Att 8 - Public Comments — San Mateo City Council, May 4, 2026

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

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.

F
rom: 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

D
ear 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 c lear owner consent before any historic district designation • Ensure r easonable flexibility for exterior improvements and expansions • Protect homeowners’ ability to r ebuild 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

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

F
rom: 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,
P
lease include specidfic language in the ordinance that the Council may not designate a residential historic district without 60% owner consent.

Thank you,
Jean Garcia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Martin McTaggart <[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: Cit
y 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

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

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

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

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

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

John Savage

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Marc Schellenberg

San Mateo

From: 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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Brenda Litwin

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

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate your service - thank you.

Sincerely,

Gregory Zinkl

San Mateo, California 94401

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

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

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

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

Most sincerely,

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

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

Members of the Commission:

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

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

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

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

*Provide clear definition and authority for the Historic Resources Commission

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

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

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

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

Wayne Feinstein

San Mateo, CA 94402

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.7.26 2

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

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

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

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

3.7.26 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Planning Commission

Page 2 ends

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.

Planning Commission

Page 3 ends

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.

Planning Commission

Page 4 ends

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
Planning Commission

Page 5 ends

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
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:

• 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

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 Mateo- specific 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 under- recognized 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.

• 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

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.

• 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

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 Council-
I 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

to give legal or tax advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own choosing.

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 3
rd 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 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

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

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

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 Cha ir 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 Mr. Prasanna Rasiah
April 13, 2026

Page 2 ends

2 concern. When commissioners are asked to weigh the merits of ordinances they are philosophically predisposed to oppose, the integrity of the ʺfair hearingʺ is called into question.

III. Formal Demand
To preserve the integrity of the City’s legislative process and shield the City from future litigation, we demand the following:

1. Immediate Recusal: That Commissioner Patel be recused from the April 14, 2026, Planning Commission hearing and all subsequent proceedings on this matter.

2. Written Assurance: Written confirmation of this recusal by 4:00 PM on April 14, 2026.

3. Ne
utral Record: That the administrative record reflect these concerns to ensure the resulting ordinance is not tainted by the appearance of bias.

The San Mateo Heritage Alliance supports a balanced approach to housing and history. However, a fair balance cannot be achieved when the leadership of the adjudicating body has already publicly declared opposition to the subject matter.

Sincerely,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: San Mateo City Council; City Manager

From: Tracy Volponi
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 8:53 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Subject: OPPOSE - Historic Districts

I am OPPOSED to residential historic “Districts” in general. Labeling a “House” historic within a district makes sense if there is some worthwhile signiﬁcance to it. (I.e. Steve Jobs house in Los Altos.) It is quite a stretch to assume 400 houses in any neighborhood would meet that “historic” criteria.

If an entire residential neighborhood is to be assessed for historical designation, it should require uniform signiﬁcance and the CONSENT of at least 61% of the homeowners.

From: weller323
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 10:00 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Historic Preservation Ordinance

Dear Planning Commission and City Council members,
I am dismayed that the proposed amendments/revisions to San Mateo's Preservation Ordinance do not advance its stated goals of preserving and encouraging our city's heritage and sense of community. Here are just a few of my concerns:

>The 2026 Historic Resources Inventory no longer includes most of properties identified in 1989. The 2026 list is very limited and doesn't even include many known resources such as the Yamanouchi House, the Glazenwood Historic District, etc.

>It will be much more onerous to list an individual property or historic district. Lengthy application process involving many steps, many city hoops to be jumped, more time and expense for both the city and the applicants. Rather than encouraging historic preservation, the new ordinances will discourage it. Instead of "less red tape" there will be more!

>There is no clear definition of and authority for the Historic Resource Commission which will be apparently be important for future historic preservation decisions. Exactly what purpose will it serve? Who will serve on the commission? What decisions will it have the authority to rule on?

I hope any future Historic Preservation ordinance will address these issues.

Sincerely,
Nancy Weller

From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:43 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Seema Patel <[email protected]>; Adam Klafter <[email protected]>; Margaret Williams <[email protected]>; Caiti Busch <[email protected]>; Maxwell Schaumkel <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: SM Heritage Alliance Presentation

Dear Planning Commissioners:

The City Clerk said we are too late to be able to have our presentation projected so I am providing it to you here.

Please refer to it during the oral presentation.

Thank you,

--
Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance

Protecting Our Past for a Better Future

From: Michal Lim
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 8:39 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko- Godycki <[email protected]>; Rob Newsom <[email protected]> Subject: Save San Mateo's Historical Buildings

Dear Commission,

Do not throw out the "oldster" with the bath water. Sometimes your commission is so "young thinking" that you miss the value of heritage and history. There are buildings and other features around San Mateo that need to be conserved and designated as part of our history but the process for doing so seems to be too onerous for this to happen. How about following state and national guidelines? The Masonic Lodge and Seven Oaks are just a couple of examples. There are undoubtedly more.

