Post-Packet Public Comment — San Mateo City Council, May 18, 2026

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT

1 From: Barbara Alexander
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:53 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

Language introduced in SecƟon 020 (j)(2) would allow a non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nominaƟon is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are 'eligible'.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer .

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Rick Ballard
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 11:24 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl
Subject: Public comment: May 18, Agenda item 14, Historic Policy Update — Ordinance Adoption Dear council,

I urge you to remove agenda item 14 from the May 18th council meeƟng consent calendar. The last-minute addiƟon allowing council to historically designate 1989-survey homes *without owner consent* is deeply problemaƟc and should not be approved.

I own a parƟcularly notable historic house protected by exisƟng ordinance and knew what I was geƫng into when I purchased it; most homeowners who own homes on this list were not expecƟng similar restricƟons. I recently renovated this house to protect it for the next 100 years — including replacing the cracked brick founda Ɵon, making signiﬁcant seismic and structural improvements, and more, while taking care to maintain the beauƟful character and history of the house. Some of the process I had to follow during this project included:

— A neighborhood no ƟﬁcaƟon of my project, including planning fees and the cost of mailers — Hiring a historic architect to evaluate the project — Extra cost for my architect to navigate historic city planning process — Signi ﬁcantly longer planning approval Ɵmes, including two diﬀerent waiƟng periods for public noƟce (one of which I was not told about in advance, and resulted in my paying signiﬁcant extra rent aŌer a move-out) — Substan Ɵal cost for a reproducƟon wood- frame window on the side of the house (not discernibly diﬀerent from the street from an appropriate modern window) when the original was damaged — Requiring sign-o ﬀ from the city even for the type of shingle for the roof I needed to replace

To give you an example of the level of detailed city control involved: the handrail on my front steps is currently a ﬂat wooden board, and when repairing my steps I wanted to replace it with a more historically-appropriate wooden railing for a Victorian. Unfortunately, no photos of the house exist with the original railing. Without documentary evidence, and even though the current railing is not original, city planning said I could not change it even to something more appropriate without paying thousands of dollars in planning fees and then almost certainly being denied.

The overall addiƟonal cost, Ɵme, and bureaucracy here was signiﬁcant. It is inappropriate to impose these kinds of requirements on the number of homes and homeowners in quesƟon. I say this as someone who is a careful steward of my home’s character and who cares about preserving San Mateo history. There is a diﬀerence between protecƟng San Mateo’s most notable buildings and casƟng such a wide net as this without owner consent.

Thank you,
- Rick Ballard
San Mateo resident

1 From: Christine Barulich
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:41 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart
Subject: My Home Is One of 124 — Vote No on the Historic Ordinance, my home is 1001 Palm Ave, San Mateo
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

I am writing because my home at is one of 124 properties being swept into this historic preservation ordinance without my consent. I object to the City Council approving this ordinance as written, and I urge you to remove it from Monday's Consent Agenda and not proceed to a vote.

I was never asked. I was never notified. I only recently learned that my home has been designated as eligible for historic landmark status based on a 1989 survey I knew nothing about — a survey that was never completed and never formally adopted by the City Council. This is the first I have heard of it, and I am deeply opposed.

Every other San Mateo homeowner retains the right to opt out of historic designation. My home is being treated differently — singled out along with 123 others — with no explanation, no notice, and no
opportunity to object before Monday's vote. I have lived at this home for 20 years and this is the first I have heard of any of this.

If historic designation were genuinely beneficial — if it came with financial incentives, tax relief, or meaningful support — homeowners would sign up willingly. We are not signing up willingly. That should tell the Council everything it needs to know.

I urge the Council to remove this item from Monday's Consent Agenda, hold a proper public hearing with individual notice to all 124 affected owners, and not approve this ordinance until affected homeowners have had a genuine opportunity to be heard.

This is not AI generated. I am a real San Mateo homeowner. Please reply to confirm receipt and to address my concerns directly as this is very alarming that you can do something without my consent of a home I have paid for and continue to pay taxes on each and every year.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Christine Barulich

---
NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please include this letter in the official meeting packet for every session at which this ordinance appears on the agenda, until it is finally resolved.

1 From: Joan L. Cassman
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:06 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The proposed Historic Ordinance on your Council agenda tonight, which includes dangerous edits to the April 27th draft, is a ticking time bomb of anger and the desire to control the property rights of others.

Language introduced in Section 020 (j)(2) would allow Non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as an historic district. And if that nomination is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners in that neighborhood OBJECT, City Law would then categorize the neighborhood as "historic" based on a State appointed commission (no elected members) determining the properties in question are “eligible.”

This new language contradicts EVERY value that the council has agreed and communicated it will honor during the Historic process discussions, especially regarding Owner Consent, transparency and good government.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance which has been buried in the Consent Calendar. * REMOVE Item 14 on the Historic Ordinance from the Consent Calendar and vote NO * DO NOT SUPPORT or ALLOW ANY ORDINANCE TO SURVEY homes WITHOUT prior and express OWNER

CONSENT

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Joan L. Cassman

Partner

To help
p o ect y
p ivacy
Mic o o f
Off ce
p even e
auto ma i
downloa
th s pic u
f om th
nte ne
Hanson
B idge
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received thi s communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have.

The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.

1 From: Paul Clausing
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:51 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent 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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

Language introduced in Section 020 (j)(2) would allow non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nomination is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as “historic” based on the State saying they are ‘eligible’.

