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
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
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
--
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
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,
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
Sent from my iPhone
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