1 From: Susan Adler
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 5:21 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; 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.
Susan Adler
1 From: Joan L. Cassman
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 5:05 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Vote "Not Now" or "No to Section 090 Discretionary Language" Dear San Mateo City Council,
I have been informed that some last-minute changes to Section 090 of the draft Historic Ordinance puts discretionary control over how "historic" properties are identified into the hands of City administration and attempts to insert into the Ordinance what was long discussed during deliberations on the draft Ordinance and ultimately discarded from that Ordinance.
These "historic" restrictions run counter to the essential City goals for more housing to address the skyrocketing cost of living in San Mateo. I thought the discussions of this Ordinance established that owner consent is critical to any restrictions.
The insertion of this language runs counter to the compromise to move forward with this Ordinance and belies good, transparent governance.
I would prefer that the City Council spend its time and city resources on inclusion, protection of your constituents’ property rights, reduction in bureaucracy and elimination of any “Big Brother” knows best rules.
If you determine to move forward with the Ordinance, DO NOT APPROVE IT WITHOUT DELETING the discretionary language in Section 090.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Joan Cassman and Michael Duncheon
1 From: Christina Dikas
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 4:55 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Public comments on San Mateo's Preservation Ordinance Dear members of the San Mateo City Council:
I am a resident of San Mateo, and I'm also an architectural historian/historic resources planner and principal at a local historic preservation firm. I work with cities in California to update their preservation ordinances. I am currently working on an upd
ate to Mountain View's preservation ordinance and I am just starting to assist Redwood City with updating theirs. I would like to provide comments on San Mateo's ordinance.
The following are my primary concerns about the current version of the preservation ordinance:
1. A preservation ordinance should be an integral part of a City's preservation program within its long- range planning goals, protecting the most important historic resources while simultaneously balancing historic resource considerations (and the benefits that historic resources bring to the community at large) alongside ongoing change in the built environment. What places and properties represent historical contributions to the heritage, sense of place, and identity of the City of San Mateo that the City wants to protect?
In that vein, I strongly recommend providing an avenue for City initiation of designation, e.g. for the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council to nominate/designate properties. There should be an avenue open for future historic resources survey and designation -- at the least, a survey update for the properties identified as eligible for historic designation in the 1989 survey, so that those that remain eligible can be added and protected as landmarks.
2. I am pleased that the City has decided to create a Historic Resources Commission. However, a preservation ordinance should have a section that outlines the commission's purpose, make-up of its members (e.g. architects, historians, architectural historians, planners, etc.), responsibilities for reviewing landmark nominations and reviewing projects that may affect landmarks, etc. This information is missing from and/or scattered throughout the ordinance and should be revised.
3. Most cities have a robust list of incentives/benefits that have been developed and included in the preservation ordinance. Ideally, staff would provide recommendations to Council in a study session to add to the ordinance now. Other cities (e.g. Palo Al
to, Mountain View) have zoning and permit incentives,
e.g. exemptions from some requirements, FAR exceptions, exemptions from some permit fees, expedited permit review for projects that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, etc.
Thank you for considering my comments during tonight's hearing.
Best,
Christina Dikas Brobst
1 From: Norma F <
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 4:26 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Last minute changes to draft Historic Ordinance
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,
What is this with last minute changes to Section 090 of the Historic Ordinance giving control to the City to designate historic properties over owner consent? That is the exact opposite of what the Council indicated it would do just a few months ago. Further, it's completely inconsistent with the City's drive to promote housing and reduce the cost of living.
Vote no.
Surely there are many more important issues for the City to address!
Thanks for your consideration.
Norma Formanek
1 From: Rodney Mayers < >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 6:37 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; 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.
Rodney Mayers
PS: Any City Council that removes my right to make decisions about my own home that I paid for with my money will be demonstrating a complete abdication of their responsibility to represent my interests based on one Council member’s interest. This has gone far enough!
1 From: Mignon O'Young
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 5:45 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: 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.
O’Young Family
1 From: David Wall
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 4:19 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: 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 Chantal Eaton
From: Martin McTaggart
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:34 AM
To: Chantal Eaton
Subject: FW: May 18 Meeting Document
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Chantal,
Can you kindly add the below as public comment for the ordinance adoption?
Thank you,
Martin
From: Tracy Volponi
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:26 AM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: May 18 Meeting Document
City Clerk - Please include this document in the packet for the 5/18/26 City Council Board meeting. Thank you! – Tracy Volponi
S A N M A T E O H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N O R D I N A N C E Meet the Real People
Behind the 1989 Survey
Before you vote Monday, we'd like you to meet two of your neighbors.
T H E B R O O K S F A M I L Y · S A N M A T E O R E S I D E N T S
2 Marion and Alan in their home — surrounded by 45 years of memories and the original craftsman details they have lovingly preserved.
Marion and Alan have lived in their San Mateo home for 45 years — well before the 1989 survey was ever conducted. They have kept the exterior exactly as it was when they bought it. Step inside and it is like walking through a museum. Nothing has changed. They are, by any measure, exactly the kind of homeowners that historic preservation advocates say they want to protect. "When Frank told us we were potential targets of a new historic designation ordinance, we had no idea what he was talking about." But they were very clear about one thing: they do not want historic designation.
They actually considered it themselves years ago — and decided against it. Not because they plan to change their home. They don't. But because they understand something that should be obvious to this Council:
"Even people who love their homes don't want other people telling them what they can and cannot do with them."
Marion and Alan are in their 90s. They are not going to remodel. They are not a threat to anyone's vision of historic preservation. And yet they will tell you plainly — they want no part of more government regulation in service of someone else's ambiguous goal.
If this ordinance is such a gift, why don't they want it? They are not alone. There are 91 households just like them.
T H E I R H O M E · M A I N T A I N E D E X A C T L Y A S B U I L T