We are all familiar with the idea of officially designated “historic places.” For example, places deeply connected to an extremely important historical person, such as Hearst Castle, or iconic national landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge. Keeping important historic places intact provides a connection to our past, and gives us a way to honor important people and events that have come before us.
I’m glad California preserves selected important places for future generations to view and learn from. The process of becoming an official “historic place” is fairly rigorous, as you might expect, and extensive documentation is required to show that history really happened there, and that history is worth preserving.
“Historic districts,” on the other hand, do not need any particular history attached to them. As a Baywood homeowner learning more about the issue, I was shocked to learn that for an area to be declared an official “historic district,” nothing important ever needed to have happened there. Nobody famous ever needed to live there. You don’t even need to have houses that were designed by famous architects, or buildings of a cohesive architectural style or distinction.
As an example of how little “history” is actually required, the application for the proposed Baywood historic district in San Mateo lists:
• No past residents of historical importance who lived in Baywood;
• No past events of historical significance that happened in Baywood;
• No architects or designers who were known outside the immediate area; and
• No architectural cohesion: There are 42 unique styles of homes out of 444 homes in the district, and many have been rebuilt or extensively remodeled.
Recommended for you
Not very historic-sounding, is it? Baywood is beautiful, but it is not a true “historic place.”
Historic districts in residential areas effectively turn large numbers of private homes into museums. Homes in historic districts become very difficult to remodel and almost impossible to tear down due to additional regulations and laws, especially the California Environmental Quality Act.
Those of us residents opposing the Baywood historic district are not outsiders, real estate developers or proponents of building unlimited new housing. We didn’t ask for this historic district. There was never a neighborhood vote and there never will be, because the San Mateo Heritage Alliance submitted its application directly at the state level. The SMHA bypassed the residents of Baywood. Why? Perhaps because they knew they could not get the support of a majority of Baywood residents or the City Council.
Historic districts increase red tape and raise costs for homeowners, and create administrative and legal headaches for cities. The SMHA likes to claim that the additional red tape is no big deal, but we encourage you to go out there and talk to homeowners, architects and contractors who have actually been through a renovation in a historic district. Universally, they will tell you that their projects took way longer, cost more money, and had more limitations placed on them.
Saving some of our architectural history is important, but we can’t save every old structure just because it is old, nor would any reasonable person want to. This is especially for residential districts, because these are the places where regular California families live. Our homes are not museums. Styles and tastes change over time. Building materials and construction standards change over time. The size and composition of households change. Our homes should serve the needs of our families, not serve as a monument for someone that likes to look at a certain type of architecture.
The history of California is one of growth and change. California did not become the world’s fourth largest economy and one of the greatest places in the world to live by being stuck in the past. We should still respect and honor our history, but creating residential historic districts that have nothing to do with actual history does not honor history and hurts the residents of those areas by burdening them with additional costs and bureaucracy.
Andrew Ryan works as a software engineer. He has been a San Mateo homeowner for 22 years. For the last eight years, he has been a homeowner in Baywood. He is a fan of history and art, and is a member of Less Red Tape (lessredtape.com), a group of Baywood neighbors opposing the historic district.
As a San Mateo homeowner and one who considers purchasing in Baywood, I'm watching this historic designation campaign with interest. As a frequent visitor to the neighborhood I first became aware of the issue through lessredtape.com signs. I've been to the website and seen the contributing map.
What brings me here today is seeing a recent listing and then wondering, is it "contributing" (i.e. protected) and it is. [unsure] Hopefully this does not go forward. The last thing I'd want in a future property are more restrictions on its use.
Thanks, Mr. Ryan, for your letter. For those interested, I’d add that a reading of Gennady Sheyner’s series of articles on historic designations in Palo Alto will shed additional light on the negative impact of neighborhood historic designations. His latest article can be found at https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2024/01/12/board-no-historical-listings-without-homeowner-consent/ with additional linked articles on the page. Be informed.
If you browse the smheritage.org site, you’ll notice that the site acknowledges there is red tape associated with a historic designation, similar to the sentiments Mr. Ryan has written. Although the site does attempt to soft-pedal the red tape there is red tape. Folks insinuating there is no red tape are being dishonest, or haven’t visited the site.
