Members of the SMPNA Board attended the City Council meeting on Tues the 21st of Jan 2025. The key agenda item was focused on what initial path the Council would/should choose regarding updating the Historic Resources element of City Code. (Read the entire Packet)

 

Option 1 (below) was passed, with an amendment requiring homeowner approval.  This is an important matter affecting San Mateo Park residents. Check back here for updates on the progress of Rincon's work over the next year and a half.

 
Some background:

 

• Updating San Mateo’s historical resources (last modified 30+ years ago) was a priority identified in the recent overhaul of the San Mateo General Plan.

• City staff outlined 3 Historic Resources Update options for the City Council to explore and choose from. 

• Staff created an RFP that went out to capable firms and selected one of them for this endeavor - should the council agree to move ahead. 

• 2 of our current City Council members (Nicole Fernandez and Danielle Cwirko-Godycki) are in the first month of their term. 

 

The firm that the City Staff selected, Rincon, gave a 15-minute presentation about their company and the way they go about tackling such a project.
 
During Public Comments, approximately 45 residents spoke on this matter. Most of them were in person, a few via Zoom. A visible majority were wearing yellow stickers to indicate that they were part of the opposition to the Baywood becoming a historical district. Speakers ranged in age from 9 to 80+ years old.
 
After Public Comments were closed, the Council began discussions. They selected Option 1 by a 3 to 2 vote with Nicole Fernandez and Adam Loraine dissenting. Here are the 3 options they were presented with:

 

Option 1 – Approve a Resolution to appropriate $328,743 from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve an agreement with Rincon Consultants for community outreach, historic policy and code amendment technical support; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.
 

Option 2 – Approve a Resolution to appropriate $394,450 from the Advance Planning Fund to the Historic Policy Update project; approve an agreement with Rincon Consultants for community outreach, historic policy and code amendment technical support; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.¹
 

Option 3 – Do not approve an appropriation Resolution or an agreement with Rincon Consultants and vote not to proceed with the historic policy update effort at this time. 
 

Mayor Newsom and Councilmember Diaz Nash were solidly in favor. Councilmembers Loraine and Fernandez were solidly against. Cwirko-Godycki insisted she would not support any of the move forward options unless a clause was added to get homeowner approvals before any historical survey, redistricting or rule changes were enacted.  City Staff and Mayor Newsom struggled with how moving homeowner approval to the start of the process could be implemented, but in the end agreed to insert language that would satisfy Cwirko-Godycki, thus moving her into the Option 1 approval camp.

 

There are two main groups involved in the broader discussion on historic preservation efforts in San Mateo. These groups emerged from debates over historic districting in the Baywood neighborhood. Their respective websites have a lot of information and we encourage you to read more there. 

​

• Less Red Tape (opposed to historic districting)

• San Mateo Heritage Alliance (in favor of historic districting). 

 

- The SMMPA Board