Agenda packet, special meeting, first session — San Mateo City Council, September 8, 2026

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
September 8, 2026
6:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Robert Newsom Jr.

AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY .

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

S
eptember 8, 2026
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 822 3375 7720 No Passcode Required

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call

OLD BUSINESS
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.

1. Historic Policy Update – Budget Appropriation and Amendment Adopt a Resolution to appropriate $168,687 (Option 1) or $140,584 (Option 2) from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to expand the scope of work and increase the agreement to a total not to exceed amount of $497,430 (Option 1) or $469,327 (Option 2) to complete additional tasks related to an update of the 1989 Historic Building Survey; extend the term of the agreement through December 31, 2028; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

CEQA: The appropriation of funds and agreement approval is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Astound/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

1 of 205

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom:

Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

By telephone:

Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person:

At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form. Organized Group and Presentations: Up to five (5) minutes for a group presentation, with as many speakers as can be accommodated within that time allowance. To qualify for a group presentation, all individuals associated with the presentation must be clearly identified and confirmed as in attendance at the meeting. Presentation materials must be submitted to [email protected] one (1) business day in advance of the meeting.

Presentations:

PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to [email protected] at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted.

Signs:

Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY:

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to ensure meaningful access for all participants, including those with limited English proficiency, individuals requiring special accommodation or language assistance to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

SPANISH INTERPRETATION
:

If you need interpretation of your communications to the City Council from Spanish to English or English to Spanish, please contact the City Clerk Department at (650) 522-7040 or by email at [email protected]. Notification of at least 48 hours will usually enable the City to make arrangements.

INTERPRETACIÓN AL ESPAÑOL
:

Si necesita interpretación del inglés al español o del español al inglés para sus comunicaciones al Concejo de la Ciudad, comuníquese con el Departmento del Secretario Municipal al (650) 522-7040 o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Por favor, avísenos con al menos 48 horas de anticipación para que la ciudad pueda hacer los arreglos necesarios.

2 of 205

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 7
3 0

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 26-11579 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: September 08, 2026
SUBJECT:

Historic Policy Update – Budget Appropriation and Amendment RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to appropriate $168,687 (Option 1) or $140,584 (Option 2) from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to expand the scope of work and increase the agreement to a total not to exceed amount of $497,430 (Option 1) or $469,327 (Option 2) to complete additional tasks related to an update of the 1989 Historic Building Survey; extend the term of the agreement through December 31, 2028; and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

Historic Policy Update
On January 21, 2025, the City Council voted to appropriate funding ($328,743) to complete the Historic Policy Update effort and to approve a professional services agreement with Rincon Consultants to support this historic policy work. Over the next 16 months, the historic team (staff and Rincon Consultants) worked to prepare a Citywide Historic Context Statement, updated Historic Preservation Ordinance and other associated historic policies. On May 4, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the updated historic policies and ordinances. As part of the Council action to adopt the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance, a provision that allowed Council to nominate properties listed on the 1989 Historic Survey for addition to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory was included. However, since the Survey contained information and documentation that was over 37 years old, it would need to be updated before it could be used to support a potential landmark designation of any of the identified properties. Thus, Council directed staff to prioritize updating the Survey and to bring back a scope of work for their consideration.

The San Mateo Historic Building Survey Report was published in September 1989 and is included as Attachment 3.

Preparation of this Survey Report was a collaboration between the City of San Mateo and the California State Office of Historic Preservation and was intended to provide a basis for future City-led historic preservation and policy efforts. The Survey identified buildings and properties around the City that were already listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and those that were potentially eligible for historic designation at the Federal or local level. Following the preparation of the Survey, the City formally recognized and designated the Downtown Historic District and updated the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
1989 Historic Building Survey Update Work Plan
The work plan to complete this additional work to update the 1989 Historic Building Survey includes four tasks and is anticipated to take approximately seven months to complete. The proposed tasks are as follows, with additional details included in the Scope of Work and Cost Estimate (Exhibit A-1 to Attachment 2):

3 of 205

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 7
3 0
•Task 1: Kick-off and Project Management
•Task 2: Historic Resources Survey Update
oIncludes data collection, survey work and form updates for properties listed in the 1989 Survey. ▪Option 1 - Assessment of up to 124 properties (survey rating of 3, 3D, 4 and 5) 1. ▪Option 2 - Assessment of up to 91 properties (survey rating of 3, 3D and 5). •Task 3: Historic Resource Survey Report
•Task 4: Community Outreach Plan
oIncludes property owner engagement throughout this process, a community meeting and two City Council public hearings.

Overall, this scope of work would focus on updating the historic property evaluations contained in the 1989 Historic Building Survey to determine how many continue to be eligible historic resources. The Survey included an assessment of 133 properties that were not already listed on the National Register and not within the Downtown Historic District or the Glazenwood Historic District. Of the 133 properties, 91 properties were identified as being individually eligible as historical resources at the national or local level, 33 properties were evaluated but required additional research to determine eligibility, and nine were evaluated and noted as being ineligible. Under Option 1, up to 124 properties would be reviewed and evaluated, and under Option 2, only the 91 properties previously identified as being individually eligible resources would be reviewed and evaluated. Following assessment of the properties, an updated historic building survey report would be prepared and then presented to City Council at a public hearing. Consistent with the City’s updated Historic Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Code Chapter 27.66), the Council could use this updated survey report to nominate listed properties for designation as local Landmarks and inclusion on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

In addition to the work to update the 1989 Historic Building Survey, the scope of work includes community outreach to ensure that all property owners identified in the Survey receive advanced notification and are able to share information about their properties and engage with the historic team to ask questions and learn more about the process.

Once the Survey update is complete, additional property owner notification will occur, and a community meeting will be scheduled to present the findings and answer questions in advance of the City Council public hearing. This work is anticipated to take approximately seven months to complete, with the updated report returning to the City Council in spring 2027.

City Council Action
Based on the scope of work outlined above, the City Council should take one of the following actions:
•Option 1 - Adopt a Resolution to appropriate an additional $168,687 from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve an amendment to the agreement with Rincon Consultants to survey up to 124 properties listed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
•Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution to appropriate an additional $140,584 from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve an amendment to the agreement with Rincon Consultants to survey up to 91 properties listed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
•Option 3 - Do not adopt a Resolution approving an appropriation or amendment to the agreement with Rincon Consultants and vote to not proceed with an update to the 1989 Historic Building Survey at this time.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The budget appropriation of $168,687 for Option 1 or $140,584 for Option 2 (Attachment 1) would be funded by the 1 A description of the rating system used in the 1989 Survey can be found on pages 9-10 of the Survey Report (Attachment 3).

4 of 205

CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 7
3 0
Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) and would not have an impact on the City's General Fund. As of July 1, 2026, the Advance Planning Fund had an estimated fund balance of approximately $6.39 million. In addition to the consultant services, it is anticipated that the staff time and resources to support this policy work from the Community Development Department, City Attorney's Office and City Manager's Office will cost between $30,000 and $60,000. These staff costs do not require additional budget appropriation, as they would be covered by each Department's current operating budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The appropriation of funds and agreement approval is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:

This project supports the Land Use initiative.

NOTICE PROVIDED:

All meeting noticing requirements were met. In addition, notification of this meeting was sent to the Historic Policy interested parties list, included in the City’s eNews, and mailed via postcard to each address identified in the City’s 1989 Historic Resources Survey to provide notice of this item and meeting.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Resolution
Att 2 – Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Rincon Consultants Exhibit A-1 – Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
Att 3 – 1989 Historic Building Survey
Att 4 – Public Comment

STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Dahl, Director Community Development
[email protected]
(650) 522-7207

5 of 205

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2026)

APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ADDITIONAL TASKS RELATED TO THE HISTORIC POLICY UPDATE PROJECT WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025, the City Council approved a contract with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to provide technical historic policy support services to support the Historic Policy Update project for an amount of $328,743 (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, based on City Council direction to prioritize an update to the San Mateo 1989 Historic Building Survey Report as part of the Historic Policy Update public hearing on May 4, 2026, an additional appropriation of [Option 1: $168,687] or [Option 2: $140,584] is necessary to cover additional tasks, technical evaluations and community outreach to support the Survey update.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. This fund appropriation is not a project of CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not impact the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

2. The appropriation of [Option 1: $168,687] or [Option 2: $140,584] from the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) to the to the Historic Policy Update project is approved.

6 of 205

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR PROFFESIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL TASKS AND

TECHNICAL SUPPORT RELATED TO THE HISTORIC POLICY UPDATE AND TO EXTEND THE TERM TO DECEMBER 31, 2028

WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo (“City”), a municipal corpora�on of the State of California, and Rincon Consultants, Inc. (“Consultant”), entered into an Agreement for professional consultant services for technical historic policy support services (“Agreement”) on January 21, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the original scope of services for the Historic Policy Update project included prepara�on of a new Citywide Historic Context Statement and update to the City’s Historic Preserva�on Ordinance (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Agreement was approved for an amount not to exceed $328,743 and a term to be completed by January 31, 2028; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to expand the scope of services to include addi�onal tasks related to an update of the San Mateo 1989 Historic Building Survey Report; and

WHEREAS, City wishes to increase the contract amount for this Project by [Op�on 1: $168,687] or [Op�on 2: $140,584] as outlined in Exhibit A-1 of this Amendment to provide compensa�on for the expanded scope of services for this Project (for a total not-to-exceed amount of $497,430 or $469,327).

