Can we count on Cathy for historic preservation?

One of Cathy Baylock's campaign slogans was "You Can Count on Cathy!"  She also styles herself as a major advocate for historic preservation in Burlingame.  Let's look at her accomplishments and her own words to determine whether we can "Count on Cathy" for historic preservation in Burlingame.

In her own words:  Baylock and Burlingame

If you go to Cathy Baylock's web site, you'll find a page devoted to the issue of historic preservation, and the majority of it is devoted to explaining the most recent actions she took in her own neighborhood.

Baylock blasts the press  coverage of her actions (not surprising given the lengthy and unfavorable coverage).  Here's what she says on her web site:

The press coverage of the one in my neighborhood was particularly uninformed, so I would like you to bear in mind the following:

• These issues stem from a 30 year old State Law (CEQA).

First, Baylock gets the age of CEQA wrong by about a decade.  The act passed in 1970, not 1980.  Second, it was not possible to invoke CEQA on a private property when the law was passed.  Finally, anyone who invokes CEQA for historic preservation should be aware of the significant changes regarding historic resources made in late 1998.  Many cities in California are working hard to appropriately modify their local laws to address and support the CEQA changes made in the last decade regarding historic resources.  Baylock doesn't mention any of this.  She trivializes the tough issues facing the City of Burlingame.  We can't sweep these issues under the rug by simply saying that CEQA has been around for years.  Burlingame must update its policies to stay in sync with the CEQA of today, not the CEQA of the 1970's.  Baylock is out-of-date and out of touch with the issues.

• The property is a single house and out-buildings on a double lot, built in 1922, and a developer was proposing to demolish it and build two new homes.

There are two single-family homes and a shared garage on the property, as Baylock is aware from living across the street from the property for many years and visiting both homes.  Describing the other home (built in the 1930's) with full kitchen, two bathrooms, formal dining room, and large living room with a cathedral ceiling as an "out-building" is intentionally misleading.

The critical point which Baylock continues to obscure is that she did not talk to the homeowners, the buyer, or any of her neighbors before unilaterally invoking CEQA on her entire neighborhood.  She continues to raise the bogeyman of "developers out for profit" without providing a coherent plan for balancing historic preservation and needed development.

• I consulted the Burlingame City Attorney who indicated that I had a duty to provide him with the information about the history of the house and the neighborhood.  I had this information because it is publicly available and I knew the current homeowner had commissioned a study on the history of his property in 2004.  I did exactly what the City Attorney advised me to do--no more and no less.
  

Baylock had the information because she is Treasurer of the Burlingame Historical Society.  She is aware of many studies done by the Society.  If what she says is accurate, then she has a duty to provide all Burlingame Historical Society information of which she is aware to the City Attorney, not selective information only pertaining to her neighborhood.

• If I had not provided this information to the City, it would certainly have been discovered as part of the CEQA process and would have raised the question (a legal question) of why this information was not disclosed earlier.

There is no legal basis for this statement.  It was disclosed in the real estate literature and the sales contract that the two homes are over 50 years old.   There was no need or legal obligation for a third party to initiate action with the City Attorney.  Again, if what she says is accurate, then she has a duty to disclose all  Burlingame Historical Society information of which she is aware to the City Attorney. 

As I have advocated for the last eight years as a councilmember, the City of Burlingame needs to conduct a simple, commonly understood inventory like 15 other local cities have done.  Then buyers, sellers, developers and neighbors would have clarity and certainty on what is and is not historic according to the law.

Baylock has been desperate to have the city conduct historical inventories for years, despite the lack of support in Burlingame for spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pursue this approach.  From the San Mateo Daily Journal in September 2005:

Baylock, 44, won her seat on the council four years ago after two previous tries in which she ran on a preservationist platform. Four years ago, she modified the platform to “smart growth” and won her seat. . . . She desperately wants the city to establish a registry of historical properties and this election may give her the supporting votes to make it happen. Previously, other members of the City Council said there wasn’t enough money for it. Baylock believes the city can’t afford not to.

Baylock’s latest pet project would be to investigate the possibility of creating historical districts in the city in which homeowners can benefit from generous tax breaks in exchange for an agreement to restore the home. Doing so would enable the city to create some affordable housing options and restore its historical integrity, she said.

Baylock's single-minded devotion to prohibitively expensive inventories or surveys paid for by the City reveals that she is acting in her self-interest, not the city's.  She claims that an inventory would provide ". . . clarity and certainty on what is and is not historic according to the law." 


Yet Baylock was present at the November 9 planning commission meeting where Anna Shimko drew the line between a survey and an analysis of a property to determine designation.  Surveys do not say what is and is not historic; the most they can do is identify properties that might be historic.   An inventory alone provides no tax benefits and no certainty.  Even properties that a survey say might not be historic are still potentially exposed to CEQA if additional information is provided to the City.  This additional information can be as simple as the tax roll for the property, and that is what Baylock did in her own neighborhood.   

An ordinance or clearly written public policies would give power to the entire City Council to address appropriate protections for historic or potentially historic resources.  With an inventory and no ordinance, Baylock can continue to use CEQA to unilaterally stall actions she doesn't like on any property over 50 years old.  Because Baylock is a public official, she is protected by sovereign immunity from ordinary citizens who might fight back to recover damages from her misuse of CEQA. 


Baylock has never pursued historic designation for her circa 1910's bungalow.   As such a strong advocate for historic resources, this is a surprising personal choice.  If she truly believes that historic designation provides lasting protection and generous tax benefits under state law,  why not protect her own property?  If you go to Baylock's web site looking for information on the "generous tax breaks" she is fond of invoking, you'll be disappointed.  There is a prominent link on the front page promising information on the Mills Act.  Clicking on it yields a "Page Not Found" error.  Baylock is no preservationist; she simply wants personal control of change in her neighborhood and Burlingame. 

To sum up:

• Baylock is out of touch with significant changes to CEQA affecting historic resources.
• Baylock knows that tax benefits for historic resources are not readily available to homeowners, yet she has done nothing to make them more accessible to Burlingame property owners.
  
• Baylock is misleading the public about the difference between a historic survey and a historic analysis.
• Baylock has never spent a dime of her own money on pursuing designation for her property despite the fact that it is nearly 100 years old.

Baylock has had years to address historic preservation policies, yet she has failed to get the most basic protections or incentives in place for Burlingame.  Baylock is not representing her constituency; she is only representing her own interests -- and spending our tax dollars to do it.