The San Mateo City Council is hoping that the state’s Office of Historic Preservation temporarily pauses a controversial application that could make the Baywood neighborhood a historic district, which was submitted by the resident-led group San Mateo Heritage Alliance.
Over the past year and a half, the Heritage Alliance has ramped up efforts to designate the area as historic, which would mean that more than 400 homes would be subject to additional reviews and require approval if owners wanted to substantially alter the exterior of their homes or make changes that don’t align with the design of the surrounding houses. The group, which says it aims to preserve the myriad architectural styles in the area, submitted an application to the state OHP toward the end of 2023, though the process is still underway.
The council unanimously approved the letter during a council meeting March 18 meeting, which stated that “should the Baywood nomination advance at the state level before our local process is fully developed, it could draw unfavorable attention at the local level” and further complicate the process.
Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash — who lives in the neighborhood and whose husband is a former board member of the Heritage Alliance — recused herself.
Councilmembers Nicole Fernandez and Danielle Cwirko-Godycki drafted an initial letter that was presented to the council during its meeting March 18.
“We’re not frowning on the historic district occurring, but we are saying to OHP, ‘please delay your process and please keep the city in the loop,’” Fernandez said. “Isn’t creating the best policy about compromise? I truly believe that we need to advise OHP on our council perspective and pause the review as we establish this new historic process.”
Opposition to the Heritage Alliance has escalated, both among the affected property owners and throughout the city, with claims that the blanket designation and the subsequent regulations infringe on their property rights. Regional housing advocates have also gotten involved, stating the Heritage Alliance’s attempts weaponize historic districting as a way to prevent or control future development.
While city councils can provide input on a state application, the OHP could still deem the neighborhood an eligible historic district, bypassing city or residents’ objections.
To prevent that, the city and Heritage Alliance agreed the application with the state would be paused, while the city worked toward expediting a robust preservation policy, which could include surveying potential historic sites.
But Laurie Hietter, one of the group’s founding members, said the group decided to resume the process with the state in December after she felt that the city hadn’t expedited the ordinance process quickly enough, and the fact that the council even entertained a stop to the program during a January council meeting went against their agreement.
She also said that she wanted to make sure the State Historical Resources Commission could review their application in May, which meant she had to get started on the application as soon as possible.
“I thought, ‘I’m not going to wait until January to start working on this,’ because if the city didn’t do it, we were going to try to get on the [State Historical Resources Commission] May agenda,” Hietter said.
Cwirko-Godcyki countered that the council’s January discussion kept in line with the original schedule. Had she known about the reactivation of the application during the January council meeting, it may have changed her decision to approve the $330,000 plan to establish the historic ordinance and process — something for which the Heritage Alliance pushed.
“It’s extremely disappointing that the San Mateo Heritage Alliance chose to submit their application ahead of time after they were the ones that advocated and pushed so fiercely for a local process,” she said. “At those [previous] meetings, it was very clearly articulated that we are going to move forward in exploring this and bring it back to council … you had a new council coming in, and you still chose to submit this in December, knowing that the council was reviewing this issue in January.”
All four councilmembers supported an updated letter informing OHP of the investments the city has made in updating its historic policy ordinance and the potential consequences should the state not defer the application.
