Public Comment Received after Packet Publication — San Mateo City Council, May 4, 2026

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT

1 From: Kenneth E Abreu
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 5:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Fwd: Comment of historic districts proposed approval level of 60% See email below
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kenneth E Abreu >
Date: May 2, 2026 at 9:39:22 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comment of historic districts proposed approval level of 60% Hi
The 60% is too low a number. it should be 100%, unless an owner can self select to be a non contributor and not be subject to the constraints of a historic district. The reason for this is that a family‘s home is too important an asset to allow neighbors to constrain it. A family home reflects the family identity and is the major source of generational wealth. It reflects culture and is the safely net for extended family and future generations. A house may need to be modified or added onto support an important family member or need for care. Or to help build stronger family relations. These vital needs should not be constrained by 60% of the neighbors.

Also, this will lead to pitting neighbors against each other. This is damaging to our community.

Thank you,
Ken Abreu

Sent from my iPad

310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law

www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
April 30, 2026

VIA E-MAIL

Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez and
Hon. Members of the San Mateo City Council
City of San Mateo
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance; Reservation of Rights City Council Hearing Date: May 4, 2026

Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council :

On behalf of Less Red Tape, we write to object to the Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance dated April 27, 2026. The latest revisions do not cure the core problem identified by LRT from the outset, and they again depart from the City Council’s express direction that any historic preservation ordinance be grounded in owner consent.

1. The Revised Draft Ordinance is a Bait and Switch and the City Council Hearing Should be Continued
LRT strongly objects to these last-minute revisions. They are not minor edits. They materially expand the ordinance beyond a consent -based framework and do so with minimal time for public review.

The hearing should be continued, and the public needs to be provided notice and a reasonable period of time to review and comment on these significant revisions.

Meanwhile, even a cursory review shows significant issues in this latest draft . Notably, the revised draft now defines an “Eligible Historic Resource” as any resource found eligible “based on substantial evidence in a Historic Resources Evaluation,” even if it is “not formally designated.” SMMC §

27.66.020(h). An HRE, in turn, is simply a report prepared by a “qualified professional .” SMMC §

27.66.020(k). In other words, a formal City designation, a State or National determination, or any other public body is no longer required. A consultant report will do, irrespective of who requests or pays for the report. That is not a consent -based ordinance. It is a new mechanism for imposing historic review on homeowners who never consented to designation in the first place.

The revised draft then uses that definition to impose new controls on non -designated property.

Section 27.66.090(a) bars issuance of a building permit for exterior façade modification, exterior alteration, or an addition involving an “individually eligible historic resource” unless a planning application is first approved under Chapter 27.08. Section 27.66.110(a) likewise subjects demolition of any “eligible historic resource” to planning application review and requires an HRE and/or engineer report. Thus, any owner whose property is tagged as “eligible” in an HRE can be forced into extra

April 30, 2026

Page 2 ends

51349166.1
process, delay, and cost, without any clear public vetting or formal designation decision. That is exactly the “CEQA backdoor” the last version of the Ordinance was intended to close.

2. The City’s Proposed CEQA Exemptions Do Not Fit This Ordinance LRT also objects to the proposed CEQA finding. The City states the ordinance is exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15061, 15306, and 15308. None fits.

The common-sense exemption applies only where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3). That cannot be said here. This ordinan ce changes how development applications will be processed, where review will occur, what properties will be considered historic, when additional historic process will be triggered , and wh at may actually be constructed on a particular property. It will significantly affect the built environment . The City cannot credibly say there is no possibility of environmental effect.

Section 15306 does not fit either. That exemption covers information collection and research activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance, including studies that may lead to a later action not yet approved or adopted. CEQA Guidelines § 1 5306. But the City is not merely gathering information. It is adopting a binding ordinance that itself imposes new review requirements and demolition controls that will have a direct impact on the built environment, just like any housing element or zoning amendment.

Nor does Section 15308 apply. That exemption concerns actions taken by regulatory agencie s, pursuant to an existing ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment . CEQA Guidelines § 15308. Here, the City is adopting the actual ordinance itself. And in any event, this ordinance is not merely protective of existing resources. It is expandin g local review authority over housing and the built environment. None of the cite d exemptions permit the City to escape its obligations to analyze this Ordinance’s impact and conduct the required CEQA review.

3. The Revised Draft Still Raises Serious Housing Crisis Act Problems The revised draft also continues to raise serious concerns under the Housing Crisis Act. Gov. Code § 66300 bars affected cities from imposing new standards that reduce housing development capacity or impose non-objective design standards. Gov. Code § 66300 (b)(1)(A), (C), (b)(2). That concern remains here.

By allowing non -designated properties to be pulled into ordinance review based on an HRE, the revised draft invites subjective determinations, added process, higher costs, and delay. It will hamper housing production, especially additions, remodels, and re development of older housing stock. It also threatens the City’s ability to meet its housing obligations by layering new uncertainty onto projects that otherwise should move through ordinary channels. At minimum, the City must confront that problem directly rather than pretend these revisions are narrow or ministerial.

