Just how can history work in San Mateo?

What clouded the council vote was the tempest-in-a-teapot controversy over a proposal to designate more than 400 homes as part of a Baywood Historic District, which boiled over into concern such plans were brewing elsewhere through this initiative. Trying to contain that issue with a citywide study seemed to lead to a larger spill. Not good.

I understand why there were two votes against because this launch was a turgid mess, rather than something a bit more tranquil, which is typical for topics such as historic preservation. My sense of the dissenting votes was that while the recently general plan contains instructions for this update, perhaps it could have waited until the Baywood debacle was over. It certainly wouldn’t be the case that the councilmembers who voted no are not interested in our history, right?

As someone who takes both historical preservation and individual property rights seriously, the way the discussion leaned, and how this effort was launched, was concerning — especially since it’s been decades since the city updated its ordinance.

The concerns in many of the public comments revealed a boiled-over frustration. But maybe this muck of a launch is proving why such an update is important.

Let’s look at the facts.

The city does have a way to analyze historical contributions of individual homes right now. Anyone who owns a home more than 45 years old and wants to make significant renovations requiring a permit will likely go through what the city calls a historic resources evaluation. The level of evaluation depends largely on the age of the structure and its condition, and a historic consultant may be brought in by the city or the home owner for review. Most of the effort is relegated to the facade to ensure the look of the structure remains the same. The city works with the homeowner or designer to ensure it matches Secretary of Interior standards if it’s an old structure. It’s fairly routine and works well in nearly all instances, but there have been times when there is concern about a particular renovation.

Going through the process of updating standards could address those concerns by engaging with the public on what they feel should be clarified or codified. There could also be new rules instituted on designating properties for historic eligibility or listing, and whether there should be a vote and what that threshold would be for any historic district proposal.

This is where the Baywood situation could again muck it up. Any discussion about a citywide policy will continue to be clouded by this odorous controversy where heated emotions haven’t come close to abatement since the historic district was first proposed in 2022.

The Baywood Historic District proposal is currently on hold. As I understand it, the leaders of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance have decided to not respond to state Office of Historic Preservation questions about its application until after this city process. However, the only way to give the city process a chance is the complete abandonment of the Baywood Historic District effort so it does not appear as the sword of Damocles throughout. Put simply, the effort to create a historic district in Baywood has created too much dissent and enmity to be productive moving forward. The Jan. 21 discussion and vote makes that clear.

Besides, Baywood should not be the center of this effort despite its lovely homes. There are older and more interesting structures elsewhere, and the point of this effort is not to focus on individual homes or areas but rather the specific process for historic resources evaluation so it’s equitable and fair for all. The general plan and housing element planned for new homes, it only makes sense the city now ensure our collective history gets attention too. It’s been too long.

The city has a good planning staff led by Community Development Director Zach Dahl. They were instrumental in ensuring the general plan reflected the will of the people and was balanced enough to ensure passage by the council, and subsequent passage of Measure T, which ensured its implementation. But they’re not magicians. Let’s make their jobs easier by focusing on the task at hand — ensuring that our history and processes are evaluated in a way that makes sense for the entire city.

Jon Mays is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on X @jonmays or Instagram j.onmays.