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.
(4) comments
Very good news to hear! Thank you for this report. The San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA) has been upsetting hundreds of people in our community and don’t care. The fact that Laurie Hietter, President of the SMHA, failed to bring up her December refiling before or during the January City Council meeting speaks volumes about her lack of integrity. Laurie Hietter wants what she wants and didn't care at all that the majority of Baywood residents don't want a Historic District imposed on them. Therefore, she intentionally bypassed the democratic process and secretly took matters into her own hands - despite that the city and SMHA had made an agreement to pause the Baywood Historic nomination. Laurie Hietter said nothing to the City Council knowing it was voting on an issue important to her and the SMHA without all of the facts. I am hoping the letter from the City Council to the OHP will help right that wrong.
The back bone of the public process is community input and should be respected at all times. Unfortunately San Mateo Mayor Rob Newsom from the dais stated that he is skeptical that Baywood residents are actually submitting that number of letters for this recent council letter submission to the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). There were approximately 70 letters on March 17. Baywood residents are busy resubmitting identity verification letters to council stating they are real people who want this historic designation stopped. In my 20 years of community involvement, I have never heard that community members have to verify their identity to the council who serves at the will of the people. I invite all San Mateo citizens to watch the council special session video and read the letters submitted on March 17, where you will find several interesting comments regarding other council members.The letters and video are part of public record.
Mayor Rob Newsom did not show the same kind of due diligence when he accepted the "stories" of a handful of people not living on Humboldt Street - that Car Storage is more important than safety in the North Central Neighborhood. He completely ignored the surveys and data provided through the North Central Complete Streets Plan, which cost some $250-$500k to produce. That plan clearly shows North Central has plenty of on-street car storage available and all the stories were made up and fabricated by "crisis actors" and with help of Corporate Interest. And Corporate Interest always seems to be the common denominator with San Mateo Democrats. That is how Nicole Fernandez can justify (only to herself) to discriminate against single women and their children while also asking for weed shops in San Mateo downtown.
Thanks for the update, Alyse DiNapoli, on the Baywood historic district issue. The way I see it, we can prevent the “in” thing in this day and age, lawfare, if cooler heads prevail and this travesty of trampling on homeowner rights ends sooner rather than later. Looking forward to future updates.
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.