-data/1990/san_mateo.

Bean, Walton E. California: An Interpretive History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968.

Bohannon Companies. “A Family. A Company. A Continuing Legacy.” Online. 2022. Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.ddbo.com/about-us.

Bolton, Herbert Eugene. Anza’s California Expeditions. Vol. IV. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1930.

Bradley, Denise and Ward Hill. “Yoshiko Yamanhoushi House.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2023.

Brile, Jeff, ed. San Mateo Fire Department 1887–1990. San Mateo Fire Department, 1990. 692 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 217
Brown, Mary. Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement, Final Draft January 12, 2011. San Francisco Planning Department, 134-136. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://sfplanninggis.org/docs/Historical_Context_Statements/Modern%20Architecture%20C ontext%20adopted%20Jan%202011.pdf.

Building and Engineering News. October 27, 1928.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Building_and_Engineering_News/JiaCEr92qo4C.

The Bulletin. “Glazenwood to Have Many New Modern Homes.” August 4, 1923. https://www.newspapers.com/image/996126290/?match=1&terms=Glazenwood%20to%20 Have%20Many%20New%20Modern%20Homes.
_____. “San Mateo City Hall Contracts Awarded.” February 17, 1914. https://www.newspapers.com/image/994878855/?match=1&terms=%22san%20mateo%20c ity%20hall%22.

Byrd, Brian, et al. “San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4.” Sacramento: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2017. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://dot.ca.gov.

California Arts & Architecture. December 1934. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.usmodernist.org/AA/CAA-1934-12.pdf.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation. 2011.

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.

Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1995. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf. _____. Latinos in the Twentieth Century California: National Register of Historic Places Context Statement. California Office of Historic Preservation, 2015. _____. “OHP Preferred Format for Historic Context Statements.” Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/Format-for-Historic-Context-Statements.pdf.

California Revealed. “First Methodist Church, San Mateo, California.” Accessed October 7, 2025. https://californiarevealed.org/do/4e8d03c8-9127-453a-8084-9bc051073373.

Caltrain. “Early Milestones.” Accessed September 10, 2025. https://www.caltrain.com/earlymilestones.

Chang, Michael. “150 Years of Chinese Lives in the Santa Clara Valley.” Cupertino Historical Society, 1997.

The Churchman. Advertisement. “Laurel Hall, San Mateo, Cal.” August 11, 1877.

Cinema Treasures. “Baywood Theater.” Accessed October 10, 2025. https://cinematreasures.org/theaters/9547.

Cintel, Jeff. “Downtown San Mateo Historical Tour.” April 1991. 693 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 218
City of Los Angeles. Department of City Planning. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement:

Architecture and Engineering—L.A. Modernism, 1919–1980. Los Angeles: Office of Historic Resources, 2021. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/4f67bd39-631a-4f26-9a52- cd5809a66655/LA_Modernism_1919-1980.pdf.
_____. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Japanese Americans in Los Angeles, 1869– 1970. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, August 2018.
https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/bf97b9b9-cb81-4661-8d20- 62c02b9c1415/SurveyLA_JapaneseAmericanContextandResources_Aug2018.pdf _____. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—Late 19th and Early 20th Century Residential Architecture, 1885–1910. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, July 2019. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/1481fba6-c496-495c-804ec56fd98b7f48/Late19thandEarly20thCenturyResidentialArchitecture_1885-1910.pdf _____.SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—Postmodernism, 1965–1991. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, 2018.
https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/a03c2624-ea2e-4d4b-b41cdf38d78713d3/Postmodernism_1965-1991_2.pdf _____. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—American Colonial Revival, 1895–1960. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, December 2, 2015. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/d26d7637-d6da-4466-aa74- 992d63a284dc/American%20Colonial%20Revival%2012-2-15_0.pdf _____. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—Arts and Crafts Movement, 1895–1930 Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, June 2016. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/18037253-197d-483a-8b13- c85fcd553fe8/ArtsandCraftsMovement_1895-1930.pdf
_____. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—Mediterranean and Indigenous Revival Architecture, 1893–1948. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, November 2018. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/097f6db5-feee-43f5-a448- fd140763de90/MediterraneanandIndigenousRevivalArchitecture_1893-1948.pdf _____. SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement: Architecture and Engineering—L.A. Modernism, 1919–1980. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, August 2021. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/4f67bd39-631a-4f26-9a52- cd5809a66655/LA_Modernism_1919-1980.pdf
City of San Mateo (City). City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report. San Mateo, CA: City of San Mateo, 1989. Accessed October 9, 2025.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47850/Historic-Building-Survey1989. _____. Amending Chapter 27.66 Regarding Historic Preservation. Ordinance No. 1995-13. San Mateo, CA: City of San Mateo, 1995.
_____. Downtown San Mateo Historic Self-Guided Walking Tour. April 2019. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://dsma.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DT-Historic-Tour-Final.pdf. _____. Establishing the Downtown Historic District. Ordinance No. 124. San Mateo, CA: City of San Mateo, 1993.
694 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 219
_____. North Central Community Based Transportation Plan. 2010. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/7805/Appendices-Appendix-BChapter-1?bidId=. _____. San Mateo General Plan 2040. San Mateo, CA: City of San Mateo, 2024. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://strivesanmateo.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Community-Design_5-31-

24.pdf.
_____. “History of San Mateo Ballot Measures 1921–1930.” Accessed October 9, 2025. https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/92532/History-of-San-MateoBallot-Measures-1921-1930.

Clifford, James O., Sr. “San Mateo County: A Training Ground in World War II.” La Peninsula, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, 14-15.

Coast Directory Co. “Burlingame, Hillsborough, San Mateo City Directory 1947-48”. 1947. Accessed October 9, 2025.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2469/images/32701_1020601537_0731 -00401?usePUB=true&_phsrc=Fcl713&pId=1408135359.

Congregational Church of San Mateo. “A Little Background.” Accessed October 9, 2025. https://ccsmucc.org/welcome/#background.

Community Baptist Church of San Mateo. “Our History.” Accessed October 9, 2025. https://www.cbcsm.org/learn/history/.

Culligan Management Company. “Company Information.” 2026. Culligan Management Company, Inc., online. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.culliganmgmt.com/about/.

CuriOdyssey at Coyote Point. “A History of Coyote Point.” Accessed October 10, 2025. https://curiodyssey.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/History.pdf.

The Daily Journal. “San Mateo Union High School District.” September 6, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-union-high-schooldistrict/article_8157473e-b8bc-4864-8a63-2895d2d658e4.html. _____. “Meet Me in San Mateo on the #40 Line.” April 2, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/meet-me-in-san-mateo-on-the-40- line/article_935cab68-4572-53a6-a0f1-5143ac452322.html.

Dallas, S.F. “The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alto California, 1822–1848.” PhD diss., Indiana University, 1955.

Ellis, Larry W. In Search of Home: A Case Study on the Housing Inequities in San Mateo County, California. PhD diss., Union University & Institute, 221.

Federal Housing Administration. Technical Bulletin No. 5: Planning Neighborhoods for Small Houses.

Washington, DC: Federal Housing Administration, 1936.

Field, Les W., and Alan Leventhal. “What Must It Have Been Like! Critical Considerations of Precontact Ohlone Cosmology as Interpreted through Central California Ethnohistory.” Wicazo Sa Review 18, no. 2 (2003): 95–126.

Find a Grave. “Robert J. ‘Big Bob’ Wisnom.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/87334134/robert_j-wisnom. 695 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 220
First Church of Christ, Scientist. “About Our Church.” Accessed October 7, 2025. http://www.cschurchsanmateo.org/about-our-church/.

Fredericks, Darold. “Evolution of the County Hospital.” San Mateo Daily Journal, April 1, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/evolution-of-the-countyhospital/article_8d14e9f2-28a8-541b-a249-46d2d6021a00.html.

Fredricks, David. “Life of the San Mateo House.” The Daily Journal, March 3, 2014.

Greening, Anne, and Elena Moore. Victorian Era Styles (1870-1910). San Francisco Planning Department, 2022.

Hill, Ward. Historic Architecture Evaluation Report: 30 Ingold Road, Burlingame, CA. March 2020. https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/Appendix%20H_HAER.pdf.

Huneke Stained Glass. “Saint Timothy Catholic Church 1515 Dolan Avenue San Mateo.” 2018-2025.

Accessed October 9, 2025. https://www.hunekestainedglass.com/st-timothy.

G.W. Williams Co. “About Sunnybrae.” Accessed October 14, 2025. https://www.gwwilliams.com/timeline-history/sunnybrae/.

Hope, Andrew. “Evaluating the Significance of San Lorenzo Village, A Mid-20th Century Suburban Community.” CRM Journal (Summer 2005), 50-61. Online. Accessed January 5, 2026). https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/si_postwwii_sa nlorenzovillage.pdf.

House and Garden. Vol. 76, no. 2. August 1939. https://www.usmodernist.org/HG/HG-1939-08.pdf.

Houser, Michael. “Welton D. Becket.” Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Accessed February 20, 2026. https://dahp.wa.gov/historicpreservation/research-and-technical-preservation-guidance/architect-biographies/bio-forwelton-d-becket.

The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County. “Donor Spotlight: Concar Enterprises, Inc.” The HEART of San Mateo County, Vol.3 Issue 2 (Summer 2010), 2. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.heartofsmc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/HEART_Newsletter_Summer2010ForWeb.pdf.

Hynding, Alan. From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Palo Alto: Star Publishing Company, 1982.

Immigration History. “Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://immigrationhistory.org/item/tydings-mcduffie-act/.

Jones, Barbara L. “Mythic Implications of Faunal Assemblages from Three Ohlone Sites.” Master’s thesis, San Francisco State University, 2010.

Kneese, George A. Official Map of San Mateo County 1927. 1927. David Rumsey Map Collection.

Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~330400~90098928:Official -Map-of-San-Mateo-County-Ca.

Knowles, Eva. “Highway 101.” FoundSF: The San Francisco Digital History Archive. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.foundsf.org/Highway_101#:~:text=The%20portion%20of%20the%20freeway,ru ns%20parallel%20to%20U.S.%20101
696 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 221
Kroeber, Alfred L. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1925.

Leong, Nellie W. Ah Sam.” La Peninsula Vol. XLIII, No. 2, 2015.

Leventhal, Alan, and Diane DiGiuseppe. “Analysis of the Stone, Bone and Shell Artifacts from CA-SCL869.” In Final Report on the Burial and Archaeological Data Recovery Program Conducted on a Portion of a Middle Period Ohlone Indian Cemetery, Katwáš Ketneyma Waréeptak (The Four Matriarchs Site) CA-SCL-869, Located at 5912 Cahalan Avenue, Fire Station #12 San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. 2009.

Levy, Joan. “Hillsborough’s Former City Hall a Reminder of the Past.” The Daily Journal, January 15, 2007.
_____. “Chinese Fish Camps Once Lined the Bay.” July 10, 2019. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/chinese-fish-camps-once-lined-thebay/article_467654f4-6677-5264-a474-7dbb6c08265a.html. _____. “We Could Have Been a Contender at the Oscars.” October 2, 2006. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/we-could-have-been-a-contender-at-theoscars/article_88ef319a-1224-5a7d-b60c-c2ab9d2314f4.html. _____. “Noted African-Americans in Early County History.” February 9, 2004. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/noted-african-americans-in-early-countyhistory/article_63ee461e-8ed9-11e9-89b2-0759222fabe1.html.

Levy, Richard. “Costanoan.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R. F.

Heizer, 485–495. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1978.

Longstreth, Richard. The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to Commercial Architecture. Preservation Press, 1987.

Los Angeles Conservancy. “Armet & Davis.” Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.laconservancy.org/learn/architect-biographies/armet-davis/.

Los Angeles Public Library. “San Mateo Theater.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://tessa2.lapl.org/digital/collection/photos/id/111652.

Map of the County of San Mateo California. Surveyed by Davenport Bromfield, 1910. Barry Lawrence Ruderman Map Collection.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

McClaren, Duncan, et al. “Late Pleistocene Archaeological Discovery Models on the Pacific Coast of North America.” PaleoAmerica 6, no. 1 (2019): 43–63.

McGrew, Patrick. “Bank of San Mateo, San Mateo County, California.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997.

Milliken, R.T., et al. “Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 99–124. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2007.

Moore, Elena, et al. Progressive Era & Early Revival Styles (c.1890-c1930). San Francisco Planning Department, January 18, 2023.
697 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 222
Moratto, Michael J. California Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, 1984.

Morch, Al. “Downtown San Mateo: Everything’s Waiting For You.” San Francisco Examiner. May 19, 1995. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/DowntownSan-Mateo-Everything-s-waiting-for-you-3154855.php.

Morrison, M. The Hospital Elisabeth Built. Mills Memorial Hospital, n.d.

