After last year’s contentious nomination process, San Mateo’s smooth mayoral rotation on Monday, Dec. 4, was a welcome relief for many residents, but subsequent community discussion on property rights was a stark reminder of the issues Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash has in store for the coming year.
Like most cities in the county, San Mateo follows a rotational mayor system, rather than an at-large mayoral election, whereby a councilmember next in line is typically nominated and selected for the position each year by their council peers. The process sparked controversy last year when then-councilmembers Nash and Robert Newsom objected to appointing Amourence Lee to the mayorship before a newly vacant council seat was filled, stating the nomination should only be done once there a full City Council was in place.
Monday’s City Council meeting, however, was less divisive, as councilmembers voted unanimously to instate Nash as mayor, although Lee was absent. Several public commenters, including some of Nash’s family members, made statements of support, and District 2 county Supervisor Noelia Corzo offered words of encouragement, while reiterating the need for unity and cooperation.
“I also want to take just one moment to recognize the tone of this meeting and how it is a tone of celebration, of safety and how much I wish this would have been the tone last year. … I also want to take a moment to say that while we might not always agree on everything, we are all a part of this same community,” she said.
But the council meeting’s celebratory tenor turned serious during another public comment period when residents voiced concerns about a potential historic designation in the affluent Baywood neighborhood. The ongoing issue largely started last year when the Alston family sought approval to demolish their Spanish revival home and replace it with a larger, more contemporary structure. Several residents objected to the overhaul, stating the home’s original architecture should be preserved and created the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, with a mission to establish certain neighborhoods as historic districts, a process requiring state and federal input. An application has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office, which is reviewing it. Letters will be sent to the individual property owners within the next few months for them to say they oppose or support the designation.
If successful, the designation could create a more arduous approval and review process for property owners who wish to alter the exterior architecture of their homes.
The issue has made it to numerous City Council meetings, particularly those surrounding general plan discussions, and often include resident concern over what the city’s policy should be toward historic resources and neighborhoods. Opponents to historic designation argue the label would make it more cumbersome to make changes to their home, with some citing the movement as an anti-housing tactic that other California cities are employing to stifle development and retain local control of what gets built in their jurisdictions.
“Historic designation negatively impacts the rights of property owners by increasing red tape, limiting design choices and increasing costs to maintain and update homes and making it more difficult to sell properties. It will definitely limit the ability to provide much-needed new homes in San Mateo,” former Mayor Rick Bonilla said.
But historic designation proponents say it’s important to preserve the city’s character and historical resources, claiming homes like the Alstons’ have specifically been featured in books about San Mateo history.
The matter may be one of the more difficult issues for Nash to navigate as mayor, as she resides in the Baywood district, and her husband is a former board member and current member of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance. She has previously stated she will recuse herself from weighing in or voting on the Baywood historic district effort to avoid conflicts of interest.
The city will conduct a virtual meeting open to the public to provide additional information about historic preservation policies and procedures during the first week of February.
Note to readers: This story has been changed. Michael Nash is a former board member of the SMHA, and current member. Lisa Diaz Nash said she would specifically recuse herself from Baywood historic district matters.
(7) comments
Isn’t this still the same issue with some folks with no skin in the game attempting to force their wills on people with skin in the game? I’d recommend reading what’s happening in Palo Alto with their restrictive historical designations to see how historic designations can rapidly devolve. The simplest solution, vote no on a historical designation for less red tape.
Not all historic districts are treated the same. The designation brings no obligations. That is up to the city to decide. San Mateo does not have an arduous process for historic districts. The city’s historic regulations only apply to Glazenwood and Downtown historic districts. The only additional requirement in those districts is to follow the Secretary of Interior’s 10 Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, and those only apply when there are proposed changes to the front facade.
Connieuweiss, if I’m interpreting your response, it seems you’re confirming that some folks with no skin in the game (“that is up to the city to decide”) will have the ability to force their wills on people with skin in the game. And it seems you’re confirming there’s more red tape since there needs to be a set of standards that “apply when there are proposed changes to the front façade”? Again, the simplest solution, vote No on a historical designation unless you enjoy dealing with more red tape.
Terrence, to the contrary, I do have skin in the game. I am a resident of Baywood owning a 1936 home. I feel a stewardship to protect it, and I have no fear of losing my property rights nor do I see it as red tape to protect San Mateo’s history. I also vote and speak up like you do, so providing the city with guidelines to protect architectural history rather than destroy it seems a worthwhile effort.
Connieuweiss, it’s great you’re a Baywood resident and have some skin in the game but can you say the same about everyone else trying to force their wills on Baywood homeowners? You feel you have no fear of losing your property rights or seeing the designation as red tape but how about everyone else who is losing their property rights and rightfully see it as red tape to protect what some folks (again, with potentially no skin in the game) feel is San Mateo’s history. As far as I know, there’s nothing to stop you from protecting your home as you see fit, following whichever guidelines you’d like. How about we allow other homeowners to do the same by not forcing them to deal with more red tape. Vote No on historical designation for less red tape.
Or… Perhaps we can have folks in the historic alliance put skin in the game by creating a fund that would reimburse homeowners saddled with a historic designation in recovering losses due to the historic designation as well as pay homeowners for their time in dealing with the additional red tape. Baywood homeowners could designate the initial and ongoing costs paid to the reimbursement fund by non-Baywood homeowners. Win-win.
Terence, you are current that there is nothing stopping a property owner from submitting an application to have their individual property listed on the National or State Register of Historical Places.
However, somewhat counterintuitively, the criteria for historic district designation is LESS stringent than the criteria for individual designation. Per pg 3 of the CA Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #3, “Historic Districts are a concentration of historic buildings, structures, objects, or sites within precise boundaries that share a common historical, cultural or architectural background. ***Individual resources within an historic district may lack individual significance but be considered a contributor to the significance of the historic district.***” (Emphasis mine.)
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/03ca%20regq&a_090606.pdf
With 415 Fairfax Ave, the project that prompted this push for historic designation, an architectural historian determined that the property did not meet one or more of the four criteria for historic designation.
However, the Baywood Neighborhood Association hired a lawyer that argued the neighborhood met the more lax criteria for historic district designation, and as such the city should not allow the property to be demolished.
It's worth asking how many members of the SMHA Board have applied for individual designation for their own properties, and if they haven't, why not? (I know at least one Board member has and was granted historic designation.) I suspect that many haven't because their properties do not individually qualify.
I'll also note that if you e-mail "Less Red Tape" (the opposition group) and ask how many property owners within the proposed historic district have signed the petition opposing historic designation, they will respond within a couple of hours with an answer. Repeated questions to SMHA asking how many property owners within the proposed district have gone on the record supporting historic designation have gone unanswered. Telling.
Seema - thanks so much for the response and background information. The information on SMHA transparency, or lack of it, is telling. It sounds like a few folks have personal, rather than community, agendas and not all of it public or well-reported (or I haven’t been paying close attention). Regardless, just on the issue of property rights, I’d continue recommending folks vote No.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.