The San Mateo City Council unanimously agreed to move forward with a policy that would require a majority of owners’ explicit consent to establish historic districts, an issue that gets to the heart of a contentious citywide debate over how such designations are created.
While the city maintains guidelines for some historic structures and districts, including those already listed on the California and National Historic Registers, it does not have its own clear process on nominating, evaluating and designating potential historic structures. The effort is still in the early stages, with a final draft ordinance yet to be finalized.
Earlier in the year, the council set aside over $300,000 to update its historic preservation policy, largely in response to an ongoing battle between those who want more protections for what they consider historic structures and those who say the efforts infringe on homeowners’ property rights, as they could be subject to the new rules without their consent.
The divide has wreaked havoc among residents in the city over the last couple years, particularly in the Baywood neighborhood, where members of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance group have pushed to expand a historic designation to more than 400 houses in the neighborhood. Such a designation could trigger additional review and require approval if owners want to substantially alter the exterior of their homes or make changes that don’t align with the design of the surrounding houses.
The ordinance was part of a council discussion June 2, over how the city would designate historic districts — which it currently doesn’t do — and how the review process would be executed. It would also stipulate that criteria for a historic designation would follow the state’s criteria, in addition to city-specific conditions.
Most councilmembers supported a separate committee to review petitions — rather than the Planning Commission — with some, including Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash, favoring a committee with historic preservation experience.
“The review board should have expertise,” Nash said. “San Mateo is going to have more new development proposals than any other city, and we need to keep our Planning Commission laser focused on that.”
Recommended for you
Highlighting the citywide divide, San Mateo resident Lisa Vande Voorde said she doesn’t trust the Planning Commission to objectively evaluate potential historic districts and hoped the new policy would create a separate committee.
“Their track record of opposition to historic resources in decisions made on development projects … disqualifies them,” she said during public comment. “Tasking them with historic preservation is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”
There was also unanimous council support for a policy dictating that at least a majority of property owners consent to having their homes labeled as historic, with Councilmember Nicole Fernandez suggesting a threshold as high as 80% to 90%. Most councilmembers also agreed that owners would have to explicitly agree to the designation, rather than implementing an opt-out option.
Many residents were also in favor of a high-percentage consent threshold.
“Your district voters are likely to be against their homes being put in a historic district,” Eleanore Dogan said during public comment. “The financial implications are significant … and [it] increases the time and cost of sensible projects to update homes. This is why expressed, affirmative owner consent is the only way to proceed.”
San Mateo resident Tom Lease, however, stated that requiring property owner consent is “counterproductive” and could “undermine preservation efforts.”
After developing a draft ordinance, city staff will begin the community engagement process for feedback.
City staffer Zack Dahl continues to report only the $300,000 consultant expense—conveniently omitting the additional $200,000 in internal staff costs. That’s a half-million-dollar price tag for a historic preservation initiative no one asked for, in a city that already has a process in place and hasn’t seen a single new nomination in over 30 years.
Meanwhile, San Mateo faces a looming $15 million deficit. Instead of tightening its belt, the City is expanding bureaucracy and spending scarce public dollars on a solution in search of a problem. There is no demonstrated demand. There is no economic benefit. This is waste, plain and simple.
When the City comes back to ask for new taxes, remember this. Until they start treating public money with the same care they would treat their own, the answer should be a firm and resounding NO.
This is a gross boondoggle—and taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill.
Just a slight correction on the dollar amount based on my conversation with our city manager Alex Kohijian. The actual cost of the Rincon Consultants is $330,000 to conduct this survey. The additional $170,000 is for staff time to manage this project. The total bill is $500,000. No more taxes in my opinion. We need to guard the reserves in our city. The economy is very shaky and no one has a crystal ball predicting just where we will end up over the next 4 years. Our council has fudiciary responsibility over the reserves. Last year San Mateo paid out $35M in one singe law suit involving our wonderful Police Department. We need to guard the reserves.
So the cost of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance attempting to trample on homeowner rights is a minimum of $500,000. And that’s after already spending money for the City Council to discuss/implement this new policy. One has to wonder whether taxpayers can recoup some of their wasted tax dollars by obtaining reimbursement from the SMHA, as a group or individually, via contribution, voluntary or not. And I’d say the consent threshold should be a minimum of 80% and possibly up to 100%. As has been repeatedly mentioned, individual homeowners can seek out a heritage designation for their individual homes at any time.
The San Mateo Historical Alliance in Baywood is like a cure looking for a disease to treat. Anybody who owns a Home anywhere in this country can request that their home receive historical to and snare. Any individual can do that. There is no need to ensnare your neighbors in this gross effort intended to snub the possibilities that owners have in their properties now. Remember, these are private properties that people have invested not only their treasure, but also their dreams in. Treat each individual homeowner with respect. There must be a high bar for consent and let individual property owners make their own decisions.
