Post Packet Publication - Public Comment — San Mateo City Council, September 8, 2026

City of San Mateo
City Council Meeting

POST PACKET

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

2 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

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.

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.
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.
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. 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

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

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

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

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

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!)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
-Adam Klafter
1 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

San Mateo City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

San Mateo City Council
September 8, 2026