CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 12 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 26-11114 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: May 04, 2026
SUBJECT:
Historic Policy Update – Ordinance Introduction
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Introduce an Ordinance to amend San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66 (Historic Preservation) of the San Mateo Municipal Code to update the City’s historic preservation regulations to be consistent with General Plan 2040, align with industry best practices and establish processes and guidance for identifying, designating, and treating historic resources and districts at the local level;
2. Introduce an Ordinance to add Chapter 2.23 to the San Mateo Municipal Code to establish the Historic Resources Commission;
3. Adopt a resolution to establish a Citywide Historic Context Statement that will serve as a basis and planning document to aid in identification and assessment of historic resources;
4. Adopt a resolution to update the City’s Mills Act Program for administering historic preservation agreements; and
5. Find that the ordinances and resolutions are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (Common Sense Exemption), Section 15306 (Information Collection) and Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
BACKGROUND:
San Mateo's General Plan 2040 sets the policy framework for how issues such as historic resources and preservation should be addressed. The Community Design and Historic Resources Element address the topic of historic and cultural resources, and includes goals, policies, and actions that outline how the City should approach historic resources and preservation.
Specifically, Goal CD-5 addresses preserving historic and culturally important resources to maintain San Mateo's special identity and continuity with the past and includes seven policies and six actions to support achievement of this goal.
On June 17, 2024, the City Council held a study session to consider options for how to proceed with updating the City's local historic policies and ordinance pursuant to the policies and actions in the General Plan. The study session resulted in the Council directing staff to prioritize updating the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and preparing a Citywide Historic Context Statement. The work would include creation of a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts, establishment of updated review and permitting procedures for historic alterations and demolitions, consistency with Federal and State standards and guidelines, and alignment with the other goals and policies outlined in the General Plan.
In the summer and fall of 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a qualified historic consultant to support the historic policy update work directed by Council. Based on overall professional experience, quality of proposal, responses to interview questions and composition of the consultant team, staff identified Rincon Consultants, Inc. as being the best qualified to support the City's historic policy update effort. On January 21, 2025, the City Council voted to appropriate funding to complete the historic policy update effort and to approve a professional services agreement with Rincon Consultants to support this historic policy work.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
Since that time, City staff and Rincon have worked to draft an updated Historic Preservation Ordinance to replace the City’s existing historic preservation ordinance (San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 27.66), which lacks several important features including: a concise set of definitions, procedures for identification and designation of resources, descriptions of the effects of designation and appeals and enforcement provisions.
On June 2, 2025, the City Council held a study session to receive an update on the policy effort and provide staff with feedback. Direction from Council included that the Historic Preservation Ordinance update should include a concise set of definitions; update existing ordinance language that is too rigid, inconsistent, and/or detailed; and establish a reviewing body. The Council also directed staff to assess if the Community Relation’s Commission (CRC) instead of the Planning Commission was the most appropriate reviewing body to support administration of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Council agreed that the local historic designation criteria should generally align with the California Register of Historical Resources criteria but advised that it could potentially include additional criteria to acknowledge the city’s unique history and be informed by the results of community engagement efforts. Council also confirmed that the Historic Preservation Ordinance should include a mechanism to designate local historic districts, and such designations should require owner consent, but did not set the level of consent that should be required for a district application to move forward. Finally, Council provided direction that the Historic Preservation Ordinance update should include owner consent for local listing in the form of affirmative consent, i.e. the affected property owner‘s clear agreement, for all local listings.
Revisions were made in response to City Council’s direction and community outreach and engagement took place over the next eight months, from July 2025 through January 2026. Following community engagement and publication of initial drafts of the updated ordinance and Historic Context Statement, a second City Council study session was scheduled on January 26, 2026 to review revisions and receive additional feedback. At that study session, Council provided additional guidance on the updated ordinance, stating that the application for the designation of historic districts should be designed as a two-part process that includes a 20 percent owner consent threshold to advance the application, and a 60 percent threshold for owner consent to hold public hearings to designate a historic district. At this meeting City Council also supported establishing a new reviewing body, the Historic Resources Commission, responsible for reviewing and recommending applications for designation, and for making decisions on Certificates of Appropriateness – the approval necessary for alterations to locally designated historic resources.
At the January 26th study session, Council also provided feedback on the draft Historic Context Statement, a policy document that outlines the historic development of the City and is a foundational policy document that provides a valuable framework to guide consistent evaluation of the historic significance of properties and their potential eligibility for local listing. City Council asked that the document be updated to acknowledge the potential additional time and costs associated with historic designation.
On April 14, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided a recommendation on the draft historic policy Ordinance and policies. A summary of this public hearing and the Commission’s recommendations is provided later in this report.