1 From: Frank Elliott
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Laurie Hietter
Subject: Fwd: LRT Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance; Reservation of Rights
Attachments: Ltr to San Mateo CC re Revised Ordinance 4-30-26(51349166.1).pdf

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Freedman, Daniel F.

Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 12:01 PM
Subject: LRT Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance; Reservation of Rights To: Adam Loraine <[email protected]>, Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>, Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>, Rob Newsom <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>, Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>, Christina Horrisberger <[email protected]>, Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>

On behalf of Less Red Tape, please see the attached letter concerning the revised Historic Preservation Ordinance and comments for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Daniel F. Freedman
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067

WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 2029 Century Park East, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067

2 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. 1 From: Frank Elliott < >
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2026 10:06 AM
To: Martin McTaggart
Cc: Laurie Hietter
Subject: Fwd: Correcting the Record Regarding Rincon’s January 26, 2026 Presentation on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
Attachments: Ltr to San Mateo City Council re Rincon Presentation 3-25-26.pdf

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Freedman, Daniel F.

Dear City of San Mateo City Council and Staff: On behalf of Less Red Tape, please find attached correspondence addressing several inaccurate and misleading statements made during the January 26, 2026 presentation on the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. We submit this letter to help clarify the record and to urge the City to seek clarification on these issues before moving forward with the proposed ordinance.

I would be happy to meet, if helpful, to discuss these issues as well as the concerns raised in our prior February 11 letter, to which we still have not yet received a response.

Thank you for your consideration.

Daniel F. Freedman
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067

2 WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 2029 Century Park East, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you.

1 From: Douglas Handerson < >
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 11:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: City Mgr; Clerk; [email protected]; Jon Mays; Planning; Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger; Uusm Board; office administrator of UUSM; Laura Thompson Subject: Please substitute this email for the prior version RE: City Council May 4, 2026 Hearing on Draft Historic Ordinance's Graphic
Attachments:
2026 but not yet identified correctly draft Hist Res Ord 4-14-2026.jpg; 1905 1st Methodist Church.jpg

May 3, 2026 11:40 p.m. Update

City Council, City Manager, Director of Community Development, City Clerk,

(This updated email supersedes the prior one, which was found to have a typographical error.)

A correction is needed in the 2025/2026 current photo graphic of the Unitarian Universalist of San Mateo's Sanctuary building at the southwest corner of N. Ellsworth and East Santa Inez (street address 300 East Santa Inez Avenue, San Mateo, 94401).

Our building is the oldest continuing place of worship in the City of San Mateo.

Please ensure that the Final version of the City's new Historic Ordinance has the correct identification of Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo as the current occupants of the former 1st Methodist Church, c. 1905.

The Draft Historic Ordinance identifies
the current use of this historic building as still being the 1st Methodist (please see attached images from the Draft document).

Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo have been the owners of the building for several decades.

At the Planning Commission Hearing on the Draft Historic Ordinance, the staff AND consultant assured the Commissioners, and the public, that certain corrections will be made, in a timely manner, before this document goes to final print.

Attached is a copy of the graphic that needs to be updated, as well as the correct graphic of the original occupants, the 1st Methodist Church.

Our building is the oldest continuing place of worship in the City of San Mateo.

2 Please confirm receipt of this request, as well as confirmation that this important graphic is being corrected.

Thank you for including us,

Douglas V. Handerson
Congregational member of UU San Mateo,
on behalf of the UUSM Board of Trustees
Reverend Laura Thompson, Minister

ps. After 30+ years of representing the City of Santa Clara Planning Department, Historical Landmarks Commission and Planning Commission, the city name of "Santa Clara" is etched in my brain. My apologies to all. d.

1 From: Tom Lease
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Zachary Dahl Subject: Incomplete and Incompetent Historic Update
Jon Mays damning and devastating take down of the proposed historic “update” should be entered into the permanent record.

I hope his article and your conscience and integrity will inspire you to reject this incomplete and disgraceful “update”

I have not read the entire ordinance yet, but I have read what the General Plan says about how we identify, catalog, protect, and preserve our precious history and heritage.

I believe Jon Mays and reports from a meeting with CDC and SMHA that this ordinance is an abject failure must be tossed out and redone in accordance with the General Plan.

Ricon recently updated reach codes for heat pumps, electric heaters, eliminating gas stoves and water heaters. Great update.

But if Rincon used the same method applied to reach codes as they are doing to Historic Updates then the would be requiring coal burning fire places, burn pits for trash, knob and tube wiring.

That’s how backwards and insane this historic update is.

Please follow the General Plan and you will be on the right side of history and will sleep better knowing you did the right thing to protect our past to honor our future.

See you on Monday!

Have a great weekend!

Tom Leade

1 From: Jeremy Levine
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:40 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Zachary Dahl; Christina Horrisberger; Alex Khojikian Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 12: Historic Policy Update Good afternoon City of San Mateo,

HLC appreciates the city's work on crafting a thoughtful historic preservation ordinance. Throughout the process, we have aspired to balance the needs of historic preservation and housing affordability, which can be compatible.

Our guiding principle has been that historic preservation should seek to maximize public benefit. The best versions of historic preservation provide public access, education, and interactivity. Thus, designation should be leveraged thoughtfully in narrow circumstances, not to preserve old buildings simply for the sake of preserving old buildings or lock expensive neighborhoods in amber, but for providing meaningful public value to the community.