Being progressive is fine but this tendency needs to be tempered with honoring our past so that we know who we are and from where we have come. It's time to reform and rethink the designation process before we lose our "ancestor" monuments.

Very sincerely and worriedly yours,

Michal Lim

From: Shirley Melnicoe
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:37 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Strengthening San Mateo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66)

Subject: Strengthening San Mateo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 27.66)

Dear Planning Commission Members,
I strongly believe the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance should be strengthened to more effectively preserve San Mateo’s architectural, cultural, and community heritage. It should also be fully consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan.

Why Strengthening the Ordinance Matters
Historic preservation advances multiple City priorities identified in planning documents and public discussions:
• Sustainability: Reusing existing buildings reduces demolition waste and embodied carbon.
• Neighborhood Character: Preservation helps maintain the distinct identity of San Mateo’s historic districts and older neighborhoods.
• Economic Vitality: Historic areas attract visitors, support small businesses, and stabilize property values.
• Cultural Continuity: Protecting sites tied to community history ensures that San Mateo’s diverse stories remain visible and accessible.

Key Opportunities for Improvement

1. Expand the Scope Beyond Downtown
The current ordinance focuses heavily on the Downtown Historic District. Many significant resources—mid-century neighborhoods, cultural landmarks, and community gathering places— fall outside this area. A citywide framework would ensure equitable and consistent protection.

Additionally, the more than 200 historic resources identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey should be incorporated into the Historic Resources Inventory so the City can make informed, consistent decisions.

2. Do Not Limit Historic Designation to Property Owner Initiation

Restricting historic designation to property owners alone would significantly weaken the City’s ability to protect important resources. Properties may be owned by corporations, investment groups, or individuals who do not live in San Mateo and may have little interest in local history or community character.

The City should retain the authority to initiate designation when warranted. This is a standard practice in many California cities and ensures that preservation decisions reflect community values—not just ownership status.

3. Provide Meaningful Incentives for Preservation
Preservation succeeds when incentives support responsible stewardship. The City can strengthen its program by offering:
• Mills Act contracts for property tax reductions
• Permit fee reductions for rehabilitation
• Small grants for façade improvements or seismic upgrades • Technical assistance for homeowners and small property owners These tools are widely used across California and have proven effective in encouraging preservation.

Conclusion
San Mateo’s history is one of its greatest assets. Strengthening Chapter 27.66 will help the City protect its architectural and cultural heritage, support sustainability goals, and ensure that future generations can experience the places that define San Mateo’s identity. The current update process is an important opportunity to adopt a modern, equitable, and effective preservation framework.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Shirley Melnicoe
San Mateo Resident

From: Francie Souza
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Policy Ordinance update

Dear Planning Commissioners,

As residents of Central San Mateo who appreciate the history behind our city and beautiful varied architecture that it brings to our environment, we ask that you consider the work that has been done in the past, specifically the 1989 survey of San Mateo's historic resources. These are verified sites of historic significance and we should not be ignoring this previous work, and lose our history "by accident". Please include this survey data in the official inventory.

People move to San Mateo in part because of the way it looks and feels, and often this includes the varied architecture of historic homes, old trees and greenery that has survived the years and should be given the respect and protection it deserves.

Please do your part as Planning Commissioners and vote to protect our heritage while ensuring future development is within standards to complement our environment.

Thank you,
Frances & Tom Souza

From: Francie Souza
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Historic Policy Ordinance update

Dear Planning Commissioners,

Please do your part as Planning Commissioners and vote to protect our heritage while ensuring future development is within standards to complement our environment.

Thank you,
Frances & Tom Souza

From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 2:07 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Chapter 27.66 — Historic Preservation Ordinance — Glazenwood Residential District

Re: Chapter 27.66 — Historic Preservation Ordinance — Glazenwood Residential District
I am a San Mateo resident writing to offer comment on the draft of Chapter

27.66 and to request that it be strengthened before adoption.

My concern is documented: the ordinance does not yet provide a framework to address a neighborhood the City has formally identified as historically significant on two occasions over more than 35 years.

The City's Own Record
• 1989: The City commissioned a Historic Building Survey, identifying the Glazenwood Residential District by name and recommending it for nomination as a National Register Historic District. These findings remain part of the public record.

• 2026: The City’s Draft Historic Context Statement—prepared pursuant to General Plan 2040 Action CD 5.9—reaffirmed that earlier work, again identifying Glazenwood as a neighborhood previously found to meet criteria for National Register consideration.