Moruzzi, Peter. “Covina Bowl.” National Register Draft Nomination Form. Los Angeles Conservancy, April 2016. https://www.laconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ca_los-angelescounty_covina-bowl.pdf.

Murtagh, Heather. “Baywood Celebrates Historic Status.” The Daily Journal, June 12, 2017. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/baywood-celebrateshistoric-status/article_dbc45706-26c2-57d4-82bb-ca25aaedd29d.html.

National Archives and Records Administration. “Elmer Jay Miller” in U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947. Accessed via Ancestry.com December 23, 2025. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2238/records/18470230.

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997a. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. _____. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997b. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf. _____. National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16BComplete.pdf. _____. National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998. Accessed February 2, 2026.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB22-Complete.pdf _____. “Places of World War II in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/places-of-world-war-ii-in-the-san-francisco-bayarea.htm#:~:text=The%20San%20Francisco%20Bay%20Area's,the%20SS%20Red%20Oak%20 Victory.
_____. “World War II Harbor Defenses.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/world-war-ii-harbor-defenses.htm. _____. “World War II Shipbuilding in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/world-war-ii-shipbuilding-in-the-san-francisco-bayarea.htm.

Nelson, Marie. “Writing Historic Contexts.” Sacramento: California Office of Historic Preservation, n.d.

Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/WritingHistoricContexts.pdf. 698 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 223
“New Aragon Tract Starts Paving Today.” San Mateo Times, June 19, 1929. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/51671120/?match=1&terms=New%20Aragon%20Tract %20Starts%20Paving%20Today.

Norton, Pearl. “Aerial View of Downtown San Mateo, 1962.” San Mateo County Historical Association online database, catalog number 2015.001.02926A.4. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://historysmc.pastperfectonline.com/photo/CFF2FDA1-2E29-4AB9-9C19- 411966263130.

Osborn, Patricia. “Coxhead House, San Mateo County, California.” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2000.

Pacific Coast Architect. Vol. 25, No. 1, 1924. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.usmodernist.org/PCA/PCA-25-26.pdf.

Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Willis Jefferson Polk.” Accessed March 30, 2026. https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/490/.

Page & Turnbull. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1995. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 2024.
_____. Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Final Draft – February 2018. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-ampdevelopment-services/historic-preservation/eichler-guidelines-final-revised-markupreduced.pdf.

Paluszek, Elysha, Mary Ringhoff, Andrew Goodrich, Stacy Farr, Caitlyn Ewers, Morgan Quirk, Sian Winship, Alexandria Perlman. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: African Americans in California, 1850-1974. California Office of Historic Preservation, Draft 2024.

Peninsula Times Tribune. “New $100,000 San Mateo High School Completed Opening Exercises Friday May 5.” April 27, 1911. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/838227866/?match=1&terms=san%20mateo%20high %20school%20.

Phipps, Herb. Bill Kyne of Bay Meadows: The Man Who Brought Horse Racing Back to California. A.S.

Barnes and Co., 1978. Referenced in Mitchell P. Postel, “Armed Forces Presence in San Mateo County During World War II.” La Peninsula, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, 13.

Pierson, Seymor H. “San Mateo Home Site Near Ready.” San Francisco Bulletin, March 26, 1927.

Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/996434983/?match=1&terms=San%20Mateo%20Hom e%20Site%20Near%20Ready.

Poppeliers, John C. and S. Allen Chambers, Jr. What Style Is It: A Guide to American Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.

Postel, Mitchell P. San Mateo: A Centennial History. San Mateo, CA: City of San Mateo, 1994. _____. San Mateo County: A Sesquicentennial History. San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County Historical Association, 2006.
699 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 224
_____. Historic Resource Study for Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Mateo County.

Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2010. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://npshistory.com/publications/goga/hrs-san-mateo.pdf/.

Redwood City Standard. “County Law Makers.” June 5, 1902.

Redwood City Tribune. “Instruments on File.” November 15, 1923. _____. “Parrott Estate Distribution in Part is Sought.” January 27, 1925. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/841853146/?match=1&terms=Parrott%20Estate%20Di stribution%20in%20Part%20is%20Sought.
_____. “San Mateo Bridge Due to Be Ready Before July, 1929; Here are Facts, Figures.” January 4, 1928. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/imageview/841934976/?match=1&terms=san%20mateo%20hayward%20bridge. _____.. “School Bond Bid Rejected.” September 21, 1938. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/841854346/?match=1&terms=School%20Bond%20Bid %20Rejected.
_____.. “William H. Toepke Architect, Dies.” July 29, 1949. https://www.newspapers.com/image/842232330/.
_____. “Wouldn’t You Rather Live In…Fiesta Gardens…in Sunny San Mateo.” August 3, 1955.

Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/redwood-city-tribuneredwood-city-tribun/180890440/.

Rice, Walter, Ph.D., and Emiliano Echeverria. “San Francisco’s 40-line.” The Museum of the City of San Francisco. Accessed September 16, 2025. https://sfmuseum.org/hist10/interurban.html.

Rifkind, Carole. A Field Guide to Contemporary American Architecture. Plume, 2001.

Ringler, Donald P. San Mateo, USA: The Golden Years. San Mateo Bicentennial Committee, 1975.

R.L. Polk & Co. Publishers. Polk’s San Mateo City Directory 1948. 1948. _____. Polk’s San Mateo City Directory 1955. 1955.
_____. Polk’s San Mateo City Directory 1971. 1971.

Sacramento Union. “Herbert Goodpastor Services Monday.” December 7, 1964. https://www.newspapers.com/image/999641920/.

Saint Matthew Catholic Church. “History.” Accessed October 3, 2025. https://www.stmatthewparish.org/about/history. _____. “History: Early Days.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.stmatthewparish.org/page.cfm?p=778. _____. “Later Parish History: Twentieth Century.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.stmatthewparish.org/page.cfm?p=852.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. “A History of BART: The Concept is Born.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.bart.gov/about/history.
700 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 225
San Francisco Call Bulletin. “705-unit Hillsdale Apartments Sold.” October 3, 1953. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1232684436/?match=1&clipping_id=181201068. _____. Advertisement. “Hayward Park.” September 28, 1907. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/65392897/?match=1&terms=%22hayward%20park%2

2. _____. “Laurel Hill College.” May 29, 1891. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/92948661/?match=1&terms=%22gamble%22%20%22l aurel%20hall%22%20%22san%20mateo%22.
_____.“Miscellaneous Items.” July 22, 1895. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/80996139/?match=1&terms=%22water%20transporta tion%22.

San Francisco Chronicle. “Abby Parrott’s Estate Exceeds Five Millions.” October 18, 1917. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1235165103/?match=1&terms=Abby%20Parrott%E2% 80%99s%20Estate%20Exceeds%20Five%20Millions.
_____. “Boys’ Club Lunch Will Hear Hoover.” June 24, 1956, 3P. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1239934904/.
_____. “Casa Baywood to be Ready Mar. 20.” March 2, 1929. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1237302385/?match=1&terms=Casa%20Baywood%20 to%20be%20Ready%20Mar.%2020%2C%E2%80%9D.
_____. “Del Cerrito, Latest Word in Apartments, Opens Today.” May 10, 1930. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1237350449/?match=1&terms=Del%20Cerrito%2C%2 0Latest%20Word%20in%20Apartments%2C%20Opens%20Today.
_____. Obituary. “Leonard Michaels.” March 19, 2008.
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sfgate/name/leonard-michaels-obituary. _____.“Suburban Tract Building Active.” January 28, 1922. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1235198032/?match=1&terms=%22suburban%20tract %20building%20active%22.
_____.“Visitors Will Have Final Opportunity to See Model Home This Week.” May 24, 1930. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/1237358000/?match=1&terms=%22san%20mateo%22 .

The San Francisco Examiner. “Contract Award to Smash Peninsula Chinese Wall.” August 10, 1924. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1235459138/?match=1&terms=State%20Action%20O n%20New%20Road%20Cause%20Of%20Joy.
_____. “Peninsula’s Big Floral Fiesta Opens.” October 12, 1935. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/457996476/?match=1&terms=%22floral%20fiesta%22 %20%22japanese%22.
701 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 226
_____ “Peninsula Hotel Burns Down When Water Fails.” June 26, 1920. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/457919047/?match=1&terms=%22peninsula%20hotel %20burns%20down%22.
_____. “Sales at Baywood Park Have Passed Million Dollar Mark.” September 24, 1927. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/457932529/?match=1&terms=Sales%20at%20Baywoo d%20Park%20Have%20Passed%20Million%20Dollar%20Mark.

San Francisco Planning Department. “Bernardi, Theodore C. (1903-1990) Architect of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies. Adopted October 18, 2023. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://sfplanning.s3.amazonaws.com/default/files/Preservation/biographies/Bios_DEF.pdf. _____. “Campbell & Wong (1946-1986) Firm of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies. Adopted October 18, 2023. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-and-preservationprofessionals-collection-biographies#info. _____. “Emmons, Donn (1910-1997) Architect of Merit,” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies. Adopted October 18, 2023. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-and-preservationprofessionals-collection-biographies#info. _____. “Wong, Worley (1912-1985) Architect of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies. Adopted October 18, 2023. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-and-preservationprofessionals-collection-biographies#info. _____. “Wurster, Bernardi, and Emmons (WBE) (1945-Present) Firm of Merit” in Architecture, Planning, and Preservation Professionals: A Collection of Biographies. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://sfplanning.org/project/architecture-planning-and-preservation-professionalscollection-biographies#info.

Sanborn Map Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Beresford, San Mateo County, California, 1927.

Sanborn Map Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from San Mateo, San Mateo County, California, 1888.
_____. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from San Mateo, San Mateo County, California, 1891. _____. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from San Mateo, San Mateo County, California, 1897. _____. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from San Mateo, San Mateo County, California, 1920, revised 1950.

The San Mateo Arboretum Society. “100 Years of Central Park.” Accessed October 19, 2025. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HJPSrdkZ4NrNX3pE8jNfz_o5AmvEYE2E/view.

San Mateo Buddhist Temple. “History of the San Mateo Buddhist Temple.” Accessed October 2025. https://sanmateobuddhisttemple.org/about-us/history/.

San Mateo County Genealogy. “Bishop Armitage Orphanage.” Accessed October 8, 2025. https://legacy.sfgenealogy.org/sanmateo/history/smorphan.htm. 702 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 227
San Mateo County Historical Association. Photo Record, “Bill Kyne Has Coffee with Soldiers at the Three Cities USO Canteen in San Mateo.” Notes. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://historysmc.pastperfectonline.com/photo/75623C2A-B48C-4A37-B87A069500411816.

San Mateo Times [The Times]. “$9,000,000 Development for 19th Avenue.” January 22, 1954, 4.

Accessed January 5, 2026.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/51856466/?match=1&terms=culligan%20development _____. Advertisement for Aragon Tract. September 9, 1933. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38862312/?match=1&terms=aragon%20tract. _____. Advertisement for Bel Mateo Food Center. May 9, 1956, 1A. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38878107/?match=1&terms=robert%20m%20sherma n%20architect.
_____. “Aragon Enjoys Active Month.” September 14, 1935. https://www.newspapers.com/image/51681539/?match=1&terms=Aragon%20Enjoys%20Act ive%20Month.
_____. “Aragon Tract Will Open to Public Sunday.” August 24, 1929. _____. “Beresford Votes Union to San Mateo by Big Majority.” August 28, 1929. https://www.newspapers.com/image/51674915/?match=1&terms=Beresford%20Votes%20 Union%20to%20San%20Mateo%20by%20Big%20Majority.
_____. “Boys’ Club Lunch Will Hear Hoover.” June 24, 1956. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1239934904/.
_____. “City Hall is Nearly Empty.” August 16, 1940.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/38862185/?match=1&terms=san%20mateo%20fire%2 0department%20headquarters.
_____. Culligan Opens New Development.” May 27, 1953, 2A. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38976313/?match=1&clipping_id=188258496. _____. “E.L. Norberg is Architect for New High School Plan.” March 5, 1926. Accessed December 23, 2025.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/51637841/?match=1&terms=%22norberg%22%20%22 san%20mateo%20high%22.
_____. “Fire Protection Needed.” March 27, 1931. Accessed December 23, 2025. _____. “Highway Builder – L.C. Smith, Bay Area Developer, Dies.” August 3, 1973. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/52109811/.
_____. “Legal Notice.” May 23, 1940. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38860990/?match=1&terms=%22legal%20notice%22. _____.“Polo Club Opens Sunday.” August 8, 1953, 3. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38977671/?match=1&clipping_id=188263594. _____. “San Mateo Village Celebrates.” The Times. October 27, 1948. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38904942/.
703 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 228
_____. “Tree Planting Starts in Sunnybrae Tract.” March 18, 1939. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38660966/?match=1&terms=Tree%20Planting%20Star ts%20in%20Sunnybrae%20Tract.

