Editor,
Please allow me to correct several false assertions made by San Mateo Councilmember Amourence Lee at the June 17 City Council meeting and repeated in the Daily Journal on June 22. Ms. Lee asserts that the Baywood historic district nomination can “easily bypass” the local process. She further asserts that the Baywood application would “supplant our own local ordinance.” Both assertions are patently false and misleading.
A National Register Historic District does not bypass the local process but complements it. Likewise, a National Register District application does not supplant a local ordinance but rather supports it. National Register listing and local ordinances work together to support holistic city planning goals. Calls for the nomination to be paused or withdrawn are unwarranted and counterproductive to the city’s interests because they are based on the false premise that National Register listing interferes or conflicts with the local process. National Register listing is an honor of national significance of which the city should be proud. National Register listing conveys a level of national regard and respect, while imposing no restrictions, regulations or demands on any property owner. Neither does it inhibit the city’s ability to craft an appropriate local ordinance.
That a group of concerned citizens have invested the time and money in a lengthy and arduous National Register process to recognize the substantial and significant contribution their neighborhood has made to San Mateo, is an effort the City Council should be celebrating, not berating.
I congratulate the City Council for moving forward with all deliberate speed in revising the historic preservation ordinance and look forward to working with the city on this worthy endeavor.
Keith Weber
San Mateo
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(14) comments
Great LTR Keith. Thanks for pointing out more false assertions by Amourence Lee. The Heritage Alliance should move forward with their application in accordance with regulation guidelines. Other neighborhoods wanting same designation should not fall prey to intimidation and bullying from self-important political agitators.
You miss the point: the Baywood neighborhood does NOT want the "designation". Let individuals homeowner decide for themselves. Let's not fall pre to intimidation and bullying by radical "preservationists" and outside influence like Tasos.
Taso you yelled at me over the phone just like Michael Nash did trying to bully and intimidate me for standing up for my rights. Go ahead and start your own district like you threatened to do to intimidate me. I choose to decline any false honor on my home. I have declined honors before in this city because I refused to be used to advance other peoples agenda. The real agenda is to fight SB 9 and covenants in the general plan. You are too hateful for me to associate with. All this hatred in our city has to stop.
Celebrate balanced council leadership
Jun 27, 2024
Editor:
San Mateo’s new land use plan encourages thousands of new housing units in the future. Equally significant, on June 17, the City Council “approved a plan to update its approach to historic processes, which would create more localized designation reviews and future historic resource surveys, according to a staff report.” (June 22-23 edition of the Daily Journal: “San Mateo historic policy debate continues”).
To balance future growth, we must not overlook the community’s individual resources of historical and cultural significance.
Examples that were recognized as potentially historically significant in the city’s adopted 1989 Historic Building Survey, but are not yet formally listed in San Mateo’s Inventory, include: The “earliest remaining church,” according to 1989 historic experts. Built in 1905, 300 E. Santa Inez Ave. (corner of North Ellsworth Avenue). “Individually eligible” but not yet formally recognized.
Similarly, the impressive and unique structure at 29 N. San Mateo Drive (corner of St. Mathews Avenue), deemed “potentially eligible for historic designation” in 1989.
Well-maintained homes at 117, 123 and 127 N. Ellsworth St., “Individually eligible” or “locally significant.” At least one was built in 1908.
Another omission: 72 N. San Mateo Drive — the former home and office of San Mateo County’s first Black doctor, James L. Hutchison, a cultural and historic community resource. Previously overlooked in city surveys.
Our historic sense of place is damaged by redevelopment’s removal of familiar structures and cultural places.
Let’s celebrate and protect what we love about San Mateo.
Doug Handerson
San Mateo
(published Ltr to editor June 27, 2024)
Let's celebrate and protect what we love about San Mateo with the CONSENT of property owners, rather than through the "bypass" process that has been used by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance along with its deceptive methods.
Mr. Weber, aren’t you ashamed of yourself? First of all, it would be prudent to disclose that you are the instigator of this initiative and a founding board member of the SMHA.