The Baywood nightmare but in your own District. This bypasses EVERY value that you’ve communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

 DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar  DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Paul & Amy Clausing

1 From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:01 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; City Attorney's Office; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Requesting City Attorney Review of Less Red Tape's May 15 Letter Before Any Amendment Is Considered
Mayor and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for your unanimous vote designating Glazenwood as a historic district.

I respectfully ask that this ordinance be adopted in its current form through the consent calendar.

If the Council wishes to consider Less Red Tape’s proposed language, I ask that it be scheduled as a separate agenda item — after the City Attorney has provided a complete written opinion addressing its legal effect.

Here is why.

As a resident tracking this process, the Council and the public deserve explicit clarity on how these proposed amendments interact with the protections already granted. I ask that the City Attorney formally clarify three straightforward questions before any text amendments are considered:

1. Does Less Red Tape’s proposed revision to the “Historic Resource” definition conflict with Section 27.66.030(c), which explicitly protects historic districts designated by resolution before this Ordinance takes effect — including Glazenwood’s April 20, 2026 designation and other historic districts designated prior to this Ordinance? (See Less Red Tape’s proposed revision, Section 2 of their May 15, 2026 letter.)

2. Does Less Red Tape’s proposed revision to the “Individually Eligible Historic Resource” definition — which their attorney titles “Clarify that ‘Individually Eligible Historic Resources’ Exclude District-Based Designations” —
alter the status or treatment of contributing properties and other resources currently subject to Section 27.66.110? (See Less Red Tape’s proposed revision, Section 1 of their May 15, 2026 letter.)

3. If the proposed amendments narrow or alter existing demolition protections for district contributors, does that material change to the ordinance’s regulatory scope invalidate the City’s reliance on the Common Sense CEQA exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) — requiring further environmental review before adoption? The ordinance itself relies on the Common Sense exemption under Section 15061(b)(3). That reliance warrants scrutiny if the amendments materially alter its regulatory scope.

There is an additional reason for careful legal review before any amendment is considered.

Their attorney’s letter states:

2 “LRT hereby incorporates by reference, and preserves in full, all objections, arguments, and reservations of rights set forth in its prior letters regarding the proposed historic preservation ordinance.”

The letter also states that “a separate letter addressing additional objections and preservation of claims” is forthcoming.

Because these proposed amendments are submitted alongside an explicit reservation of rights and notice of a forthcoming objections letter, a formal written review by the City Attorney is simply a prudent and necessary step to protect the City’s record.

Notably, these amendments were submitted three calendar days before a consent calendar vote — with only one intervening business day — an interval that does not provide adequate time for the legal analysis their complexity warrants.

Both complete proposed revisions are contained in Less Red Tape’s May 15, 2026 letter, which has already been submitted to the City Council and is part of the public record.

Given the unresolved legal questions raised by the proposed amendments, and the express reservation of rights contained in Less Red Tape’s submission — I respectfully ask that this ordinance be adopted in its current form tonight, and that no amendment be considered until the City Attorney provides a complete written opinion.

Respectfully,

Doug D’Anna
Glazenwood Historic District, San Mateo
1 From: Richard Delaney
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 3:29 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; [email protected]; Alex Khojikian Subject: Historic Ordinance: Take No Further Action Until SMHA Withdraws Baywood Nomination
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

I object to the City Council approving this historic preservaƟon ordinance as wriƩen. You should take no further acƟon on this ordinance unƟl the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA) and Laurie HieƩer voluntarily withdraw the Baywood neighborhood nominaƟon from the state historic inventory and you survey the 124 property owners of all the properƟes declared historic by this ordinance.

I am a commercial real estate broker. Although I have no business in San Mateo County the economic facts are the same everywhere. Real properƟes have two values. One is their current economic value and one is the potenƟal economic value. Many of the properƟes being declared historic have a potenƟal economic value in exces s of the current value. One
of the causes of this discrepancy is measure T. The owners of these properƟes would suﬀer an economic loss if their property was declared historic. See a current example of a lawsuit claiming this loss when Marilyn Monroe’s home was declared historic. (Marilyn Monroe Homeowners vs, City of Los Angeles.)

I urge the Council to reject this ordinance as wriƩen. Take no further acƟon unƟl SMHA withdraws the Baywood nominaƟon from the state historic inventory. Then start over — with real incenƟves, proper public noƟce, and an ordinance that San Mateo residents can actually support.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Richard Delaney
---
NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please include this leƩer in the oﬃcial meeƟng packet for every session at which this ordinance appears on the agenda, unƟl it is ﬁnally resolved.

1 From: Richard Delaney
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:15 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Tracy Volponi; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Richard Delaney

1 From:

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:31 AM
To: Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Cc: Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Adam Loraine; Martin McTaggart Subject: RE: May 18 consent agenda item 14; I oppose historic designation of our church without our consent
Danielle –

Thank you for your response.

I understand that the ordinance does not automatically designate properties on the 1989 survey and that there would be notice and a public participation opportunity before designation.

My concern is that the ordinance does not require our consent to designate it. It is unreasonable that only the properties on the survey are singled out for potential involuntary designation.

We are committed to respecting the architectural values of our church, and we have done so in our past remodeling. I invite you to attend next Sunday (10:30 am) to see our beautiful sanctuary.

But we simply do not have the resources to add all of the procedural and substantive compliance costs that would be imposed on the church if we decide to make minor alterations in the future.

Nor do we have the resources to participate in challenging the survey update or contesting a designation if the Council decides to single out our church. So the notice and participation provisions you point to are not sufficient protection.