Schick, Grant W. “The Ohlone and the Oak Woodlands: Cultural Adaptation in the Santa Clara Valley, Research Manuscript No. 4.” Master’s thesis, Santa Clara University, 1994.

Semes, Robert Louis, The Reverend. Of These Stones: An Historical Sketch of the Church of Saint Matthew San Mateo, California 1865–1990. San Mateo, CA: Church of Saint Matthew, 1990.

SFGate. “Robert D. Steiner.” April 23, 1998. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Robert-Steiner-3008718.php.

Silicon Valley Community Foundation. “How Did We End Up With 54 School Districts in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties?” May 2012. https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/resources/54-schooldistricts-san-mateo-and-santa-clara-counties.

Simister, Eve. “The African American Great Migration and San Mateo County.” La Peninsula, Vol. XLIV, No. 1, 4, 12.

Skowronek, Russell K. “Sifting the Evidence: Perceptions of Life at the Ohlone (Costanoan) Missions of Alta California.” Ethnohistory 45, no. 4 (1998): 675–708.

Small, Cathy A., and David L. Dixon. “Tonga: Migration and the Homeland.” The Online Journal of the Migration Policy Institute. February 1, 2004. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/tonga-migration-and-homeland.

So, Samson. “Finding a Family: Congregational Church of San Mateo Celebrates 150 Years.” San Mateo Daily Journal, May 24, 2014. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/finding-a-family-congregational-church-of-sanmateo-celebrates-150-years/article_46267c25-c0dc-5056-b545-ed8549479893.html.

Stanger, Frank M. South from San Francisco: The Life Story of San Mateo County. San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County Historical Association, 1963.
_____. Levy Bros: A Centennial History, 1872-1972. Stanger, 1972.

St. James A.M.E. Zion Church. “Our History.” 2024. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.stjamessanmateo.org/about/#history.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation. “Nagao Sakurai.” Online, 2025. Accessed January 5, 2026. https://www.tclf.org/pioneer/nagao-sakurai.

The Times (San Mateo, California). “$600,000 S.M. Building Set.” May 15, 1962. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times-1962-hillsdalepro/180356218/. _____.“Advertisement for Fiesta Gardens Swimming Pools and Recreation Center.” October 8, 1955.

Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times1955-fiesta-garden/180888993/. _____. “Center Opens at Los Prados.” December 4, 1965. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times-1965-los-prados-sh/180892864/. _____. “Construction on Borel Unit Starts.” September 28, 1966. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times-1965-borel-place-5/181200248/. 704 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 229
_____. “Coyote Point Regional Park Dream Coming True.” August 7, 1973. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/52113917/?match=1&clipping_id=180287725. _____. “Look to Lauriedale for a Completely New Living Idea.” October 29, 1964. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times-1964-lauriedalead/180827468/. _____. “South S.M. Meeting Maps Improvement.” May 17, 1949. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/image/38905645/?match=1&clipping_id=182596869. _____. “Southward the Course of Progress Makes Its Way.” August 16, 1940. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times-1940-san-mateokno/180894262/.

The Times and Daily News Leader (Burlingame and San Mateo, California). “Architect Joins Naval Reserves.” November 7, 1942, 3. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-the-times-and-daily-newsleade/187334670/.

Trade Show Executive. “San Mateo Renovates, Renames Expo Center.” December 15, 2005. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://tradeshowexecutive.com/san-mateo-renovates-renames-expocenter/.

Trust for Public Land. “San Mateo, CA.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.tpl.org/city/sanmateo-california.

United States Census Bureau. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930, California, San Mateo Precinct 24/25.

United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. “Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War II.” Accessed October 1, 2025. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease#:~:text=the%20full%20notice.- ,Lend%2DLease%20and%20Military%20Aid%20to%20the%20Allies%20in%20the,the%20war %20until%20December%201941.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 25 Years of RCRA: Building on Our Past to Protect Our Future. 2002. Accessed October 1, 2025.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/10000MAO.PDF?Dockey=10000MAO.PDF.

University of California, Berkeley. UC Berkeley, Environmental Design Archives. “Ernest Coxhead Collection.” Accessed February 19, 2026.
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf087001g5/.
_____. UC Berkeley, Environmental Design Archives. “San Francisco Blueprint Collection, 1906– 1961.” Accessed February 19, 2026. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c851469f.

University of California, Santa Barbara. San Mateo [aerial photograph], Flight C-674, Frame 1 and Frame 2, October 1, 1929.

Uppergrave, Micheal. “Multifamily Housing That’s Custom-Fit to Site.” Housing Vol 50, No 6. (November 1980), 60.

Veltman, Chloe. “How 3 Hawaiian Teen Princes Brought Surfing to the Mainland.” National Public Radio, August 31, 2025. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.kucb.org/2025-08-31/how3-hawaiian-teen-princes-brought-surfing-to-the-mainland. 705 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 230
Weigel, Samantha. “Uncovering History in San Mateo: St. John’s Cemetery Has Lineage of Caretakers, Formative Family.” The Daily Journal, October 31, 2014.

Weitze, Karen J. California’s Mission Revival. Hennesy & Ingalls, Inc., 1984.

Yates, Dana. “Park to Replace Landfill.” The Daily Journal, November 15, 2000. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/park-to-replacelandfill/article_a63d82e9-4e7a-5616-a606-3a3b577c63ae.html. _____. “Police Station Groundbreaking Set.” July 12, 2017. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/police-station-groundbreakingset/article_03bab3c5-4902-56fc-965c-192b414026a0.html. _____. “Residents Keen on Keeping Open Space.” January 12, 2004. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/residents-keen-on-keeping-openspace/article_6ea5c0bf-d470-55ff-b90f-a43a99eb4cb5.html.

Zompolis, Gregory N. Images of America: San Mateo. Arcadia Publishing, 2004. 706 of 976
References
San Mateo Historic Context Statement 231
This page is intentionally blank.
707 of 976
Historic Context Statement
Appendix A
Records Search Results
708 of 976
Prepared for
City of San Mateo
Community Development Department
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Contact: Zachary Dahl, Director
Prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
March 2026
709 of 976

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2026)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPDATING THE MILLS ACT PROGRAM FOR

ESTABLISHING AND ADMINISTERING HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the General Plan 2040 Community Design and Historic Resources Element and Downtown Specific Plan include policies to preserve and protect historic structures, and to promote historic preservation funding sources to incentivize the protection of historic resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the protection, perpetuation and use of historic structures is of economic, cultural and aesthetic benefit to the City; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 50280 et. seq. (commonly known as the 'Mills Act') provides authority for cities to enter into contracts with the owners of qualified historical property to provide for such property's use, maintenance and restoration so as to retain its characteristics as a property of historical significance.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES that:

1. This action is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 8 exemption (Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines), Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.

2. The City Council authorizes, by at least a majority of its members, the use of the contracts for historic property preservation as specified in California Government Code Sections 502080, et. seq., for individual properties and contributor properties within historic districts designated by City Council resolution and listed in City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

3. A maximum of two (2) historic preservation contracts shall be approved per calendar year.

When more than two applications are submitted, priority shall be given to properties located within an Equity Priority neighborhood, properties with lower appraised valuations and/or property owners with documented financial hardship.

4. All such contracts shall undergo a standard review process by City staff and be subject to review and approval of the City Council.

5. The Director of Community Development is authorized to execute a historic preservation contract, once approved by the City Council, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney, in substantial conformity with the model contract.

6. All properties with historic preservation contracts shall submit an annual report detailing the work completed that year.

7. The Community Development Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, shall produce standard materials such as guides, handouts, application materials and a model contract, and make such materials publicly available.

8. The City shall establish a reasonable fee to pay for the cost of processing and administering such contracts.
710 of 976
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
Final Engagement Summary
Overview
The City of San Mateo initiated the Historic Policy Update Effort, including an updated Historic Preservation Ordinance and new Citywide Historic Context Statement. in response to City Council prioritization and to implement General Plan 2040. To inform this work, the City developed an Outreach and Engagement Strategy focused on multiple entry points for community participation and offering a range of opportunities for residents, organizations, and interested parties to share input and perspectives that inform the update process. Throughout the engagement process, community members shared their views of the future of historic preservation in San Mateo and identified places and themes that hold historical and cultural interest.

The project started in February 2025, with major outreach activities initiated in the summer, and extended through March 2026. Over the course of the project, the project team conducted two City Council Study Sessions, four focus groups, two community workshops, online outreach, and three mobile workshops. The project followed the timeline below, conducting engagement across all phases of the project.

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

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

Participant Identification and Outreach Methods
Participants were reached through a blend of targeted outreach and citywide communications:
• Targeted invitations for workshops and website participation were sent to members of neighborhood associations, local preservation advocates and those cautious about preservation, cultural organizations, and prior participants in planning and preservation efforts.
• Broader community participation was encouraged through general City communications including e-blasts, newsletters, and social media posts. 711 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
2 • Mobile workshop pop-up locations were strategically selected to engage residents from different parts of the city and to reach people who might not typically participate in formal meetings.

Community Engagement Activities
The City held several opportunities for direct community participation:
• Two City Council Study Sessions
• Four virtual focus groups with targeted stakeholder audiences. A fifth focus group was scheduled, but the stakeholders did not attend due to unknown reasons. • Two virtual community workshops open to all residents • Three in-person mobile workshops held at community events and public spaces • A Digital Time Capsule, an online interactive platform to collect stories and historic information from the community
These activities built momentum across engagement phases, beginning with focused discussions among key stakeholders, followed by broader community engagement through workshop events.

Outreach and Communications
To sustain visibility throughout the engagement period, the project team coordinated a range of digital and physical outreach tools, including:
• Three project e-blasts distributed through City email lists • Three e-blasts announcing the release of draft documents for review and promoting the draft review workshop
• Creation of a project webpage on the City’s website
• Draft documents uploaded to the project webpage
• Two City newsletter features highlighting project milestones • Three social media posts through City channels
• A project postcard promoting the Digital Time Capsule – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish • A project fact sheet summarizing background and goals – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish
• A workshop flyer advertising the first community workshop – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish
• A workshop flyer advertising the draft review workshop – provided in English/Chinese/Spanish • Installation of collateral materials and information boards in four static locations throughout the city, including City Hall, the Main Library, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, and the Senior Center
• Distribution of flyers and postcards at the Central Recreation Center and three Movies in the Park events
• Project updates provided by City Staff at four neighborhood meetings: San Mateo Park Homeowners Association, Glazenwood Homeowners Association, Baywood Homeowners Association, and Homeowners Association of North Central San Mateo.

Table 1 provides a summary of the events held thus far and the estimated number of participants. 712 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
3 Table 1: Engagement Activity Metrics
Activity Type Date (s) Time Estimated
Participants
Notes (Target
Audience/Method)
City Council Study
Session #1
June 2, 2025 5:30-7pm 171 City Council; introduced
effort
City Council Study
Session #2
January 26, 2026 7-8pm 302 City Council; review of
drafts
Focus Group #1 July 8, 2025 12-1pm 4 Residents cautious of preservation efforts
(including Less Red Tape
members)
Focus Group #2 July 16, 2025 5-6pm 5 Residents supportive of preservation (including San
Mateo Heritage Alliance
members)
Focus Group #3 December 11, 2025 12-1pm 8 Business owners and members of the
development community
Focus Group #4 February 20, 2026 5-6pm 3 Youth Activities Commission members
Focus Group #5 March 3, 2026 12-1pm 0
3 Underrepresented
Residents
Community Workshop
#1: Preservation and
Regulation 101
July 28, 2025 6-8pm 42 Broad community
Community Workshop
#2: Draft Review Session
January 21, 2026 6:30-8:30pm 46 Broad community
Mobile Workshop #1 September 18, 2025 6-8pm 50 September Nights on B Street
Mobile Workshop #2 September 25, 2025 2-4pm 25 Chavez Supermarket Mobile Workshop #3 October 7, 2025 3-6pm 20 Hacienda Farmers Market Total 250
Note: There were overlapping participants in the focus groups and workshops. 1 Number reflects total speakers; additional individuals attended but did not speak. 2 Number reflects total speakers; additional individuals attended but did not speak. 3 RSVPs did not attend; a questionnaire was distributed in lieu of the focus group. 713 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
3 714 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
4 Comparison to Outreach & Engagement Strategy Goals
The Outreach and Engagement Strategy established participation goals of:
• Reaching at least 20 attendees per workshop
• Collecting 50 Digital Time Capsule contributions
• Engaging 8-10 participants per focus group
• Expanding email sign up list from a baseline of 36 subscribers by 10% The project exceeded its goals for community workshops, reaching approximately 183 residents through two virtual community workshops and three mobile workshop events. Pivoting from a second traditional workshop to a series of mobile workshops proved effective in diversifying the voices heard in this round of engagement.