The current ordinance as drafted creates a realistic pathway for historic preservation while safeguarding the future of San Mateo from abuse of the process to prevent meeting the city's future needs. As suggested by SMDJ editor Jon Mays, we would support impact fee waivers and other incentives for historic properties that pursue renovations or add additional homes.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Policy Manager
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
2905 El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.hlcsmc.org

1 From: Andrew Ryan <
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 5:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: "No Consent, No Historic" isn't just a slogan: it's about to be the law. Let's treat it as such
Council, on Monday night, I’m asking you to please:
 Vote “not now” on the Historic Ordinance update until section 090 is removed. As you’ve seen from our attorney, because of the re-inclusion of Section 090, the ordinance does not implement true consent and has numerous legal problems that open it up for lawsuits. "No Consent, No Historic" isn't just a slogan. Less Red Tape is continuing to reserve all its legal options at this point, but it would be easier to remove this section right now before any litigation.  Do not include any additional homes in the historic registry without owner consent and an updated survey. First of all, where is the owner consent in all of this? At least in Glazenwood, you had a public meeting and notified the owners, who were supportive. Using a 37 year-old survey violates established case law: see the case "Citizens For Responsible Development In West Hollywood vs. City of West Hollywood”. On the other hand, correctly surveying each property and documenting its condition – which was NEVER done in 1989 – will likely cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to do in a legally valid way.

The 1989 survey is, I am sorry to say, mostly garbage from a documentation standpoint. For the most part, all we have are addresses, nothing about the conditions of most of these homes or even why they were identified as “eligible” or “potentially eligible”. What does “potentially eligible” even mean in this context? We simply don’t know. For example consider this excerpt from page 75:

2 If you haven’t looked at the
survey, I’d recommend taking a look yourself so you can see how problematic this survey actually is:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47850/Historic-Building-Survey-1989

San Mateo is under a very severe budget deficit as you know. There is no reason to be spending more public money when there's no owner support.

Where's the notification of the 124 property owners?
Where's the public meeting?
Where's the documented consent by property owners?

Andrew Ryan

1 From: Francie Souza < >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:07 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Historic Policy Update
Dear Mayor Loraine and City Council Members,

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 previo us 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 consider using Conservation areas to protect and preserve our older neighborhoods like North Central, Central and Historic Downtown, as they are in jeopardy of increased height limits due to SB79.

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

Thank you,
Frances & Tom Souza

1 From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 6:06 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: May 4, 2026 Agenda Item 12: Historic Policy Update Honorable City Council Members,

If you attended the Planning Commission where San Mateo’s Historic Ordinance was being reviewed before coming to Council, you would have heard a leader of Less Red Tape, Frank Elliott, and a very vocal leader of the YIMBY movement, Jordan Grimes, say they like this ordinance as is and no further revisions are needed.

Why? BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE DOESN’T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT SAN MATEO’S HISTORIC BUILDINGS!

And sadly, you would have also heard staff talk in long, word salad platitudes about how any concern over the ordinance is truly covered so there is no need to worry. Why? BECAUSE STAFF CLEARLY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT PRESERVING SAN MATEO’S HISTORIC BUILDINGS!

Jon Mays said it best in his editorial: “…action that must be taken to avoid a catastrophic decision that will haunt not only the City Council but the rest of the city…”

So please, on Monday evening, clearly give staff the following instruction and demand it come back to you for a vote no later than September 2026:

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. Only Downtown, Glazenwood and DeSabla, Coxhead & Vollers properties are protected as it stands right now.

2. Allow the City Council and HRC to designate landmark properties. Local jurisdictions must identify and preserve resources for the public good.

3. Relax consent just to districts. Delete Owner Consent (27.66.060) that says nominations of a property to landmark status can be done only by application of the property owner.

5. Apply COA/review to Eligible Historic Resources (Review Required). Ensures that properties identified in the 1989 survey are subject to the same process as landmarks.

6. Ensure the final ordinance aligns with the General Plan policies and actions. The ordinance fails to fully identify and protect historic resources. And by making protection contingent on owner opt-in, it fails to preserve neighborhood context and identity.

Thank you,

Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident

May 4, 2026
Dear Mayor Loraine and City Council Members,
In reviewing the San Mateo Historic Context Statement, there are areas still missing or could be strengthened.

1. The OHP (Ofﬁce of Historic Preservation) recommends adding a section at the end prioritizing next steps or recommendations. For example, targeted updates are needed to include the buildings not in the 1989 Building Survey.

2. SB 79 targets higher densities and heights within the 1/2 mile radius from the Downtown Transit Center. Older neighborhoods like North Central and Central, and the Historic Downtown are within this targeted area. Conservation areas are used in other cities to provide more protections for the preservation of neighborhood character and history. * We would like Council to direct Staff to investigate creating conservation overlays. We have attached a link to conservation areas in the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation. The City of San Jose has also created Conservation Areas / Districts throughout the City.