Please remove Section 27.66.060(a)(5) from the proposed ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration,

John Farrow
From: Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:04 AM
To:

Subject: RE: May 18 consent agenda item 14; I oppose historic designation of our church without our consent

Hi John,

Hi Max,

Thank you for your email. I’d like to clarify what is, and is not, in the ordinance. Here is the language added by Council on May 4th (with highlights for emphasis):

1989 Historic Building Survey. The City Council may nominate properties listed on the 1989 Survey for addition to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory. Following property owner notification and

2 documentation to support findings, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to consider a resolution to approve the designation based on the criteria set forth in Section 27.66.040. If the application is approved by City Council, the resource shall be added to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory.

No property will be designated and added to the HRI as part of this ordinance adoption. The City will need to do owner notification and update the documentation for each property in the 1989 Survey before Council can consider any properties for designation, and this will happen at a future meeting after the aforementioned work has been completed,

And, before any work starts, Council will need to approve the scope of work for the 1989 Survey update (contract amendment), which staff will bring to a future meeting once it has been prepared.

So, there will
be at least two more meetings where the Council and public will have a chance to weigh in before any designation happens.

Best,

Danielle

From:

Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 7:13 PM
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 consent agenda item 14; I oppose historic designation of our church without our consent

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

I am a member of the Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo.

I write to object to the proposal in the historic
resources ordinance to permit the City Council to designate buildings on the 1989 survey as an historic resource without owner consent. That survey includes our sanctuary building at which includes our Sanctuary building at 300 East Santa Inez Avenue.

All other historic designations in the proposed ordinance require owner consent. Only buildings on the 1989 survey are singled out for involuntary designation under Section 27.66.060(a)(5). This seems fundamentally unfair.

I am concerned that designation might impose substantial constraints and additional costs to renovation work we might undertake. We are sensitive to the historic values of our building and we have honored these values in our recent extensive interior remodeling program.

Indeed, our work has removed some of
the additions that were not in character with the original building. However, as a small non-profit organization we simply do not have the resources to work through the bureaucratic and substantive requirements that might result from designation as an historic resource.

Please remove Section 27.66.060(a)(5) from the proposed ordinance.

Thank you,

John Farrow

3 * PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return e- mail and delete this message along with any attachments from your computer. Thank you. 1 From: Freedman, Daniel F.

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Danielle Cwirko- Godycki; Zachary Dahl; Alex Khojikian; Christina Horrisberger; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Cc:

Historic Policy; Clerk
Subject: LRT’s Requested Edits to the Proposed Updated Historic Ordinance - City Council Hearing Date May 18, Item 14.

Attachments:

Ltr to San Mateo CC re Requested Revisions 5-18-26(51484382.1).pdf Importance: High
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.

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

From: Freedman, Daniel F.

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

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

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.

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 15, 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: LRT’s Requested Edits to the Proposed Updated Historic Ordinance City Council Hearing Date: May 18, 2026

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

On behalf of Less Red Tape, we write to request two targeted revisions to the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. These changes are straightforward. They would resolve the ordinance’s most important remaining ambiguity and bring the ordinance back into alignment with the Council’s original objective: a local and consent-based process.

1. CLARIFY THAT “INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC RESOURCE S” EXCLUDE DISTRICT-BASED DESIGNATIONS.

The ordinance uses the term “individually eligible historic resource” as a trigger in Sections

27.66.090(a) and 27.66.120, but does not define it. While it is properly read to exclude districts – and contributors thereto – the City should make this express in the definition. More specifically, the definition should make clear that an “individually eligible historic resource” means a resource that independently qualifies on its own merits, and does not include a property whose only claimed significance is as a contributor or non -contributor to a district. We recommend adding a definition substantially as follows:
“Individually Eligible Historic Resource” means an individual building, structure, site, or object that independently satisfies one or more of the criteria in Section 27.66.040 based on its own history, architecture, or significance. The term does not include any property whose claimed eligibility derives from its location within, contribution to, or non- contributor status in a designated or eligible historic district.

Section 27.66.110 should then be revised to use that same defined term, rather than the broader and undefined phrase “eligible historic resource.”

2. REVISE “HISTORIC RESOURCE” DEFINITION TO REQUIRE A LOCAL PROCESS.

The ordinance should make clear that, for purposes of this chapter, a property is not subject to local historic regulation merely because it is eligible for or listed in a state or federal register. Local ordinance consequences should attach only if the City Council has formally adopted the resource

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 18, 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: LRT’s Further and Reiterated Objections to the Proposed Updated Historic Ordinance City Council Hearing Date: May 18, 2026

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

Less Red Tape submits this supplemental objection to the City’s proposed CEQA determination and budget impact conclusion for the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Resources Commission Ordinance. The staff report concludes that the ordinances are exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3), 15378(b)(5), and 15308 because they merely “update and clarify” existing historic preservation policies. The record does not support that conclusion.

The Historic Preservation Ordinance is not merely administrative or clarifying. It creates or revises procedures for identifying, designating, and treating historic resources and districts; authorizes City Council nomination of properties listed on the 198 9 Historic Building Survey; creates review requirements for exterior modifications, alterations, additions, Certificates of Appropriateness, demolition, and Downtown Retail Core design controls; and creates operative consequences for “eligible” and “individually eligible” historic resources. These provisions can affect whether projects are approved, delayed, redesigned, reduced, abandoned, or shifted elsewhere. The City therefore cannot rely on the common sense exemption. Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) applies only where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant environmental effect. That is not this case. At minimum, the ordinan ce raises legitimate questions about foreseeable physical effects on demolition, alterations, additions, redevelopment, housing, and the built environment.