NOW , THEREFORE, the par�es agree as follows:

1. Sec�on 4 of the Agreement is amended to read:

“The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on January 23, 2025 and be completed by December 31, 2028.”

2. Sec�on 5 of the Agreement is amended to read:

Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services (Work Plan) set forth in Exhibit A and the Budget and Rates set forth in Exhibit B, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount not to exceed [Option 1: $497,430] or [Option 2: $469,327] in total.

3. Exhibit A of the Agreement (Scope of Work) is amended as follows: Exhibit A-1 atached hereto to this Amendment No. 1 is added to Exhibit A of the Agreement.

4. Exhibit B of the Agreement (Cost Es�mate) is amended as follows: Exhibit A-1 atached to this Amendment No. 1 is added to Exhibit B of the Agreement.

5. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and eﬀect.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

7 of 205

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , CITY OF SAN MATEO and Rincon Consultants, Inc. have executed this Amendment No. 1 on ___________________.

CITY OF SAN MATEO CONTRACTOR

Alex Khojikian Date Jennifer Haddow Date
City Manager Execu�ve Vice President

APPROVED AS TO FORM

Mazarin Vakharia Date Lacrissa Davis Date
Assistant City Atorney Execu�ve Vice President

8 of 205

1 Exhibit A-1

Scope of Work
The methodology presented in this proposal reflects the following overarching objectives:
o To rely on the updated evaluation framework in the recently completed and adopted Citywide Historic Context Statement
o To utilize previous historic resources surveys and studies as project resources o To streamline budget and schedule by relying on pre-field research and to focus research and documentation efforts
o To encourage meaningful community engagement, through an interactive meeting and online project platforms

Task 1 Project Kick-off and Project Management
Rincon will coordinate a project kick-off meeting with the City team to confirm project approach, priorities, and schedule. At this time, Rincon will request available information, including previous survey materials and studies, designation materials, Arc-GIS data sets, base maps, and other related background materials as available (technical reports, environmental documents, photographs, etc.).

Rincon will prepare a memorandum summarizing the results of the meeting and prepare a live project schedule. Rincon will set up bi- weekly to monthly status calls to summarize work efforts, significant accomplishments, issues encountered and actions taken, and key milestones achieved.

Status calls will also include schedule updates.

Deliverables
o One (1) memorandum summarizing the results of the kick-off meeting in electronic format o 12 virtual status calls via Microsoft Teams

City Tasks
o Provide available ArcGIS data layers, previous studies, designation materials, ArcGIS data sets, and base maps, as available
o Provide historic permit histories for properties included in the study area and other related background research materials as available

Task 2 1989 Historic Resources Survey Update
The 1989 historic resources survey included the survey of 133 properties. Of those, 91 were identified as individually eligible as historical resources, 33 were recorded but not evaluated, and 9 were evaluated and recommended ineligible. Using previous survey results as a point-of-departure, Rincon will complete a reconnaissance-level survey of built environment resources within the previously established survey boundary, excluding the Downtown Historic District and the Glazenwood Historic District. This phase of the project will include the identification, evaluation, and documentation of properties with historical, architectural, and/or cultural significance, as previously identified in the 1989 Historic Resources Survey. Evaluations will consider federal, state, and local criteria using the themes and eligibility standards established in the Historic Context Statement.

9 of 205

2 Rincon will utilize the latest survey technology to automate the survey and reporting process to the extent feasible. Early in the project, our GIS experts will coordinate with the City to obtain available ArcGIS layers and shapefiles pertaining to historic reso urces or past survey results, for incorporation into our ArcGIS platform and Survey Webmap. The Webmap will include applicable fields included on DPR forms; Rincon will coordinate with the City to ensure that the Webmap fields meet the project needs. Rincon presents the following options for survey update:

Option 1
• The results of the 1989 historic resources survey will serve as baseline resource document for the project. Among the properties previously identified as historical resources, Rincon will re-survey, note character-defining features and alterations, and update the findings to include the appropriate context, theme, and property type from the Historic Context Statement. Should there be a change in the California Historical Resource Status Code of any property, the reasons for the change will be noted.
• Among properties previously identified in the 1989 survey, but not previously evaluated, Rincon will re-survey, provide a full architectural description, note character-defining features and alterations, provide a detailed description of the property’s development and discussion of significance, including the appropriate context, theme, and property type from the Historic Context Statement. The appropriate California Historical Resource Status Code will be recorded. of any property, the reasons for the change will be noted. • For all surveyed properties, the presence of historic sites and thematic groupings will be noted and mapped. California Historical Resource Status Codes will be assigned to properties subject to evaluation and will be identified in the survey Webmap. • Properties not surveyed in the 1989 historic resources survey will not be surveyed or evaluated as part of this update effort. No new properties will be surveyed or evaluated. • The budget and schedule provided in this proposal assume that each eligible property will be documented at the following level of detail: at least two digital photographs will be taken per property, with additional context shots, as well as an eligibility justification based on the Historic Context Statement. For each eligible property, intensive-level surveys will document property address, Assessor’s Parcel Number, date of construction (if known), architect/contractor/designer (if known), property type and architectural style, historic integrity/existing conditions comments, as well as applicable eligibility criteria and context/theme/property type information.

Deliverables
o Up to 91 updated DPR 523L Continuation Sheet forms for properties previously evaluated and recommended eligible with updated photographs, physical descriptions, character -defining features, and eligibility recommendations in electronic format o Up to 33 DPR sets inclusive of the 523B Building, Structure, Object form, and 523L Continuation Sheet form, that document property location information and provides an evaluation for the property within its historic context in electronic format o ArcGIS-compatible, searchable database and shapefiles of intensive-level survey results City Tasks
o Provide applicable ArcGIS shapefiles and data (e.g., shapefiles for historic resources/landmarks, land use, dates of construction, previous surveys, as available)

10 of 205

3 o Provide previous survey results and studies as available; participate in biweekly team meetings through survey phase
o Review and provide feedback on updated DPR forms
Option 2
• The results of the 1989 historic resources survey will serve as baseline resource document for the project. Among the properties previously identified as historical resources, Rincon will re-survey, note character-defining features and alterations, and update the findings to include the appropriate context, theme, and property type from the Historic Context Statement. Should there be a change in the California Historical Resource Status Code of any property, the reasons for the change will be noted.
• The presence of historic sites and thematic groupings will be noted and mapped. California Historical Resource Status Codes will be assigned to properties subject to evaluation and will be identified in the survey Webmap.
• Properties surveyed, but not evaluated in the 1989 historic resources survey will not be surveyed or evaluated as part of this update effort. No new properties will be surveyed or evaluated.

• The budget and schedule provided in this proposal assume that each eligible property will be documented at the following level of detail: at least two digital photographs will be taken per property, with additional context shots, as well as an eligibility justification based on the Historic Context Statement. For each eligible property, intensive-level surveys will document property address, Assessor’s Parcel Number, date of construction (if known), architect/contractor/designer (if known), property type and architectural style, historic integrity/existing conditions comments, as well as applicable eligibility criteria and context/theme/property type information.

City Tasks
o Provide applicable ArcGIS shapefiles and data (e.g., shapefiles for historic resources/landmarks, land use, dates of construction, previous surveys, as available) o Provide previous survey results and studies as available; participate in biweekly team meetings through survey phase
o Review and provide feedback on updated DPR forms

11 of 205

4 Task 3 Historic Resources Survey Report
Upon completion of field surveys and DPR forms, a Historic Resources Survey Report will be completed. The survey report will include:
o Introduction and Existing Historic Preservation Framework o Project Objectives
o Area Surveyed, including detailed ArcGIS maps
o Research Design and Methodology
o Survey Results and Findings
o Definitions
o References/Sources Consulted
o Maps and Photographs
o Conclusion and Recommendations
Survey work will be carried out in accordance with the specifications described in the RFP and with current professional practices and guidelines, as described in:
o National Park Service.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997.
o National Park Service.
. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997. o National Park Service.

o National Park Service.
. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985.
o California Office of Historic Preservation.

Sacramento, CA, March 1995.

Deliverables
o Draft and final Historic Resources Survey Report in electronic format. Budget includes up to two (2) rounds of review and comment by the City.
o JPEG copies of full-resolution photographs

City Tasks
o Review and approval of draft and final reports
o Coordination with City’s ArcGIS department to transfer data

12 of 205

5 Task 4 Community Outreach Plan
Critical to the success of this project will be effective public outreach, information gathering and sharing. For this reason, Rincon proposes a proactive strategy for engaging and informing the public and building support, through a virtual community meeting and outreach, and through the use of a project Website and Story Map, to be hosted by the City with information provided by the Rincon team.