This link may be helpful:
- https://hfﬁ.org/preserving-neighborhood-character/

3. More Explicit Integrity Thresholds by Property Types The tables and guidance section discuss general integrity, but the OHP prefers speciﬁc examples in styles or properties.

For example, property types from early 20th Century bungalows including Craftsmen & Spanish Revival, Ranch Style, and Mid-Century contributors require more details.

To preserve neighborhood character, we need more speciﬁcs about compatible window styles, front doors, garage doors, and roof types. This information could be strengthened in the Architectural Styles or guidance sections.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Laura Watanuki

310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law

www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
March 25, 2026

VIA E-MAIL

Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez and
Hon. Members of the San Mateo City Council
City of San Mateo
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Correcting the Record Regarding Rincon’s January 26, 2026 Presentation on the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance

Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council:

On behalf of Less Red Tape, we write regarding the January 26, 2026 study session on the proposed historic preservation ordinance. As the Council is aware, one of the central issues raised throughout this process has been whether any ordinance would be gro unded in property -owner consent, rather than used as a vehicle to impose historic review on unwilling homeowners. The Council made clear that owner consent was necessary, and the revised draft was presented as reflecting that direction. It does not.

Unfortunately, several of the statements made during Rincon Consultants’ presentation were incorrect or materially misleading, and those inaccuracies go directly to the heart of whether the ordinance in fact honors the Council’s mandate. Rincon presented the ordinance as narrow and limited, when in reality the ordinance as proposed is far broader and more intrusive than the Council directed. Whether those misstatements resulted from a failure to understand the ordinance’s actual effect or from an effort to minimize it, either explanation is troubling, because the Council should not be asked to deliberate on legislation based on an inaccurate description of what it would do. We therefore write to identify several of the most significant misstatements, explain why they matter, and request that the Council require staff and Rincon to correct the record before this ordinance moves forward.

1. CEQA Does Not Require Blanket Review of Structures Over 45 Years Old The proposed Section 27.66.090 authorizes the Community Development Director to require a Historic Resource Evaluation (“HRE”) for development proposals involving the demolition or modification of character-defining features of buildings or structures over 45 years old that are not designated and have not been identified in a prior City Council-adopted survey. Rincon characterized this as a clarification of existing CEQA law. That is incorrect.

First, CEQA does not impose a categorical, age -based requirement as Rincon suggests . It requires evaluation where there is substantial evidence that a resource may be historically

Hon. Members of the
San Mateo City Council
March 25, 2026

Page 2 ends

significant, and it applies to discretionary projects —not ministerial approvals. Age thresholds may sometimes be used as screening tools, but they are not legal triggers. In fact, the Office of Historic Preservation specifically cautions that resources must be evaluated based on substantial evidence , regardless of the age of the structure. 1
Second, Section 27.66.090 does not restate existing law. It creates a new discretionary screening mechanism under which the Director “may” decide whether to require an HRE for older, undesignated properties, and “may” then use that HRE to inform the City’s CEQA determination.

That is a serious CEQA problem. If this provision has no effect on ministerial projects, then the City should explain why it is needed at all. But if it is intended to affect how those projects are reviewed, then it creates a new discr etionary pathway for CEQA and historic -resource review that does not exist under current law. Either way, Section 27.66.090 is not a mere clarification of existing law. It gives the City a new and broad source of discretion to subject older, undesignated p roperties to additional review in a manner not required by state law.

2. The Ordinance Does Not “Only Apply to Locally Designated Resources” Rincon repeatedly told the Council that the ordinance “only applies to locally listed historic resources.” In one sense, that is true: the Certificate of Appropriateness provisions in Section

27.66.100 apply to Listed Resources and Contributors within list ed Historic Districts in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. But that is not the full picture. Section 27.66.090 separately authorizes the Community Development Director to require a Historic Resource Evaluation (“HRE”) for any development proposal involving demolition or modification of character-defining features of buildings or structures over 45 years old that are not designated or have not been identified in a prior City Council-adopted survey. That is a separate discretionary review mechanism aimed directly at older, undesignated properties.

As a result, the ordinance does not “only” affect locally designated resources in the way the presentation suggested. While the formal Certificate of Appropriateness regime may be limited to locally listed properties, Section 27.66.090 would still allow th e City to require HREs for older properties that have never been designated and have never been included in an adopted survey. In practice, that extends historic review beyond locally designated resources and creates a broad, discretionary screening tool for the City’s older housing stock.

3. Section 27.66.090 Undermines the Council’s Consent Requirement The Council has directed that designation be subject to owner consent. However, if non - designated properties can still be pulled into discretionary historic -resource screening and CEQA review through Section 27.66.090, then that consent protection is materially undermined in practice.

Section 27.66.090 effectively allows the City to bypass the consent requirement by regulating properties through project-level review rather than formal designation. This issue has been raised repeatedly by stakeholders and should be resolved before the ordinance advances.

1To the extent there is a general and commonly used age threshold, it is 50 years, not 45. See https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1071/files/CEQA-Understanding-50year-Threshold-VI.pdf Hon. Members of the
San Mateo City Council
March 25, 2026

Page 3 ends

4. The Misleading “1% Impact”
Rincon’s presentation suggested that the practical burden of this ordinance would be minimal, citing data from the past three years showing that of more than 500 single-family applications with exterior alterations, additions, and/or new construction, 28 w ere identified as potentially eligible resources requiring an HRE, and only six—approximately 1%—were ultimately identified as eligible.