DISCUSSION:
Below is a summary of the work and activities that have been undertaken since the project was initiated in January 2025 to inform the Citywide Historic Context Statement and guide the updated draft Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Community Outreach and Engagement
The Outreach and Engagement Strategy to support the Historic Policy Update Effort focused on multiple entry points for community participation. The strategy was designed to offer a range of opportunities for residents, organizations, and interested parties to share input and perspectives to inform the update process. Project outreach began in February 2025, with more significant activities starting in July 2025, and extended through March 2026. The project team conducted two City Council Study Sessions, four focus groups, two community workshops, online outreach including an engagement tool (digital time capsule), and three mobile pop-ups designed to reach a broad range of community members across the City.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
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 the historic character of San Mateo’s neighborhoods and downtown.
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. Additional information about the outreach activities, community input and key take-aways can be found in the Outreach and Engagement Summary Report (Attachment 5).
Historic Preservation Ordinance
The City’s current Historic Preservation Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 27.66) was first adopted in 1993 and is included as Attachment 6. Despite periodic updates since its adoption, it is missing key elements generally included in an effective historic preservation ordinance. For example, the current historic preservation ordinance does not establish a historic preservation commission, provide procedures for designation of resources, recognize economic effects of designation, describe appeals and enforcement provisions, or include a set of concise definitions. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance is also strongly tied to the 1989 survey effort, which is now over 37 years old. Since that time, the City has changed considerably and the field of historic preservation has evolved significantly since 1989. As a result, the Historic Preservation Ordinance contains requirements that are outdated or inconsistent with current practices and lacks clarity around key processes and review requirements.
To assess emerging and best practices in historic preservation ordinances, the project team reviewed historic preservation ordinances for cities in San Mateo County, as well as adjacent cities in neighboring counties, and cities throughout the state with similar developmental trends and population sizes. Overall, policies from 36 cities or jurisdictions in California in 11 counties were reviewed. The project team also reviewed guidance and training materials from the Office of Historic Preservation, the California Preservation Foundation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The project team analyzed available information, focusing on designation criteria, reviewing bodies, historic districts, owner consent, and effects of designation as they represent the overarching topic areas that inform essential elements of a historic preservation ordinance.
The project team used the results of that analysis, along with feedback from ongoing community engagement efforts, and direction from City Council to draft an updated Historic Preservation Ordinance. The updated Historic Preservation Ordinance (Attachment 1) includes the following features:
Precise definitions;
Establishment of a local register of historic resources (Historic Resources Inventory); Provision of designation criteria;
Clear procedures for designating local landmarks and historic districts, inclusive of strong owner consent provisions; Direction on how to remove items that were locally designated; Outline of the effects of designation, including the Certificate of Appropriateness requirements; Description of available incentives to property owners of designated properties; and Description of the expectation for keeping properties in good repair and the penalties for failure to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
An initial draft of the updated Historic Preservation ordinance was published in early December 2025. Based on community input and Council direction following the publication of the initial draft, the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance was updated as follows:
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
Overall Ordinance language was revised for improved clarity and organization. Terminology for individual resources was revised from “Listed Resource” to “Landmark.” Language related to procedures for review of development proposals (Section 27.66.090) was removed. The historic district application process was updated from a one-step process to a two-step process, with additional details to enhance clarity and public awareness, while reducing the risk of contested designations. The eligibility thresholds for contributing and non-contributing resources within proposed historic districts have been clarified, requiring that at least 75 percent of buildings (excluding accessory structures) meet the criteria for listing, and that no more than 25 percent be classified as non-contributing. This threshold helps avoid overly fragmented or irregular district boundaries created solely to exclude non-contributing properties, resulting in more logical and cohesive district boundary delineation.
A new commission, the Historic Resources Commission, was identified as the decision-making body for Certificates of Appropriateness, the approval necessary to make certain changes to a locally designated historic resource. The roles and responsibilities of the new commission provide a clear hierarchy for review and strengthening oversight and consistency on decision-making related to the treatment of local historic resources. The process for delisting a locally designated property was updated to allow for a property owner, in addition to the City, to initiate the process.
The draft was published for public review at the beginning of April and presented to the Planning Commission on April 14, 2026. Based on community input and Planning Commission recommendations, focused revisions and refinements to the Ordinance have been proposed for Council consideration. A track changes version of the Ordinance that shows the proposed changes made following the April 14 th Planning Commission meeting is included as Attachment 7 and discussed further below.