In addition to anticipated City Council hearings, our outreach strategy for facilitating public input and engagement centers on a community workshop and interactive, publicly-accessible online maps, for presenting survey results. The online maps will engage the public and bring the project and survey results to life through an interactive platform. Rincon will also develop one social media post, one flyer printable at both a poster size (24 x 36) and standard 8.5 x 11, for City staff to post at relevant locations such as libraries and City buildings to raise awareness of the interactive platform.

The community workshop will engage directly with the community at a virtual workshop. The Rincon team will support the event by developing engagement materials and non-traditional workshop designs that integrate elements of civic education and consensus building while fostering a dialogue that provides ongoing input on the project. The Rincon team will also support this task by providing engagement materials, such as flyers or postcards with project information, social media posts, and interactive activity materials as appropriate for the determined workshop agenda. Materials would be developed in coordination with the City to be accessible and culturally relevant to the communities that San Mateo serves. Prior to the community workshop, Rincon will develop an event approach memo that outlines the activities to be performed, the responsibilities of different individuals, virtual logistics, and a comprehensive list of needed materials. Translation services are not included as part of this task, but may be added through a scope amendment, if desired.

Deliverables
o Participation at two public hearings: (2) City Council meetings, including preparation of staff reports and presentations
o Development of engagement materials to support promotion and facilitation of the workshop, including up to two flyers or postcards and up to one interactive activity; and one flyer specific to the interactive platform
o Assistance with social media and online engagement posts, including up to three eblast emails and four social media posts
o Design and implementation of one virtual community workshop and attendance by one Rincon facilitator, one subject matter expert, and one notetaker/technical support staff.

City Tasks
o Advertise community meeting through available channels (City website, social media, etc.). o Advertise availability of the interactive platform through available channels (City website, social media, etc.).
o Advise Rincon on City Council questions and concerns; coordinate with Rincon on appropriate timing for presentation; schedule hearing
o Coordination with City regarding access and hosting for survey map

13 of 205

6 Schedule
The proposed project schedule spans approximately 7 months. This schedule allows the City to maximize opportunities for public engagement and education for the community and decision- makers. The timeline and approach are subject to change according to the City’s priorities and timeline. This section includes a brief synopsis of the related City tasks and role in completing each milestone.

Tasks Timeline
Task 1: Kick-off and Project Management Months 1 to 7
o Project Kick-off o Month 1
o Project Management o Ongoing
Task 2: Historic Resources Survey Update Months 1 to 5
o Webmap and data collection o Month 1 to 3
o Intensive -level survey o Month 2 to 3
o DPR Updates o Month 3 to 5
Task 3: Historic Resource Survey Report Months 5 to 6
o Draft/final report o Month 5 to 6
o ArcGIS survey results o Month 5 to 6
Task 4: Community Outreach Plan Months 6 to 7
o Community Meeting o Month 6
o City Council Status
Reports/Presentations
o Month 7
o City Council Hearings on Project Findings o Month 7
o Planning and Launch of Story Map o Month 7

14 of 205

7 Costs

Table 1 Cost Summary

Task Estimated Cost
Task 1 Project Kick-off and Project Management $15,639.00 Task 2 Option 1: Historic Resources Survey Update $109,311.00 Task 2 Option 2: Historic Resources Survey Update $81,208.00 Task 3 Historic Resources Survey Report $16,252.00
Task 4 Community Outreach Plan $27,485.00
Total – Option 1 $168,687.00
Total – Option 2 $140,584.00

15 of 205

16 of 205

17 of 205

18 of 205

19 of 205

20 of 205

21 of 205

22 of 205

23 of 205

24 of 205

25 of 205

26 of 205

27 of 205

28 of 205

29 of 205

30 of 205

31 of 205

32 of 205

33 of 205

34 of 205

35 of 205

36 of 205

37 of 205

38 of 205

39 of 205

40 of 205

41 of 205

42 of 205

43 of 205

44 of 205

45 of 205

46 of 205

47 of 205

48 of 205

49 of 205

50 of 205

51 of 205

52 of 205

53 of 205

54 of 205

55 of 205

56 of 205

57 of 205

58 of 205

59 of 205

60 of 205

61 of 205

62 of 205

63 of 205

64 of 205

65 of 205

66 of 205

67 of 205

68 of 205

69 of 205

70 of 205

71 of 205

72 of 205

73 of 205

74 of 205

75 of 205

76 of 205

77 of 205

78 of 205

79 of 205

80 of 205

81 of 205

82 of 205

83 of 205

84 of 205

85 of 205

86 of 205

87 of 205

88 of 205

89 of 205

90 of 205

91 of 205

92 of 205

93 of 205

94 of 205

95 of 205

96 of 205

97 of 205

98 of 205

99 of 205

100 of 205

101 of 205

102 of 205

103 of 205

104 of 205

105 of 205

106 of 205

107 of 205

108 of 205

109 of 205

110 of 205

111 of 205

112 of 205

113 of 205

114 of 205

115 of 205

116 of 205

117 of 205

118 of 205

119 of 205

120 of 205

121 of 205

122 of 205

123 of 205

124 of 205

125 of 205

126 of 205

127 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Historic Policy
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 3:00 PM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fw: Don't Survey my Property

From: Christine Barulich
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2026 3:42 PM
To: Rob Newsom <[email protected]>; Adam Loraine <[email protected]>; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki <[email protected]>; Nicole Fernandez <[email protected]>; Lisa Diaz Nash <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>; Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]> Subject: Don't Survey my Property

Dear City Council,

I understand the City is considering spending money to re-survey my property, which was included in the 1989 Historic Survey. The way you word it makes it sound like you are making it a privilege to be considered historic. I believe it is a privilege to own my own home that we worked hard to be able to buy and decide what we want to happen to the house we purchased. Please take our house off the list to be considered historic. If people would like to opt in for their home to be considered happens historic great for them but I believe it should be up to the home owner. I would not like my house to be on that list.

Also, what happens top my house if it is considered historic and then I have someone else telling me what is acceptable to be done to my house? Do I get the benefit of let's say not having to pay property taxes if someone else gets to decide what can be done with the house I paid for?? I would like to know exactly the benefits the home owner would receive if y’all decide my house is historic and I have no say in it. Why its it so important to you to have my house called historic? What is it worth to you for me to agree to have my house on that list? Like I said before the home owner should have the option to be considered historic or not.

I would like to opt out. I do not want my home designated historic. Please save the money and do not survey my home.

My property is located at

Thank you,
Christine Barulich

128 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Historic Policy
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fw: Formal Objection Regarding Historic Survey Property From: Colin Hoffman
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2026 4:26 PM
To: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: Formal Objection Regarding Historic Survey Property

Dear City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Planning Director,

I am writing as the owner of a property identified as potentially subject to additional historic review, survey, nomination, or designation under the City’s recently updated ordinance, without my consent. I object to my property being treated differently from other properties not included in the 1989 survey.

Although my house is older, it is similar to many other homes that were not included in the survey. Until recently, I was not even aware that my property had been included in any historic survey. I ask that the City Attorney, City Clerk, or other appropriate City official acknowledge receipt of this email in writing and ensure that it is included in the permanent record for my property and in the administrative record for any future hearing, meeting, or proceeding concerning this ordinance or the historic status of my property. I understand that, if the City decides to move forward with designating my property as historic, there will be a formal hearing. However, the ordinance provides no assurance that my objection will be given meaningful consideration during that hearing. I am objecting now and respectfully ask that the City honor my objection, thereby avoiding unnecessary expense, delay, and effort for everyone involved.

Please advise whether the City can simply remove my property from further consideration at this time.

Even if the City ultimately decides not to designate my property as historic, the ordinance as written casts a cloud over my property by subjecting it to a special review process that does not apply equally to other San Mateo properties. That uncertainty may affect my development rights, permitting options, property value, and resale value. I respectfully submit that this unequal treatment is fundamentally unfair. I ask the City Council to amend the ordinance so that properties such as mine cannot be surveyed, nominated, or designated as historic without the owner’s consent. Because I am considering potential legal action against the City, individually or together with other affected property owners, I expressly reserve all rights and remedies arising from the ordinance, its implementation, and any resulting impairment of my property rights or property value.

Sincerely,
Colin Hoffman

129 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Historic Policy
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fw: Formal Objection Regarding Historic Survey Property From: Trish Power
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 11:38 AM
To: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: Formal Objection Regarding Historic Survey Property

Dear City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Planning Director,

I am writing as the owner of a property, , identified as potentially subject to additional historic review, survey, nomination, or designation under the City’s recently updated ordinance, without my consent. I object to my property being treated differently from many other similar properties not included in the 1989 survey, such as S Eldorado St.

I ask that the City Attorney, City Clerk, or other appropriate City official acknowledge receipt of this email in writing and ensure that it is included in the permanent record for my property and in the administrative record for any future hearing, meeting, or proceeding concerning this ordinance or the historic status of my property.

I understand that, if the City decides to move forward with designating my property as historic, there will be a formal hearing. However, the ordinance provides no assurance that my objection will be given meaningful consideration during that hearing. I am
objecting now and respectfully ask that the City honor
my objection and remove my property from further consideration at this time, thereby avoiding unnecessary expense, delay, and effort for everyone involved.