But that statistic, without more, does not support the conclusion Rincon invited the Council to draw.

The presentation did not disclose the underlying methodology or key context needed to evaluate those figures. Among other things, it did not explain whether all 500 projects were discretionary or ministerial; who decided which projects required an HRE and under what authority; whether the City has been screening for potential historic resources consistently citywide or only in certain areas; what criteria were used to identify a property as “potentially eligible” or “eligible”; or whether there is any established City policy governing that process. Nor did the presentation account for projects that were never filed, were delayed, or were scaled back because homeowners were told their properties could be treated as historic. Without that information, the City cannot reasonably extrapolate from past ad hoc practice to predict how broadly Section 27.66.090 would operate once codified as an express source of discretionary authority.

If the Council wishes to understand the real burden of this ordinance, staff should be directed not only to disclose the methodology behind the “500/28/6 (1%)” figures, but also to report how the projects pulled into historic review were actually affected —including how long they took, what redesigns were required, and what additional costs or delays were imposed. Without that information, the “1%” figure is not a reliable basis for policymaking.

Conclusion and Requested Direction
The Council has been clear that any historic preservation ordinance must be grounded in owner consent. As currently drafted and presented, this ordinance does not accomplish that.

Instead, Section 27.66.090 creates a broad discretionary review mechanism th at extends well beyond locally designated resources and risks subjecting a large portion of the City’s older housing stock to costly and uncertain historic review. That is not what the Council directed . To ensure the ordinance reflects the Council’s intent and that future deliberations are based on accurate and unbiased information, we request that the Council direct staff and Rincon to:
(a) correct the misstatement that Section 27.66.090 is simply a restatement of existing CEQA law;
(b) revise or delete Section 27.66.090 so that any HRE requirement is limited to locally designated resources and projects that are already discretionary; and (c) disclose the data and methodology underlying the “500/28/6 (1%)” figures, including the CEQA review applied to those projects, and report how those projects were actually affected, including added time, redesign requirements, and financial burdens.

These steps are necessary to prevent the creation of a back-door historic review regime that would circumvent owner consent, expand discretionary review, and undermine state housing law.

310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law

www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
May 4, 2026

VIA E-MAIL

Mayor Loraine, Deputy Mayor Fernandez and
Hon. Members of the San Mateo City Council
City of San Mateo
San Mateo City Hall
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Supplemental Objection to Revised Final Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance City Council Hearing Date: May 4, 2026

Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council :

This letter supplements Less Red Tape’s April 30, 2026 objection letter. It addresses an additional issue that independently warrants revision of the proposed ordinance - the City’s attempt to give present regulatory effect to the “1989 Historic Building Survey” without first updating, revalidating, or properly disclosing the basis for that survey. LRT objects for the following additional reasons:
• The 1989 survey is too old to be used as a current regulatory baseline without an update. Public Resources Code section 5024.1(g)(4) requires that if a survey is five or more years old, it must be updated to account for changed circumstances, altered or demolished resources, and further documentation. Here, the City is relying on a survey that is more than 37 years old.
• The City’s own materials confirm the survey is stale. The staff report acknowledges that the current ordinance is strongly tied to the 1989 survey, that the survey is now over 37 years old, that the City has changed considerably, and that preservation practice has evolved significantly since 1989. The Planni ng Commission also recommended that the City prioritize a new survey of the 1989 properties.
• The survey itself was not a final, fixed determination. The report explains that the forms and evaluations would be submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation for review and that the evaluations could change based on that review. It also reflects a selective survey process, not a complete parcel-by-parcel inventory of all affected properties. • The City has not provided the underlying parcel -level documentation. Although the survey states that DPR 523 forms were prepared and filed elsewhere, the City has not posted or provided the actual DPR 523 forms for the affected properties as part of this legislative record. Nor has the City identified who prepared the parc el-level evaluations or what qualifications those individuals had. The Council and the public are therefore being asked to give present legal effect to a decades-old survey without the underlying property records.

310.500.4600 main
2029 Century Park East, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067-2918
Daniel F. Freedman
Attorney At Law

www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
April 30, 2026

VIA E-MAIL

Dear Mayor Loraine and Hon. Members of the City Council :

The hearing should be continued, and the public needs to be provided notice and a reasonable period of time to review and comment on these significant revisions.

27.66.020(h). An HRE, in turn, is simply a report prepared by a “qualified professional .” SMMC §

The revised draft then uses that definition to impose new controls on non -designated property.

April 30, 2026

Page 2 ends

51349166.1
process, delay, and cost, without any clear public vetting or formal designation decision. That is exactly the “CEQA backdoor” the last version of the Ordinance was intended to close.

1 From: Barbara Alexander
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟﬁed and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

And your consƟtuents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: David Comer
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:48 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

David and Angela Comer

1 From: Mary DeLong
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Mary Judson DeLong

Please excuse any grammatical errors, sent from my mobile device.