Historic Resources Commission
As part of January 26, 2026, City Council study session, direction was provided to establish a new reviewing body, the Historic Resources Commission (HRC), for the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance to amend Title 2 of the Municipal Code to add Chapter 2.23 to establish the new HRC is included as Attachment 2. The HRC will have five members with four-year terms, will serve at the pleasure of the City Council and will follow the City’s adopted norms and procedures for Boards and Commissions. Except however, the initial terms of the first members appointed are to be determined by lot at their first meeting so that each year at least one term will expire. Thereafter, all appointments shall be for a term of four years. The Ordinance establishes a priority for appointing applicants who are professionals in the discipline of history, architectural history, planning or a related field, licensed architects or engineers specially qualified by reason of training or experience in building rehabilitation, or those who demonstrate special interest and experience in the City’s history. The responsibilities of the HRC would include making recommendations to the City Council on the designation of local landmarks and historic districts, Mills Act contracts, taking action on Certificates of Appropriateness for Major Alterations for properties on the Historic Resources Inventory and historic related appeals, and performing other functions as assigned by the City Council.
Historic Context Statement
The Citywide Historic Context Statement (Attachment 3) was developed based on research into San Mateo’s history, feedback from community members and guidance from the National Park Service and California Office of Historic Preservation. The Historic Context Statement highlights trends and patterns of development, as well as their relationship to significant eras, moments, communities and people in San Mateo’s history. It is also a policy document that provides a valuable framework to guide consistent evaluation of the historic significance of properties and their potential eligibility for local listing.
The Historic Context Statement does not include individual property evaluations or any in-depth surveys. The Historic Context Statement follows industry’s best practices, and is organized by significant periods, themes, and property types and presented chronologically. Information gathered from community outreach events where community members were asked what places in San Mateo are meaningful to them are reflected in the property types that were identified as well as in the buildings, places, and development trends that were included in the narrative. It also includes information on notable architects, builders, and designers and guidance for assessing significance. The initial draft of the Context Statement was
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
made available to the public for review the week of November 24, 2025, was a key focus of the January 21 st community workshop, and was presented to the City Council at the January 26th study session. All community input and Council direction received since the first draft was published was considered and, as applicable, incorporated into the final draft. Updates and revisions to the Historic Context Statement that have been made since the initial draft was published include the following:
Updated formatting and style to be consistent with City of San Mateo branding. Completed background information on the City’s outreach and engagement efforts. Context information related to San Mateo’s cultural and ethnic groups was updated with more detailed information. Added a chapter on the architectural styles seen in San Mateo and provided key factors on how to identify those styles, including photographic examples.
Added a chapter with biographies of architects, landscape architects, and developers with work examples in San Mateo.
Added a chapter on guidance for assessing significance, which outlines the applicable designation criteria and integrity requirements, describes the property-types and designation criteria by development period, and includes detailed tables on registration requirements that define eligibility thresholds and the conditions required to determine significance. It provides an evaluation framework to support consistent and defensible identification of historic resources.
Mills Act Program Update
As part of this comprehensive historic policy update effort, the City’s Mills Act Program, which was originally adopted by City Council on October 28, 1993, that sets the requirements for local historic preservation agreements, is proposed to be updated to align with General Plan 2040, the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance, and current State statutory requirements (Attachment 4). The City’s current program generally aligns with the requirements of the Mills Act (Government Code Sections 50280–50290) that was in effect in 1993. However, to align with state statutory requirements that have been updated since that time, as well as with the General Plan and updated Ordinance, the following updates and revisions are proposed:
Updated eligibility requirements to require local designation and listing in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. Sets a limit of no more than two agreements to be approved per year, with priority given to properties located within an Equity Priority neighborhood, properties with lower appraised valuations and/or property owners with documented financial hardship, when more than two applications are submitted. Specifies that reports outlining work completed shall be submitted annually and property inspections by the City shall occur every five years during the term of the agreement. The requirement to provide public access has been removed, which is consistent with State law. Improved and standardized the procedures and materials application and administration.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On April 14, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, draft Citywide Historic Context Statement and proposed updates to the City’s Mills Act Program for administering historic preservation agreements. There were nine public speakers who provided verbal comments at the meeting. Speakers expressed concern that the Ordinance was too narrow and did not provide enough protection for historic resources around the City and others expressed support for the Ordinance and the focus on owner consent. Following public comments, the Commission’s discussion and deliberation focused on all aspects of the draft Ordinance, Context Statement and Mills Act program. Key themes included concerns that with recent changes to State environmental laws, eligible historic resources would lose protections. Comments also included a need to expand incentives to encourage property owners to pursue local historic designation, ensuring that the Ordinance was fully consistent with General Plan 2040 and updates to the Mills Act program should prioritize lower income property owners and make sure that participating properties were monitored for accountability.