Sincerely,

Trish Power

130 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Historic Policy
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Fw: Formal Objection Regarding Historic Survey Property From: Citania Tam
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 6:05 PM
To: Alex Khojikian <[email protected]>; Zachary Dahl <[email protected]>; Prasanna Rasiah <[email protected]>; Martin McTaggart <[email protected]> Subject: Formal Objection Regarding Historic Survey Property

Dear City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Planning Director, I am writing as the owner of a property identified as potentially subject to additional historic review, survey, nomination, or designation under the City’s recently updated ordinance, without my consent. I object to my property being treated differently from other properties not included in the 1989 survey. Although my house is older, it is similar to many other homes that were not included in the survey. Until recently, I was not even aware that my property had been included in any historic survey. I ask that the City Attorney, City Clerk, or other appropriate City official acknowledge receipt of this email in writing and ensure that it is included in the permanent record for my property and in the administrative record for any future hearing, meeting, or proceeding concerning this ordinance or the historic status of my property. I understand that, if the City decides to move forward with designating my property as historic, there will be a formal hearing.

However, the ordinance provides no assurance that my objection will be given meaningful consideration during that hearing. I am objecting now and respectfully ask that the City honor my objection, thereby avoiding unnecessary expense, delay, and effort for everyone involved. Please advise whether the City can simply remove my property from further consideration at this time. Even if the City ultimately decides not to designate my property
as historic, the ordinance as written casts a cloud over my property by subjecting it to a special review process that does not apply equally to other San Mateo properties.

That uncertainty may affect my development rights, permitting options, property value, and resale value.

I respectfully submit that this unequal treatment is fundamentally unfair. I ask the City Council to amend the ordinance so that properties such as mine cannot be surveyed, nominated, or designated as historic without the owner’s consent. Because I am considering potential legal action against the City, individually or together with other affected property owners, I expressly reserve all rights and remedies arising from the ordinance, its implementation, and any resulting impairment of my property rights or property value.

Sincerely,

Citania Tam,

Citania

131 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Marek Wolter
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Notice of Public Meeting Historic Policy Update, September 8 Dear City Council,

I understand the City is considering spending money to re-survey my property, which was included in the 1989 Historic Survey.

I would opt out, as I do not want my home designated historic.

My property is located at:

Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this maƩer.

Best,
Marek Wolter

132 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Chantal Eaton
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 4:15 PM
To: Alby Calles
Subject: FW: Honor Your Promise: No Consent, No Historic

From: Jean Garcia
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 4:00 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Honor Your Promise: No Consent, No Historic

Dear City Council,

Although I am not an owner of one of the properties in the 1989 Historic Survey, I am a San Mateo resident and I object to the following: 1. Spending City money to re-survey these properties, or moving toward historic designation, without each owner's consent. 2. Leaving open the option to designate any of these properties as historic without the owner's consent. 3. Spending more on this project while the City is simultaneously asking voters for more money in November to close the budget deficit. 4. The City is currently being sued for adding these properties to the ordinance without adequate notice to homeowners, and for arbitrarily picking out survey properties and treating them differently than the rest of the city - yet another example of wasteful spending. The City has committed to "No Consent, No Historic." Please honor that promise and stop this spending.

Thank you,
Jean Garcia

133 of 205

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT

134 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Gene Alston
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:08 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

The owners in the 1989 Survey were not properly informed that their properties were being surveyed at that time. They certainly didn't consent. Then, at the last minute and with no notice, they were added to the May update of the Historic Section of the Municipal Code.

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

There is no rush. There is no urgency to spend this money now. People are struggling financially and "historic" increases costs - insurance and repairs. Add to that the potential negative impact on the market value of their homes (see for example
). I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing
you be fiscally responsible as we approach this election cycle.

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Best,
Gene

135 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Margaret Becker
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 5:07 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Please approve Option 1 for the full 124-property long overdue survey To all concerned,

Please vote to approve OpƟon 1 for the full 124-property long overdue survey.

Thank you,

Margaret Becker

136 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: jeanne bosschart
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:17 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Heritage survey
Please approve the 124 property survey. I believe it is important to take steps to protect San Mateo’s history.

Thank you.

Jeanne Bosschart

San Mateo
Sent from my iPad

137 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Paul Clausing
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:25 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

The Owners in the 1989 Survey were not properly informed about their properƟes being surveyed at that Ɵme. They certainly didn't consent. And then, at the last minute and with no noƟce, they were edited into the May update of Historic SecƟon of the Municipal Code.

VOTE NO to prioriƟzing spending this money on this project at this Ɵme.

There is no rush. There is no urgency to spending this money now. People are struggling ﬁnancially and "historic" increases costs - insurance and repairs. And I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing you being ﬁscally responsible as we go into this elecƟon cycle.

Especially when owners who are struggling ﬁnancially send messages for help like this one:

"These are hard Ɵmes—I don't have a job and barely have enough to make the monthly payment. On top of that, my homeowners insurance premium will go up, or maybe they won't even want to renew the policy. What will I do then? I just don't know anymore."

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.
______________________
San Mateo Voter

138 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Ruthmary Cradler
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:12 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Please Approve Option 1 for San Mateo’s Historic Resources Survey Dear Members of the City Council

Tonight you have before you the opportunity to take the meaningful step of protecting San Mateo’s rich architectural heritage. I strongly urge you to approve Option 1, providing $168,687 to assess up to 124 properties for preservation.

We are a community of a diverse and rich history.

An important part of telling our story, is through the
visual experience of our architectural resources. And we have many stories in our city. For example, did you know that San Mateo was once home to vineyards and wineries? Our own home was once the home of the Golden Winery, with vineyards surrounding in the neighborhood, Not only that Golden Wines were award winning. This is just one small example of preserving our history.

The Advanced Planning Fund provides an opportunity to make this investment without complicating the current operating budget. We need to take advantage of this opportunity.

Please vote for Option 1 tonight, and protect our historic resources.

Thank you.

John and Ruthmary Cradler

PS in case you are wondering…. while we have found architectural pieces from the winery, and documentation about it…. we have never found a buried cellar.

🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦

Ruthmary Cradler

San Mateo, CA 94402

139 of 205

2 140 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:54 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Oral Remarks for the Record — Public Comment on File ID 26-11579 Good evening, Mayor and Council,
Five homeowners asked you tonight for a way off a list.

Nothing in the ordinance revisits the 1989 Survey on its own. There's no process for an owner to correct or challenge that status except this survey.

According to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the only removal process applies to a property already formally designated a Landmark — not to one that's merely Survey- listed.

So there's no other door.

Tonight's speakers are right — this does feel unfair and unfinished.

At this time, this survey is that door. It's the only thing that can ever move their status forward, one way or the other.

Voting no doesn't give them something better. It just leaves the current structure exactly as it is.

I know that's not the outcome they're looking for. But right now, under this ordinance, it's
the only one on the table.

Thank you.

Doug D’Anna

141 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Doug D'Anna
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:40 AM
To: Clerk; City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Why I Believe a New Historic Building Survey Is the Fairest Outcome for Objecting Owners: File ID 26-11579
Subject: Why I Believe a New Survey Is the Fairest Outcome for Objecting Owners — File ID 26-11579
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'd like to speak up in support of moving ahead with the 1989 Historic Building Survey update — specifically, the fuller Option 1 covering all 124 properties.

Honestly, it's because of the controversy around this item, not despite it.

Several homeowners, whose homes are listed in the 1989 Survey, have written in against it. They've also raised the lack of owner consent in how properties get nominated for designation under Section 27.66.060(a)(5).

Still, there's a flip side to that argument worth putting on the record tonight.

They're right that it feels arbitrary to be singled out by a survey that's decades old.

They're right that the ordinance offers them no hearing or process to correct that on their own.

But as written, the survey update is the only door out.

This isn't a vote to change the ordinance. Chapter 27.66 stays exactly as written either way.6
It's a vote to fund the survey work needed to apply it using current information instead of data that's nearly 40 years old.

To not fund the survey leaves everyone exactly where they are now — on the wrong side of a door that doesn't open.

Here's what happens if you don't update it.Many of these properties may have changed since 1989 — remodels, additions, new siding. Some may no longer meet the ordinance's standards for historic integrity.1
Take a homeowner who's added a second floor, a new roofline, replacement windows, a rebuilt porch. Almost nothing original is left.

142 of 205

2 At some point, calling it historic stops describing the house. It starts describing a label nobody's checked in decades.

These owners aren't just stuck — they're standing in front of a door with no handle.They're already treated as a historic resource under the ordinance. That means added review on exterior permits.2
But they've never actually been designated a Landmark. They've never had the hearing, the vote, or the resolution that a real designation would bring.

Without an update to the Survey, there's no way to correct that status, and no way to finally settle it one way or the other.3
They're not fighting a decision. They're standing at a door that was never built.

There's no other door within this ordinance.4Chapter 27.66's only removal process applies to a property already formally designated a Landmark. It doesn't apply to a property that's merely Survey-listed.