From: Bob Fitzgerald
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:11 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Robert Fitzgerald

1 From: Larry Garnick
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:02 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Plea to Reject the HPO & HCA Tonight
Members of the City Council:

I urge you to REJECT the current proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement tonight.

Both of these documents are grossly insufficient and do nothing to protect San Mateo’s beautiful historic homes that define San Mateo’s character.

At a minimum, the documents need to
adopt all of the historic properties identified in the 1989 survey by resolution, allow you to designate landmark properties, adjust consent rules to match state rules, apply COA review to eligible properties, and specify the details for the establishment of the Historic Resources Commission.

These are basic elements included in state guidance for such ordinances and they appear to have been excluded by the authors on purpose. This shortsighted bias puts San Mateo at immediate and permanent risk of losing the most beautiful elements of its important and proud history.

Larry Garnick

(New Mobile Number!)

1 From: Nikki Lindgren
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:17 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Dear City Council,

Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Nikki

1 From: P Mayers
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:39 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Pamela Mayers
Baywood Resident

P.S. I truly don’t understand why you are trying to destroy our community.

1 From: Elisa Radice
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

It has come to my attention that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

I object to this new language and proposal, and ask that you:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Elisa Radice

1 From: Sue Schoenstein
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Gerald Stokes
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:44 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

1 From: Matthew Tiffany
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:27 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,
Matt Tiffany

1 From: Michelle Travis
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Michelle Travis

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Deborah Villanueva
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:40 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

It has come to my attention and understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets a limited few lord over home decisions. This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thank you for your consideration,

Deborah Villanueva

1 From: Yuanxuan Wang
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Zellux Wang

1 From: Anya Wes
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:35 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy; Matthew Wes; Anya Wes
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI-generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

Your constituents will be angry if you approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over their home decisions.

This is terrible governance and makes a City horrible to live in. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

Protect your constituents. Reduce bureaucracy. DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kind regards,
Anya Wes
Baywood Homeowner

1 From: Kevin Cullinane
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:58 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"

Dear City Council,

It has come to my attention that there have been some last-minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These so-called "historic" shenanigans, combined with death by bureaucracy, seem to hinder your goals of increasing housing to help address the rising cost of living in San Mateo. I have lived and worked in San Mateo for over 30 years and have seen the community development department become one of the most restrictive and difficult to work with on the peninsula. To move forward with this proposed change will only make things worse.

The majority of the residents (or which I am one) in the Baywood community will be steaming mad if you approve language that lets administrative staff lord over their home decisions. This is terrible governance and creates the potential for litigation wit h the city by the actions of a staff member and/or
committee that may not be genuinely qualified to do so. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget, and invest in their homes.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,

Kevin Cullinane

1 From: Richard Delaney
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now"
I have read the latest revisions to the proposed historic preservaƟon ordinance. It bypasses the consent provision and gives the city discreƟonary control. None of us should ﬁnd their home declared historic without their informed consent.

To allow the latest wording to be wriƩen into law only opens up the issue to endless arguments about “taking” and legal disputes. No discreƟonary power should be given to any city authority. UnƟl this problem is ﬁxed the ordinance should not be approved.

Richard Delaney.

1 From: Casey Dougan
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:04 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Casey Dougan

1 From: Mike Etheridge
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:45 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lisa Diaz Nash
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Feedback on latest revised historic ordinance resolution Hello Mayor Loraine and Members of the City Council -

I would like to respectfully share a few thoughts I have on the latest historic ordinance draft.

2 items of note -

- I appreciate the thoughtful incorporation by the council of minimum 60% required owner consent for potential historic district designation,

- WRT the 124 properties proposed to be incorporated as part of a 1989 survey. I believe this survey is much too-dated to serve as an automatic inclusion and these subject properties should be part of the normal new process of designation - if the current property owners would like to be considered - and initiate as such. I see this grouping as much different then glazenwood, which organized and advocated for inclusion, effectively demonstrating consent.

Thank you for your great service to the city

--
---------------
Mike Etheridge

1 From: Ligia Flory
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:54 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From:

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: No to this "Historic Ordinance"
you are not asking me to join, you are telling me to
I attended Bawood elementary, i sent my own children to Baywood elementary now some one want to give take my property rights for their personal benefit, and i have to fight, just to be left alone.

If they want to give away their homes fine
I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS - LEAVE ME ALONE - And Leave MY PROPERTY ALONE

Thees last minute changes are just more theft - I GET NOTHING - They gain by stealing my property rights

I DON'T WANT WHATEVER IT IS THEY ARE SELLING _ THIS IS OUGHT RIGHT THEFT

Do Not Approve Vague blanket language winch only further buries my rights and grants their THEFT

I worked hare for what i have, to live and grow old in Baywood, only to find out some one can just give it away with out even asking.

NO I WAS NOT ASKED TO JOIN - THEY STOL IT AND NOW I HAVE TO FIGHT YOU -

TO GET IT
BACK

please stop this land grab, stop thees selfish rich elites from stealing what little i have left, what will i retire on? If you allow this, you will destroy my retirement.

