1 Memorandum
TO: Mayor Loraine and Members of the City Council
CC: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
FROM: Zachary Dahl, Community Development Department Director DATE: May 4, 2026
RE: Council Agenda Item – Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Context Statement, Historic Resources Commission Ordinance and Updated Mills Act Program
In recent days we have received letters from the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA) and Less Red Tape (LRT) questioning various aspects of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and the proposed CEQA exemptions. This memo is intended to represent a response to those letters.
First, the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (Draft Ordinance) does not change how CEQA is applied to a listed or eligible resource under our local procedures. The existing Historic Preservation Ordinance, codified at San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 27.66, applies to “all individually eligible buildings in the City, all individually eligible and contributor buildings within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and all structures located in the Downtown Historic District,” as adopted by Council resolution. 1 Section 27.66.30 further
states:
No building permit for an exterior facade modification, exterior alteration, or building addition involving an individually eligible building shall be issued until a planning application for Site Plan and Architectural Review has been approved in accordanc e with the provisions of Chapter
27.08 [Rules of Procedure] and Section 27.06.010 [Approval Bodies] of the Zoning Code.
Similarly, Draft Ordinance Section 27.66.090 states that:
(a) Historic Resource. No building permit that includes an exterior facade modification, exterior alteration, or building addition involving an individually eligible historic resource shall be issued until a planning application has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
27.08 of this Title.
1 SMMC §27.66.020(a).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
2 (b) Landmark or Contributor. No building permit for a Major or Minor Alteration to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District listed in the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory shall be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Section 27.66.100 of this Chapter.
(c) Exemptions. Review pursuant to (a) and (b) of this section shall not be required when preempted by State Law.
Therefore, the Draft Ordinance does not materially reduce or expand applicability or review requirements. Notably, it explicitly references the 1989 Survey in the definition of a Historic Resource.
It also covers all Historic Resources in the “ Reviewed Required ” section and maintains the section addressing demolition , both consistent with the City’s current Chapter 27.66 . 2 Again, there is no material reduction or expansion in the level of review required at the local level for alterations or demolitions related to eligible historic resources. Instead, there is a more defined and enhanced level of review for locally listed landmarks and districts, and it is fully consistent with General Plan 2040.
With regard to CEQA review, the Draft Ordinance relies on two CEQA exemptions: CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and Section 15308 (Class 8 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) . The Draft Ordinance updates and clarif ies the City’s policies and processes surrounding historic preservation, but will not change or expand their applicability, as noted above. Additionally, the Draft Ordinance regulate s how properties can be modified, thereby protecting historic resources through maintaining the existing built environment.
In response to this, SMHA claims that the Draft Ordinance weakens existing protections by allegedly making demolition and incompatible alterations easier aside from inventory resources, resulting in substantial adverse impacts, and that it is incompatible with the General Plan. This is not accurate .
SMHA’s letter fundamentally mischaracterizes the Draft Ordinance, which as noted above maintains existing review procedures and protections for historical resources. Equally importantly, the Draft Ordinance formally establishes the City’s first Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), a stated General Plan policy objective since 19 90, and creates a new, clearer framework for the addition of historical resources to the local HRI in order to help preserve San Mateo’s history , which is thoroughly documented in the proposed Citywide Historic Context Statement. Notably, SMHA’s letter fails to mention any of these points.
As for t he LRT letter , it states that the Draft Ordinance changes the development application and historic review process, review authority, what properties may be considered historic, and what may be built on a particular property. It then claims that this undermines the use of CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). This is also incorrect. Again, the Draft Ordinance does not materially reduce or expand applicability or review requirements . While it does create a process for Certificates of Appropriateness that for resources listed on the HRI that are reviewed and approved by the proposed Historic Preservation Commission or the Zoning Administrator, based on specified criteria, this is not fundamentally different on a substantive level from what would occur today. Under current
2 See Draft Ordinance section 27.66.020(j) (definition of Historic Resource), which includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, sign, district, or landscape feature, which is historically, culturally, architecturally and/or archaeologicall y significant” and which may also include resources eligible or listed in the National Register, California Register, San Mateo Historic Res ources Inventory, and those identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report. 3 procedures, if a property owner wished to alter a historic resource, that would be reviewed by either the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission or City Council (on appeal). The fact that new review bodies and a clarified review process would be created does not remove the Draft Ordinance from the Common Sense Exemption under Section 15061(b)(3).
The LRT letter then goes on to argue that CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 does not apply because the proposed action is to approve the Draft Ordinance and therefore is not an action taken pursuant to an existing ordinance and that it expands local authority over housing and the built environment. While the proposed actions do include approval of the Draft Ordinance, caselaw supports the application of Section 15308 to projects wherein a legislative body is approving an ordinance that enacts procedures for the protection of the environment.
3 Application of the exemption must be supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Here, the staff report, Historic Context Statement and presentation clearly cites the need to preserve historical resources in the City. Moreover, the City is authorized under its police powers to protect historic resources, and the Draft Ordinance directly implements policies of the General Plan as stated in the staff report. Furthermore, the Draft Ordinance does not expand or lessen protections for historical resources or regulation of the built environment as explained above. Instead, it updates and refines existing procedures to protect historical resources while simplifying the review process for alterations that are minor, including those consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 4 3 California Construction & Industrial Materials Assn. v. County of Ventura (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th (County ordinance creating wildlife mitigation corridor overlay zones exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 [maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of natural resources] and 15308). See also Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 209 (upholding categorical exemption as applied to county's plastic bag ban ordinance) ; in this decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that the County’s constitutional authority to “make or enforce within its limits all local police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws” allowed the County to rely on CEQA’s exemptions under Section 15308 and other guidelines. 218 Cal.App.4th at 226-227. 4 LRT’s letter also appears to misunderstand the application of CEQA Guideline 15306 (Information Collection). That CEQA exemption is intended to apply to the Historic Context Statement, not the Draft Ordinance. This is clearly stated in the staff report.