No other provision in this chapter lets an owner challenge or correct that status directly.

The re-survey is the only door Chapter 27.66 itself provides, before any designation happens.

The properties in question aren't new additions, either — the City is working from the same 133 properties flagged decades ago, before any of tonight's homeowners could have known they'd be on it.

There's a City-funded financial benefit, too.5These properties were already flagged in 1989. A City-funded update means the owner gets that historic evaluation done for free, at public expense.

That's the same kind of evaluation their planning application would otherwise need to include, at their own expense, if they ever wanted to add a second floor or change the exterior.

Doing it now, together, also avoids the extra cost of doing this property by property later.

Voting no doesn't save that cost — it just delays it, and hands each bill to an individual owner instead of the City covering it once at scale.

And the more properties this covers, the more owners find that door.A narrower survey leaves out the 33 properties whose status was never settled — recorded in 1989, and still without a finished evaluation nearly 40 years later.

Those owners are left exactly where they are now: still listed, still under added review on exterior permits, with no hearing, no vote, and no door.

Whatever the cost difference between the two options comes to, it isn't really a cost. It's the price of building that same door for everyone the survey could reach, not only some of them.

143 of 205

3 Here's what this comes down to.An owner on the 1989 Survey has no path today to resolve their status — not toward removal, not toward a hearing, not toward anything — except the survey this appropriation would fund.

Voting no doesn't return anyone to a neutral, unlisted state. It leaves the same review burden in place indefinitely, with the one door that could open staying shut for lack of funding.

Tonight's commenters are right that this feels arbitrary and unresolved. Voting no doesn't change that — it just leaves the door closed.

This is the door. I hope you'll open it for them.

Thanks for considering this.

Best,
Doug D'Anna
San Mateo, CA
 1 Municipal Code §§ 27.66.040, 27.66.050 — eligibility for listing requires the resource to "retain its historic integrity" and meet the designation criteria.

Alterations can affect whether that standard is still met.  2 Municipal Code § 27.66.020(i)(4) defines "Historic Resource" to include anything identified in the 1989 Survey. § 27.66.090(a) requires planning review before a building permit can issue for exterior work on an individually eligible historic resource.
 3
A review of Chapter 27.66, the Agenda Report, and the Proposed Resolution found no provision by which an individual property owner can correct or challenge their 1989 Survey status, or obtain a hearing on it, apart from this City-led re-survey.  4 Municipal Code § 27.66.080 sets out the only removal/delisting process in Chapter

27.66. By its terms it applies to a Landmark already added to the San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory — not to a property that is merely identified in the 1989 Survey but never formally designated. No other provision in the chapter addresses correcting or removing Survey-only status.
 5 Municipal Code § 27.66.090(a) requires a planning application — including a historic resources assessment — before a building permit can issue for exterior alterations to an individually eligible historic resource. Amendment No. 1 to the Rincon Consultants agreement is what would fund the City doing that underlying evaluation work now, at City expense.

144 of 205

4  6 Municipal Code § 27.66.060(a)(5) requires the City Council to hold a public hearing before any 1989 Survey property can be added to the Historic Resources Inventory — the funding vote tonight is separate from, and precedes, that hearing.

145 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Christina Dikas
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:14 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Historic Survey Update
Dear Councilmembers,

I am a historic preservation planning professional and resident of the Hayward Park neighborhood. I support the approval of funding for a focused historic resources survey to review all properties (Option 1 - 124 properties) that were previously found eligible in the 1989 historic resources survey. This project would address General Plan 2040’s Policy CD 5.1 about implementing a comprehensive approach to historic preservation, as well as CD 5.2, which is to actively identify and preserve historic resources. It also would directly address Action CD 5.10 to establish and maintain an up-to-date inventory by proactively updating the historic survey.

An up-to-date survey helps the City not only protect its heritage and most valuable historic resources, but also helps the City better plan for change and growth by knowing what your historic resources are and working with them/around them.

Other cities in the Bay Area have taken the approach that San Mateo is considering -- to focus a survey on
previously evaluated properties rather than taking the big bite of doing a citywide survey (the latter of which cities like Mountain View and Sonoma are currently undertaking). Within the last 5 years, Mill Valley focused on surveying a list of previously identified properties (less than 200), and Palo Alto did the same. Outside the Bay Area, San Luis Obispo recently updated its HIstoric Preservation O rdinance and is
now looking to update its Historic Preservation Inventory through a focused survey update. I strongly support this approach.

I'm surprised the Planning Department only sought a budget from Rincon, the consultant that prepared the Historic Context Statement and HPO update. My recommendation is to put it out to bid, as the City may receive lower bids for equal quality work that would cover your Option 1.

Sincerely,
Christina Dikas Brobst

146 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Diana Dorobek
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:48 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

There is no rush. There is no urgency to spending this money now. People are struggling financially and "historic" increases costs - insurance and repairs. And I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing you being fiscally responsible as we go into this election cycle.

Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one:

"These are hard times—I don't have a job and barely have enough to make the monthly payment. On top of that, my homeowners insurance premium will go up, or maybe they won't even want to renew the policy. What will I do then? I just don't know anymore."

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.
______________________
San Mateo Voter

Diana Dorobek

Connect with me on LinkedIN
Women in Business Networking Group

147 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Ligia Flory
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:06 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Historic Policy
Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

These are hard times— Everything is going UP; price of gas, utilities, groceries and government, like always wants MORE taxes!!!!. On top of that, my homeowners insurance premium went up again (Thanks for nothing State Farm, keep on spending $$millions on ads during the SuperBowl! shows how fiscally responsible these idiots are),.

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

______________________
San Mateo voter

148 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Norma F
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: More Spending On Historic Resource Studies???? NO! After receiving two panicked emails from the City/City Council about contacting the State to review a funding decision, I was pretty shocked to learn the Council was holding a special meeting to consider spending $170,000 more on historic resource studies.

The City is running a major deficit, with no apparent plans for fixing it, other than asking the state for money.

A prudent approach to deficit reduction is cutting discretionary spending on things that some might consider "nice to have," but certainly do not benefit the citizens of San Mateo as a whole.

Please stop supporting pet projects and let the residents of San Mateo know that you have a serious plan for addressing the budget shortfall.

Norma Formanek

San Mateo

149 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Sandra Fricke
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 7:49 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Survey
Please vote for OpƟon 1 on the historic survey. We need all historic structures included.

Thanks,
Sandra Fricke

150 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Larry Garnick
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 6:01 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Support for Option 1
Council members:

When evaluating the two options to survey the properties identified on the 1989 Historic Building Survey, please approve Option 1 for review of 124 buildings.

I believe that San Mateo has more than 124 important historic buildings and surveying fewer would jeopardize many buildings that should be protected.

Regards,

Larry Garnick

(New Mobile Number!)

151 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: crystal hayling
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:12 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Not one more penny of tax payer dollars for historic nonsense! Dear City Council,

Our City has many pressing problems yet this nuisance issue of historic district designations continues to come up and continues to slowly bleed resources from our budget and from taxpayer dollars.

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Crystal Hayling

I'm using dictation! Please excuse typos.

152 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Eric Heaton
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 7:33 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Don't Survey my Property
Dear City Council,

I understand the City is considering spending money to re-survey my property, which was included in the 1989 Historic Survey.

I would like to opt out. I do not want my home designated historic. Please save the money and do not survey my home unless being added as a historic house comes with beneﬁts such as grants to maintain the historic nature of the house (period paint colors, wood work repairs, etc.).

My property is located at: San Mateo 94401

Thank you,
Eric Heaton

153 of 205

P.O. Box 146 San Mateo, CA 94402
www.smheritage.org
September 8, 2026
Mayor Loraine
Members of the City Council
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20
th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
Subject: Please Approve Option 1 for the Historic Resources Survey — September 8th Agenda Dear Mayor Loraine and Members of the City Council,
San Mateo Heritage Alliance urges you to approve Option 1 — the $168,687 assessment of up to 124 properties — when you consider funding for the hi storic resources survey at tonight's meeting.

This survey matters more than ever, because of choices this Council has already made. In May, you adopted a new Historic Preservation Ordinance that significantly narrowed the City's ability to protect its historic buildings. Specifically, the ordinance:
 Added a mandatory owner-consent requirement before any property can be identified as a historic resource — meaning the City can no longer designate a historic building over an owner's objection, no matter its architectural or historical significance.  Dramatically limited which properties are covered, leaving the vast majority of San Mateo's historic building stock outside the Historic Resources Inventory and the ordinance’s protection.  Eliminated the Historic Building Demolition Permit, the mechanism that once required a distinct review before a historic structure could be torn down.  Removed City Council review of demolitions, taking the Council itself out of the final decision on whether a historic building lives or dies.

Taken together, these changes mean that the properties in the 1989 Historic Building Survey are more exposed today than they have been in decades. If the properties are not identified and assessed now, many will never be considered for protection at all — not because they lack historic value, but because no one will have looked.