You’ll also notice that the heritage alliance believes historic designation will increase property values. If so, Heritage members should have no problems providing additional funds to maintain historic homes as well as paying the difference in sales price to an owner when and if they decide to sell. Oh yes, let’s not forget reimbursing the homeowner for additional time and money spent dealing with more red tape. Instead of only talking about increased value, how about the Heritage Alliance standing behind their assertions by putting skin in the game rather than pushing their agenda for others to bear the brunt. Why wouldn’t the Heritage Alliance be willing to do that? It’s win-win.
Terence, the Palo Alto stories about individually-eligible properties, not historic districts. Palo Alto is not comparable. San Mateo's historic preservation ordinance only applies to Downtown. and Glazenwood.
The additional funds for renovation would be available through the Mills Act and other programs if the district is listed. That is a significant benefit of the historic district listing.
Please identify the additional red tape. There isn't any additional requirement unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Have you read the ordinance (27.66)? The City would likely determine (appropriately) that loss of one contributor of 350 would not have the potential to substantially affect the district (the historic resource). The claim that the district will increase permitting costs in Baywood 2-5 times is completely false. Many unsubstantiated claims.
20/20 Vision, thanks for your response. Palo Alto may not be directly comparable yet maintains much of the same issues. In fact, I’d say San Mateo’s attempt at neighborhood historic designation is far worse because San Mateo is attempting to incorporate homes (whether truly historical or not) without allowing individual homeowners to have a say. Palo Alto is allowing homeowner’s to have a say. Why not go the Palo Alto route and incorporate homes individually? Why do some folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district when any homeowner, if they desire, can apply individually?
You say additional funds for renovation would be available but that's not a guarantee homeowners will be made whole for additional costs due to the historic district listing. Essentially, more cost, however little.
As for identifying red tape, I’d recommend you ask folks at the Heritage Alliance, since they’ve acknowledged there is red tape (although they try to soft-pedal it). Not only that, you comment that there aren’t additional requirements unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Which they can do at any time, adding red tape. Without the historic district listing, there is no associated red tape. You also use the word “likely” in regards to the loss of one contributor, which means there’s a possibility of red tape. “Likely” is not the same as “no.” If the permitting cost claim of 2-5 times is completely false, what is the number? Anything greater than 1 is an increased cost.
BTW, have you browsed the lessredtape.com site? Especially the FAQs section and homeowner stories section? Are there homeowner stories in smheritage.org about the joys of living in a historic district? I'd like to hear from those who didn’t choose to be in the district and what additional red tape or costs they've had to endure, if any.
Andrew, your opinion is yours but you are not stating the facts of state and federal definition of historic resources. You may want to read the Baywood Nomination and the multiple National Park Service documents about historic districts. Baywood qualifies as a historic district based on its role in development of San Mateo as a commuter suburb and the intact collection of Colonial revival-style homes that were popular in the 1920s and 1930s and have significant integrity.
Historic Districts are not necessarily museums. They allow renovations, solar panels, ADUs, and even demolition. Land use is regulated by the local government and each one treats historic properties differently.
As you well know, the “vote” will happen after the State Historic Preservation Office determines whether Baywood meets the objective criteria to be listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. The Baywood neighbors have been informed about the historic district since 2022, through direct mail, email, flyers, canvassing and multiple public and private meetings.
You claim the district will add red tape and costs. Please provide evidence this will happen in San Mateo. Point me to the part of the historic preservation ordinance (27.66) that applies to Baywood (note: read the applicability section). You all make many claims without providing any evidence.
Please present accurate, valid points or you lose credibility.
It's misleading to claim that there is a vote. Most people (rightfully) assume that a vote is a tally of ballots, with the outcome dictated by the majority of votes. Neither of those things are happening here.
Page 71 of the CA State Law & Historic Preservation: Statutes, Regulations & Administrative 4855(b)(1) states, “Private resource owners must make any objection to listing in a notarized letter…” and appears to refer to these objections as a “vote”, going on say in subsection A, “Within a district, each owner has one vote regardless of how many buildings, or what percentage of the area of the proposed district, such person owns.”
