CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: {{section.name}} Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: {{item.tracking_number}} TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: June 02, 2025
SUBJECT:
Historic Policy Update Effort and Preservation Ordinance — Update RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with updating the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
San Mateo's General Plan 2040, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024, sets the policy framework for how issues such as historic resources and preservation should be addressed. The Community Design and Historic Resources Element addresses the topic of historic and cultural resources, and includes goals, policies, and actions that outline the framework for how the City should approach historic resources and preservation. Specifically, Goal CD-5 addresses preserving the historic and culturally important resources to maintain San Mateo's special identity and continuity with the past and includes seven policies and six actions to support achievement of this goal.
On June 17, 2024, the City Council held a study session to consider options for how to proceed with updating the City's local historic policies and codes pursuant to the actions in the General Plan. The study session resulted in the Council directing staff to prioritize implementation of an update to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Action CD 5.8) and preparation of a Citywide Historic Context Statement (Action CD 5.9). The work would update the Ordinance to include creation of a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts, establishment of review and permitting procedures for historic alterations and demolitions, consistency with Federal and State standards and guidelines, and alignment with the other goals and policies outlined in the General Plan.
The Citywide Historic Context Statement would provide an overview of the City's historical development patterns to help inform the community discussion and clarify the areas of significance to guide what resources should be prioritized for preservation. It would not change the historic status of any property in the City, create any new eligible historic districts, conduct any individual property or neighborhood surveys, or halt the development of new housing projects. Instead, the Context Statement would create a citywide baseline to provide for consistent and uniform evaluation of historic resources moving forward and increase awareness and understanding of the factors that contribute to whether or not a property is eligible.
In the summer and fall of 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a qualified historic consultant to support the historic policy update work directed by Council. Based on overall professional experience, quality of proposal, responses to interview questions and composition of the consultant team, staff identified Rincon Consultants, Inc. as being the best qualified to support the City's historic policy update effort. On January 21, 2025, the City Council voted to appropriate funding to complete the historic policy update effort and to execute a professional services agreement with Rincon Consultants to support this historic policy work. Since consultant agreement approval, staff has been working with the
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Rincon Team to complete background research, develop an outreach and engagement plan, and complete an assessment of the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
To assess the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and provide information and options for how to approach an update, Rincon prepared a Research and Analysis Report. This report provides background on the City’s approach to historic preservation over the years, an assessment of the current Ordinance, research into how other jurisdictions approach historic preservation and outlines options for how to move forward, with a focus on historic districts and owner consent.
The full report, with citations, references, and support information is included as Attachment 1.
To support robust community outreach and engagement as part of this historic policy update effort, an Outreach and Engagement Plan has been prepared (Attachment 2). The plan includes a community profile, the approach to mutual learning and awareness, methods of participation and strategies for measuring outreach. Activities that will be used to engage with the community will include interactive workshops, focus groups, participatory surveys, an interactive online time capsule, community-based organization coordination and resident incentives for participation. Community engagement is scheduled to begin following this study session.
Historic Preservation Ordinance Review
Effective historic preservation Ordinances are comprised of several key elements including the following: purpose statement, enabling authority identification, preservation commission establishment, procedures for resource designation and actions for review, economic effects of designation acknowledgement, appeals and enforcement provisions, and a concise set of definitions.
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 27.66) is missing several key elements generally included in effective historic preservation Ordinances. The current Ordinance does not identify the enabling authority, establish a historic preservation commission, provide procedures for designation of resources, recognize economic effects of designation, describe appeals and enforcement provisions, or include a set of concise definitions.
The current Ordinance was established, in part, as the result of the 1989 Survey Report and has remained closely tied to that effort. However, the City has changed significantly over time, and the field of historic preservation has evolved over the past 35 years. As a result, the administration of the historic preservation Ordinance has become limited and inefficient.
For example, Section 27.66.010 states that one of the purposes of the chapter is to “designate…the City’s historic structures,” but it does not provide an effective mechanism for making such designations. Section 27.66.020 further states that “City Council by Resolution may add to the provisions of this chapter any building which it finds meets the criteria of contributing to the historic importance of downtown and the City.” However, it fails to provide a clear process for how the City Council may receive information to make such a Resolution. Though the City has developed procedures to identify historical resources in the years since the Survey Report through project-level review, the City’s list of designated resources have largely been limited to those identified in the 1989 Survey Report. Although the Survey Report is a useful tool, it was not developed for or intended to be the stagnant basis for the City’s historic preservation program. As such, the current Ordinance is inadequate in several areas because it is missing imperative components and it is too tied to the 1989 survey effort, resulting in a variety of deficiencies (see Table 1 in Attachment 1 for more detail).