The City’s reliance on section 15308 is also unsupported. Class 8 is not a blanket exemption for any ordinance that invokes environmental protection. The City must support the exemption with substantial evidence showing that the actual ordinance, as adopted, assures the maintena nce, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. The staff report contains no such factual analysis. Moreover, The ordinance is also not uniformly protective. It creates a classification system that determines which buildings are treated as Landmarks, Contributors, Non -contributors, eligible historic resources, individually eligible historic resources, or outside t he ordinance’s review triggers. That classification system selectively allocates preservation protection and demolition risk.

Some properties may receive heightened review; others may receive a clearer path to demolition, alteration, or redevelopment because they are classified outside protected categories. The ordinance also allows preservation controls to yield to economic considerations through an Economic Hardship Exception. The City has not analyzed how these classifications, exceptions, and economic-balancing

May 15, 2026

Page 3 ends

51497193.1
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki, Council Member ([email protected]) Zachary Dahl, Community Development Dir., City of San Mateo ([email protected]) Alex Khojikian, City Manager, City of San Mateo ([email protected]) Christina Horrisberger, Assistant City Manager, City of San Mateo ([email protected]) Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney, City of San Mateo ([email protected]) Somer Smith, Senior Planner, City of San Mateo ([email protected] ) Less Red Tape
1 From: Ralph Garcia
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:08 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Ralph Garcia, Jr.

RG2 has sent this message.

1 From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 5:23 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Take No Further Action Until SMHA Withdraws Baywood Nomination
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

The Baywood nominaƟon alone would aﬀect 444 homes. Add to that the 124 properƟes being swept into this ordinance without their owners' consent. And then consider this: SMHA operates independently and answers to no one. They can nominate addiƟonal properƟes outside of this ordinance enƟrely — meaning the number of San Mateo homes subject to
historic restricƟons could grow exponenƟally, with no limit, no oversight, and no recourse for homeowners. This ordinance hands a rogue organizaƟon a tool it can use without accountability. That is not a risk the City Council should be willing to take.

The fact that 124 homeowners are being swept into this ordinance against their will is itself proof that the ordinance does not work. If historic designaƟon were genuinely beneﬁcial — if it came with ﬁnancial incenƟves, tax relief, grants, or meaningful support — homeowners would be lining up to parƟcipate. They are not. Not one of the 124 aﬀected owners came forward voluntarily. That is not a coincidence. That is a signal the City should not ignore.

The right approach is to ﬁrst ﬁgure out what would make people want designaƟon. Build those incenƟves into the ordinance. Pilot the program with willing parƟcipants. Demonstrate that it works and that it beneﬁts homeowners — not
just preservaƟonists and planning staﬀ. Then, and only then, ﬁnalize and adopt the ordinance.

Instead, the City is moving in the opposite direcƟon — locking in 124 unwilling homeowners, handing SMHA a powerful new tool, and leaving the door wide open for hundreds more. The City needs a fair, open, and transparent partner in this process. SMHA has not demonstrated that it is that partner.

I urge the Council to reject this ordinance as wriƩen. Take no further acƟon unƟl SMHA and Laurie HieƩer withdraw the Baywood nominaƟon from the state historic inventory. Then start over — with real incenƟves, proper public noƟce, and an ordinance that San Mateo residents can actually support.

This is not AI generated. I am a real San Mateo resident. Please reply to conﬁrm receipt and to address my concerns directly.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Jean Garcia

---
NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please include this leƩer in the oﬃcial meeƟng packet for every session at which this ordinance appears on the agenda, unƟl it is ﬁnally resolved.

2 Sent from my iPhone
1 From: Colin Hoffman
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 5:02 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart
Subject: My Home Is One of 124 %2�� Vote No on the Historic Ordinance Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

I am a marine veteran with a VA disability rating = 100%. If my house is designated as historic, it will impact my life in an extremely negative way.

I was never asked. I was never notified. I only recently learned that my home has been designated as eligible for historic landmark status based on a 1989 survey I knew nothing about - a survey that was never completed and never formally adopted by the City Council. This is the first I have heard of it, and I am deeply opposed.

Every other San Mateo homeowner retains the right to opt out of historic designation. My home is being treated differently - singled out along with 123 others - with no explanation, no notice, and no opportunity to object before Monday's vote.

If historic designation were genuinely beneficial - if it came with financial incentives, tax relief, or meaningful support - homeowners would sign up willingly. We are not signing up willingly. That should tell the Council everything it needs to know.

This is not AI generated. I am a real San Mateo homeowner. Please reply to confirm receipt and to address my concerns directly.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Colin Hoffman
Disabled Marine veteran

---
NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please include this letter in the official meeting packet for every session at which this ordinance appears on the agenda, until it is finally resolved.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

1 From: Vineet Jain
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:33 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Regards

Vineet Jain
, Baywood

1 From: Anand Kishore
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 7:38 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

Language introduced in Section 020 (j)(2) would allow a non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nomination is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are 'eligible'.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Anand Kishore

Honorable Mayor and members of City Council,
The decision by City Council to include eligibility for the properties identified in the 1989 Resource Survey and to allow for designation of the same within our new historic resource ordinance will enable the recognition of some of San Mateo’s oldest and (I believe) some of its most significant properties. Included in the consent item on the agenda for Monday’s council meeting is direction to update the existing survey; after some time for that work to be completed, City Council will have the opportunity to review the findings and consider properties for addition to our new Resource Inventory. As we proceed to that step, I have my own comments and suggestions about how to proceed:

1. Prioritize: I have taken some time to look at the resources included on the survey list and the associated documentation. Referring to the designation criteria in our ordinance, I would place the survey properties into two categories:
• Historical Significance: These are properties would qualify under criteria A or B.