The Commission voted unanimously (4-0, with one commissioner absent) to recommend that City Council adopt the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance, Citywide Historic Context Statement and updated Mills Act Program, and provided
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
additional recommendations for Council consideration. The recommendations, by topic, are as follows:
Historic Context Statement
1. Review and revise the draft to address minor typographical errors.
2. To improve clarity on the ownership trends of large estate properties over time, include additional maps and exhibits in the document.
3. Consider adding additional biographical information for notable architects/architectural firms that did work in San Mateo.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
1. Reduce the noticing burden for historic district nominations by only requiring notices to be mailed to owners of properties, and not occupants, within the proposed historic district.
2. Further reduce notification burden by revising the proposed SMMC Section 27.66.070(a)(1)(B) to remove the requirement to mail notices of intent to submit a preliminary application for district nomination.
3. Strengthen and clarify the definitions of Major and Minor Alterations to clearly differentiate the type of work that would fall under each definition.
4. Revise Section 27.66.090(b)(2) to clearly specify the respective items subject to review by the Zoning Administrator and the Historic Resource Commission.
5. Revise SMMC 27.66.090 to align with General Plan Policy CD 5.7 by including language requiring applicants to submit alternatives to preserve a historic resource as part of any project that proposes full demolition and requires City Council approval before a historic resource, listed or eligible, can be demolished.
6. Explore additional incentives for listing in the Historic Resources Inventory, assign this task to the Historic Resources Commission, and make the development of incentives for the Ordinance a priority of the Commission.
7. Strengthen the enforcement standards in the proposed SMMC Section 27.66.130 and align the penalties for violation in this section with the City’s penalty fee structure. Explore increasing the standard fees for violations to historic resources listed in the Historic Resources Inventory.
8. Task the Historic Resources Commission with establishing a plaque program for resources listed in the Historic Resources Inventory.
9. Prioritize conducting a new historic building survey for the properties identified in the 1989 Survey.
10. In place of establishing a new review body (Historic Resources Commission) reconsider utilizing the Planning Commission as the reviewing body for the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mills Act Program
1. Develop ranking criteria to prioritize Mills Act contract awards in years when more than two applications are submitted.
2. Requires City Council to review Mills Act contracts after the initial 10-year term and affirmatively approve continuation of contract. Require City Council review every five years thereafter for the life of the contracts.
3. Require staff to provide an annual audit to analyze financial impacts from all Mills Act contracts.
4. Require a form of public access to be provided to Mills Act properties, such as visibility from the public right-of-way, in-person tours, or virtual tours and photos of the property posted online.
Historic Context Statement Revisions
Based on public comments and Planning Commission recommendations, staff has updated the Historic Context Statement (Exhibit A to Attachment 3) to address comments related to corrections and clarifications, including:
Addressed street naming convention irregularities
Addressed an instance of incorrect figure reference
Updated a couple of misspelling/typographical errors
Updated information on Bayshore Freeway to clarify that it was originally 4 lanes before being expanded to 6 lanes Updated route information on the 40-interurban streetcar
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
Further, to ensure that the document can be updated and clarified over time as new information is made available, the approving Resolution allows for staff to make administrative updates and clarifications. All administrative updates will be logged so that these revisions can be tracked over time. More significant amendments to the document, such as adding a period of significance, would require City Council approval. To complete the other Planning Commission recommendations, which include adding more maps and exhibits to support reader understanding of the document and including additional notable architects/architectural firms in the Context Statement, it would require the use of contingency funds (approximately $5,000).
Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Revisions
Based on public comments and Planning Commission recommendations, staff is recommending several Ordinance revisions to improve clarity and intent of the text, better align with General Plan 2040 and maintain existing code language related to review of eligible historic resources that are not covered by environmental review. A track changes version of the ordinance that shows the proposed revisions is included as Attachment 7. The proposed revisions are as follows:
Updated the “Definitions” Section (27.66.020) to revise the definitions of Major and Minor Alterations, revise the definition of Historic Resources to more closely align with General Plan 2040, and add a definition for Routine Maintenance.
Clarified what resources are listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory (SMMC 27.66.030). Added a “Review Required” Section (27.66.090), which clarifies the level of review required for both eligible and designated historic resources.
oThis section is in the City’s current ordinance, and staff recommends retaining it in the updated Ordinance to ensure that the City’s current practice of reviewing significant exterior alterations or additions to an eligible historic resource before a permit is issued is maintained even if it is not required under the California Environmental Quality Act. This recommendation also better aligns the Ordinance with General Plan 2040 and is responsive to Planning Commission recommendations. Updated the “Certificate of Appropriateness” Section (27.66.100) to clarify the requirements for Zoning Administrator review and Historic Resources Commission review. Added a “Demolition” Section (27.66.110) to clarify the intended process processing a demolition request and to align with current City requirements that demolition of an existing structure requires a Planning Application (Special use Permit) before it can be approved. This also better aligns the Ordinance with General Plan 2040 and is responsive to Planning Commission recommendations.