However, section 1 also states “If a private resource owner does not reply to a properly transmitted letter of notification, the absence of a reply will be interpreted as consent to the historical resource designation.”
This is akin to unreturned ballots being counted as "yes" votes.
Additionally, Subsection B states “If a majority of private resource owners should object for any reason, the proposed individual resource or district will not be listed. However, in such cases, the Commission shall designate the resource as ‘formally determined eligible for listing in the California Register.’” Both CEQA and San Mateo’s General Plan define “historic resources” as “buildings, structures, sites, and districts” that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources. There is no practical distinction between “listed” and “determined to be eligible” when it comes to the applicability of CEQA and San Mateo’s historic preservation ordinance.
In other words, the practical outcome is the same, regardless of how the majority votes.
Unfortunately Laurie, your statements do not appear to be correct, which makes me wonder, as the head of the SMHA, whether you are deliberately misstating things or you simply don't know. For example, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines that SMHA calls "the gold standard" for preservation and which SMHA is presumably advocating for adoption by the City of San Mateo if and when Baywood is designated as a "Historic District" do not permit solar panels when they are visible from the street, which likely severely limits the efficacy and cost benefit of a solar installation. Further, the Secretary of the Interior's standards ABSOLUTELY call for something as close to a museum as one can get! Perhaps you've not actually read some of the standards? I think back to the Planning Commission Hearing that was televised with regard to 415 Fairfax and a statement made by one of the attendees (paraphrased): "415 is art and must be preserved.... the metals used on the door hinges are metals not used anymore.... once they're gone, they're gone..." It seems clear that SMHA does not want to stop at controlling our facades, but they also want into our homes to control down to the door hinges. I for one, don't think Baywood would be all that appealing if door hinges have greater property rights than I, the homeowner. SMHA may get its "Historic District", but will it ruin our community in the process?
For readers - if you want a balanced review of the impact, check out the lessredtape.com website. Run by self-funded , volunteer, concerned Baywood homeowners.
Actually, once you’ve checked out Less Red Tape, compare to the city’s historic resource page and the Heritage Alliance site (smheritage.org). You will see alignment between the city and Heritage Alliance and you will wonder why Less Red Tape twists the truth and regularly attacks neighbors.
The City's website really has no bearing since it does not reflect the clear aim of SMHA to have City rules and regs updated to adopt, implement and enforce the "golden rule" of preservation cited by SMHA, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. If this were to happen, it would be a disaster for anyone wanting to make any chance to their home -- major, minor, inside, outside.
Balanced? I would call it false and misleading. They conveniently provide no evidence of any of the claims. For example, "your property values will go down." Most analyses say home values increase. A review of the home and per square foot prices in Glazenwood Historic District for the last 10 years shows Glazenwood prices are substantially higher than Hayward Park. This is a San Mateo example that how historic designation increases home values.
Providing Feedback, no, not at all. Mr. Ryan is parroting Less Red Tape’s lies and misinformation. The City and Heritage Alliance are aligned on the facts, please check out their information for what a historic district truly means.
ConnieuWeiss, I have done my research and respectfully disagree with you. Mr. Ryan's article does not contain any lies or misinformation. It is a thorough assessment of Baywood becoming an historic district and, as a concerned homeowner, he has a vested interest in sharing his concerns. The Heritage Alliance of eight people, most who aren't residents of Baywood themselves, are pushing this designation that will directly impact Mr. Ryan and others in the Baywood community.
Ok we will have to agree to disagree. But anyone else reading this: please read the city’s webpage on historic resources as well as Heritage Alliance - you will find alignment between the two with Less Red Tape no where close.
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!
(16) comments
As a San Mateo homeowner and one who considers purchasing in Baywood, I'm watching this historic designation campaign with interest. As a frequent visitor to the neighborhood I first became aware of the issue through lessredtape.com signs. I've been to the website and seen the contributing map.
What brings me here today is seeing a recent listing and then wondering, is it "contributing" (i.e. protected) and it is. [unsure] Hopefully this does not go forward. The last thing I'd want in a future property are more restrictions on its use.