I am 60 years old, I spent my life in Baywood, I helped build Baywood and now you take my home because some one wants it - Forcing me ion to an HOA i want nothing to do with and never agreed to

Dan Forster

- being crushed by selfish elites and bureaucrats who never asked, they Just TOOK who do you care about? the bullies, the thieves, - or the community the people who built baywood

1 From: Jim Gullo
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:36 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Jim gullo

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: crystal hayling
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:14 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

I am dismayed to learn that there have been some last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟﬁed and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans allow for discriminatory and individual assignments that go against all rules of equal and fair treatment that I know everyone in our community values. In addiƟon, this language contradicts your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

This type of back-room, last-minute rule changing is terrible governance and makes me quesƟon the integrity of the Council’s commitment to the will of the majority. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Crystal Hayling
Baywood resident

1 From: Brad Goodwin
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Dear City Council,

These "historic” shenanigans go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo. They also circumvent the “only with owner consent” stipulation that most council members made when reluctantly approving the historic preservation review.

This is terrible governance. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

Please:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Brad Goodwin

1 From: Dan Ikeda
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:46 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Daniel & Jackie Ikeda

Sent from my iPhone

1 Erin Fellers
From: Lauren Lum
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:09 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Joe Musich; [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Hello,
WHY is this topic still up for discussion? Baywood residents voted by an OVERWHELMING majority that we weren't in favor of making Baywood a historic district. Then, there was somewhat of a ceasefire because "owner consent" was required for the home to be considered historic. And now because Lisa Nash and Laurie Hietter/SMHA lost on owner consent on districts, they are targeting control over owners via Section 090 of the City Municipal Code. What an under-handed, borderline corrupt and indecent thing to do without being openly and broadly transparent to the constituents of District 1? A district that Lisa Nash is supposed to be serving?!?!? Why is this an ongoing waste of taxpayer time and money??

These last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These changes go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

Please do not approve language that lets Kings in City Government lord over our home decisions. Rules should be TRANSPARENT, clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

We ask of you:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joe and Lauren Musich

1 From: Christine McGinty
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:28 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"

NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Mary ChrisƟne McGinty

San Mateo

Sent from my iPad

1 From: Anna McLean
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:14 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

It has come to my attention that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance that place discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted with the Planning Director. These changes go directly against the City’s goals for more housing
to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo. As a constituent and San Mateo homeowner, I do not believe City Government should be permitted to wrest control from homeowners over reasonable home decisions. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their houses. Please DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090. Thanks for your consideration.

Anna McLean

1 From: Lauren Lum
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:16 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Joe Musich; [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: SOLAR PANELS ON NASH HOUSE: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
Also, note that as these changes are being made, Lisa Nash is installing solar panels on the roof of her home here in Baywood. Somehow, I do not think solar panels fall under "historic" for a 1920s Spanish home. They remodeled and made changes to their home (over a 4.5 year period) that deem it "non-historic" by traditional standards... so why are there now rules being drafted that will keep another homeowner from making the necessary changes they'd like to make to their own home? Hypocrisy at its best. Please make it stop.

On Monday, May 4, 2026 at 02:09:20 PM PDT, Lauren Lum wrote:

Hello,
WHY is this topic still up for discussion? Baywood residents voted by an OVERWHELMING majority that we weren't in favor of making Baywood a historic district. Then, there was somewhat of a ceasefire because "owner consent" was required for the home to be considered historic.

And now because Lisa Nash and Laurie Hietter/SMHA lost on owner consent on districts, they are targeting control over owners via Section 090 of the City Municipal Code. What an under-handed, borderline corrupt and indecent thing to do without being openly and broadly transparent to the constituents of District 1? A district that Lisa Nash is supposed to be serving?!?!? Why is this an ongoing waste of taxpayer time and money??

These last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These changes go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

We ask of you:
- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joe and Lauren Musich

1 From: Hanish Rathod
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:17 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

1 From: Steve Revesz
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:24 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Nancy Schneider
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Alex Khojikian; [email protected]; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Agenda Item 12: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"
Dear Mayor Loraine and Council Members Newsom, Fernandez and Cwirko-Godychi:

NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

These "historic" shenanigans, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

And your constituents will be justifiably upset and feel betrayed if you approve language that goes against the agreed on consensus that owner consent should be a core principle in the Historic Ordinance. This is terrible governance and poor policy making, to undermine a long process of public
input. Rules should be clear and ministerial so that people can plan, budget and invest in their homes.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Nancy Schneider and Rick Wysong

--
Nancy Schneider

1 From: John Segall
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:17 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; CC:; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Ordinance
Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration

Sincerely,

John & Reva Segall

1 From: Henry Sheng
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:34 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: San Mateo Historic Ordinance

Dear City Council,

I have heard there are last minute changes to SecƟon 090 of the Historic Ordinance that puts discreƟonary control over how "historic" properƟes are idenƟﬁed and thus restricted.

This does not sound transparent, and this rushed change does not allow for well- reasoned and measured policy. It seems
that there conƟnues to be a determined push within the council for enacƟng historic districƟng even if the majority of aﬀected residents do not support it.