That is exactly what Option 1 fixes. It funds a full assessment of the 124 properties rated 3, 3D, 4, and 5 in the 1989 survey — the broadest option staff has offered, and the only one that gives the City a picture of what remains worth protecting (although it is likely there are many resources not identified in the 1989 survey). Option 2 would exclude 33 of those properties permanently, based on nothing more than a desire to save roughly $28,000 from a fund that does not touch the operating budget.

We ask you to approve Option 1 for the following reasons:

1. It costs the operating budget nothing. Funding comes entirely from the Advance Planning Fund.

154 of 205

155 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Laurie Hietter
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 8:25 AM
To: Adam Loraine; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Rob Newsom; Nicole Fernandez; City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: Please approve Option 1 for the Historic Survey at the Special Meeting Tonight Attachments: SMHA Letter to CC re survey9.8.26.pdf

Dear Mayor Lorraine and Council Members:

Please approve Option 1 to conduct the resurvey of the historic properties identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey. The survey cost will not add to the city's deficit because it will be drawn from the Advance Planning fund.

Thank you,

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

156 of 205

We ask you to approve Option 1 for the following reasons:

1. It costs the operating budget nothing. Funding comes entirely from the Advance Planning Fund.

157 of 205

158 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Maurine Killough
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:34 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc:

Subject: 1989 Survey for historic homes
Maurine Killough

San Mateo, CA 94401
September 8, 2026

Dear San Mateo City Council:

I own and live in a house at , San Mateo originally owned and built by the Wisnom Hardware Family in the 1890s.

I am writing to say that my house was overlooked in the 1989 Survey for historic homes. I wonder if there is an option for this historic home to be included.

I also send my support for Option 1 for the Historic Policy Update.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,
Maurine Killough

Maurine Killough
You are not IN the Universe you ARE the universe—an intrinsic part of it.

Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the universe is becoming conscious of itself. What an amazing miracle.—Eckhart Tolle

159 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Adam Klafter
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:45 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Public comment- Sept 8 City Council Special Meeting, Agenda Item 1 Attachments: Comments on preservation ordinance implementation.pdf Honorable Mayor and members of City Council,

I would like to comment again on the implementation of San Mateo's new Landmarks Program in my individual capacity, and as someone very invested in historic preservation matters.

I am including the letter which I previously submitted in May as I believe it remains relevant, and would reemphasize two points:

1. Community buy-in remains of utmost importance for the long-term viability of our landmarks program.

There are properties within San Mateo which were not included in the 1989 survey for various reasons which I believe to be worthy of recognition, and those property owners will need to be convinced to participate voluntarily in our Landmarks program at some future date. They will be watching as this process moves forward. I am seeing comments submitted by owners of properties included in the 89 survey regarding their concerns, and I believe that many can be positively addressed as I discussed in my letter ("collaboration and incentives").

2. I also previously recommended and will suggest again that a resurvey focus on the potential eligibility of properties which fall under our newly-defined criteria A and B. These are the properties associated with significant events, people, and communities. Having looked over the survey properties, I feel that the basis for some of the homes included for reasons of style, period, or workmanship (Criteria C) to be more subjective. The more subjective the determination, the more carefully we should proceed. I believe it is within Council's discretion to direct that the survey focus on specific criteria when making determinations of eligibility.

I hope you will take a moment to look over my letter again, and that these comments are helpful as you proceed with your discussion this evening.

Sincerely,

-Adam Klafter

160 of 205

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

161 of 205

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

162 of 205

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

163 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From:

Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 9:45 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Honor Your Promise: No Consent, No Historic
Dear City Council,

Although I am not an owner of one of the properƟes in the 1989 Historic Survey, I am a San Mateo resident and I object to the following:

1. Spending City money to re-survey these properƟes, or moving toward historic designaƟon, without each owner's consent.

2. Leaving open the opƟon to designate any of these properƟes as historic without the owner's consent.

3. Spending more on this project while the City is simultaneously asking voters for more money in November to close the budget deﬁcit.

4. The City is currently being sued for adding these properƟes to the ordinance without adequate noƟce to homeowners, and for arbitrarily picking out survey properƟes and treaƟng them diﬀerently than the rest of the city - yet another example of wasteful spending.

The City has commiƩed to "No Consent, No Historic." Please honor that promise and stop this spending.

Thank you,
[Anna Kuhre]

164 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:18 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

The Owners in the . No1989 Survey were not properly informed about their properƟes being surveyed at that Ɵme. They certainly didn't consent. And then, at the last minute and with no noƟce, they were edited into the May update of Historic SecƟon of the Municipal Code.

VOTE NO to prioriƟzing spending this money on this project at this Ɵme.

Especially when owners who are struggling ﬁnancially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Anna Kuhre_
San Mateo Voter

Sent from my iPhone

165 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Tom Lease
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:59 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Please Option 1
I am about to get four new tires for my (legendary) 2006 Honda Accord LX.

That is my option 1.

Option 2 would be to get three new tires for the Honda which would save me a very small amount of money but would not be very smart.

Using the same logic and reasoning, I have concluded that Option 1 is the only viable and reasonable option for our Historic Ordinance Update.

I hope we will not wait 37 years until the next update and that we will engage in a full and complete inventory of our historic resources in San Mateo and take all measures necessary to protect them.

Hopefully,someday soon, the award winning Golden Wines cellar will be found and we can all get together and raise a glass to the past, present, and future.

By preserving our historic assets, we are honoring the past for future generations.

Tom Lease

166 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Lorna
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:18 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.
______________________
San Mateo Voter

167 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Jeane Makar
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:00 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioriƟzing spending this money on this project at this Ɵme.

Especially when owners who are struggling ﬁnancially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Sincerely,
Jeane Makar
______________________
San Mateo Voter

Sent from my iPhone

168 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Crystal Matye
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:30 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Member,

The Owners in the 1989 Survey were not properly informed that their properties were being surveyed at the time. They certainly didn't consent. And then, at the last minute and with no notice, they were added to the May update of the Historic Section of the Municipal Code.

Please VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

There is no rush. There is no urgency to spending this money now. People are struggling financially, and "historic" increases costs - insurance and repairs. And I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing you being fiscally responsible as we go into this election cycle.

Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Crystal Matye
San Mateo Voter

169 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Anna McLean
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:11 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Lessredtape Support; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Do not spend more money on 1989 survey homes
Dear all —

The property owners in the 1989 Survey were not given proper notice about their properties being surveyed. They and subsequent owners did not give consent. Yet they are being edited into the May update of Historic Section of the Municipal Code without their knowledge or permission.

I am writing to ask you to vote NO to spending money on this project.

There is no urgency to spend this money now. Many of our residents are older and “historic” increases costs, including for insurance and repairs. Your constituents would appreciate your fiscal responsibility in this election cycle.

Do the right thing and defer spending money on this survey now.

Anna McLean

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

170 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: sesh mudumbai
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:23 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; krishna chaganti; Prasanna Rasiah; Alex Khojikian Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties

Dear City Council Less Nash,

The Owners in the 1989 Survey were not properly informed about their properties being surveyed at that time. They certainly didn't consent. And then, at the last minute and with no notice, they were edited into the May update of Historic Section of the Municipal Code.The City will discuss today in a special session whether to approve spending an additional $170K* on evaluating "Historic" Properties. This while the City is close to an $18M budget deficit!! This is budgetary mismanagement to help a council member’s pet project.

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

Please Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

We are counting on you.

Sesh Mudumbai/Krishna Chaganti

San Mateo,CA 94402

171 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Lauren Lum
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:19 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Cc: ; Joe Musich
Subject: NO MORE SPENDING ON HISTORIC. PERIOD.

Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project.

Why is Lisa Nash still pushing this historic narrative that the majority of her neighbors -- where she lives -- do not
want? As a district 1 council member, this is behavior that goes against representing her constituents. She is selfishly pushing this project despite the ongoing opposition.

The Nash's have solar panels on their roof. What is historic about that? Why do they get to do what they want to
their home, but try to tell others what can be done with theirs?

Homeowners are struggling financially, see the quote below... so why spend more money on this "historic initiative" "These are hard times—I don't have a job and barely have enough to make the monthly payment. On top of that, my homeowners insurance premium will go up, or maybe they won't even want to renew the policy. What will I do then? I just don't know anymore."

Do the right thing.

Joe and Lauren Musich of Baywood

172 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: George Pineda
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:43 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Don't Survey my Property
Dear City Council,

I understand the City is considering spending money to re-survey my property, which was included in the 1989 Historic Survey.

I would like to opt out. I do not want my home designated historic. Please save the money and do not survey my home.

My property is located at: [YOUR PROPERTY ADDRESS]

Thank you,
[YOUR NAME]
Mario pineda
Sent from my iPhone

173 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Hanish Rathod
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Support User; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Historic District Concern
Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Thanks,
Hanish

174 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: John Segall
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:14 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk; CC:; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Categories: Public Comment Added to SharePoint
Dear San Mateo City Council Members,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

There is no rush. There is no urgency to spending this money now. People are struggling financially and "historic" increases costs -
insurance and repairs. And I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing you being fiscally responsible as we go into this election cycle.

Do the right thing. Defer the spending.

