Editorial: San Mateo’s historic ordinance dangerously incomplete

It absolutely cannot be approved as it is now.

In 1989, the city had a survey conducted that listed historical resources throughout that area, downtown and also the Glazenwood neighborhood. There are 163 structures on that list. Yet only downtown, now Glazenwood through a special council meeting, and only three structures — the De Sabla Teahouse, the Coxhead House and the Amelia Vollers House — are listed as having any protection whatsoever. Seven Oaks, which is the house of A.P. Giannini, the founder of the Bank of Italy, which later became the Bank of America, and who helped finance the reconstruction of both San Mateo and San Francisco from gold he stored in his fireplace after the 1906 earthquake, has no protection. Giannini is the city’s most storied resident, however, there have been many through the years. You wouldn’t know it from the ordinance, however, as no other historic homes are listed for protection. Not any of the ones built by the Wisnom family, not the Maynard Home, not even the Sands House, the oldest surviving structure in the city at First Avenue and South Delaware Street.

There is no recognition that homes that survived from before 1910 are a part of our collective history and should be not only preserved but treasured. Why 1910? The Sands House dates to 1860, at least the back portion, and thereafter were many different homes in that area. Many didn’t make it over time, but also because of the 1906 Earthquake created significant damage in this area too. Initial rebuilds captured much of the essence of those prior structures, but San Mateo began changing after 1910 into the suburbia we know today. In short, 1910 is a pivot point from our founding era to our suburban growth. And anyone who suggests that a structure built prior to 1910 is not historic is simply not thinking clearly or has another agenda in mind. Put simply, any surviving structure in San Mateo in good condition built before 1910 is historic and should be listed as such.

It could be that many of those structures are also listed on the 1989 survey but we don’t know because staff was instructed by the current City Council not to include properties in that survey, to not include any survey work and to require owner consent for local listing. This was based in another dispute in another area of the city that the council was trying to solve, but it applied the thinking to the entire city. This created a document that, if it went forward as it is now, would be one of the biggest mistakes any council has ever made in the entire history of this city.

This is not histrionic. This is our history, and this document washes away all the previous work to establish documentation and protection of the collective history of our county’s namesake city. The 1989 survey was a good document, but we don’t know the current state of those buildings listed in it now. We don’t know if they even still exist and in what form. We must.

The city also relies on the California Environmental Quality Act for review of older structures whose owner wants to make a modification. This is fine, but should be codified with the city in case CEQA rules change.

Here is the specific action that must be taken to avoid a catastrophic decision that will forever haunt not only the City Council but the rest of the city:

• Update and include list all structures in the 1989 survey;

• Determine through a new survey which structures still exist pre-1910;

• Codify current CEQA rules for review of structures older than 45 years in case state policy changes;

• Allow the city the ability to initiate review of potential individual historic resources;

• Require any structure on 1989 survey or pre-1910 (if still in existence and not modified to the point of no longer being historic) to go through the newly formed Historic Commission for retrofits, remodels, renovations, additions; and

• Provide incentives like waiving permit fees for renovations of historic structures. This should be retroactive for any renovations made in last five years and should include the waiving of parks and recreation fees if an additional housing unit was provided on the property. Many older homes can be modified to include additional housing units, and this could provide incentive for owners looking to add housing while maintaining historic integrity.

There are four cities in the county with substantial architectural history from the 19th century, San Mateo, Redwood City, Half Moon Bay and Pescadero. A fifth, Purissima, south of Half Moon Bay, became a ghost town in the 1930s. Redwood City’s historic ordinance works off prior lists of historic resources and allows for the city to designate structures as historic through the City Council as suggested by its Historic Resources Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. San Mateo can adopt something similar to ensure that the structures meet certain criteria and to keep shenanigans at bay.

But we must have a completed survey of our historic resources. We began the work in 1989, so let’s engage in a holistic and complete way to ensure this new document respects our past so people now and in the future understand where we came from and where we should go. When the City Council meets May 4 to discuss the ordinance, it must hit pause and make the necessary changes so that the San Mateo we love is not forever damaged.