The project’s email list grew from 36 to 178 subscribers, far surpassing the growth target and demonstrating strong interest in staying informed as the project advances. To date, the Digital Time Capsule has received 11 community posts and 13 reactions, marking early but meaningful online participation. The first two focus groups were intentionally smaller in scale, providing opportunities for key stakeholder groups, including representatives from Less Red Tape and the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, to share their perspectives directly. The third focus group reached its goal of engaging at least 8 members involved in the business and development community. The fourth focus group engaged with 3 members of the Youth Activities Commission, allowing for in-depth and meaningful conversation with youth from San Mateo. The fifth focus group was intended for members of underrepresented communities. The project team initially connected with these individuals through faith leaders and other community leaders, however, due to unknown reasons, no participants were able to attend.

Following the scheduled session, the project team distributed an adapted questionnaire in English and Spanish to the invited participants; however, no responses have been received as of March 2026.

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

Focus Groups
The City hosted two virtual focus groups in July 2025 with residents representing different viewpoints and experiences related to historic preservation in San Mateo. The City hosted a third virtual focus group in December 2025 with members of the business and development community. In February 2026, the City hosted a fourth virtual focus group with representatives from the Youth Activities Commission and scheduled a fifth with members of underrepresented communities. Due to lack of attendance at the fifth focus session, the project team transitioned to a survey format that invited participants could complete on their own time. Each virtual focus group session lasted approximately one hour and was facilitated by the consultant team with support from City staff. Discussions were recorded for note-taking purposes only and analyzed thematically to identify shared concerns, priorities, and ideas. The full analysis for each focus group is attached to this report as Appendix A, with summaries provided below.
715 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
5 Focus Group #1: Residents Cautious of Preservation Efforts Participants, primarily from or interested in the Baywood neighborhood, discussed concerns about the fairness and transparency of historic designation processes and their impact on property rights. They 716 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
5 emphasized the need for owner consent, clear and objective design standards, and predictable procedures for evaluating historic resources.

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:
• Need for flexibility and clear, practical guidance in the ordinance • Preservation of cultural identity while encouraging creative modernization • Establish a clear hierarchy among the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Downtown Specific Plan, and other zoning codes
717 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
6 Focus Group #4: Youth
Youth participants framed historic preservation primarily in terms of maintaining neighborhood and community identity, cultural character, and the “spirit” of San Mateo rather than focusing only on architecture. They emphasized the importance of balancing preservation with housing needs, walkability, and access to everyday amenities. Participants generally supported thoughtful, contextsensitive development, while expressing concerns about displacement and fairness to existing homeowners. They also highlighted the importance of ensuring that new development blends with neighborhood character and that historic resources remain meaningful and accessible to the community.

Key Takeaways:
• Preservation should protect neighborhood identity, cultural character, and community “spirit” to benefit the whole community
• Support for balanced, context-sensitive growth that increases housing and walkability • Importance of fairness to homeowners and avoiding displacement • Interest in ensuring new development blends with existing neighborhood character Overall Observations
Together, the focus groups reflect a spectrum of perspectives, from those seeking flexibility and property rights protection to those prioritizing stronger safeguards for historic resources and inclusiveness to ensure the context statement reflects San Mateo’s diverse communities. All groups underscored the need for clarity, transparency, and education. This reinforces the City’s goal of developing balanced policies that protect community character while maintaining fairness and trust.

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

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

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

Participants highlighted beloved places such as the Japanese Tea Garden, the Benjamin Franklin Hotel, and the Downtown Historic District.
718 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
7 Digital Time Capsule: People, Places, and Events
The next activity invited participants to identify people, places, and events they believe future generations should remember about San Mateo. Submissions highlighted well-known local institutions such as San Mateo’s schools, Talbot’s Toys, and Draeger’s Market, as well as community figures like Claire Mack, Tom Brady, and members of the city’s Japanese community. Participants also highlighted beloved everyday places that hold personal or collective meaning, including the Central Library, Downtown San Mateo Post Office, B Street, and Bay Meadows. The exercise linked historical storytelling with the technical goals of the context statement, which include highlighting patterns of development, centralizing historical information, providing a consistent framework for evaluating a property, and offering a more robust picture of San Mateo’s history -- capturing the city’s lived experience alongside its architectural heritage.

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

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

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

Draft Review Session
The second community workshop, which was held online but did not require participants to be as proficient with Zoom features as the prior workshop, provided participants with an overview of the Draft Historic Context Statement and the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, along with multiple opportunities to ask a historic preservation professional and City staff questions about the documents. 719 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
8 The workshop aimed to educate participants about historic context statements and ordinance structure while demystifying the draft materials. The session included presentations on both draft 720 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
8 documents, three Q&A segments, and five poll questions designed to gauge participant interest, understanding and reactions. Poll results are summarized below, with detailed results available in Appendix B.

Polls
During the workshop, participants responded to five Zoom polls covering historic preservation preferences and demographic information. The first poll asked participants which City District they live in. About half of the participants lived in District 1, while 13 percent came from Districts 2, 3, and 5 respectively. One participant represented District 4, and five respondents indicated they did not live in San Mateo but were interested in the project.

The second poll asked participants what they prefer the local register to be called. 34 percent of participants did not have a preference, followed by 18 percent who favored the term “Listed Resource.” The third poll asked participants about their views on owner consent thresholds. 41 percent of participants indicated that designation of a Historic District should require a supermajority (threequarters) of owner consent, followed by 26 percent who indicated that designation should require a simple majority (50% +1).

The fourth poll presented a scenario about a homeowner in a Historic District who wanted to re-roof their house and asked whether a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required based on the information provided. 41 percent of participants answered correctly.

The final poll asked participants what incentives homeowners would find most appealing for locally designated historic properties. 48 percent of respondents indicated support for local grant programs to fund rehabilitation projects.

Participation and Outcomes
Approximately 46 people attended the workshop, representing several City districts as well as individuals outside San Mateo who expressed interest in the project. Participants were highly engaged throughout the session, using chat and raise-hand features to ask questions and share feedback. The strong participation suggests that the shift towards a Q&A-focused format was effective for this audience.

Key takeaways included:
• Preference for strong owner consent in Historic District designation • Interest in understanding how the proposed ordinance would function in practice • Questions about potential impacts to property owners
Mobile Workshops
Following the first community workshop, the City shifted from a virtual meeting format to a series of in-person mobile workshops, sometimes referred to as “pop-ups,” designed to reach residents in familiar, everyday settings. This pivot reflected lessons from early engagement. While the virtual workshop successfully built understanding among those already interested and was available to 721 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
9 residents who may not feel safe or comfortable attending a gathering in person, broader participation required meeting people where they are.

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

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

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

Figure 1. Mobile Workshop Photos
The core activity invited participants to respond to the same “people, places, and events” prompts introduced during the virtual workshop. Using sticky notes, attendees shared the names of individuals, landmarks, and local stories that they felt best represented San Mateo’s heritage. This approach allowed the team to continue building the community narrative started online and identify recurring themes across engagement formats.

Outcomes and Observations
The mobile workshops generated meaningful one-on-one conversations about the City’s history, identity, and preservation goals. Many participants used the opportunity to learn about the broader Historic Policy Update effort and how it connects to housing, land use, and community character policies under other City efforts.

The mobile workshop format proved effective in:
722 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
10 • Broadening participation and expanding the project interest list to include residents encountered in public spaces rather than through formal events; • Reinforcing education on the City’s preservation framework; and • Gathering qualitative feedback that complemented earlier workshop and digital engagement results.

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

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

As of March 2026, the Digital Time Capsule received 11 posts and 13 reactions, representing a small but insightful sample of community input. The content reflects a wide range of input, from neighborhood landmarks and local businesses to historic photos of families and homes, that will inform the Historic Context Statement.

Figure 2. Screenshot of the Digital Time Capsule
Beyond the Time Capsule, the City maintained a consistent online presence to keep residents informed throughout the process. Project updates were shared through the City’s website, email and print newsletters, and social media channels, helping to build awareness and invite continued participation in upcoming project phases. Together, these tools provided accessible entry points for engagement and helped sustain visibility and transparency between live events. 723 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
11 Figure 3. Excerpt from San Mateo’s October 2025 Community Newsletter Written Public Comments
Over the course of the project, we also received dozens of written comments through the projectspecific email address, which reflect a range of perspectives on historic preservation policy. Common themes included the need for transparency, meaningful public engagement, and clear consent requirements for historic designations, alongside concerns about costs, permitting complexity, and CEQA impacts. Other commenters expressed strong support for maintaining existing historic districts and emphasized balancing preservation with housing needs and flexible implementation tools.

Key Takeaways
Community input from the focus groups, workshop, mobile pop-ups, and digital engagement activities revealed a consistent set of priorities centered on trust, transparency, and inclusivity in the City’s historic preservation efforts. Participants expressed a strong desire for clear, fair, and predictable processes that balance property owner rights with the shared value of protecting San Mateo’s neighborhood character.

Across all activities, residents emphasized the importance of broadening preservation narratives to include the city’s cultural, social, and architectural diversity. Many encouraged the City to recognize not only landmark properties, but also everyday places that hold community meaning, such as gathering spaces like Central Park, local businesses, and institutions that reflect San Mateo’s evolving identity. Participants also identified the need to align preservation with housing goals. A recurring theme across all engagement formats was the need for education and clear communication to improve public understanding of how historic preservation works and have confidence that the process is fair and objective.
724 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
12 These insights have directly informed the Historic Context Statement and Historic Preservation Ordinance update. Detailed summaries and raw data from all engagement activities are included in the appendices.

Attachment List:
• Appendix A: Focus Group Summaries
• Appendix B: Workshop Responses
• Appendix C: Mobile Workshop Responses
• Appendix D: Digital Time Capsule
• Appendix E: Public Comments
725 of 976
Rincon Consultants
San Mateo Historic Policy Update Effort
12 726 of 976
Appendix A
Focus Group Summaries
727 of 976
728 of 976
Appendix B
Workshop Responses
729 of 976
730 of 976
Appendix C
Mobile Workshop Response
731 of 976
Appendix D
Digital Time Capsule
732 of 976
733 of 976
17 Appendix E
Public Comments
734 of 976
City of San Mateo Law Library / City of San Mateo Municipal Code / Title 27 ZONING / Chapter 27.66

HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Chapter 27.66 HISTORIC PRESERVATION

27.66.010 PURPOSE.
(a) Objectives. It is found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of historic structures within the City of San Mateo are of economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefit to the community.

It is further found that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of the City will be enhanced by respecting the heritage of its historic structures and the downtown historic district. The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
(1) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate the City's historic structures and the downtown historic district;
(2) Foster public awareness and appreciation of the City's past; (3) Stabilize and improve the economic value of structures and properties within the City and the downtown historic district;
(4) Develop and maintain appropriate settings for historic structures; (5) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the City; and (6) Establish requirements to insure the preservation and maintenance of the City's historic structures and the downtown historic district.
(Ord. No. 1995-13 § 2; Ord. No. 1993-21 § 1.)

27.66.020 APPLICABILITY.
(a) Historic Buildings and Downtown Historic District. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all individually eligible buildings in the City, all individually eligible and contributor buildings within the 1/4
735 of 976
Downtown Specific Plan area, and all structures located in the Downtown Historic District, as adopted by resolution of the City Council.
(b) The City Council by resolution may add to the provisions of this chapter any building which it finds meets the criteria of contributing to the historic importance of downtown and the City. Such an action shall be based on National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources criteria and documented in a form consistent with the City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey.
(c) Individually Eligible and Contributor Buildings. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "individually eligible building" shall mean those buildings as identified in the City of San Mateo General Plan, buildings which are on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHP), or buildings determined to be individually eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHP through documentation contained in a historic resources report. "Contributor building" shall mean those buildings identified as such and located within the Downtown Historic District as adopted by resolution of the City Council and identified in the City of San Mateo General Plan. (d) For the purposes of this chapter, the terms "individually eligible building" and "contributor building" and "Downtown Historic District" shall mean those buildings and district identified as such by resolution of the City Council, identified in the City of San Mateo Downtown Specific Plan, or as determined to be listed or individually eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHP through documentation contained in a historic resources report.
(Ord. No. 2022-10 §§ 2, 3; Ord. No. 2010-15 § 15; Ord. No. 1995-13 § 3; Ord. No. 1993-21 § 1.)