They may be directly referenced in our Historic Context Statement, and/or have strong, documented connections to notable events, people, and communities in San Mateo
• Aesthetic Value/Thematic: These are buildings which stand out in San Mateo as strong examples of a particular form or style or “represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.” For what I mean by “thematic”: there are some properties on the survey which were included because they were seen as embodying historic structures designed for specific functions (gas station, motor court, etc.) These resources would qualify under Criteria C in our ordinance.

As part of the update work to the survey, I recommend that Criteria A/B eligible resources be placed at the top of any list for potential designation. I believe that the number of eligible resources which meet these criteria is a small subset of the total number in the survey. We already have strong documentary evidence of their historical connection to the individuals and communities that built San Mateo; they are often the properties already mentioned by name when discussing local history; beginning with these resources will establish the objectivity of our local process, and is also the best use of finite resources.

The resources which I feel fall under Criteria C are not without value, but aesthetics is often more subjective and not always a subject where everyone agrees. When it comes to thematic properties like Olympian Gas on Palm Avenue: the preservation of service stations and other examples of “roadside architecture” is established practice; that does not mean it is without controversy, and the value of historic designation of any property should be weighed against our other civic priorities.

It is also worth noting that the 1989 Survey was not fully comprehensive. A review by the State Office of Historic Preservation at the beginning of the published report notes that time and financial constraints meant that a full review of all neighborhoods was not completed. Some properties that were included on the survey list as “representative examples” of a type or style may be better represented by comparable resources that were not included on the original survey list. Beginning the designation process with the resources which have the strongest documented history avoids questions of relative value that might arise for some resources that fall under Criteria C.

2. Collaboration and Incentives: While the process for designation of 1989 survey properties will no longer require owner consent, I strongly encourage that any designation should still begin with outreach to property owners, and that their responses should be given appropriate consideration as part of the designation process.

• It is possible that many concerns can be satisfied with the right incentives. I am very appreciative that Council adopted the planning commission’s recommendation that our new Historic Resource Commission study additional incentives to be added to the ordinance. Simple suggestions like waiving or reducing some administrative fees, or the promise of timely review for permits, can remove common sources of complaint about landmark designation.

Adjustments to allowable lot coverage and setbacks can make it easier to build on some parcels alongside eligible resources, easing concerns about loss of economic potential.

It would be valuable to poll the property owners of eligible resources on what incentives would encourage their voluntary participation in our local program to help inform the commission. It will also help San Mateo set our new landmarks program on a more viable long-term path. As this program continues and we look beyond the 1989 survey towards any potential resources where owner consent will be required, the owners of those potential landmarks will be watching to see how our ordinance is implemented before they make a decision on whether to step forward. If the designation process is visibly collaborative and properly incentivized, we will have better outcomes.

3. Lasting Protections: It is also important to know that many of the oldest and most significant resources on the survey list are within the radius of the transit-oriented development zone around the downtown Caltrain station that will be created by SB 79 when it takes effect in July. SB 79 contains provisions affecting historic resources designated after January of 2025 in transit zones; these provisions combined with CEQA exemptions in laws like AB 130 make it possible that even if properties are included on a local resource inventory, a qualified housing project may be able to bypass review and any protections a local designation would have previously imposed. This does not mean that landmark designation is not worthwhile, but it does reinforce the point that more than ever before, the ability to create durable protection for historic resources will require the active cooperation of property owners.

In Summary
For the last several years, historic preservation practice in San Mateo has been at the center of a great deal of controversy. I am a strong believer in the value of historic places; I further believe that to maintain the viability and legitimacy of preservation work, we must proceed in a manner that is as objective as possible and responsive to community concerns. This is an opportunity for City Council to reset the conversation around historic resource policy, and ensure the long-term success of our Historic Resource Inventory. Identifying and prioritizing the most significant properties in the 1989 survey with updated research and our excellent new Historic Context Statement will establish the bona fides of our updated historic resource ordinance. Ongoing opportunities for community input and the adoption of additional incentives alongside new designations should help ease concerns over the potential impacts of designations on property rights. The policy is written; how we implement it is equally important.

Thank you,
-Adam Klafter
1 From:

Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 3:42 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic Ordinance: Take No Further Action Until SMHA Withdraws Baywood Nomination
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,

Here we go again! We are busy recovering from the fiasco brought on by the lack of transparency regarding the Sobering Center on El Camino Real. Several neighborhoods were irate that there was no proper notification, followed by all that finger pointing. Did this council not learn that the public expects transparency in all issues as you promised when you were running for council? San Mateo belongs to the voters. It’s time you started listening to the majority.

The 124 homeowners do not give a hoot about a non-codified survey from 1989 that was never approved. It is meaningless in their opinion.

I urge Council to reject this ordinance as written. Start over — with proper public notice as a priority.

There were several law suits in Palo Alto regarding the very issues being discussed. It is irresponsible for any council member to say that they are willing to risk any law suits in order to push through these 124 homes. Better check with these homeowners first. They value their property rights, they have made their sacrifices and they need to be notified.

Stop pushing people around. You need their permission!

This is not AI generated. I am a real San Mateo resident. Please reply to confirm receipt and to address my concerns directly.

Thank you for your consideration.

Anna Kuhre
NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please include this letter in the official meeting packet for every session at which this ordinance appears on the agenda, until it is finally resolved.

1 From: Nikki Lindgren
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:45 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Please, Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance Dear City Council,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft makes me very angry as a newer home owner in the area. I did not move here to have 3rd parties dictate what I can and cannot do with the style and character of my home. This is maddening and frankly makes me seriously consider relocating my family of 5 elsewhere.