Comparison Analysis
To assess emerging and best practices in historic preservation Ordinances, Rincon reviewed historic preservation Ordinances for cities in San Mateo County, as well as adjacent cities in neighboring counties, and cities throughout the state with similar developmental trends and population sizes. Overall, Rincon reviewed policies from 36 cities or jurisdictions in California in 11 counties. Rincon also reviewed guidance and training materials from OHP, the California Preservation Foundation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The analysis focuses on designation criteria, reviewing bodies, historic districts, owner consent, and effects of designation because they represent the overarching topic areas that inform essential elements of a historic preservation Ordinance.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Ordinance Composition and Criteria
Clear criteria for historical designation are a critical aspect of a successful historic preservation Ordinance. Recognizing there are a variety of reasons for designation, courts have given local communities latitude in deciding what resources should be locally designated and criteria can be crafted to reflect local history and the existing built environment. San Mateo’s current Ordinance does not include criteria for local designation.
Of the 19 other cities in San Mateo County, nine (47 percent) have historic preservation Ordinances. Notably some of the smaller towns and cities in San Mateo County without historic preservation Ordinances generally have other planning tools for recognizing their historic built environment, like very comprehensive General Plan chapters and Design Review Boards.
Of the 36 cities reviewed, 22 (61 percent) have historic preservation Ordinances. Four of the 36 communities use the same exact criteria for listing as the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), while the remaining jurisdictions generally use some version of the CRHR criteria that allow for designation for association with:
historic events or trends;
a historically significant individual;
architectural significance for design and/or examples of the work of an important or notable architect; or information important in prehistory or history.
Common variations include some consideration for the rarity of the building type, the building’s contribution to a neighborhood character or aesthetic, buildings with unique visual features, and historic signs. Some jurisdictions with more than four criteria require an eligible building to meet more than one criterion. Several municipalities also allow for designation of resources at a local level through adoption by reference. For example, in many cities, properties that are listed in the NRHP or CRHR are also listed locally, without requiring a local application for designation. Recognizing that not all historical resources are the same, some jurisdictions have more than one set of criteria to allow for tiered designation, thereby requiring different levels of protection, design review, and incentives (discussed in more detail below). Tiered designation criteria can include the ability to recognize and designate different kinds of resources at different levels of significance. Of the 22 cities with historic preservation Ordinances, four (18 percent) have a tiered designation program.
In summary, historic preservation Ordinances are widely utilized as a planning tool throughout the region and state. All Ordinances that were reviewed contained criteria for designation either consistent with the CRHR or adapted for local interests.
Reviewing Bodies
The legitimacy of the designation decisions of a local community is based on 1) clear criteria for designation, and 2) application of the criteria by an expert body or by a legislative body. A historic preservation Ordinance should clearly identify the local entity responsible with administering and enforcing the Ordinance and list their specific duties. In many cases the preservation commission is a separate decision-making body within the local government. In other cases, it is a separate advisory body to another body, like a planning commission. And in some cities the City Council or its equivalent may act in the capacity of the historic preservation commission.
Of the 22 municipalities with a historic preservation Ordinance, 45 percent have a separate reviewing body, like a historic preservation commission, while others typically assign historic preservation Ordinance duties to their planning commission. Of those municipalities that have a separate preservation commission, 70 percent are advisory, while 30 percent are decision-making.
In summary, identifying the reviewing authority to review and apply the provisions of a historic preservation Ordinance is a vital component and can be achieved through establishing a separate review body or embedding the responsibilities with an existing reviewing body. Given the City’s current mix of Committees and Commissions, tasking an existing body with these responsibilities would make the most sense right now. Thus, staff recommends utilizing the Planning Commission as the City’s local review body for the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Historic Districts
The NRHP and CRHR both allow for the designation of several categories of historic properties, including historic districts.
Historic districts derive their importance from being a unified entity. They possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. In both the NRHP and CRHR, a historic district can be eligible under any of the four evaluative criteria noted above.
The majority of municipalities reviewed have a mechanism to designate historic districts at the local level. Of the jurisdictions reviewed, 73 percent have the ability to designate historic districts. Seven of the municipalities have a more detailed process for designating historic districts at the local level. Additional processes are characterized by the following:
differences in the role of the property owner; an enhanced community engagement process; and different or additional criteria considerations, as exemplified below.