27.66.030 REVIEW REQUIRED.
(a) Individually Eligible Buildings. No building permit for an exterior facade modification, exterior alteration, or building addition involving an individually eligible building shall be issued until a planning application for Site Plan and Architectural Review has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 27.08 and Section 27.06.010 of the Zoning Code. (b) Contributor Buildings. Unless otherwise required by this code, minor facade modifications, in accordance with Section 27.08.031, which conform to the adopted Downtown Retail Core and Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines, shall be exempt from the requirements for a Site Plan and 2/4
736 of 976
Architectural Review. However, the Zoning Administrator may require submittal and approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application in cases involving facade modifications which may adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or historic or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.
(c) In all cases involving alteration of significant historical building details, building modifications or new buildings which may affect the integrity of the historic district, or construction which may affect individually eligible or contributor buildings, the Zoning Administrator may require an independent analysis by an architectural historian of the project's impact on downtown historic resources. The incorporation of the report's findings and recommendations may be incorporated as conditions of approval.
(Ord. No. 1993-21 § 1.)

27.66.040 CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.
(a) City-wide. All exterior modifications of individually eligible and contributor buildings (e.g., exterior building additions and alterations) shall conform with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures, 1990 Edition. (b) Downtown. In addition to the requirements of (a) above, all exterior modifications of individually eligible and contributor buildings and new buildings in the Downtown Retail Core subarea of the Downtown Specific Plan (e.g., exterior building additions and alterations) shall conform with the Downtown Retail Core and the Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines. (Ord. No. 1995-13 § 4; Ord. No. 1993-21 § 1.)
Cross References
Section 27.66.050(a)
3/4
737 of 976

27.66.050 MAINTENANCE.
(a) Routine Maintenance. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent routine building maintenance and repair which does not involve a change in design, material or appearance and is consistent with the standards and guidelines in Section 27.66.040. (b) The owner, lessee or other person legally in possession of a building shall comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations governing the maintenance of property. It is the intent of this section to preserve from deliberate or inadvertent neglect the exterior features of such buildings, and of the interior portions of such buildings which are necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of the exterior.
(Ord. No. 1995-13 § 5; Ord. No. 1993-21 § 1.)

27.66.060 DEMOLITION.
(a) For the purposes of this section, demolition shall mean the wrecking, destroying or destruction of an individually eligible or contributor building or a major portion of such structure, including exterior architectural features.
(b) Individually eligible buildings. Individually eligible buildings may be demolished in whole or in part only upon a finding by the City Council that applicable health and safety requirements cannot be feasibly met unless the building is demolished.
(c) Any request for demolition of an individually eligible or contributor building shall be processed as a discretionary planning application as described in Chapter 27.08. As part of this planning application, a Historic Building Demolition Permit, a report by a civil or structural engineer or architect licensed by the State of California shall be submitted identifying the general condition of the building, all health and safety code deficiencies, corrective measures needed to alleviate these deficiencies, and the cost of such corrective measures.
(d) Other regulations. All demolitions shall conform with the provisions of Chapter 23.10 Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings and Section 23.06.035 Demolition Permits-Conditions. 4/4
738 of 976
Revised Final Draft
San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance
San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66
This document shows the proposed revisions to the draft Ordinance based on public comments and Planning Commission recommendations following the April 14, 2026 public hearing. These revisions are shown in track changes.

April 27, 2026
739 of 976
2 Sections:

27.66.010 Purpose and Intent

27.66.020 Definitions

22.66.030 San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory

27.66.040 Designation Criteria

27.66.050 Eligibility Requirements

27.66.060 Procedure for Designating Landmarks

27.66.070 Procedure for Designating Historic Districts

27.66.080 Criteria and Procedure for Removing a Landmark or Historic District Designation

27.66.090 Review Required

27.66.100 Certificate of Appropriateness

27.66.1010 Demolition

27.66.12100 Design Guidelines

27.66.12310 Incentives for Preserving Historic Resources

27.66.13420 Duty to Keep in Good Repair

27.66.14530 Enforcement and Penalties

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

27.66.020 Definitions
(a) Alteration, majorMajor. Any significant changes or modifications of to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, including but not limited to changes to or modifications of structural, architectural details or visual characteristics; additions; and placement or removal of any significant objects affecting the significant exterior visual and/or historical qualities of the property. Examples include:
740 of 976
3 (1) Any demolition or rRelocation of a historic Landmark building or structure, or removal of a significantchartacter-defining feature of a historicLandmark buildingHistoric Resource.
(2) Any project that requires a permit that significantly alters or changes the street-facing elevation or side elevation of a historicLandmark buildingHistoric Resource, including major changes to windows and doors and their openings, the application of new exterior cladding or coating that changes the appearance, design, or texture of a property, and the addition of dormers and other architectural features. (3) Any addition of square footage to a Contributor building elevation that faces a street. (4) New construction on a property containing a Landmark or a Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resourcehistoric buildings I nventory that could affect its visual appearance.
(b) Alteration, minorMinor. An alteration that has been determined to have limited potential to affect the defining character- defining features and architectural style of a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. In no case shall a minor Minor alterations Alterations involve actions including new construction or full or partial demolition of a Landmark structure. Examples include:
(1) Any demolition or removal of insignificant exterior features of a Landmarkhistoric building, including additions, windows, doors, and exterior siding material that is nonoriginal or otherwise lacking in historic integrity. (2) Any project that requires a permit that does not substantially change the exterior character-defining features of a Landmark building, including re-roofing in a different material that replicates the existing or original roofing, replacement windows and doors matching the design and materials of the existing or original windows and doors (when it is infeasible to repair) and minor additions on secondary or rear elevations. (3) In Historic Districts listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, demolition and alteration of detached garages and other accessory structures built within the period of significance on a Ccontributor propertyies.
(3)(4) and Nnew construction of detached garages and other accessory structures such structures on any a Landmark property (districts and individual properties). (4)(5) Any alteration determined minor by the Community Development Director. (c) Certificateion of Appropriateness. The administrative approval document issued by the City to approve an alteration to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.
(d) Character-Defining Feature. Character-defining features are visual aspects, physical qualities, and characteristics of a historic resource that help to convey its significance and may include the building’s shape, structural details, materials, and decorative features. (e) Construction. The act of rebuilding or expanding an existing building or structure, or the erection of a new principal or accessory building or structure on a property. (f) Contributing Resource or Contributor. A building, structure, site, or object within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory that retains enough of its original location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey the district's 741 of 976
4 historical or architectural significance. The resource contributes to the designated district's historical significance and dates to its period of significance.
(g) Demolition. The complete destruction or removal of a building, structure, or improvement, removal of more than 50 percent of the perimeter walls, or substantial removal of a structural wall of a street-facing elevation of a structure or building that may have an adverse effect on the significance of a property.
(h) Eligible Historic Resource. Resources found to be eligible for designation as a historic resource at the federal, state, or local level based on substantial evidence in a Historic Resources Evaluation, but not formally designated.
(i) Historic District. An area containing a concentration of historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, or other resources that are unified historically, culturally, or architecturally. A historic district may contain both “contributing” and “non-contributing” resources. (j) Historic Resource. Includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, sign, district, or landscape feature, which is historically, culturally, architecturally and/or archaeologically significant. Historic resources may also include, but are not limited to, resources: listed in the:
(1) Eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (2) Eligible for or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; (3) Eligible for or listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory;. (3)(4) ResourcesIdentified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report. (k) Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE). A historic resources evaluation (HRE) is a report, prepared by a qualified professional, which documents, identifies, and evaluates, based on the appropriate evaluative criteria, potential historic resources, including buildings, structures, objects, and districts, for their eligibility for designation.
(l) Improvement. Any building, structure, landscape feature, or object physically located on real property or that constitutes a physical addition or physical alteration of real property or any part of such alteration.
(m) Integrity. The ability of a property, structure, site, or building to convey its identity through its physical features and how they relate to its historic context and the basis of its significance. A measure of integrity is not the same as an assessment of condition. (n) Landmark. Individual resource listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. (n)(o) Non-contributing Resource. A building, structure, site, or object within a historic district that does not possess significant qualifications or characteristics of a contributing resource due to such factors as age or level of alteration, but which has been included within the geographic boundary of a historic district.
(o)(p) Owner. The person or entity (public or private) appearing on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of San Mateo or person/entity providing proof of ownership. (q) Qualified Professional. An individual who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A) in history, architectural history, or historic architecture.
742 of 976
5 (a) Routine Maintenance. Any work done for the purpose of preventing deterioration, decay, or damage or to maintain a property’s existing condition. Examples include:
(1) Painting;
(2) Ordinary maintenance and repair which does not require a building permit; (3) Landscaping, including sprinkler work, that does not affect a character-defining feature; and
(1)(4) Paving work that does not affect a character-defining feature. (b) San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. A list of individual Landmarks and Historic Districts in San Mateo, designated by the City under the provisions of this chapter. (c) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, codified in 36 CFR, Part 68, serve as the guidance for work on historic resources.

27.66.30 San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory
The San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory is the official list of locally designated historic resources and includes:
(a) Historic Districts and Landmarks locally designated by resolution as of the effective date of this ordinance.
(b) Landmarks designated pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 27.66.060. (c) Historic District designated pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 27.66.070. (d) Historic Districts and Landmarks locally designated by resolution as of the effective date of this ordinance.
(a) All properties designated by resolution as a Landmark. (b) Locally designated Historic Districts.
(c) All properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources that are designated by resolution.

27.66.040 Designation Criteria
Prior to approval for listing in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, the City Council shall find that the historic resource satisfies one or more of the criteria outlined below, and retains its historic integrity. (a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of San Mateo’s or California’s history and cultural heritage; or (b) Is associated with the lives of persons or communities important to San Mateo’s or California’s past; or
(c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. 743 of 976
6 27.66.050 Eligibility Requirements for Listing
(a) Landmarks. To be eligible for consideration as a Landmark, the resource must be at least fifty (50) years old and meet at least one of the criteria outlined in Section 27.66.040. (b) Historic District. To be eligible for consideration as a Historic District, at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the buildings in the proposed historic district (excluding accessory buildings) must be at least fifty (50) years old andor otherwise meet the criteria of Section 27.66.040. In addition, no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the buildings in the proposed district may be non-contributing. Non-contributing 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 Historic Resources Commission shall make determinations identifying non-contributing buildings as part of the review process.

27.66.060 Procedure for Designating Landmarks
(a) Application for Landmarks. The City shall make available an application for listing historic resources in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. (1) Owner Consent. Nominations to add a Landmark to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be made only by application of the property owner or property owners representing a majority or controlling interest on which the resource is located. The property owner may request that a resource be listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory by submitting a completed application to the Planning Division. No application shall be accepted without the written consent of the property owner. (2) Application Review. Landmark applications shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to assess if all application materials are provided and if the application is complete, including sufficient information to support the finding that the resource meets the requirements for designation set forth in Section 27.66.050. (3) Designation Recommendation. Landmark applications, once deemed complete by the Planning Division, shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission at a public meeting. The Historic Resources Commission shall determine whether the resource meets one (1) or more criteria for approval as a historical resource to be listed on the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory and, based on this determination, provide a recommendation to the City Council. The Historic Resources Commission shall adopt a resolution stating its recommendation, focusing on the criteria set forth in Section

27.66.040, and incorporating its reasons for the recommendation. (4) Designation Action. Following the recommendation from the Historic Resources Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the application.

Following the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution to approve or deny the application based on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.040. If the application is approved by City Council, the resource shall be added to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.