The Baywood nightmare but in your own District. This bypasses EVERY value that you’ve communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

 DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar  DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

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

Nikki

1 From: Jeane Makar
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:30 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Jeane Makar

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Max Mautner
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 9:01 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl Subject: Agenda Item 14 — Please pull from consent
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

For the public record on Agenda Item 14 (May 18, 2026): I'm asking you to pull this item from the consent calendar.

The ordinance allows Council to permanently encumber a property — with no realistic path to reversal —

after notifying the owner and holding a public hearing. Owner consent is not required. The triggering list is a 37-year-old building survey.

Here is the challenge I'd put to you: come to my block. Walk it. Try to identify which houses are on the 1989 Survey, and how many. You won't be able to. And neither can my neighbors who live on the list.

Several of them are on it and have no idea — nothing about their homes, their street, or any prior city communication tells them so. They are working full-time jobs, raising kids, and trusting that a change with this kind of permanence wouldn't move through Council on consent.

The stakes for an affected owner are concrete:

- Permanent loss of SB 9 eligibility (lot splits, duplexes); state law exempts parcels on a local historic register
- Certificate of Appropriateness review for routine exterior work, with original-material requirements that materially raise cost-of-living in an ultra-high-cost-of-living area - Reduced land value, especially for parcels with redevelopment potential under General Plan 2040 - An encumbrance that runs with the land in perpetuity

Some owners genuinely want historic designation and the Mills Act benefits that come with it. The clean policy answer is voluntary opt-in. There is no principled reason involuntary designation should be the default, and no good reason to make that choice on consent.

My asks:

1. Pull Item 14 from consent.

2. Direct staff to individually notify every owner on the 1989 Survey, by mail, in plain language, before any nomination proceeds.

3. Discuss publicly whether involuntary designation should require a higher bar than "notification plus hearing" — owner consent, supermajority vote, or specific written findings.

If the historic value of a property is real then it will survive a process that respects the owner.

If it isn't then the process shouldn't manufacture it.

2 Thank you.

Max Mautner
San Mateo, CA
1 From: Chris Misner
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 11:54 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy
Subject: Please Do Not Approve Item 14 - Historic Review and Survey.

Dear City Council,

I’ve spoken in person before the Council previously on this issue of Historic designaƟons, and I want to register my opposiƟon to the Historic Ordinance (the April 27th draŌ).

Language introduced in SecƟon 020 (j)(2) would allow anyone to nominate a neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as an historic district. Even if 100% of the owners object, the City would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are “eligible.”

This is the opposite of what the Council has communicated during the review of the Historic process - especially around owner consent.

• Please DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar • and please do not allow homes to be surveyed/designated as historic homes without neighborhood/community consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to the details of this important community maƩer.

Thank you,

Chris Misner
San Mateo, CA.

1 From: Jon New
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2026 10:55 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart
Subject: Vote No on the Historic Home Ordinance
Dear City Council,

I was alarmed to learn that the home of my neighbor, a disabled marine veteran (who also emailed you), is at risk of being pulled into a historic preservation ordinance without any sort of notification. I strongly urge the Council to remove this item from Monday's Consent Agenda, and postpone this ordinance until affected homeowners are properly notified and have had a genuine opportunity to be heard.

I personally find it deeply troubling that the Council would consider imposing significant property restrictions on residents without explicit notice or consent. Historic designation is not a symbolic honor to many homeowners; it carries real and lasting burdens that property owners deserve the chance to evaluate for themselves.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Jonathan New
San Mateo homeowner

---
NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please include this letter in the official meeting packet for every session at which this ordinance appears on the agenda, until it is finally resolved.

1 From: Mignon O'Young
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 7:11 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Mignon O’Young

1 From: Elisa Radice
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 8:45 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent Dear City Council,

Please do not vote in favor of the new Historic Ordnance language. Language introduced in Section 020 (j)(2) would allow non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nomination is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as “historic” based on the State saying they are ‘eligible’.

The Baywood nightmare but in your own District. This bypasses EVERY value that you’ve communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

 DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar  DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you,
Elisa Radice

1 From: Hanish Rathod
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:07 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Hanish

1 From: Steve Revesz
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 5:29 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Andrew Ryan
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 1:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian; Clerk
Subject: "There is no budget impact" for Historic Policy? Once again San Mateo's city gov't carelessly disregard reality
In the Agenda Report for the Monday May 18th "Historic Policy Update — Ordinance Adoption" under the "Budget Impact" section, you state "There is no budget impact." This is clearly false. The City is continuing a policy of misrepresenting what they are doing to the Council and the citizens of San Mateo.

First, the Agenda Report says "Council by motion also directed that the 1989 Historic Building Survey be updated". Surveys cost money to be updated. The costs of updating the 1989 survey could easily exceed $100,000, but the larger point is that we simply don't know, because San Mateo's city government is hiding these costs from us. We have heard that the City already spent $15,000 updating the Glazenwood district survey, which was around 30 homes.
 What is the cost to update the 1989 survey, which has 3-4 times as many homes, and more importantly, requires greater levels of documentation because these are individual resources and not a district?
 Why aren't we being told the true costs of what we will have to pay to update the 1989 survey? Second, the ordinance establishes a new, permanent seven member commission with substantial training requirements. Recruiting and training commissioners, plus the costs of and running committee meetings for this new commission cannot be free. We need to account for the true costs of establishing and running this committee and represent them clearly to this City.