Thanks, Mr. Ryan, for your letter. For those interested, I’d add that a reading of Gennady Sheyner’s series of articles on historic designations in Palo Alto will shed additional light on the negative impact of neighborhood historic designations. His latest article can be found at https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2024/01/12/board-no-historical-listings-without-homeowner-consent/ with additional linked articles on the page. Be informed.
If you browse the smheritage.org site, you’ll notice that the site acknowledges there is red tape associated with a historic designation, similar to the sentiments Mr. Ryan has written. Although the site does attempt to soft-pedal the red tape there is red tape. Folks insinuating there is no red tape are being dishonest, or haven’t visited the site.
You’ll also notice that the heritage alliance believes historic designation will increase property values. If so, Heritage members should have no problems providing additional funds to maintain historic homes as well as paying the difference in sales price to an owner when and if they decide to sell. Oh yes, let’s not forget reimbursing the homeowner for additional time and money spent dealing with more red tape. Instead of only talking about increased value, how about the Heritage Alliance standing behind their assertions by putting skin in the game rather than pushing their agenda for others to bear the brunt. Why wouldn’t the Heritage Alliance be willing to do that? It’s win-win.
Terence, the Palo Alto stories about individually-eligible properties, not historic districts. Palo Alto is not comparable. San Mateo's historic preservation ordinance only applies to Downtown. and Glazenwood.
The additional funds for renovation would be available through the Mills Act and other programs if the district is listed. That is a significant benefit of the historic district listing.
Please identify the additional red tape. There isn't any additional requirement unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Have you read the ordinance (27.66)? The City would likely determine (appropriately) that loss of one contributor of 350 would not have the potential to substantially affect the district (the historic resource). The claim that the district will increase permitting costs in Baywood 2-5 times is completely false. Many unsubstantiated claims.
20/20 Vision, thanks for your response. Palo Alto may not be directly comparable yet maintains much of the same issues. In fact, I’d say San Mateo’s attempt at neighborhood historic designation is far worse because San Mateo is attempting to incorporate homes (whether truly historical or not) without allowing individual homeowners to have a say. Palo Alto is allowing homeowner’s to have a say. Why not go the Palo Alto route and incorporate homes individually? Why do some folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district when any homeowner, if they desire, can apply individually?
You say additional funds for renovation would be available but that's not a guarantee homeowners will be made whole for additional costs due to the historic district listing. Essentially, more cost, however little.
As for identifying red tape, I’d recommend you ask folks at the Heritage Alliance, since they’ve acknowledged there is red tape (although they try to soft-pedal it). Not only that, you comment that there aren’t additional requirements unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Which they can do at any time, adding red tape. Without the historic district listing, there is no associated red tape. You also use the word “likely” in regards to the loss of one contributor, which means there’s a possibility of red tape. “Likely” is not the same as “no.” If the permitting cost claim of 2-5 times is completely false, what is the number? Anything greater than 1 is an increased cost.
BTW, have you browsed the lessredtape.com site? Especially the FAQs section and homeowner stories section? Are there homeowner stories in smheritage.org about the joys of living in a historic district? I'd like to hear from those who didn’t choose to be in the district and what additional red tape or costs they've had to endure, if any.
Andrew, your opinion is yours but you are not stating the facts of state and federal definition of historic resources. You may want to read the Baywood Nomination and the multiple National Park Service documents about historic districts. Baywood qualifies as a historic district based on its role in development of San Mateo as a commuter suburb and the intact collection of Colonial revival-style homes that were popular in the 1920s and 1930s and have significant integrity.
Historic Districts are not necessarily museums. They allow renovations, solar panels, ADUs, and even demolition. Land use is regulated by the local government and each one treats historic properties differently.
As you well know, the “vote” will happen after the State Historic Preservation Office determines whether Baywood meets the objective criteria to be listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. The Baywood neighbors have been informed about the historic district since 2022, through direct mail, email, flyers, canvassing and multiple public and private meetings.
You claim the district will add red tape and costs. Please provide evidence this will happen in San Mateo. Point me to the part of the historic preservation ordinance (27.66) that applies to Baywood (note: read the applicability section). You all make many claims without providing any evidence.
Please present accurate, valid points or you lose credibility.
It's misleading to claim that there is a vote. Most people (rightfully) assume that a vote is a tally of ballots, with the outcome dictated by the majority of votes. Neither of those things are happening here.