Neither document has been superseded or formally set aside.

The Procedural Gap
Despite this record, Glazenwood does not appear in the City’s current Historic Resources Inventory.

Ignoring this 35-year paper trail is like trying to solve a problem with an open book in front of you, but choosing to look away from the page.

As drafted, Chapter 27.66 does not establish a requirement to consider historic eligibility identified in prior City-commissioned surveys before a demolition permit is issued.

Without closing this gap, the City is about to trip over its own shoelaces.

To pass an ordinance that suppresses this data creates a roadmap for "categorical exemptions" that are legally indefensible and invites unnecessary litigation. Your current draft is like pouring concrete over historic resources—burying them instead of preserving them as mandated by our General Plan.

What I Am Asking
Before this draft is finalized, I respectfully ask the Commission to:

1. Update the Inventory to reflect properties and districts identified in prior City-commissioned surveys, including Glazenwood.

2. Provide a Review Mechanism to consider potential historic eligibility identified in such surveys prior to the issuance of demolition permits.

3. Initiate Further Study of the Glazenwood District, consistent with General Plan 2040 Action CD 5.9.

Aligning the ordinance with the City's own consistent record ensures that identified resources are appropriately considered as part of the City’s review processes.

Respectfully,
Doug D'Anna
San Mateo, California

1 Alby Calles
From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:30 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk; Lisa Vande Voorde
Subject: SMHA Comments on
Attachments: SMHA Comments on Ord4.30.26.pdf

Dear City Council:

Please see the attached letter with the San Mateo Heritage Alliance comments on the revised draft ordinance.

I hope you will direct staff to make the recommended improvements.

Laurie Hietter
San Mateo Heritage Alliance
www.smheritage.org
Protecting Our Past for a Better Future
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Off ce p evented automat c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
April 30, 2026
City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20
th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94402
SUBJECT: Comments on the April 27, 2026 Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66)
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

Thank you for directing the preparation of the Historic Context Statement and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. From a historic preservation perspective, the draft ordinance is significantly weaker than the prior ordinance (1993/1995 versions), which applied review processes to all individually listed or eligible properties citywide. It narrows strong regulatory tools (Certificate of Appropriateness / COA, full enforcement, demolition review) almost exclusively to the narrowly defined San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Eligible resources receive only a minimal “Review Required” planning application trigger (§27.66.090(a)).

From a legal/compliance perspective, the draft is generally within the City’s enabling authority (Gov.

Code §§ 65850, 25373, 37361) and incorporates key elements like the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (§27.66.100). However, it deviates from California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) best practices and model ordinances in several material ways, particularly around scope of applicability, owner consent, and use of existing surveys. Recent state housing laws (AB 130, SB 79) already limit CEQA review of “eligible” (but not listed) resources; this ordinance does not compensate by strengthening local protections—instead, it further reduces them.

Adoption of this ordinance is itself a “project” under CEQA. The reduction in protections for the ~200 resources identified in the 1989 survey (and other eligible properties) likely constitutes a significant environmental effect on cultural resources, requiring proper CEQA analysis.

Recommendations for Council
We request the Council direct staff to:

1. Formally adopt the resources identified as listed, eligible, and potentially eligible in the 1989 survey (or an updated version) into the HRI via resolution,

2. Apply COA/review to all eligible resources identified via HRE (not just those included in the HRI),

3. Relax consent requirements for basic review while retaining them for voluntary designation incentives,

4. Allow the City Council to designate landmark properties,

5. Complete proper CEQA review of the ordinance update if the owner consent and limited applicability of the COI remain, and

6. Ensure the final ordinance aligns with the General Plan policies and actions.

2 7. Please ask staff: What part of this ordinance is active preservation? Key Issues