The Kuhre residence at 200 west 3rd avenue in Baywood San Mateo has been reclassified to a non-contributor status in the current forced historic district nomination by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA). Over the course of 80 years,16 exterior changes occurred which were outlined in our documents submitted to Page & Turnbull consultants who were hired by SMHA. Page & Turnbull in response to our protest, changed their classification of our home. Many thanks to SMHA for providing us with the 1936 historic photo of our home used in their invitation for their promotional library public event. This photograph substantiated that in the Kuhre family case, that "drive by" assessments are grossly inadequate. Following in our success, we are in the process of helping other neighbors apply for reclassification. Anna Kuhre
Yippee!!! The Kuhre residence at 200 west 3rd avenue in Baywood San Mateo has been reclassified to a non-contributor status in the current forced historic district nomination by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA). Over the course of 80 years,16 exterior changes occurred which were outlined in our documents submitted to Page & Turnbull consultants who were hired by SMHA. Page & Turnbull in response to our protest, changed their classification of our home. Many thanks to SMHA for providing us with the 1936 historic photo of our home used in their invitation for their promotional library public event. This photograph substantiated that in the Kuhre family case, that "drive by" assessments are grossly inadequate. Following in our success, we are in the process of helping other neighbors apply for reclassification. Anna Kuhre
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
City staffer Zack Dahl continues to report only the $300,000 consultant expense—conveniently omitting the additional $200,000 in internal staff costs. That’s a half-million-dollar price tag for a historic preservation initiative no one asked for, in a city that already has a process in place and hasn’t seen a single new nomination in over 30 years.
Meanwhile, San Mateo faces a looming $15 million deficit. Instead of tightening its belt, the City is expanding bureaucracy and spending scarce public dollars on a solution in search of a problem. There is no demonstrated demand. There is no economic benefit. This is waste, plain and simple.
When the City comes back to ask for new taxes, remember this. Until they start treating public money with the same care they would treat their own, the answer should be a firm and resounding NO.
This is a gross boondoggle—and taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill.
Just a slight correction on the dollar amount based on my conversation with our city manager Alex Kohijian. The actual cost of the Rincon Consultants is $330,000 to conduct this survey. The additional $170,000 is for staff time to manage this project. The total bill is $500,000. No more taxes in my opinion. We need to guard the reserves in our city. The economy is very shaky and no one has a crystal ball predicting just where we will end up over the next 4 years. Our council has fudiciary responsibility over the reserves. Last year San Mateo paid out $35M in one singe law suit involving our wonderful Police Department. We need to guard the reserves.
So the cost of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance attempting to trample on homeowner rights is a minimum of $500,000. And that’s after already spending money for the City Council to discuss/implement this new policy. One has to wonder whether taxpayers can recoup some of their wasted tax dollars by obtaining reimbursement from the SMHA, as a group or individually, via contribution, voluntary or not. And I’d say the consent threshold should be a minimum of 80% and possibly up to 100%. As has been repeatedly mentioned, individual homeowners can seek out a heritage designation for their individual homes at any time.
The San Mateo Historical Alliance in Baywood is like a cure looking for a disease to treat. Anybody who owns a Home anywhere in this country can request that their home receive historical to and snare. Any individual can do that. There is no need to ensnare your neighbors in this gross effort intended to snub the possibilities that owners have in their properties now. Remember, these are private properties that people have invested not only their treasure, but also their dreams in. Treat each individual homeowner with respect. There must be a high bar for consent and let individual property owners make their own decisions.
The Kuhre residence at 200 west 3rd avenue in Baywood San Mateo has been reclassified to a non-contributor status in the current forced historic district nomination by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA). Over the course of 80 years,16 exterior changes occurred which were outlined in our documents submitted to Page & Turnbull consultants who were hired by SMHA. Page & Turnbull in response to our protest, changed their classification of our home. Many thanks to SMHA for providing us with the 1936 historic photo of our home used in their invitation for their promotional library public event. This photograph substantiated that in the Kuhre family case, that "drive by" assessments are grossly inadequate. Following in our success, we are in the process of helping other neighbors apply for reclassification. Anna Kuhre
Yippee!!! The Kuhre residence at 200 west 3rd avenue in Baywood San Mateo has been reclassified to a non-contributor status in the current forced historic district nomination by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA). Over the course of 80 years,16 exterior changes occurred which were outlined in our documents submitted to Page & Turnbull consultants who were hired by SMHA. Page & Turnbull in response to our protest, changed their classification of our home. Many thanks to SMHA for providing us with the 1936 historic photo of our home used in their invitation for their promotional library public event. This photograph substantiated that in the Kuhre family case, that "drive by" assessments are grossly inadequate. Following in our success, we are in the process of helping other neighbors apply for reclassification. Anna Kuhre
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.