Need I remind you, the City is under a $17 million budget deficit and is about to come to the people of San Mateo with hat in hand, seeking a new tax increase on the next ballot. Council, if you wonder why people don't trust you with our tax money, it is because we see how you spend money so carelessly on things that most people in this city don't want.

Andrew Ryan
Baywood

1 From: Kolja Schluetter
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 6:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Cc: Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl
Subject: Please Pull Agenda Item 14 From the Consent Calendar Good evening Council,

Please pull Agenda Item 14 from the consent calendar of the upcoming council meeting.

The recently debated changes to the ordinance are so far-reaching and impactful that this should not be passed as part of the consent calendar without proper public debate.

First, I am dumbfounded that after roughly 1.5 years of discussion and outreach, the debate about adding 1989 survey homes into the ordinance without owner consent only appeared over the past few weeks. This was never discussed with the broader community or any of the affected property owners during the entire outreach process.

Council and community largely arrived at the understanding that owner consent would be the guiding principle for historic designation. Why is the City now attempting to bypass that principle for certain homes?

There are major issues with relying on the 1989 survey:

1. The 1989 survey was never completed or officially adopted by the City Council. By now it survey is outdated.

2. It is not an official City historic inventory document. The recommendation for adoption came from an external commission, not the Council itself. The actual intent of the Council at the time is unknown. However, it seems reasonable to assume there was substantial pushback, as only Downtown and Glazenwood ultimately received designation.

3. None of the 124 affected homeowners have ever been notified that the City may now consider their homes historic or historically eligible. Many homeowners purchased and invested in these homes without any knowledge of potential historic restrictions.

4. This is major news to affected homeowners, and basic fairness requires direct notification and a proper standalone public debate before actions with potentially irreversible consequences are taken.

5. Updating these surveys is estimated to cost an additional $200,000-$300,000 on top of what has already been spent. At a time when the City is facing an approximately $16 million deficit, it is fair to ask whether this should be a financial priority.

6. Many of the properties in question are located in economically disadvantaged parts of the city.

Historic restrictions will significantly increase costs, delays, and permitting complexity for homeowners. In reality, excessive restrictions often result in homeowners pursuing unpermitted work simply to avoid the cost and red tape associated with historic review.

7. This current approach will also likely invite significant legal scrutiny and potential challenges from affected homeowners. At a time when the City already faces major financial pressures, exposing taxpayers to additional legal expenses and liabilities should be carefully considered.

2 Recommendations before taking any action:
 Demand that the Baywood nomination be dropped before pursuing any additional survey-based designations. Wasn’t this the “deal”? The SMHA gets a local process, and in turn the Baywood nomination, that is widely unpopular, is dropped for good.  Notify all affected property owners directly.
 Use a consent-driven approach for the survey properties in question. How many property owners would voluntarily choose designation?
 Rank the existing survey properties by actual historical significance and preservation priority.

Entirely unremarkable office buildings or gas stations should simply not be on that list. Narrow the list to the 10 most significant properties that truly must be preserved.  If the City still chooses to pursue designation without consent, consider a phased approach with financial incentives for the property owners.

I do support preserving major historic buildings in the city that have shaped our shared history.

What is simply not right is that the City demands protections while placing all related costs and burdens onto unsuspecting homeowners, who may now face lifelong restrictions on their primary assets despite never asking for them in the first place.

Thanks & Best, Kolja
1 From: Daniel Schonberg
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:49 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely,
Daniel Schonberg, District 3 resident.

1 From: Gerald Stokes
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 7:07 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Lynn Tognoli
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 6:56 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Agenda item 14, Historic policy Update-
City Council Members,

I am writing with a strong belief that I should be able to consent or deny being placed on agenda item 14, the historic policy designation that might effect my home.

I have lived in San Mateo my whole life. I went to San Mateo schools as did my wife's family and now we own
San Mateo for over 35years.

It is our biggest investment, take pride of ownership, and want to protect our right as a homeowner.

We do not want our home on the Historic designation list.

Michael Fox

1 From: Robin Wall
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:04 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

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

1 From: Bebe
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 11:41 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Bebe Young

1 From:

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:19 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Ryan Chow
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:02 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D2 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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 Council Member Fernandez and City Council,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger. How many of the 124 Properties on the 1989 Survey, most in D2, know that the City is considering making them historic without their awareness and express consent? With a simple post card, you could find out.

* DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Additionally, language introduced in Section 020 (j)(2) would allow non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nomination is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are 'eligible'.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Ryan

1 From: Joyce Chow
Sent: Monday, May 18, 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: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

1 From: steven denys
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:40 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Best,
steven

1 From: Kim
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:13 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D2 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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 Council Member Fernandez and City Council,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger. How many of the 124 ProperƟes on the 1989 Survey, most in D2, know that the City is considering making them historic without their awareness and express consent? With a simple post card, you could ﬁnd out.

* DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

AddiƟonally, language introduced in SecƟon 020 (j)(2) would allow non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nominaƟon is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are 'eligible'.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Kim DiGiulio

1 From: Ligia Flory
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:09 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent. Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,
D2 - D5 Council Members vote NO, 5/18 at 7pm meeting!!!!!! The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

The Baywood nightmare but in your own District. This bypasses EVERY value that you’ve communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

 DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar  DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Ligia Flory

1 From: Carol Gillman
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:13 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); City Attorney's Office; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Proposed Amendments- Glazenwood
My husband Martin and I (Carol) live on in Glazenwood.

I am concerned about what is actually at stake tonight.

The current ordinance requires a full planning review before anyone can demolish a contributing property in our historic district.

The proposed amendments raise the question of whether that protection survives for district contributors. If it doesn't — what stops a developer from buying the house next door and tearing it down with no review, no appeal, and no recourse?