Your letter is riddled with so many blatant inaccuracies that it only serves to reinforce the distrust people have towards you and the SMHA. You have shown an utter disregard for the true interests of the people of San Mateo. This entire ordeal is being driven by you and a small, vocal minority. No, your actions should not be celebrated; they should be condemned in the strongest terms possible. The only reason this has not been stopped in its tracks is that the husband of our mayor is a strong (financial) supporter of your cause.
You should be asking yourself: do I truly serve the best interests of our city and its people when every council candidate feels compelled to weigh in on this topic, and condemns your actions unequivocally?
THIS. Is it any wonder people are confused? People *think* that historic designation is only "honorary", they *think* they automatically get a reduction in their property tax (Mills Act), they *think* it only impacts them if they want to make a major change to the FRONT of their home.... why all the confusion? It's because of the ever changing misinformation being pushed out from the San Mateo Heritage Alliance. If more people knew the truth - that the preservation process chosen by the "Alliance" as to Baywood WILL result in their homes being FOREVER subject to a byzantine system of preservation rules and regulations, including CEQA, that will severely restrict homeowner property rights by governing how homeowners can maintain and improve their homes, all without their consent - there might be people protesting in the streets! The Alliance's application for National listing *literally* bypasses any locally driven process, so for Mr. Weber to say in his LTE that it's *not* a bypass is just.... too much! Make your voice be heard by contacting the City Council and letting them know that if the City wants to spend $500k on this pet project (with all the other problems in the City) then the Alliance should withdraw its application entirely. Otherwise, the City will spend the time and money on updating the historic ordinance only for the Alliance to bypass this costly endeavor as to the Baywood neighborhood by maintaining its application. And if that happens, both the City and the City Council will have been played.
San Mateo's Historic Preservation Ordinance gives the City Council the power to confer historic designation via passage of a resolution. See the Municipal Code Chapter 27.66.020(b):
https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/27.66.020#(b)
Rather than ask the City Council to pass a resolution conferring historic designation on the Baywood neighborhood, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance applied directly to the California Office of Historic Preservation, taking the power to decide whether or not Baywood should be designated historic from the City Council and placing it in the hands of the State Historic Resources Commission. How is that not bypassing the City Council?
Here we go again… with an LTE by Keith Weber attempting to explain why trampling on homeowner rights is acceptable. Um, sorry, Mr. Weber, it’s never acceptable. Meanwhile, perhaps the lawfare route should be considered? If the City is willing to blow $500,000 on this issue, apparently the City has money to burn for other things…
Indeed. And Mr. Weber's statement that: "National Register listing conveys a level of national regard and respect, while imposing no restrictions, regulations or demands on any property owner" is ABSOLUTELY inaccurate. One has to wonder, why do the San Mateo Heritage Alliance people continually push a false narrative that National listing is merely honorary and comes with no burdens to the impacted homeowners? Do they not actually understand the implications of National listing? Or is it that they are knowingly fleecing the community?
Interestingly, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance sent a public comment about the General Plan on October 3, 2023 acknowledging the restrictions imposed by listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The letter stated, "Listing in the National Register may result in restrictions, such as design review, imposed locally pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or through local zoning and land use planning regulations. Contact the local government planning agency for more information."
This is insane! Like, you can't make this stuff up! People think National listing means they get a plaque and a certificate for this *honor*. Instead, they get an eternity of CEQA..... congratulations!!!
Correction: a small minority. Just a handful of people have sponsored this movement.
444 homes in Baywood being forced into a historic district because 24 homes MIGHT be historic. Read their consultants report. Keith Weber lives in Aragon and is the founding member of this entire movement that is being forced on good Baywood residents who want to be exempted and not have this forced on us. Bully tactics against candidates, women and senior citizens by a small majority of Baywood residents forcing this historic district on their neighbors without our approval. Historic districts has become the election issue. Who is running this city? Who is really pulling all the strings. Give residents a voice.
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.