Sincerely,
John & Reva Segall

San Mateo, CA 94402

175 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Gerald Stokes
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 6:42 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: Honor Your Promise: No Consent, No Historic
Dear City Council,

Although I am not an owner of one of the properties in the 1989 Historic Survey, I am a San Mateo resident, and I object to the following:

1. Spending City money to re-survey these properties, or moving toward historic designation, without each owner's consent.

2. Leaving open the option to designate any of these properties as historic without the owner's consent.

3. Spending more on this project while the City is simultaneously asking voters for more money in November to close the budget deficit.

4. The City is currently being sued for adding these properties to the ordinance without adequate notice to homeowners, and for arbitrarily picking out survey properties and treating them differently than the rest of the city - yet another example of wasteful spending.

The City has committed to "No Consent, No Historic." Please honor that promise and stop this spending.

Thank you,
Gerald Stokes

176 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Gerald Stokes
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:45 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioriƟzing spending this money on this project at this Ɵme.

Especially when owners who are struggling ﬁnancially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.
______________________
Gerald and Karen Stokes
San Mateo Voters

Sent from my iPhone

177 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Peter Stone m>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 3:23 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

The Owners in the 1989 Survey were not properly informed about their properties being surveyed at that time.

They certainly didn't consent. And then, at the last minute and with no notice, they were edited into the May update of Historic Section of the Municipal Code.

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

There is no rush. There is no urgency to spend this money now. People are struggling financially and "historic" increases costs - insurance and repairs. And I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing you being fiscally responsible as we go into this election cycle.

People are struggling financially, and you waste money. Why is this so hard to understand? Do your job!!!! Be fiscally responsible. Quit raising taxes to pay for your pet projects. Lisa Diaz is conflicted and has been pushing this moronic and wasteful agenda for years. I would never vote for anyone who thinks you can just spend money as you please. Try “doing more with less!”

"These are hard times—
I don't have a job and barely have enough to make the monthly payment. On top of that, my homeowners insurance premium will go up, or maybe they won't even want to renew the policy. What will I do then? I just don't know anymore."

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

I attended city council meetings on this in 2025 including the initial meeting where I believe the consultant stated that the initial study would cost $350K. At the time my understanding was that the city was running a $10 MM deficit. Why do you spend money that you don’t have on things that people have overwhelmingly stated they don’t want? I’d very much like to know. Now I understand why the state of California has spent tens of billions of dollars on a train that goes nowhere.

Peter R. Stone

San Mateo, CA 94402

178 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Lisa Vande Voorde
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:44 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Clerk
Subject: 9/8/26 City Council Special Meeting: Historic Resources Survey — Please Vote for Option 1
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Tonight, you have an opportunity to take a meaningful step toward protecting San Mateo’s rich architectural heritage. I strongly urge you to approve Option 1, providing $168,687 to assess up to 124 properties identified in the 1989 Historic Building Survey.

Our historic homes and buildings are more than structures—they are part of the story of San Mateo. They tell us who we were, how our community developed, and what makes our city unique. From homes and neighborhoods to places that reflect San Mateo’s agricultural and commercial past, these resources are tangible connections to our history. And once they are demolished, they are gone forever.

The City has already waited 37 years to revisit the 1989 Survey. We should not wait any longer. Option 1 gives us the opportunity to look comprehensively at the properties that were identified decades ago and determine what remains worthy of preservation.

Importantly, this investment can be made from the Advance Planning Fund, without impacting the City’s General Fund or current operating budget. For a relatively modest additional cost, the City can gain valuable information that will help guide preservation decisions for years to come.

We should not have to choose between accommodating growth and preserving the history that gives San Mateo its identity. We can—and must—do both.

These historic resources are irreplaceable. The opportunity to identify and protect them is here. And the opportunity is NOW.

Please vote for Option 1 tonight.

Thank you.

Lisa Vande Voorde, San Mateo Resident

179 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Deborah Villanueva
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:46 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Please vote to defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council,

VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time.

Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.

Deborah Villanueva
San Mateo Voter District 1

180 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Tracy Volponi
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 9:34 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Martin McTaggart; Alex Khojikian; Zachary Dahl; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: 1989 Historic Building Survey Update
Dear City Council and Staff – I do NOT support this expenditure. This is the most ridiculous thing for the City to be spending time and city funds on for the following reasons:

1. Anyone who wants to have their home designated Historic can apply on their own without any cost to the city.

2. We knocked on doors and met with the bulk of these homeowners in the 1989 survey and the overwhelming majority of them are opposed to having a forced designation on their home.

3. The majority of the people in this 1989 survey believe their personal “consent” should be required for this designation, as do 90% of Baywood residents. The majority of the homeowners affected should have the option of “opting in OR opting out” if this goes forward.

4. The City is facing a budget deficit and asking taxpayers to pay more through Measure H to help cover it. This 1989 Survey is not a pressing need for the community. Police, Fire, Infrastructure are real needs that affect everyone. Especially at a time of budget concerns this is not an area where money should be spent.

I am respectfully asking you to not support funding for this endeavor. Thank you – Tracy Volponi

181 of 205

September 8, 2026
City Council of San Mateo
330 West 29th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
RE: Historic Policy Update – Budget Appropriation and Amendment Dear Mayor Loraine and Members of the City Council,
We support Option 1 - for the full 124 property survey for $168,687 from the Advanced Planning Fund, which is separate from the operating budget.

We had hoped that more of the homes on the East Side of San Mateo could have been surveyed that are examples of the variety of early architectural styles in the 1989 Building Survey.

This update is long overdue and we thank you for your eﬀorts.

Best,
David Light
Laurie Watanuki
Maurine Killough
Francie Souza
Sharon Prager
cc: Alex Khojikian - City Manager

182 of 205

183 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Connie Weiss
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:33 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Please Approve Option 1 for San Mateo’s Historic Resources Survey Dear City Councilmembers,
San Mateo is at a critical crossroads. The historic homes, buildings, and neighborhoods that give our city its character are irreplaceable—and once they are demolished, they are gone forever.

Tonight, you have an opportunity to take a meaningful step toward protecting San Mateo’s architectural heritage. I strongly urge you to approve Option 1, providing $168,687 to assess up to 124 properties for preservation.

This is not the time to delay. Our historic resources are increasingly vulnerable to development pressure and state housing mandates. If we wait until properties are threatened with demolition, it may already be too late. We cannot preserve buildings that have already been torn down.

The Advanced Planning Fund provides an opportunity to make this investment without complicating the current operating budget. For a relatively modest expenditure, the City can identify properties worthy of protection and give the community the information and tools necessary to preserve them.

We should not be forced to choose between accommodating new housing and protecting San Mateo’s history. We can—and must—do both. Do not allow another generation of San Mateans to look back and wonder why we failed to act when we had the opportunity.

Please vote for Option 1 tonight. Protect San Mateo’s historic resources before it is too late.

Thank you,
Connie Weiss
San Mateo Resident

184 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Nancy Weller
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:17 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Clerk
Subject: Historic Resources Survey
I strongly urge the City Council to adopt Option 1 for the Historic Resources survey. The small difference in cost between Options 1 and 2 does not affect the city's operating budget since it comes from the Advanced Planning Fund. Option 1 gives the potential for an additional 30+ resources protecting buildings, homeowners and will give better clarity as to historic status.

A recent article in the San Mateo Daily Journal highlighted San Mateo's two A.P. Giannini homes as well as another historic residence.

Time is marching on, and the window is closing on historic preservation. Vote for Option 1----the wisest choice for clarification of San Mateo's historic buildings.

Sincerely,
Nancy Weller

185 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Mary Gerritsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:36 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; [email protected]; [email protected]; Clerk
Subject: defer/cancel spending ANY money whatsoever on 1989 survey properties Dear City Council

Vote NO to prioritizing spending this money. Its not necessary, its not a rush, and how dare you propose to increase our sales tax when you spend money on frivolous things such as this.

NO.

Mary E. Gerritsen

186 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Bobbi Maniscalco
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:36 PM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash, The Owners in the 1989 Survey were not properly informed about their properties being surveyed at that time. They certainly didn't consent. And then, at the last minute and with no notice, they were edited into the May update of Historic Section of the Municipal Code. VOTE NO to prioritizing spending this money on this project at this time. There is no rush. There is no urgency to spending this money now. People are struggling financially and "historic" increases costs - insurance and
repairs. And I'm sure your Districts would appreciate seeing you being fiscally responsible as we go into this election cycle. Especially when owners who are struggling financially send messages for help like this one: "These are hard times—I don't have a job and barely have enough to make the monthly payment. On top of that, my homeowners insurance premium will go up, or maybe they won't even want to renew the policy. What will I do then

187 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Shirley Melnicoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:19 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Letter for Tonight's Meeting
Attachments: Letter Sept 2026Historic.docx
Hi,

Please enclose my letter in support of Option 1 for tonight's meeting of the City Council.

Thank you very much.