27.66.070 Procedure for Designating Historic Districts
(a) Application for Historic District Designation. The City shall make available an application for listing a Historic District in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. The application will include a two-part process.
744 of 976
7 (1) Preliminary Application. Nominations to add Historic Districts to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be made by a property owner or group of property owners in a potential historic district. Nominations to add Historic Districts to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory will first need to complete a preliminary application. This application shall include the following:
(A) Application Form. The preliminary application form and requisite support materials outlined in the application instructions.
(B) Documentation of Notification. Documentation that notification of the pursuit of the application was provided to all potentially affected property owners in the proposed district via mailed notice. Mailed notice shall be provided to every occupant and owner of property as listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership assessment roll within the proposed historic district.
(C) Demonstration of Owner Interest. Demonstration of owner interest shall include written certification that at least twenty percent (20%) of property owners within the potential historic district support the application for designation.
(D) Preliminary Documentation. The preliminary application shall also include a map of the proposed historic district and photographs of properties to be included in the Historic District.
(2) Preliminary Application Review. Preliminary applications shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to assess if all application materials are provided and if the application is complete, including satisfactory demonstration of owner consent. (3) Community Meeting. Once the Preliminary Application has been deemed complete, the applicant shall host a community meeting prior to any public meeting to consider the designation. The purpose and intent of the community meeting is to provide information about the proposed Historic District and designation process. Mailed notice shall be provided to every occupant and owner of property as listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership roll within the proposed Historic District. Such notice shall be provided at least 10 days prior to the community meeting date.
(4) Formal Application. Once a preliminary application has been deemed complete and the community meeting has been held, the applicant may submit a formal application. This application shall include the following:
(A) Application Form. The formal application form and requisite support materials outlined in the application instructions.
(B) Sufficient information to support the finding that the Historic District meets the requirements for designation set forth in Section 27.66.050. (5) Formal Application Review. Formal applications shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to assess if all application materials are provided and if the application is complete, including sufficient information to support the finding that the Historic District meets the designation criteria in Section 27.66.040 and the eligibility requirements for designation in Section 27.66.050.
745 of 976
8 (b) Owner Consent. Evidence of support for the potential designation from at least sixty percent (60%) of property owners in the proposed historic district shall be provided for the Formal Application to be deemed complete. To confirm owner consent, the City shall mail a survey to all property owners in the proposed historic district, to the name and address listed in San Mateo County’s most recent property ownership assessment roll, via certified mail seeking their approval to be included in the proposed historic district. Owner consent will be confirmed when the City has received surveys from at least sixty percent (60%) of property owners who express support for the historic district designation. (c) Designation Recommendation. Once the formal application has been deemed complete by the Planning Division and owner consent confirmed, it shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission at a public meeting. The Historic Resources Commission shall determine whether the historic district meets one (1) or more criteria to be listed on the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory and, based on this determination, shall recommend to the City Council that the application be approved or denied. The Historic Resources Commission shall adopt a resolution stating its recommendation, focusing on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.040, assessing the historical significance of those contributing resources identified in the proposed district, affirming that no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the buildings in the district are non-contributing, and incorporating its reasons in support or denial of the application. Mailed notice shall be provided to property owners and occupants within the Historic District at least 10 days prior to the Historic Resources Commission meeting date.
(d) Designation Action. Following the recommendation from Historic Resources Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the application. Following the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution to approve or deny the application based on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.040. If the application is approved by City Council, the Historic District shall be added to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be provided to property owners and occupants of properties within the Historic District at least 10 days before the meeting date. Mailed notice of the decision shall be provided to property owners and occupants of properties within the Historic District within 30 days following the decision.

27.66.080 Criteria and Procedure for Removing a Landmark or Historic District Designation (a) The City Council may approve removal of a Landmark from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory by one of the following methods:
(1) Application for Removal. Removal of a Landmark designation may be sought by the owner of a property on which a Historic Resource is located. Applications must be accompanied by such documentation as required by the Planning Division and demonstrate that the Landmark does not possess, or no longer possesses, a minimum level of significance necessary for listing as outlined in Section 27.66.040. (2) Removal Following Destruction. The property owner or the City may seek removal of designation to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory where a Landmark has been destroyed.
(b) Delisting Recommendation. Upon completion of an application to remove a Landmark, the request shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission at a public meeting. The Historic Resources Commission shall determine if the Historic Resource meets the conditions to warrant removal and provide a recommendation to City Council that the application be approved or denied.
746 of 976
9 (c) Delisting Action. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Historic Resources Commission to remove a Landmark from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the application. If the City Council approves an application, such approval shall be made by resolution.
(d) Historic District Delisting. The process to remove a Historic District from the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall follow the same process that is required to designate a Historic District as outlined in Section 27.66.070.

27.66.090 Review Required
(a) Eligible Historic Resource. No building permit that includes an exterior facade modification, exterior alteration, or building addition involving an individually eligible historic resource shall be issued until a planning application has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 27.08 of this Title.
(b) Landmark or Contributor. No building permit for a Major or Minor Alteration to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 27.66.100 of this Chapter.
(c) Exemptions. Review pursuant to (a) and (b) of this section shall not be required when preempted by State Law.

27.66.100 Certificate of Appropriateness
(a) Applicability. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required for any alteration to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. In approving a Certificate of Appropriateness, n application, the Historic Resources Commission may impose conditions or restrictions may be imposed as it deems necessary or appropriate to ensure that the integrity of the resource is maintained. (a)(b) Historic Resources Commission Review. No person shall demolish, construct, move or alter anyThe Historic Resources Commission has the authority to review and approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove Certificates of Appropriateness for Major Alterations to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Approval of such work shall be required even if no other permits or entitlements are required by the City. In approving an application, the Historic Resources Commission may impose conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary or appropriate to ensure that the integrity of the resource is maintained.

Determinations made by the Historic Resources Commission are appealable to City Council. (1) Design Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as amended from time to time are incorporated by this reference. Work proposed for a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District shall be in compliance with these standards. Where applicable, locally adopted design standards or guidelines shall apply in addition to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. (b)(c) Zoning Administrator Review. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to review and approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove Certificates of Appropriateness for the following types of projectsMinor Alterations to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, provided that the projects do not result in any significant impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), subject to public notice:.
747 of 976
10 (2) Minor Alterations.
(c) Projects that: (i) do not adversely affect a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, or (ii) are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and for which no public purpose would be served by requiring Historic Resources Commission review.
(d)(c) Exemptions. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for the ordinary maintenance and repair Routine Maintenance of any Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, so long as maintenance and repair does not involve change in exterior design, material, or appearance. A Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for construction, reconstruction, alteration, or demolition that the Building Official certifies is required to protect public health or safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition.
(e)(d) Economic Hardship. At the time of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant may apply for an Economic Hardship Exception. The application shall include proof of economic hardship from the owner of the property, and documents and/or testimony to substantiate a claim of economic hardship as required by the Community Development Director. The approval of an Economic Hardship Exception shall be based on the findings that:
(1) The owner of the property is qualified as low-income or very-low income; and (2) Denial of the Economic Hardship Exception would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of, or economic return on, the designated resource; or (3) Denial of the Economic Hardship Exception would cause the owner to suffer unreasonable damage in comparison to the benefit conferred to the community by the designated resource.
(f)(e) Appeals. The final decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a Certificate of Appropriateness is appealable to the Historic Resources Commission. The decision of the Historic Resources Commission is appealable to the City Council. Appeals shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 27.08 (Rules of Procedures).

27.66.1010 Demolition
(a) Demolition. Any request for demolition of a Landmark or a or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory, or an eligible historic resource shall be processed as a discretionary planning application as described in Chapter 27.08. As part of this planning application, a Historic Building Demolition PermitResource Evaluation and,/or a report by a civil or structural engineer or architect licensed by the State of California shall be submitted identifying the general condition of the building, all health and safety code deficiencies, corrective measures needed to alleviate these deficiencies, and the cost of such corrective measures.
(b) Other regulations. All demolitions shall conform with the provisions of Chapter 23.10 Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings and Section 23.06.035 Demolition Permits-Conditions.

27.66.112000 Design Guidelines
In addition to the Certificate of Appropriateness requirements outlined above, all exterior modifications of individually eligible and contributor buildings in the Downtown Retail Core subarea of the Downtown Area Plan shall conform with the Downtown Retail Core and Downtown District Design Guidelines. 748 of 976
11 27.66.12310 Incentives for Preserving Historic Resources To foster preservation and encourage participation in the City’s historic preservation efforts, the following incentives are available to Landmarks or Contributors within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory:
(a) State Historical Building Code. Any alteration made for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or relocation of such properties shall be made according to the requirements of the state historical building code pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 18950, et seq. (b) Mills Act. The City Council may authorize the use of contracts pursuant to California Government Code Section 50280 et. seq., also known as the Mills Act. Such contracts may be entered into at the sole discretion of the City Council based on the recommendation of the Historic Resources Commission for the specific intent to promote the continued preservation of historic properties. (c) Additional Incentives. The City Council may authorize the use of additional incentives, as appropriate, to encourage the preservation, reuse, and rehabilitation of the City’s historic resources.

27.66. 13420 Duty to Keep in Good Repair
The owner of a resource listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall keep in good repair the exterior portions of all such buildings, structures, or improvements, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration of any exterior improvement or essential exterior architectural or character-defining features. They shall also maintain properties in compliance with San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.14 and the protective treatment standards of the International Property Maintenance Code.

27.66.14530 Enforcement and Penalties
(a) Time to Correct. Prior to assessment or initiation of any penalty for any violation of this chapter, the Zoning Administrator shall provide written notice of noncompliance to property owners.

Notice shall be sent by certified and regular mail. Following mailing of the notice, property owners shall have 30 calendar days to correct the violation or to inform the City that there is a financial hardship, or why an extension is warranted. Additional time to correct the violation may be allowed where the property owner is exercising due diligence in acting to correct noticed violations. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to place reasonable and/or necessary conditions on such an extension to ensure timely correction of the violation. (b) Work Stoppage. In addition to any other fines, penalties or enforcement provisions set forth in this chapter, failure to comply with an approved application shall constitute grounds for immediate stoppage of the work involved in the noncompliance until the matter is resolved. (c) Violation Penalty. In addition to the foregoing remedies, and any other remedies available by law, the City Attorney may enforce the provisions of this article by seeking injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin or to cause the correction or removal of any violation of this chapter. 749 of 976
San Mateo City Council April 28, 2026
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Honorable Mayor Loraine and City Councilmembers:

Thank you for taking on this difficult, but very important topic.

In the late 1980s as part of the impending General Plan update, San Mateo engaged its community and licensed historians (spearheaded by the San Mateo County Historical Association) who identified enough structures in the downtown as possessing sufficient historic integrity that by the early 1990s, a Downtown Historic District was established by resolution.

Fast forward 30 years: The area east of El Camino Real is no longer just considered “old”, it is hip, and has become a real income opportunity for investors and income producing for the City. While many SF Peninsula cities suffer from bland sameness, downtown San Mateo has become a unique and stellar destination for all—full of activity that has embraced the interesting nooks and crannies that go hand in hand with its historic fabric.

It is important to daylight policy of all kinds, including any historic resources policy. However, everyone loses when fear tactics undermine reality.

As it is, pressures abound from the State to override unlisted and unidentified historic resources in favor of streamlining uninspiring mega-housing projects, including those abutting the area in discussion.

It is more important than ever to respect and uphold work accomplished over the past several decades by licensed architectural historians who have studied many, but not all, of San Mateo’s buildings and districts, including those that may not (yet) be listed.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Pfaff
750 of 976
1 Somer Smith
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 1:08 PM
To: Mary Way; Somer Smith
Cc: Zachary Dahl
Subject: FW: Concerns re: Historic Preservation Ordinance – Request for Owner Protections Kindly see the below public comment for inclusion with the packet.

From: Brittney Aitken
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 12:01 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Patrick Aitken
Subject: Concerns re: Historic Preservation Ordinance – Request for Owner Protections Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a San Mateo resident and homeowner writing regarding the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance scheduled for consideration on May 4.

While I understand the goal of preserving neighborhood character, I am concerned that the current proposal places significant restrictions on homeowners without sufficient protections.

In particular, I urge you to:
• Require clear owner consent before any historic district designation • Ensure reasonable flexibility for exterior improvements and expansions • Protect homeowners’ ability to rebuild without undue constraints after a disaster As written, the ordinance risks creating uncertainty, added costs, and limitations that could affect many homeowners who are not in traditionally historic areas.

I respectfully ask that you not adopt the ordinance in its current form and instead revise it to better balance preservation goals with property rights and practical realities for residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Brittney
San Mateo Park Resident
--
Brittney Aitken
751 of 976
1 Somer Smith
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 1:48 PM
To: Mary Way; Somer Smith
Cc: Zachary Dahl
Subject: FW: Historic Ordinance
From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 12:06 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Ordinance
Dear Members of the City Council,
Please include specidfic language in the ordinance that the Council may not designate a residential historic district without 60% owner consent.

Thank you,
Jean Garcia
752 of 976
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 neighborto-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 DiazNash, 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)
753 of 976
From: Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:31 PM
To: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Sung H. Kwon <[email protected]>; Joanna Winter <[email protected]>; Somer Smith <[email protected]> Cc: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>
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 April 20th.

Thank you.

Aida Kedefors
San Mateo
754 of 976
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
755 of 976
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 DiazNash, 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
756 of 976
From: Tom Lease
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 7:32 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historical Ordinance
Subject: Please Fix the Historic Preservation Ordinance – It’s Too Weak Hi Planning Commission,
Thanks for all the work you’re doing on the new Historic Preservation Ordinance. I appreciate you taking the time to review public comments.

I was happy to learn the city was going to implement some of the historic preservation goals in the General Plan, but I have to say, I’m really surprised and disappointed by the current draft. It feels like it leaves most of San Mateo’s known historic buildings completely unprotected. The inventory only covers a handful of downtown spots and two Mills Act properties. What about all the other older homes and buildings — especially in North Central? They just get left out with no protection at all?
On top of that, there are no real procedures for reviewing development projects on properties that aren’t on the list, and no penalties if someone tears down or alters a historic building without following the rules. That seems like a big oversight.