1. Key Deviations from State and National Guidance
OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 (Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances) and model ordinances emphasize broad, proactive protection of identified resources. Here are the major deviations:
 Narrow Scope of the HRI and Applicability (§27.66.030 and §27.66.090)  HRI is limited to:
(a) newly designated landmarks/districts via the new voluntary process, (b) existing locally designated items by resolution as of the effective date.  Deviation: OHP guidance and most California ordinances (e.g., San Francisco Article 10, Seaside, many CLG cities) apply full review/COA requirements to eligible resources identified in surveys or during permit/CEQA review, not just formally designated HRI items. The 1989 survey is referenced only with permissive “may also include” language in the historic resource definition (§27.66.020(j)(4)) and is not automatically part of the HRI. This contradicts OHP recommendations to formally adopt surveys as the baseline inventory.
 Previous San Mateo ordinance updates applied broader review to “all individually listed properties… throughout the ci ty” and eligible resources.  Strict Owner Consent Requirements (§27.66.060 & §27.66.070)  Landmarks: Requires owner consent (majority/controlling interest).  Districts: Two-step process with 20% preliminary owner support + 60% formal consent via certified mail survey, and 75% contributors.
 Deviation: OHP Bulletin #14 explicitly states that “the vast majority of preservation ordinances nationwide wisely avoid any type of owner consent provisions” for basic protections or eligibility review (consent is sometimes used only for designation itself, and even then it is often not required for all resources). Many California cities designate based on surveys/commission initiative without owner veto. The high thresholds here make new designations extremely difficult and effectively voluntary. (Note: California Register allows owner objection to listing but still designates as “eligible.”)  The 75% contributor threshold is arbitrary and not based on guidance, regulations, or best practices.
 Limited Review and Enforcement for Eligible (Non-HRI) Resources (§27.66.090(a), §27.66.110)

3  Eligible resources get only a planning application trigger for exterior modifications—no mandatory COA, no automatic design review by the Historic Resources Commission for major alterations.
 Deviation: OHP and CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5) treat eligible resources the same as designated ones for protection purposes. Model ordinances and CLG requirements expect local ordinances to provide a clear regulatory process (including design review) for any identified eligible resource, especially those in longstanding surveys like the 1989 document.
 Incentives and Penalties (§27.66.130 & §27.66.150)
 Incentives are discretionary and limited (State Historic Building Code, optional Mills Act).

Penalties rely on notice + 30-day cure + general code enforcement.  Deviation: Best practices encourage stronger incentives (e.g., fee waivers, density bonuses, tax relief) and meaningful penalties to encourage compliance. The draft carries forward weak existing language without enhancement.
 Integration with CEQA and Recent Housing Laws
 The draft attempts to maintain status quo via §27.66.090 for eligible resources, but in light of AB 130/SB 79 (which eliminate CEQA study requirements for many “eligible” but unlisted resources), this is insufficient. OHP guidance urges localities to strengthen ordinances to fill gaps created by state housing streamlining.

The ordinance does correctly incorporate the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for COA review (good) and uses standard designation criteria (§27.66.040), but these benefits are available to almost no properties under the current HRI structure.

2. The Consent Requirement and Reduced Applicability Substantially Reduces Historic Preservation and Constitutes a Significant Effect
 Reduction in Protection: The prior ordinance provided citywide review for individually eligible/listed properties. The new draft confines robust COA, demolition review, and enforcement primarily to the existing tiny HRI (downtown district + Glazenwood + a handful of others). The ~200 resources in the 1989 survey (plus others identified via HREs) lose automatic strong protections. Contributors in potential districts and individually eligible properties outside the HRI receive far weaker oversight. This is a clear net loss of preservation regulatory authority.
 Consent as a Barrier: By making strong protections dependent on owner-driven designation with high consent thresholds, the ordinance effectively gives property owners veto power over preservation of their own resources. This is the opposite of proactive preservation policy recommended by OHP.

4  CEQA Significant Effect:

Under CEQA (PRC §21084.1; Guidelines §15064.5), historical resources include those eligible for the California Register or local registers. A local ordinance that materially reduces regulatory protections for a large number of such resources creates a substantial adverse change in their significance and integrity. Adoption of the ordinance itself is a CEQA project; the changes would likely require an EIR or mitigated negative declaration with findings of overriding considerations if impacts cannot be avoided. Courts have scrutinized similar rollbacks (e.g., delisting or weakening review processes) as having significant cultural impacts.  The ordinance and the subsequent reduction in protection is not a common sense exemption and does not qualify for an environmental benefit exemption.

3. The Ordinance is Inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan The ordinance claims to implement General Plan 2040 (as stated in staff presentations), but it narrows rather than aligns with the GP’s policies. By excluding the 1989 survey resources from the regulatory HRI, limiting strong review processes, and making protections largely voluntary, the ordinance undermines Goal CD-5, Policies CD 5.2 and CD 5.3, and Actions CD 5.8 and CD 5.10.

Summary
The draft ordinance prioritizes owner consent and development flexibility over comprehensive preservation. It deviates from OHP best practices, weakens protections compared to the prior ordinance, and creates a significant CEQA impact on the City’s historic resources. This weakened protection of historic resources is inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan.

These changes would bring the ordinance into better alignment with the General Plan and state guidance while still respecting owner rights.

Please don’t make your legacy reducing historic protections in San Mateo. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

San Mateo Heritage Alliance
cc: City Clerk

San Mateo City CouncilMay 4, 2026

San Mateo City Council
May 4, 2026