San Mateo forges ahead with historic analysis

Currently, only the city’s downtown and Glazenwood districts are considered historic, but members of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance group have pushed to expand the designation to more than 400 houses in the Baywood neighborhood, which 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.

At the end of 2023, SMHA submitted an application to the state’s Office of Historic Preservation petitioning the state agency to include the homes as a historic district listed in the national registry. The move angered many property owners, who have said that such a consequential designation should only move forward with a majority of property owner approval.

The city has made a commitment to update its own historic preservation policy, which has largely remained unchanged since the early 1990s and is based largely on a 1989 historic survey, which has been deemed outdated by many in the community. Shoring up historic preservation policies is also listed as a short-term priority in the city’s general plan, which is a document outlining various housing, land use, transportation and other public service goals a city has over the coming decades. During a council meeting in June, the city approved a plan to update its approach to historic processes, which would create more localized designation reviews and future historic resource surveys.

The city plans to work with a consultant to develop a historic context statement, outlining the city’s architectural history, typically for land planning purposes.

“The only way I would entertain [this option] is if we have a consent-based ordinance. To me, that means any ordinance prepared or proposed ... would require property owner consent prior to the city surveying, designating or listing a property as a resource on any local register, survey or list,” Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki said.

Regardless of the city’s policies, however, the state could still approve a designation that imposes the restrictions many Baywood residents are hoping to avoid.

The 3-2 vote by the council sets aside about $330,000 to develop a new historic designation policy and create the context statement. Many residents opposed the move, saying during public comment it would open the door to identifying more historic sites. Baywood homeowners opposed to the historic designation are wary due to the financial and bureaucratic burdens it would impose on their properties, and many housing advocates have also claimed that historic districting is a tool often used to limit critical housing production.

Councilmember Nicole Fernandez and Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine were not in favor of prioritizing the efforts.

“Given the discord we’ve been hearing from the community with regard to historic districts and other news we’ve been hearing on broader topics beyond the scope of what we’re actually discussing tonight, I feel that unfortunately if we were to pursue [this], we may not find the solution at the end of the road that would bridge the discord and divide we are hearing tonight,” Loraine said.