These revisions were drafted by staff to best align with earlier City Council direction, including the principal of affirmative owner consent, while also aligning with General Plan 2040 and being responsive to public input and Planning Commission recommendations.
Mills Act Program Revisions
In response to public comments and some of the Planning Commission recommendations, staff has updated the Mills Act Program resolution, as outlined above, to add prioritization criteria, clarify that annual reports are required, and clarify the requirements. Other requirements and criteria can be added in response to the Planning Commission recommendations or public comments as desired by City Council.
Next Steps
City Council should consider the draft policy documents, along with the Planning Commission recommendations and public comments, and take action to introduce the ordinances and adopt the resolutions, with or without revisions. If adopted, staff and the consultant will proceed with implementation of the updated Ordinance and policies, which includes development of updated handouts and resource documents and updating the City’s website. Once this information has been prepared, the City will host an informational workshop later this year to present the updated rules and resources available to the community.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
BUDGET IMPACT:
This work is being completed as part of the professional services agreement with Rincon Consultants that was approved by City Council on January 21, 2025. The work is funded by the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) and does not have an impact on the City's General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to activities that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed project, which includes an updated Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Resources Commission Ordinance, Citywide Historic Context Statement, and updated Mills Act Program, will update and clarify the City’s policies and processes surrounding historic preservation, but will not materially change or expand their applicability. Therefore, the proposed project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and, pursuant to this exemption, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from CEQA.
Additionally, the Historic Context Statement meets the criteria to be Categorically Exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15306 (Class 6 – Information Collection) because it is an informational document that highlights trends and patterns of development and their relationship to significant elements of San Mateo history, and functions as a policy document to help guide the evaluation of specific historic resources. The Ordinance to establish the Historic Resources Commission and the Resolution to update the City’s Mills Act Program are exempt pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5), as these actions are administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Finally, the Historic Preservation Ordinance and updated Mills Act Program are exempt under Section 15308 (Class 8 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) because the Ordinance and Mills Act program regulate how properties can be modified, thereby protecting historic resources through maintaining the existing built environment.
NOTICE PROVIDED:
All public hearing notification requirements were met. This includes a public hearing notice published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on April 24, 2026. In addition, meeting notifications were sent out to the historic policy update interested parties list, included in the City’s weekly eNews, and pushed out through the City’s social media channels.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Copies of all public comments received through the beginning of March, along with a summary of the issues raised, are included in the Outreach and City of San Mateo Engagement Summary Report (Attachment 5). Since the beginning of March, through April 29, 2026, a total of 28 written comments have been received and are included as Attachment 8. In addition, for the interactive documents on the website, over 50 comments were submitted on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance, and over 25 comments were submitted on the draft Historic Context Statement. Some of the reoccurring themes and comments are as follows:
The 1989 Survey sites should be included in Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Excluding the 1989 survey properties reduces protections for known historic resources. Clarification is needed between CEQA and local review process for structures older than 50 years. The Historic Resources Commission’s role and authority need to be clearly defined. The designation process for listing properties in HRI is too onerous. Support for 60% or higher owner consent for listing historic districts in HRI. The Glazenwood district should be listed in HRI.
Economic penalties for non-compliance should be included in the Ordinance.
Public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the City Council and posted to this item on the City’s Agendas & Minutes Public Meeting Portal as “Post Packet Public Comments.”
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66)
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 3
6 8
Att 2 – Draft Historic Resource Commission Ordinance (Chapter 2.23) Att 3 – Draft Citywide Historic Context Statement Resolution Exhibit A – Draft Citywide Historic Context Statement
Att 4 – Draft Mills Act Program Update Resolution
Att 5 – Outreach and Engagement Summary Report
Att 6 – Current Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66) Att 7 – Proposed Ordinance Revisions (track changes)
Att 8 – Public Comments
Att 9 – Historic Ordinance Memo to City Council – 5.4.26
STAFF CONTACTS
City of San Mateo
Zachary Dahl, Community Development Director
[email protected]
(650) 522-7207
Joanna Winter, Planning Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7211
Somer Smith, Senior Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7214
Rincon Consultants
JulieAnn Murphy, Senior Architectural Historian
Margo Nayyar, Cultural Resources Principal