We want a written City Attorney review before a single word is changed.

Carol and Martin Gillman

San Mateo

1 From: Karen E. Hummel
Sent: Monday, May 18, 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: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

1 From: Karen E. Hummel
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D2 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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 Council Member Fernandez and City Council,

* DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

1 From: Lane Poms
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:33 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D2 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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 Council Member Fernandez and City Council,
The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger. How many of the 124 Properties on the 1989 Survey, most in D2, know that the City is considering making them historic without their awareness and express consent? With a simple post card, you could find out. * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent Additionally, language introduced in Section 020 (j)(2) would allow non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nomination is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are 'eligible'.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent. * DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

1 From:

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 1:35 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,
The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft with edits is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

This bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.
* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

1 From: Rebecca Smith
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:20 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Subject: Item 14 should NOT be on the consent agenda
Dear City Council-

NOTE: This is not an AI generated message. I am a real person and voter in the City of San Mateo.

I am gravely concerned that you are pushing forward a Historic Ordinance (April 27 draft language) without proper consideration for the snowball effects this ordinance will have on property owners. As a resident of Hayward Park, I love the character of our neighborhood. Having a son who works in the property insurance industry, I also know that insurers are declining to cover homes that are designated historic. For those lucky enough to be able to get insurance on properties with this designation, their premiums are dramatically higher than similar properties without that designation. San Mateo is already unaffordable. This ordinance will force people out of their homes because they will not be able to afford insurance, and for those who stay, perhaps riskin
g being underinsured/uninsured, they will not be able to afford to complete necessary maintenance and upgrades due to the added burden of additional planning review and requirements. This ordinance is highly problematic and is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I also believe that listing houses as historic without the consent of the owners could be considered an illegal taking and will result in legal expenses for the city as homeowners not only fight the designation but sue the city for the loss in value and added costs of maintaining and insuring these homes.

*DO NOT APPROVE item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the consent agenda. * DO NOT SURVEY homes without the prior and express consent of the owner.

Thank you.

Rebecca Smith

San Mateo

1 From: Deepthi Somasunder
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D2 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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 Council Member Fernandez and City Council,

* DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Deepthi Somasunder
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D3 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

Language introduced in SecƟon 020 (j)(2) would allow non-Owners to nominate ANY neighborhood in San Mateo to the State as a historic district. And if that nominaƟon is agendized and approved, even if 100% of the Owners Object, the City Law would categorize them as "historic" based on the State saying they are 'eligible'.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Deepthi Somasunder
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D4 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Deepthi Somasunder
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D5 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Deepthi Somasunder
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:24 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D5 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

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,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

That Baywood nightmare but in your own District. And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Sent from my iPhone

1 From: Peter Stone
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:06 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

Dear City Council,

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draft is a ticking time bomb of owner anger.

The Baywood nightmare but in your own District. This bypasses EVERY value that you’ve communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

 DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar  DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

I have written to the City Council a number of times about this and have attended three City Council meetings. In my view, the City of San Mateo is poorly run. Per page 2 of the Spring 2026 San Mateo News, you’ve run a deficit since 2024. In January 2025 I attended a City Council meeting where you approved spending $350K on a consultant to study the Historic District matter. I knew then that it would cost at least twice that amount.

I am certain you’ve spent more than
this and have nothing to show for it. Why are you doing this? Why are you wasting money on things that your constituents do not want? I will never vote for anyone who continues to push this BS. Please focus on more important matters like fixing the roads.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Peter R. Stone

From: Aida Kedefors
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:46 PM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo); City Attorney's Office; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Glazenwood District
Dear Members of the City Council,
I'm a Glazenwood resident from

Five months ago we learned our neighborhood had been stripped of its historic designation without our knowledge. We organized. We gathered signatures from 83% of our neighbors. We came to this Council three times. You voted 5-0 to restore what was ours.

Tonight we are back - not because we want to be, but because proposed amendments submitted at the last minute raised questions this Council has not yet had time to answer.

Was the vote you cast on April 20th the vote you intended? If yes - are you confident tonight's proposed amendments do not change what that vote means?

Please adopt the ordinance as written. Get the City Attorney opinion. Then decide.

Thank you.

Aida Kedefors

San Mateo

1 Erin Fellers
From: Liz Magnee-Schalch
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 3:51 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: [email protected]; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah; Historic Policy Subject: D3 Do Not Approve Item 14 Historic Ordinance AND No surveys without Consent.

Dear San Mateo City Council,
I am a home owner in D3 with 2 houses in this district and I oppose any changes to how historic housing is classiﬁed or surveys that are without the express consent of the owner of the property. Not only did you spend money on a non- issue
to draŌ up new Historic housing you are making it diﬃcult in an already diﬃcult area by puƫng a "possible" historic house burden on exisƟng homeowner or when selling.

These are not insagniﬁcate burdens in an area that is already struggling with how to manage the housing that is here.

Why would you want to add to this by updaƟng and bring homes into the "historic" classiﬁcaƟon is beyond me.

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

I want you to not approve the following:

And this bypasses EVERY value that you've communicated during the Historic process especially around Owner Consent.

* DO NOT APPROVE Item 14 Historic Ordinance as part of the Consent Calendar * DO NOT SURVEY homes without prior and express owner consent

The Historic Ordinance as of the April 27th draŌ with edits is a Ɵcking Ɵme bomb of owner anger.

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this very serious maƩer.

Regards,
Liz Magnee-Schalch

San Mateo City CouncilMay 18, 2026

San Mateo City Council
May 18, 2026