Page 71 of the CA State Law & Historic Preservation: Statutes, Regulations & Administrative 4855(b)(1) states, “Private resource owners must make any objection to listing in a notarized letter…” and appears to refer to these objections as a “vote”, going on say in subsection A, “Within a district, each owner has one vote regardless of how many buildings, or what percentage of the area of the proposed district, such person owns.”
However, section 1 also states “If a private resource owner does not reply to a properly transmitted letter of notification, the absence of a reply will be interpreted as consent to the historical resource designation.”
This is akin to unreturned ballots being counted as "yes" votes.
Additionally, Subsection B states “If a majority of private resource owners should object for any reason, the proposed individual resource or district will not be listed. However, in such cases, the Commission shall designate the resource as ‘formally determined eligible for listing in the California Register.’” Both CEQA and San Mateo’s General Plan define “historic resources” as “buildings, structures, sites, and districts” that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources. There is no practical distinction between “listed” and “determined to be eligible” when it comes to the applicability of CEQA and San Mateo’s historic preservation ordinance.
In other words, the practical outcome is the same, regardless of how the majority votes.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/10%20comb.pdf
Unfortunately Laurie, your statements do not appear to be correct, which makes me wonder, as the head of the SMHA, whether you are deliberately misstating things or you simply don't know. For example, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines that SMHA calls "the gold standard" for preservation and which SMHA is presumably advocating for adoption by the City of San Mateo if and when Baywood is designated as a "Historic District" do not permit solar panels when they are visible from the street, which likely severely limits the efficacy and cost benefit of a solar installation. Further, the Secretary of the Interior's standards ABSOLUTELY call for something as close to a museum as one can get! Perhaps you've not actually read some of the standards? I think back to the Planning Commission Hearing that was televised with regard to 415 Fairfax and a statement made by one of the attendees (paraphrased): "415 is art and must be preserved.... the metals used on the door hinges are metals not used anymore.... once they're gone, they're gone..." It seems clear that SMHA does not want to stop at controlling our facades, but they also want into our homes to control down to the door hinges. I for one, don't think Baywood would be all that appealing if door hinges have greater property rights than I, the homeowner. SMHA may get its "Historic District", but will it ruin our community in the process?
For readers - if you want a balanced review of the impact, check out the lessredtape.com website. Run by self-funded , volunteer, concerned Baywood homeowners.
Actually, once you’ve checked out Less Red Tape, compare to the city’s historic resource page and the Heritage Alliance site (smheritage.org). You will see alignment between the city and Heritage Alliance and you will wonder why Less Red Tape twists the truth and regularly attacks neighbors.
The City's website really has no bearing since it does not reflect the clear aim of SMHA to have City rules and regs updated to adopt, implement and enforce the "golden rule" of preservation cited by SMHA, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. If this were to happen, it would be a disaster for anyone wanting to make any chance to their home -- major, minor, inside, outside.
Balanced? I would call it false and misleading. They conveniently provide no evidence of any of the claims. For example, "your property values will go down." Most analyses say home values increase. A review of the home and per square foot prices in Glazenwood Historic District for the last 10 years shows Glazenwood prices are substantially higher than Hayward Park. This is a San Mateo example that how historic designation increases home values.
One realtor said that. Any increase tied to historic districts is otherwise purely speculative and absent of causation.
Excellent article! Great assessment of the impact this will have.
Providing Feedback, no, not at all. Mr. Ryan is parroting Less Red Tape’s lies and misinformation. The City and Heritage Alliance are aligned on the facts, please check out their information for what a historic district truly means.
ConnieuWeiss, I have done my research and respectfully disagree with you. Mr. Ryan's article does not contain any lies or misinformation. It is a thorough assessment of Baywood becoming an historic district and, as a concerned homeowner, he has a vested interest in sharing his concerns. The Heritage Alliance of eight people, most who aren't residents of Baywood themselves, are pushing this designation that will directly impact Mr. Ryan and others in the Baywood community.
Ok we will have to agree to disagree. But anyone else reading this: please read the city’s webpage on historic resources as well as Heritage Alliance - you will find alignment between the two with Less Red Tape no where close.
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.