This doesn’t line up with what the 2040 General Plan calls for or with standard preservation practices from the state and national level.

I’m asking you to recommend adding the missing pieces before sending this to the City Council:

A more robust inventory that includes the properties identified in 1989 A much easier and fairer way for neighborhoods to add important properties and districts to the inventory
A clear role and real authority for the Historic Resources Commission Actual review procedures so projects involving older buildings (over 50 years) get evaluated before major changes or demolition
Some basic penalties for noncompliance
San Mateo’s history matters. We need an ordinance that actually protects it, not one that leaves so much vulnerable.

Again, the General Plan is very clear about historic preservation. Not following the General Plan because of pressure from special interests who stand to gain financially from a weaker “update” is very bad policy and sets terrible precedent.

Also with Hillsdale Mall, Draegers, and other iconic architectural and community gems being torn down, we need more than ever to protect and preserve the remaining architecture that defines our city.

Sincerely,
Tom Lease
757 of 976
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
758 of 976
759 of 976
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,
760 of 976
Gregory Zinkl
San Mateo, California 94401
761 of 976
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
762 of 976
From: wayne feinstein
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 5:59 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: ; City 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 5th 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.
763 of 976
Wayne Feinstein
Wayne Feinstein
San Mateo, CA 94402
--
764 of 976
From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 1:51 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: SM Heritage Alliance Comments on the March 2026 Final Draft Update Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Planning Commissioners:

The San Mateo Heritage Alliance submits the attached letter of comment on the March 2026 Final Draft Update San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance. I am also including information on why the historic resources identified in the 1989 San Mateo Historic Building Survey Final Report should be included in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.

The ordinance is substantially deficient. Please consider these and other public comments and consider holding another workshop to educate the public and resolve concerns.

Thank you,
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
www.smheritage.org
Protecting Our Past for a Better Future
765 of 976
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].
766 of 976

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. 767 of 976

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. 768 of 976

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 769 of 976

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.
770 of 976
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
April 9, 2026
San Mateo Planning Commission
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Subject: Critical Flaws in the Final Draft Update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66) Dear Planning Commissioners:

It is important to acknowledge and commend the City for taking meaningful steps to implement General Plan policies—some for the first time in decades. The effort to update the San Mateo Historic Preservation Ordinance is timely, given the large number of major developments proposed in San Mateo. This effort reflects a renewed commitment to long-range planning and stewardship of community resources. However, the current Final Draft falls significantly short of statewide best practices, is inconsistent with the General Plan, and fails to provide an equitable or functional framework for preservation.

As currently written, the ordinance functions as a voluntary "opt-in" program rather than a comprehensive regulatory tool. This creates a systemic imbalance where only property owners with significant resources or specific interests participate, leaving the broader community’s shared history unprotected.

To ensure equity, fairness, and a livable urban environment, the following flaws in the ordinance must be addressed.

1. Lack of a Comprehensive Identification System
• The Flaw: The ordinance limits the "San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory" primarily to downtown and a few properties. It fails to mandate the inclusion of existing data, such as the 1989 Historic Building Survey that identified 200+ historic resources, many of which were designated eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The ordinance requires that the property owner nominate the property for listing.
• The Equity Issue: By ignoring existing surveys, the City neglects neighborhoods that may not have the political or financial capital to self-nominate, leading to an "erasure" of history in less affluent areas. Prohibiting non-owners from nominating properties deprives the community of the public interest identification and protection of important historic resources. • Action: Amend Section 27.66.030 to formally adopt and integrate all previous professional surveys and establish a requirement for citywide identification programs. Remove the requirement that the owner nominate the historic property. 771 of 976
Planning Commission

April 9, 2026
2 2. Absence of Evaluation During Development Review
• The Flaw: The draft removes the section "Procedures for Development." This section was requested by multiple public comments and is recommended in the State Office of Historic Preservation guidance document, “Preparing Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances.” There is no requirement in the ordinance to evaluate a property’s eligibility for the inventory during the permit or demolition application process.
• The Equity Issue: Historic resources are often destroyed before they can be "opted-in." This favors rapid redevelopment over a fair assessment of a community’s historic and cultural value. • Action: Add a new section requiring a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) for any project involving demolition or major alteration of structures over 50 years old to determine eligibility and appropriate mitigation measures before permits are issued.

3. Failure to Protect "Eligible" Resources
• The Flaw: The ordinance defines "Eligible Historic Resources" but does not specify how development proposals affecting “Eligible Historic Resources” would be processed by the city.

Only the few "Landmarks" or "Contributors" already on the Inventory are subject to the evaluation procedures in the ordinance. In addition, there are no historic properties exempt from demolition, including downtown properties. All that is required for demolition is three council members voting to approve demolition and finding that housing is more important than our significant historic buildings.
• The Equity Issue: This creates a "preservation gap" where significant sites—particularly those representing minority or working-class histories not yet formally listed—can be demolished without review.
• Action: Extend the requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness to include "Eligible Historic Resources" identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey, more recent surveys, or through a required HRE process. Require that a Historic Resources Evaluation be prepared for substantial effects to buildings over 50–or even 70–years old and define the review process.

4. Weak Demolition and Alteration Controls
• The Flaw: While "Demolition" is defined, the ordinance lacks a clear public hearing process or "stay of demolition" for resources not yet listed.
• The Equity Issue: Without a mandatory delay or alternatives analysis, the City loses its ability to negotiate for adaptive reuse, which is often more sustainable and community-oriented. • Action: Strengthen Section 27.66.090 to require an alternatives analysis to try and avoid demolition and specific "Findings for Demolition," proving that no feasible preservation alternative exists.
772 of 976
Planning Commission

April 9, 2026
3 5. Excessive Barriers to Historic District Formation
• The Flaw: Section 27.66.070 requires a 20% owner consent threshold via certified mail to even apply for a district. Then, 60% of property owners must write a letter of consent to the historic district. This requirement is inconsistent with National Trust for Historic Preservation recommendations.
• The Equity Issue: This high bar makes it nearly impossible for residents in diverse neighborhoods to organize, effectively giving a minority of property owners veto power over the community's collective history.
• Action: Lower the owner consent threshold to a simple majority (51%) and allow the City Council/HRC to initiate district studies based on planning merit rather than just owner interest.

6. Ambiguous Review Authority/Lack of Definition of Historic Resources Commission • The Flaw: The Zoning Administrator is given broad authority to approve "Minor Alterations," while the Historic Resources Commission's (HRC) role remains poorly defined and largely advisory or procedural. The role, authority, formation, composition, qualifications, term, and conflict statements are not defined for the HRC, which is inconsistent with state guidance. • The Equity Issue: Preservation decisions should be made by a qualified, transparent body (the HRC) rather than behind closed doors by administrative staff. • Action: Add a section to define the roles, formation, composition, qualifications, authority, term, and conflict statements of the HRC. Clarify Section 27.66.090 to ensure the HRC has final approval authority on all Major Alterations and that members must meet professional qualification standards.

7. Weak Enforcement and Penalties
• The Flaw: The Zoning Administrator is given broad authority to extend the time to correct any violations. The only penalties are work stoppage at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney seeking injunctive relief. the Draper Building/Benjamin Franklin Hotel was out of compliance for 2 years and there injunctive relief was not sought by the City Attorney.
• The Equity Issue: Preservation decisions should be made by a qualified, transparent body (the HRC) rather than behind closed doors by administrative staff. • Action: Clarify Section 27.66.090 to ensure the HRC has final approval authority on all Major Alterations and that members must meet professional qualification standards.

8. Conflicts with General Plan Vision 2040
The ordinance is inconsistent with multiple Vision 2040 goals and policies. This section identifies General Plan goals and flaws in the historic ordinance that make it inconsistent with the General Plan.

Implementing the changes and actions listed above will mitigate the inconsistencies with the General Plan.
773 of 976
Planning Commission

April 9, 2026
4 A. Historic Preservation Goals
• The Issue: Vision 2040 calls for:
o Identification and protection of historic resources
o Integration of preservation into planning decisions
o Preservation of neighborhood context and identity
• The Flaws: The ordinance fails to implement these goals by:
o Not using existing survey data
o Not specifying a city-wide survey
o Not requiring evaluation during development review
o Making protection contingent on owner opt-in
B. Sustainability & Climate Goals
• The Issue: The General Plan emphasizes:
o Reducing demolition waste
o Reusing existing buildings
o Lowering carbon impacts of development
• The Flaws: By allowing demolition without review, the ordinance:
o Encourages teardown and replacement
o Undermines adaptive reuse
o Conflicts with the City’s climate action objectives
C. Neighborhoods & Quality of Life
• The Issue: Vision 2040 supports:
o Livable, walkable neighborhoods
o Preservation of neighborhood identity and continuity
• The Flaws: Without tools and procedures to evaluate properties and to manage change, the ordinance enables:
o Incremental loss of established neighborhood patterns o Incompatible infill without context-sensitive review
D. Good Planning Practice
• The Issue: The General Plan envisions:
o Coordinated, data-driven decision-making
o Use of established inventories and planning tools
• The Flaws: This ordinance:
o Disregards existing survey data
o Removes analytical review from project approvals
o Does not specify required review for properties older than 50 years not included in the Inventory
774 of 976
Planning Commission

April 9, 2026
5 o Replaces planning with case-by-case, owner-driven outcomes Appendices
Please explain how the appendices relate to the ordinance. There are no references to the appendices in the ordinance.

Conclusion
As written, this is not a preservation ordinance; it is a pathway to losing San Mateo’s history and character piece-by-piece. For the ordinance to be fair and effective, it must move beyond a voluntary system and become a proactive planning tool that identifies, evaluates, and protects our history before it is lost. Finally, these changes and actions identified above must be made to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan and to preserve our history.

I hereby incorporate by reference the comments in letters to the Planning Commission regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance by Lisa Vande Voorde, Connie Weiss, Ashley Zerpa, Laurie Watanuki, and Dianne Whitaker
Sincerely,
Laurie Hietter
President
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
775 of 976
From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 3:54 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment on 4/14/26 Agenda Item: Draft Update to Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing to provide feedback on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Context Statement which is coming before you on April 14, 2026. While the draft includes several changes that on its face look like positive improvements, it contains a critical gap that significantly undermines its effectiveness. I hope you will consider the following as The City’s Historic Resources Inventory Is Incomplete
As drafted, the City’s historic property inventory appears to include only Downtown, the Coxshead House, and Seven Oaks (original home of A.P. Giannini). However, it excludes approximately 200 historic properties identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey.

It’s important to note that these 200 properties have not lost their historic significance. Yet by omitting them from the inventory, the City is effectively leaving them without protection.

The 1989 survey—conducted with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation— identified roughly 200 historic buildings and contributors to two historic districts, including approximately 37 properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. For decades, this survey has informed CEQA review, project evaluation, and General Plan policy, functioning as the City’s de facto historic inventory. But this update to the city’s historic ordinance completely wipes it out.

New Housing Laws Make This Gap More Serious
Recent state housing laws, including AB 130 and SB 79, streamline approvals for qualifying housing projects by limiting CEQA review. While intended to accelerate housing production, these changes also reduce the City’s ability to identify historic resources during project review.

The implication is straightforward:
• If a property is not already on the City’s inventory, it may not be identified as historic before approvals are granted
• Streamlined approvals leave little opportunity to evaluate unlisted resources • Historically significant buildings may be lost before they are ever formally recognized In this context, omission from the inventory is not neutral—it puts these resources at real and immediate risk.

The 1989 Survey Must Be Included
The 1989 Historic Building Survey remains the City’s most comprehensive and vetted record of historic resources, and it is already embedded in City policy:
776 of 976
• The General Plan 2040 explicitly references the survey and its findings • Policy CD 5.3 includes resources identified in the 1989 survey • The survey has long guided CEQA review and planning decisions Excluding these resources is inconsistent with the General Plan and creates a clear gap between adopted policy and implementation.

A Practical and Necessary Step
Incorporating the 1989 survey into the City’s inventory is both practical and necessary:
• It provides an immediate, citywide baseline of identified historic resources • It avoids delays and costs associated with a full re-survey • It allows for refinement over time through nominations and periodic updates Choosing not to include these resources does not preserve flexibility—it creates vulnerability.

Conclusion
I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the historic resources identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey be formally incorporated into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

Limiting the inventory to a small subset of properties—while excluding the broader body of already-identified historic resources—creates a significant and avoidable gap in protection at exactly the moment when protections are most needed.

A recent example illustrates the stakes: the Japanese-American Community Center (circa 1865) could have been demolished without its historic significance being identified through CEQA review. As CEQA becomes more limited, the City’s ordinance and inventory are the primary tools for identifying and protecting historic resources.