Property Owner Role
oThe City of Rialto in San Bernardino County, maintains an inventory of potential resources identified by survey, but does not allow for inclusion of historic districts on that list. The nomination for a historic district must be submitted by a group of residents that represents at least ten percent of property owners in the proposed district. Individual property nominations may be submitted by any person or group. oIn West Covina in Los Angeles County, the initiation of a historic district may arise from a property owner or group of property owners in a potential historic district and the district boundary will not include any property without the written consent of the property owner. oIn San Jose, a historic district nomination can be initiated by City Council, the historic landmarks commission, the planning commission or by persons who own sixty (60) percent of the land proposed to be included in the district.
Community Engagement
oIn the City of Escondido in San Diego County, any person may request the planning commission designate a historic district. Once the nomination is initiated by City Council, a minimum of one public neighborhood meeting is held in advance of the public hearing for consideration of the nomination. oIn the City of Burbank in Los Angeles County, a nomination for a historic district may be submitted by a property owner within the boundary of the proposed district. When the application has been deemed complete, a community informational meeting is held, with every occupant and property owner within the boundary invited, prior to any action being taken.
Different or Additional Criteria
oIn Half Moon Bay, though the City has local designation criteria, a historic district must meet the criteria established in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which is the criteria for the NRHP. oIn San Luis Obispo, any person may nominate a historic district. Unlike an individual resource, districts are distinguished by a zoning overlay. The nomination materials must also include a statement of the preservation goals and concerns for the proposed historic district and graphic and written design guidelines. When considering the application, the reviewing body weighs the eligibility criteria with additional criteria related to the inter-relationship of structures and their common environment, or environmental design continuity.
Overall, the identification and protection of historic districts is a common feature of most historic preservation Ordinances that staff reviewed. Recognizing the difference in historic districts from individual resources from the regulatory perspective, some municipalities have developed more detailed processes for designation, while many others are silent on the issue, suggesting they are treated similarly to individually designated resources.
Owner Consent
How a local jurisdiction handles owner consent in a historic preservation Ordinance is a policy decision, not a legal requirement. There are three basic approaches to incorporating owner consent into a historic preservation Ordinance – affirmative/expressed consent, owner veto, and protest provisions.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Affirmative/expressed consent requires the property owner’s clear agreement to designation. Owner veto would not allow for designation to occur over the property owner’s objection. Protest provisions would allow a city to designate a historic property over an owner’s objection, if a supermajority of the reviewing body votes to do so.
Neither the NRHP nor the CRHR require owner consent for a nomination. However, neither program will officially list a property on the register over owner objection. The NRHP and CRHR are therefore examples of owner veto. On the other hand, a resource can be deemed eligible for either register over the objections of property owners (and the local jurisdiction). Furthermore, a determination of eligibility for the NRHP means that the resource is automatically listed on the CRHR. Crucially, CEQA restrictions apply whether a resource is determined to be eligible for or actually listed on the CRHR. These CEQA restrictions require environmental review to determine whether a proposed development project may have a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the resource. Environmental review could be minimal, in that a CEQA exemption might apply; or such review could require a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report, in certain situations.
Local designations take a regulatory approach to historic preservation. Acknowledging the public benefit of historic preservation, local Ordinances are most often included in zoning, building, and health and safety chapters of municipal codes.
The majority of municipalities reviewed do not include owner consent requirements for designation of historical resources.
Less than half, or 41 percent of municipalities reviewed, require consent for designation of historical resources. Of these, most accomplish this through a form of affirmative, expressed consent either by requiring the application for designation to be initiated by the property owner or for proof of property owner permission to be included with the application for designation. In Laguna Beach in Orange County, owner consent is incorporated into two areas of the historic preservation Ordinance. Owner consent is one of the listed criteria for designation and the application for designation must be initiated by the property owner.
In most of the municipalities that do not require owner consent for designation, third party nominations are allowed without any limitations. In four of the historic preservation Ordinances that were reviewed, applications for designation have to either be initiated by the property owner or could be initiated by one of the city’s governing bodies, such as a historical resources board, planning commission, or city council. In those instances, there is no expressed consent required and no provision for owner objection. None of the Ordinances reviewed included examples of either owner veto or protest provisions. Thus, most jurisdictions appear to implement the same process for designating historic districts as that of individual resources.
Additional research revealed several approaches to owner consent that are specific to the designation of historic districts.