Best,

Shirley Melnicoe

188 of 205

San Mateo City Council September 8, 2026 330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

RE: Support OpƟon 1 and Fund Survey of ProperƟes IdenƟﬁed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am wriƟng to urge the City to support OpƟon 1, the only responsible choice. The investment is modest, yet the beneﬁts are substanƟal, measurable, and fully aligned with San Mateo’s economic, environmental, and community goals.

Historic preservaƟon is a proven economic strategy. NaƟonal data from the Advisory Council on Historic PreservaƟon shows that rehabilitaƟon projects generate billions in economic output and support hundreds of thousands of jobs. CiƟes that invest in preservaƟon see stronger small-business districts, higher property values, and increased local tax revenue. A San Mateo– speciﬁc study would provide the data needed to guide policy and aƩract private investment.

PreservaƟon is also a climate acƟon tool. Reusing exisƟng buildings avoids demoliƟon waste and retains the embodied carbon already invested in their construcƟon. A professional study would allow San Mateo to quanƟfy these carbon savings and demonstrate leadership in sustainability.

PreservaƟon supports housing goals as well. Across the country, rehabilitaƟon of older buildings has produced thousands of new homes — including aﬀordable units — while stabilizing neighborhoods and reducing blight. IdenƟfying which San Mateo structures could be adapted for housing would help the City meet RHNA obligaƟons while maintaining community character.

Finally, historic resources are central to San Mateo’s idenƟty. They reﬂect our neighborhoods, cultural diversity, and shared civic history and should provide a strong foundaƟon for thoughƞul planning decisions.

For these reasons, I respecƞully request that the City fully fund OpƟon 1 to evaluate the properƟes idenƟﬁed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey. This is a ﬁscally responsible step that will provide the clarity and insight needed to update our ordinance, strengthen our planning framework, and preserve the character that makes San Mateo unique.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Sincerely,
Shirley Melnicoe

San Mateo, CA 94402

189 of 205

190 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Doug Morais
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 8:31 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah
Subject: Defer spending money on 1989 Survey Properties Dear City Council Less Nash,

VOTE NO to prioriƟzing spending this money on this project at this Ɵme.

Especially when owners who are struggling ﬁnancially send messages for help like this one:

Do the right thing. Defer the spend.
______________________
San Mateo Voter

Sent from my iPhone

191 of 205

1 Alby Calles
From: Joseph Musich DC
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:23 AM
To: Rob Newsom; Adam Loraine; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Nicole Fernandez; Clerk Cc: Nicole Fernandez; ; Alex Khojikian; Prasanna Rasiah Subject: San Mateo Historic campaign
Dear City council members,
When the City faces a financial shortfall and state withholding why would there even begin to be a conversation of hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on approximately 124-200 properties.

Not only
are these properties not located in all five districts and not representative of San Mateo as a whole, many of these owners don’t want or agree with this push which would wend up being a penalty on their home ownership. Baywood as a neighborhood has resisted this push and instead of listening to the voters, leadership has expanded its push and expenditure.

Please reconsider voting for this push on Historic Districts. Consider a direct approach and education of the specific home and building ownership. It is ironic that people without historic homes are the ones driving this agenda.

Joseph Musich
Parrott Drive

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

192 of 205

1989 Historic
Buildings Survey
Update
Zachary Dahl, AICPZachary Dahl, AICP
Community Development DirectorCommunity Development Director City Council HearingCity Council Hearing
September 08, 2026September 08, 2026
1 193 of 205

Historic Preservation Policy History
2 1987
1974
1990 1995
1993 2010 2024
2022
1989
City Adopted
Environmental Resources
Management Element
Plan
Historic Building Survey
Conducted and Survey
Report Published
General Plan
Updated
City Established
Ordinance, Downtown
District, and Mills Act
Program
Ordinance Updated
Ordinance Updated
General Plan 2030
Adopted
Ordinance Updated
General Plan 2040
Adopted
Funds Requested from
State for Historic
Preservation Program
New
Ordinance &
Historic
Context
Statement
2026

194 of 205

Historic Policy Update Effort
3 • January 21, 2025 – Policy Update initiated
• May 4, 2026 – Policy Update Approved by City Council
• New Historic Preservation Ordinance
• New Citywide Historic Context Statement
• Updated Mills Act Program
• Historic Resources Commission established
• Council Direction – Prioritize 1989 Historic Building Survey Update • May-October 2026 – Implement new Codes and Policies
• October 22, 2026 – Historic Policy Community Workship (Virtual) • Introduce updated Codes, Policies and Public Resource Documents

195 of 205

General Plan 2040
Action CD 5.9 – Historic Context Statements
Prepare a citywide historic context statement to guide
future historic resource survey efforts to identify
individually eligible resources and historic districts. If a neighborhood is identified as a historic district, prepare a more detailed historic context statement for that individual neighborhood.

Action CD 5.10 - Historic Resources Survey
Establish and maintain an inventory of architecturally, culturally, and historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and districts. Proactively maintain an up-to-date historic resources inventory by seeking funding
opportunities to update the historic survey.
4 Downtown San Mateo
Source: CardCow

196 of 205

1989 Historic Building Survey
5 *Not included in survey update
**Rating of 4 in 1989 Survey is now considered a 7.
***Excludes properties that are already designated/listed. - Downtown Historic District (38)
- Glazenwood Historic District (36)
- NRHP/CRHR Listings (3)
Area Name
Individually Eligible (CHRSC 3)
&
Local Significance (CHRSC 5)
No evaluation,
but could be
eligible
(CHRSC 4)**
Ineligible (CHRSC 6)* Total Survey
Properties
Central Business District 7 1 2 8
Central 17 15 3 34
East San Mateo 4 1 4
Hayward Park 16 4 20
North Central 2 2 1 4
San Mateo Heights 39 7 47
West of El Camino Real 6 4 2 10
TOTAL 91*** 33 9* 124

197 of 205

Why Update the 1989 Survey?
• Update to capture existing conditions
• Identify physical changes to previously
recorded properties
• Document if buildings have been
demolished or significantly altered/
rebuilt
6 198 of 205

Project Objectives
7 • Updated Evaluation Framework
• California Register of Historical Resources did
not exist in 1989
• Build on Prior Work
• Streamline Project Approach and Schedule
• Meaningful Property Owner Engagement
• Establish a defensible basis for future
Landmark designations and additions to the
San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory
(HRI)

199 of 205

1989 Historic Building Survey Update
8 133
properties surveyed in 1989
91 identified as individually eligible
33 recorded but not evaluated
9 evaluated and recommended
ineligible
• Reconnaissance-level survey of built environment resources within the original boundary
• Re-evaluate significance against updated federal, state, and local criteria • Refer to the Citywide Historic Context Statement

200 of 205

Scope Options
9 133
Option 1
$168,687
● Re-survey properties previously identified as
historical resources
● Re-survey/fully document properties previously
identified but not evaluated – up to 33 DPR sets
● Up to 91 updated DPR 523L forms (eligible
properties)
Option 2
$140,584
● Re-survey properties previously identified as
historical resources
● Previously unevaluated properties are NOT re-
surveyed under this option
● Up to 91 updated DPR 523L forms (eligible
properties)

201 of 205

Community Outreach
10 ● Re-survey properties previously identified as
historical resources
● Previously unevaluated properties are NOT re-
surveyed under this option
● Up to 91 updated DPR 523L forms (eligible
properties)
● No new DPR sets for unevaluated properties
1 Public Hearings
Participation at two
City Council meetings,
including staff reports
and presentations.
2 Engagement
Materials
• Includes mailed
postcards and interactive
online activity.
• Mailed notices and direct
engagement with
affected property owners
3 Digital Outreach
Up to three eblast
emails and four social
media posts to build
awareness.

Virtual Workshop
One community
workshop, staffed by a
facilitator, subject
matter expert, and
notetaker (in addition to
City staff).
4 202 of 205

Project Timeline
11 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Task 1: Kick-off & Project
Management M1–M7
Task 2: Historic Resources
Survey Update M1–M5
Task 3: Historic Resources
Survey Report M5–M6
Task 4: Community
Outreach Plan M6–M7M2-M5 (Property Owner Engagement )

203 of 205

Project Budget
12 • Funded by the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225)
• No impact on the City's General Fund.
• Advance Planning Fund has fund balance of $6.39 million • Estimate as of July 1, 2026.
• In addition to the consultant services, staff time and resources to support Project estimated to cost $30,000 -$60,000
• Includes staff from Community Development Department, City Attorney's Office and City Manager's Office.
• These costs would be covered by each Department's current operating budget.

204 of 205

Recommendation
13 • Option 1 - Adopt a Resolution to appropriate an additional $168,687 from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve an amendment to the agreement with Rincon Consultants to survey up to 124 properties listed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented. • Option 2 - Adopt a Resolution to appropriate an additional $140,584 from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve an amendment to the agreement with Rincon Consultants to survey up to 91 properties listed in the 1989 Historic Building Survey; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented. • Option 3 - Do not adopt a Resolution approving an appropriation or amendment to the agreement with Rincon Consultants and vote to not proceed with an update to the 1989 Historic Building Survey at this time.

205 of 205

San Mateo City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

San Mateo City Council
September 8, 2026