City seeks to answer historic preservation questions

A recent meeting held by the city of San Mateo attempted to quell escalating tensions among some residents — especially in the Baywood neighborhood — over the historic districting process and what it could mean for property owners if it is designated as such. 

The Thursday, Feb. 1, educational discussion was largely motivated by ongoing disputes in the neighborhood over whether the homes should be part of a historic district, which has the potential to trigger additional review and approval requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act if owners want to substantially alter the exterior of their homes. 

Laurie Hietter, one of the main proponents of the city’s historic preservation movement and president of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, said the meeting was successful and dispelled some residents’ concerns.

“It was a great meeting with lots of accurate information. I think the factual information debunks a lot of myths,” Hietter said. “We are not trying to stop people from remodeling or expanding, just keeping the historic look in the front of the house.”

Currently, only the city’s downtown and Glazenwood districts are considered historic but members of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance have pushed to include the Baywood district — known for its Spanish-style architecture — as historic. In October, the group submitted an application to the state’s Office of Historic Preservation petitioning the agency to designate about 400 neighborhood homes as a historic district listed in the national registry. Such a designation could qualify homes for certain tax credits, but it can also require CEQA review if owners want to make substantial changes that don’t align with the current architectural design of the surrounding houses. 

The added steps are what some opposing residents are trying to avoid, stating they don’t want to be subjected to more bureaucratic hurdles to make changes to their homes. Residents can write to the agency and oppose the designation but, even if the majority object, the state could still determine the area is an eligible historic property, and in San Mateo, even eligible homes can necessitate CEQA review. Such assessments would involve an architectural historian’s evaluation of whether the requested changes would adversely impact the historical character of the district.

“The easiest path is to not make any external changes. If it doesn’t match a particular historical architect’s view of what makes an adverse impact, then it becomes difficult,” said Frank Elliott, member of Less Red Tape, a Baywood neighborhood organization opposed to the efforts spearheaded by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance. “You’re at the mercy of their choosing — either they like that change or they don’t like that change.”

Hietter said most requests would likely be approved, as assessors would typically determine that a demolition or renovation is unlikely to invalidate the historical character of the entire area.

“They would say, ‘Does this project have the potential to have an adverse effect on what makes a district historic?’ And most likely, they would say it won’t have a significant effect, so we can categorically exclude this for further CEQA review,” she said. 

But the subjectivity of what constitutes an adverse impact has left some property owners, including members of Less Red Tape, uneasy, as appealing an architect’s unfavorable decision would be an expensive and time-intensive process. 

“This meeting affirmed every concern we have,” Elliott said. “It’s a little disingenuous to say you can just do what you want. If you have unlimited money and time, I suppose you could.”

Once the Baywood nomination package is finalized, property owners will receive notice and have 45 days to voice objection. The city can also comment on the nomination. Discussions on the almost-completed general plan, which includes historic preservation policies, will take place during City Council meetings in March. 

alyse@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102