Please DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thank you,

Henry Sheng

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Peter Stone
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:25 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.

- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

For the past eighteen months I have observed this nonsense by the City Council, and especially Lisa Diaz. I am sick and tired of the City Council wasting time, money, and other resources on things that the people DO NOT want! What is wrong with you? This is another clear example as to why California is screwed up. I would never, ever vote for Lisa Diaz – another useless politician.

Thanks for your consideration.

Peter R. Stone

1 From: Robin Wall
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:54 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Robin Wall
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any type-os

1 From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Historic Ordinance
Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jean Garcia

1 From: Jeane Makar
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:58 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrockeƟng cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your consƟtuents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discreƟonary language in SecƟon 090.

Thanks for your consideraƟon.

Jeane Makar

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Bobbi Maniscalco
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:28 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Rob Newsom Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language"

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] rg, [email protected], [email protected] cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], historic [email protected]

NOTE: This is NOT an AI generated message and I am a real person. You can easily verify this by replying to this email.

Dear City Council,

It has come to my understanding that there have been some last minute changes to Section 090 of
the Historic Ordinance that puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified and thus restricted.

These "historic" shenanigans, death by bureaucracy, go directly against your goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo.

- Protect your constituents.
- Reduce bureaucracy.

DO NOT approve the historic ordinance with discretionary language in Section 090.

Thanks for your consideration
Barbara Maniscalco

1 From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:32 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Council: Save yourself a LOT of time and $$ and look at Palo Alto's example. It didn't end well.

Council, tonight you are considering adding 124 properties -- without consent -- to the historic registry of San Mateo. Doing so would be a mistake, unless your desire is to spend a LOT more money -- money which the city does NOT have! -- on this and a LOT more of the City Council's time on historic preservation. And you might not end up with many new historic properties even after this.

And really, I have to ask, why??? Who is asking for this? This isn't Glazenwood, where you have people demanding to be declared historic. City Council should be spending their time on figuring out how we get through this $17 million dollar budget deficit and keeping this city running.

Palo Alto tried something like this a few years ago and it went really badly. Homeowners revolted, just as they are doing in San Mateo. It cost the city a large amount of money, bad feelings, and did not result in any meaningful changes: ultimately, only 21 of the proposed 165 homes opted in to historic.

Here's some links:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2024/01/12/board-no-historical-listings-without-homeowner- consent/
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/10/30/palo-alto-homeowners-push-back-against- proposed-historical-designations/
https://verdemagazine.com/historic-hurdles-palo-altos-register-of-buildings-invites-mixed-reactions

1 From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Agenda Item - Historic Policy Update-Ordinance Introduction Attachments: EditorialonOrdinance4.28.26.pdf
THIS HISTORIC ORDINANCE IS A SHAM. AND IT'S A
SHAME.

SAN MATEO CAN AND MUST DO BETTER.

NOW IS THE TIME.

Jon Mays’ April 28, 2026 editorial was a scathing and well-deserved rebuke of the draft ordinance before you tonight.

Despite the revisions made since his editorial was written, it still contains several major deficiencies and presents a dangerous roadmap for San Mateo.

Per Jon Mays, Council originally directed staff not to include properties in the survey, and to require owner consent for local listing. This was based on another dispute in a specific neighborhood, but inadvertently and most unfortunately, Council applie
d their solution to the ENTIRE City. This has created an ordinance that, if it goes forward as it is now, would be one of the biggest mistakes any council has ever made in the entire history of this City .

You can turn this around by simply directing staff to do the following:

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.
 Only Downtown, Glazenwood and DeSabla, Coxhead & Vollers properties are protected as it stands now.

2. Allow the City Council and HRC to designate landmark properties.  Local jurisdictions must identify and preserve resources for the public good. It is one of the functions of government.

3. Relax consent so that it only applies to districts. Delete Owner Consent (27.66.060) that says nominations of a property to landmark status can be done only by application of the property owner.

4. Apply COA/review to all properties over 100 years old so that ordinance functions as a living document. Avoids having to update ordinance every 5-10 years, reducing costs and staff time. Should there be push back by individual owners, the opt-out provisions (27.66.080) are very strong. Not all will qualify due to alterations, architecture, overall property condition, contribution to neighborhood character; HRC can determine qualification on an individual basis. A building's age alone does NOT make it historic.

5. Apply COA/review to Eligible Historic Resources (Review Required) . Ensures that properties identified in the 1989 survey are subject to the same process as landmarks.

6. Ensure the final ordinance aligns with the General Plan policies and actions. Ordinance fails to fully identify and protect historic resources.

For the record, and for your attention and consideration, I submit attached the April 28, 2026 editorial by Jon Mays, as well my own Letter to the Editor (photo below) that was published today. I look forward to seeing City Council tonight

2 provide new direction to staff to make this a meaningful and robust Historic Ordinance that will serve, and preserve, our San Mateo for the future.

Sincerely yours,
Lisa Vande Voorde, San Mateo resident

M
m

Lisa Vande Voorde
Certified Group Fitness Instructor, American Council on Exercise "Keeping you strong, for life!"

San Mateo City CouncilMay 4, 2026

San Mateo City Council
May 4, 2026