San Mateo has already done the work to identify these buildings. Failing to include them now puts them at unnecessary risk, and is in conflict with the General Plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lisa Vande Voorde, Resident, San Mateo
777 of 976
From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 2:31 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Recommendations for Inclusion of San Mateo-Specific Historic Resources in the Updated Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing as a concerned resident of San Mateo to express my strong support for the City’s ongoing efforts to update its Historic Preservation Ordinance and prepare a Citywide Historic Context Statement, as called for in the General Plan 2040. These updates are timely and vital to preserving the unique character, history, and cultural heritage of our community amid continued growth and development.

While I appreciate that the ordinance will reference standard California Register criteria, I respectfully urge the Commission to ensure it explicitly recognizes and protects San Mateospecific historic resources that reflect our local history, distinctive architecture, landscape design, and community identity. The Historic Resources Inventory is wholly inadequate because it only includes the historic downtown and two National Register of Historic Places-listed properties (although it is not clear what properties are included in the Inventory). The following places are particularly significant examples that deserve inclusion in the updated ordinance, the context statement, and any future designation processes:
• Central Park: This 16-acre downtown park originated as the estate of railroad pioneer Charles B. Polhemus and later sea captain William Kohl. Acquired by the City in 1922, it features historic landscaping by renowned designer John McLaren and contains important historic structures. It remains a beloved civic centerpiece and a key part of San Mateo’s early development story.
• San Mateo Masonic Lodge (c. 1910): Located on Tilton Avenue, this impressive Greek Revival-style building long served as a significant community and fraternal gathering place. It is individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and contributes to the historic fabric of the North Central neighborhood, yet it currently faces redevelopment pressures.
• John Carl Warnecke-designed buildings at College of San Mateo: Internationally acclaimed modernist architect John Carl Warnecke (designer of the JFK Eternal Flame and other landmark projects) created the College Heights campus in the early 1960s. The Library, Fine Arts Center (including the Theatre), and Science Building/Planetarium are outstanding examples of New Formalist and mid-century modern institutional architecture. Together they represent one of the Bay Area’s most complete and underrecognized mid-century modern collegiate environments. • Downtown Post Office (St. Matthew’s Station, 210 S. Ellsworth Street): Built in 1935– 36 in the Mission Revival/Spanish Colonial Revival style, this National Register-listed building is a downtown landmark that exemplifies federal architecture of the New Deal era and remains an active civic asset.
778 of 976
• Casa Baywood (212 S. El Camino Real): This historic apartment complex, with its distinctive Tuscan-style villas, adds unique architectural character to the downtown area and illustrates early 20th-century multi-family residential development in San Mateo. • Baywood Elementary School (1939): Designed by architect William Toepke in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, this beloved neighborhood school features a prominent tower and a vibrant 1940 oil-on-canvas mural titled “Animals and Children” by artist George Goethke that wraps all four walls of the kindergarten room.

You might think that some of these buildings and Central Park are included in the Downtown Historic District, but check the maps identifying it - they are not. And because they aren’t included, they will be at risk of being destroyed as there are no safeguards in place that recognize their importance to the city. This is why identifying what is in the Historic Resources Inventory is imperative.

Also important to call out is this is only a partial list of the special places in San Mateo.

Incorporating these and other locally significant resources as identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Inventory—through tailored evaluation criteria, a robust local context statement, and effective preservation tools—will strengthen the ordinance, guide future development decisions, and help maintain San Mateo’s sense of place.

The city must conduct a true city-wide historic building survey. The designation process must be simplified as it would be time-consuming and expensive to nominate anything. The community must be able to nominate properties or historic districts.

I encourage the city conduct broader community engagement to help the community understand the ordinance and context statement, especially given the extensive additions required. Thank you for your important work and for considering these recommendations.

Sincerely,
Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident
779 of 976
From: Ashley Zerpa
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 10:59 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Stronger Protections in San Mateo’s Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Dear Members of the San Mateo Planning Commission,
As a longtime San Mateo resident who cares deeply about preserving our city’s historic character and neighborhood identity, I urge you to recommend meaningful revisions to the Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance before it advances to the City Council.

The current draft falls short of the robust protections needed to implement the 2040 General Plan and align with state and national historic preservation standards. Key deficiencies include:
• An extremely limited 2026 San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory that covers only downtown historic district buildings and two Mills Act contract properties, leaving the majority of San Mateo’s historic resources, particularly in equity-priority areas like North Central, without protection.
• An onerous and inequitable process for adding properties or districts to the 2026 Historic Resources Inventory. It restricts initiation to property owners only. How will this affect buildings like the Bank of America or the Masonic Lodge? It also imposes high financial burdens, limiting those who might apply. Last but not least, the 60% owner-support threshold for districts is well above the simple-majority standard typical in civic matters. • Lack of a clearly defined role and sufficient authority for the Historic Resources Commission.
• The complete elimination of development review procedures for properties not on the limited inventory. There is no mechanism to identify potentially historic resources, evaluate eligibility, or mitigate impacts from demolition, façade changes, second-story additions, or other major alterations, even though most housing and commercial projects do not trigger CEQA review.

These gaps conflict with best practices from the California Office of Historic Preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation guidelines, and the preservation policies outlined in San Mateo’s 2040 General Plan. A preservation ordinance without effective review procedures for non-designated resources cannot meaningfully protect our shared history.

I respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend revisions to:
• Expand and streamline the process for adding properties and districts using reasonable thresholds (such as 51%) focused on architectural and cultural significance rather than owner consent. • Clearly define and strengthen the Historic Resources Commission’s authority. 780 of 976
• Reinstate robust development review procedures, including Historic Resource Evaluations for major projects affecting properties older than 50 years. • Review the State’s guidance for preparing historic preservation ordinances and include all suggested aspects in the ordinance.
• Review 2040 General Plan Policies CD 5.1, 5.2. 5.3.and 5.7 and make the ordinance consistent with all policies.

San Mateo deserves an ordinance that strengthens, not weakens, historic preservation in line with our General Plan and established state and national standards. I plan to attend the April 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 PM at City Hall and encourage other residents to do the same.

Thank you for your service and for considering these important improvements.

Sincerely,
Ashley Zerpa
North Central San Mateo Resident
___________________________________
Ashley Zerpa
San Mateo Age-Friendly Coalition Volunteer
San Mateo Heritage Alliance Volunteer
San Mateo Public Library Volunteer
781 of 976
From: Oser, Roger <
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 1:35 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dear Planning and City CouncilI am writing as a concerned resident of San Mateo who recently sold our historic 1928 vintage Spanish Mediterranean house on Edinburgh Street in San Mateo.

We purchased a 1950’s vintage home as our “downsizing” process, and remain on Yale Drive as we love San Mateo, the downtown and nearby homes.

We remain steadfastly concerned that our wonderful architectural gems will disappear soon eroding the attractiveness, charm and values of our neighborhood without a well thought out and stringent historic preservation ordinance in place.

While the current draft has some excellent procedures we believe there are areas for significant improvement including:

• Expanding the limited 2026 Historic Resources Inventory which omits many known significant resources such as the Yoshiko Yamanouchi House Historic District, Glazenwood Historic District, circa 1865 Japanese-American Community Center on 782 of 976
783 of 976
to give legal or tax advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own choosing. 784 of 976
785 of 976
The March Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, as currently written, is internally incomplete, does not comply with State guidance, and is inconsistent with the City of San Mateo General Plan policies.

There are no procedures for identifying, evaluating, or mitigating effects to resources not included in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.

Please add procedures for: identifying, evaluating and mitigating effects to previously unidentified resources; require a Historic Resource Evaluation for major effects (such as adding a second story, major changes to the front façade, and/or changes to windows) to properties 50 years or older. Require review by the Historic Resources Commission.

The bar to get properties included in the City’s inventory is very high.

Please allow the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) or the City Council to nominate properties to be included in the inventory.

As proposed, the current ordinance creates a regulatory gap in the development review process. There is no identified process to: identify potentially historic resources during project review; require evaluation of eligibility; and/or mitigate significant impacts. As a result, demolition or alteration of historically significant properties can occur without any review or consideration.

The current proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance relies on an incomplete inventory of historic resources; only including the Downtown resources (located primarily along 3rd Avenue and B Street) and TWO individually listed properties outside that area.

Contrast that with the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey, which identified over 140 individual properties outside of the Central Business District:
30 individually eligible structures/properties
33 potentially eligible structures/properties
66 Locally significant structures/properties
and 12 ineligible properties.

Why was this information NOT considered when developing the current inventory? It is now 37 years since the 1989 Historic Building Survey was issued. If these 128 786 of 976
properties were deemed historic in 1989, and they are still standing, they should certainly be deemed historic now!
Thank You,
Dianne Whitaker, AIA Emerita
San Mateo

787 of 976
788 of 976
From:

Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Ordinance
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The new ordinance is excellent as written. Staff has done an excellent job.

It protects the rights of all neighborhoods by requiring a reasonable threshold of 61% before applying to any state agency.

The City of San Mateo is not a state agency. As a city we do not surrender our rights as private citizens to manage our own properties based on the whims of a tiny group of voices.

Forcing this on any neighborhood is totally unacceptable. How would that be democratic? Anyone can apply for individual historic designation at any time.

This new ordinance FORCES NO ONE AND PROHIBITS NO ONE from their rights! Everyone is protected. It’s perfect!
Anna Kuhre
San Mateo
789 of 976
From: Sharon Prager
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 3:33 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Policy Effort - Ordinance Update and Historic Context Statement Dear Planning Commissioners,
I recently learned about the Historic Policy Effort and Ordinance Update and would appreciate consideration of my comments:

How does a city differentiate itself from others in the region? Should it be just be another uninspiring stopover on the high density highway of dreariness? A city's architecture is a record of its history and heritage. It's what makes a city distinctive. A city doesn't become memorable by demolishing its very soul.

It does it through a history of civic pride - expressed by the families who built their homes and businesses through different decades of architectural styles - a history where families have lived, worked, and led for generations - shaping San Mateo's unique identity.

What world class cities have in common, and why people love them, is that they respect their history and value creativity and culture.

As San Mateo grows and evolves it's important to balance growth with its heritage This wonderful interplay between past and present ensures a vibrant landscape and preserves historical narratives and aesthetics for future generations. It enriches the lives of residents and cultivates a sense of belonging and pride. This does not mean "either-or". A collaborative and strategic approach is necessary where we all work together. Cities are exciting when preservation is combined with contemporary artistic architecture. Such efforts align with community values and needs.

As Planning Commissioners you are acting as stewards of the city. I believe you play a fundamental role in safeguarding San Mateo's heritage while ensuring complementary development.

Sincerely,
Sharon Prager
San Mateo
790 of 976
P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
April 13, 2026
Mr. Prasanna Rasiah
City Attorney, City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: DEMAND FOR RECUSAL – Planning Commission Chair Patel Matter: Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (SMMC Chapter 27.66) Dear Mr. Rasiah:

San Mateo Heritage Alliance formally demands the immediate recusal of Planning Commission Chair Seema Patel from all deliberations, hearings, and votes regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Policy update. Furthermore, we wish to formally express our grave concerns regarding the potential bias of other members of the Commission who have publicly aligned themselves with anti‐ preservation ideologies.

Under California law, public officials must maintain impartiality in matters affecting property rights and community policy. The standard for recusal is the ʺappearance of unfairnessʺ that undermines public confidence in a fair hearing (see Nasha v. City of Los Angeles).

I. Evidence of Prejudgment: Commissioner Seema Patel (Chair) Commissioner Patel’s public record reveals a demonstrated hostility toward historic preservation that precludes an impartial review of Chapter 27.66. Specific instances include:
 Factual Misrepresentations: During the August 29, 2023, General Plan Committee meeting, Commissioner Patel made several demonstrably false claims regarding the financial impact of the Mills Act and the legal requirements of CEQA concerning ʺeligibleʺ resources, seemingly designed to undermine preservation efforts.
 Documented Hostility: In the San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 15, 2023), she explicitly stated that specific historic designation efforts ʺcould killʺ housing density. This indicates she has already concluded that preservation is an obstacle to be removed, rather than a policy to be balanced.  Organizational Conflict: Her deep ties to YIMBY Action—an organization that actively lobbies against the very preservation tools she is now tasked with regulating—creates an unacceptable risk of bias.

II. Concern Regarding Commission Bias
Beyond the demand for Commissioner Patel’s recusal, the Alliance is concerned about the impartiality of Commissioners Busch and Schaumkel. Both individuals have self‐identified as ʺYIMBYʺ advocates.

While personal philosophy is generally permitted, their alignment with a movement that frequently categorizes historic preservation ordinances as ʺtools for exclusionʺ creates a significant due process 791 of 976
Mr. Prasanna Rasiah
April 13, 2026