the City says this update is meant "to align with the recently adopted General Plan 2040."2
3. It treats historic districts like any other R1 neighborhood.
Its three key proposals:
Less review: the update "will also evaluate whether to remove planning application level review for substantial removal of walls or roofs."7
Less notice: update noticing "to reduce cost burdens," with options down to "Adjacent properties only."8
Design "flexibility": the General Plan encourages "preservation" of neighborhood character through "architectural style and details" (CD 7.2). The white paper answers that good design "does not always equate to maintaining the existing architectural style of a neighborhood."9
Each applies to historic districts. Not one accounts for them.
The review cut is limited to single-story projects. But in a historic district, removing walls and roofs can change the roof form, windows and materials, the very features that make a home a contributor.
And the Historic Preservation Ordinance won't catch it.
It reviews landmarks and contributing homes, and they keep that review. It doesn't review the non-contributing homes inside the district, or the homes along its edge.10 Every one of them relies on the R1 review these proposals could cut. And in a historic district, one lot can change the character of the whole district.
Notice limited to "adjacent properties only" would leave the rest of the district out. That leaves a gap: less review, less notice, and no objective standards.
You don't need a new policy to close that gap. The Council adopted one on March 18, 2024: the same CD 5.12 the white paper left out. It calls for:
"Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts."11
But a policy protects nothing until it's applied.
Two and a half years later, those standards still haven't been written. Now is the time to write them.
The white paper has the order backwards.
It proposes cutting review and notice now. Yet it says single-family design "will primarily be addressed through the development of objective design standards, which is planned to happen after the adoption of the CZCU."
It says the old guidelines apply in the meantime. But guidelines only work when there's a review to apply them. For historic districts, the standards have to come first. 12 Keeping existing review in historic districts costs nothing. It's the process you have today. Funding affects only when the standards get written, not whether review is cut before then.
Objective standards are streamlining.13 Clear rules mean faster approvals and no guesswork for owners, and they protect the district's character. And the scope is small: one single-family historic district, Glazenwood, 37 homes.14 My request. Please direct staff to:
Exclude designated historic districts from the streamlining and noticing changes until objective historic design standards are adopted.
Refer the standards CD 5.12 calls for to the new Historic Resources Commission, including review for new construction and major additions on non-contributing lots inside historic districts.
Return with a cost estimate for CD 5.12 standards for Glazenwood.
None of this slows streamlining for the rest of the city. It simply brings the white paper up to date.
Streamline the process. Keep the historic district whole.
Sincerely,
Doug D’Anna
CC: Sung Kwon
1. PlaceWorks, Key Issues White Paper: Single Family Residential Regulations, memorandum to the City of San Mateo, January 22, 2026 (the "White Paper"). The word "Glazenwood" does not appear in it.
2. City of San Mateo, notice to HOA contacts regarding the October 19, 2026 City Council study session on singlefamily permit streamlining and Zoning Code updates. The notice links to the January 22, 2026 white paper under "More Information" and states: "The City is updating the Zoning Code to align with the recently adopted General Plan 2040 and the 2023–2031 Housing Element."
3. City Council meeting, April 20, 2026: designation of the Glazenwood Historic District, approved 5-0.
4. City Council meeting, May 18, 2026, Agenda Item 14 (File ID 26-11200): adoption of amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66, approved 5-0. The ordinance itself states that "the amendments strengthen provisions related to designation criteria, historic districts, owner consent thresholds, reviews for alterations, and administrative procedures."
5. White Paper, pp. 3-4, "General Plan's Direction and Policies": "This section provides the General Plan 2040 policies and action that will be considered and taken into account when drafting the updated SFR regulations."
6. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, Chapter 5, Community Design and Historic Resources Element, Goal CD-5, pp. 115-116: Policies CD 5.1 through CD 5.7 and Actions CD 5.8 through CD 5.13. None is cited in the White Paper.
7. White Paper, p. 5: "The CZCU will also evaluate whether to remove planning application level review for substantial removal of walls or roofs if no second-story addition is proposed because single-story detached residences on stand-alone lots typically generate little, if any, controversy…"
8. White Paper, p. 7 (noticing updates "to reduce cost burdens") and p. 8 (notice-distance options, including "Adjacent properties only").
9. White Paper, p. 4, quoting General Plan Policy CD 7.2, Single-Family Design: "encourage single-family additions and new dwellings that address the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood visual and architectural character through context-sensitive building scale, materials, architectural style and details, and privacy."
10. San Mateo Municipal Code §§ 27.66.090(b) and 27.66.100(a), as amended May 18, 2026: a Certificate of Appropriateness "is required for any alteration to a Landmark or Contributor within a Historic District." Noncontributing properties, and properties outside the district boundary, are not covered.
11. Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040, Action CD 5.12, Historic Resources Design Standards, p. 116, adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. Full text: "Create objective design standards for alterations to historic resources and contributors to a designated historic district, and new development adjacent to historic resources within historic districts. Use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the basis for these objective design standards to ensure projects have a contextual relationship with land uses and patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; cultural and historic values; and the height, massing, design, and materials of historic resources."
12. White Paper, p. 4: "single-family design will primarily be addressed through the development of objective design standards, which is planned to happen after the adoption of the CZCU." (Emphasis added in the letter.) Also p. 4:
"the adoption of these new standards will occur after the completion of the CZCU. Until the new regulations are adopted, the City will maintain the current practice of referencing and applying the existing design guidelines document." Review: p. 5. Notice: pp. 7-8.
13. The White Paper itself lists these as the City's goals, side by side: "converting subjective design guidelines into transparent and objective standards… and streamlining the approval process" (p. 1).
14. Glazenwood Historic District, designated April 20, 2026: 37 properties, 34 contributing homes and 3 noncontributing. The resolution's count of 36 contributing resources also includes the district's gateposts and lampposts. The City's other designated historic district, Downtown, is not a single-family neighborhood.