Generally, basic approaches to owner consent for the designation of historic districts are the same as those introduced above but occur at different junctures in the process. In some cities, the nomination for a historic district must originate (like the example of the City of Rialto above) or be supported by a certain percentage of property owners to continue. In Long Beach, for example, a nomination for a historic district must include a petition that a simple majority of property owners within the district support the nomination application to be determined complete and continue to the hearing process.
In other cities, a historic district may be nominated but will not be designated without a certain amount of support. In South Pasadena, any person may initiate a nomination for a historic district, but it cannot be locally listed without consent of at least 60 percent of all affected property owners of the proposed historic district. Some cities require a certain threshold of property owner consent at both junctures, nomination and listing. The City of Glendale requires that the nomination for a historic district must originate from at least three property owners within the district boundary. If it is determined that the district appears eligible by the historic preservation commission, the city circulates a petition to all property owners within the district. The district application will not continue without 25 percent petition support. If the district has petitioner support, it is further surveyed and studied to confirm its eligibility. Once confirmed, a second
CITY OF SAN MATEO
petition is sent to all property owners in the proposed district, and it will not be listed without support of at least 50 percent of the properties within the district.
Owner Consent Considerations
Historic preservation Ordinances that include consent for designation are viewed by some as less effective at the goal of successfully preserving a city’s historic and culturally important resources because it extinguishes the ability to regulate historical resources consistently and equally. With consent, the treatment of local historical resources becomes a private negotiation between the property owner and city, instead of an application of the regulatory process. Cities do not allow property owners to decide to participate in other regulatory processes related to their properties. For example, a property owner does not have the ability to opt-out of being included in an identified protected wetland or from a particular zoning classification. On the other hand, requiring owner consent for local designation of a historic resource is not unlawful, and provides an owner with the ability to choose whether to accept local restrictions specifically applicable to their property.
Including property owner consent for historic designation in a historic preservation Ordinance requires additional considerations. In addition to determining which level of consent to require, the Ordinance must include clarity on process. If, for example, a certain threshold of consent is required for designation of a historic district, outlining how to count property owners would have to be stated, including how to deal with multiple owners of a single property or perhaps a scenario where a single person owns several properties within the proposed district boundary. There might also be consideration if non-contributing properties to a historic district would have the same voting power as a property owner of a contributing property.
If property owner consent is included in a historic preservation Ordinance, then the Ordinance must also effectively address additional future scenarios like what are the effects of when a property owner changes their mind, what happens if a property owner sells their designated property, what the process for delisting would entail, including who could initiate it and if that would preclude it from future designation.
In short, most of the historic preservation Ordinances reviewed did not include consent requirements for the nomination or designation of historic resources. Those historic preservation Ordinances that did include consent for nomination or designation implemented the requirement through varying approaches of either the type of consent required or the timing of consent. In any event, it is up to the City Council to decide what direction to provide on the subject of owner consent, and staff can assist with possible solutions to various scenarios that might arise.
Effects of Designation
As described above, a successful historic preservation Ordinance identifies action for review, clearly outlining the effects of designation. Common conditions include the requirement for a design review permit or alteration permit before a building permit can be issued for work on a designated building. Historic preservation Ordinances also commonly include some restrictions on the demolition of a designated resource, either by delay or denial unless there are special circumstances demonstrated. Many Ordinances also include a duty of maintenance and upkeep of historic properties. In some jurisdictions, designated buildings must adhere to specific design standards and guidelines.
The reviewed historic preservation Ordinances included some form of permit review requirement. The type and conditions for permit review, however, offer an opportunity to tailor the process for the community’s needs and how and to what level they want to protect their designated historic resources. The permit review requirements can state the type of work that would be subject to review and can exempt certain actions from review. For example, minor repairs and alterations or routine maintenance could be exempt from permit review. While more intensive changes, like major exterior alterations, removals, and demolitions could be subject to permit review. Additionally, some reviews could be handled at the staff level or only require administrative approval instead of a permit review hearing. For example, the City of San Jose, allows for the installation of solar panels on a city landmark building or a building in a historic district without a historic preservation permit, if it conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
In addition to exempting certain types of work from permit review, the historic preservation Ordinance can also exempt certain types of resources from review. It is possible, for example, to treat properties in historic districts with more
CITY OF SAN MATEO
leniency than individually listed resources, recognizing a higher tolerance for change in some resources versus others. With this approach, for example, a jurisdiction can decide to allow for more latitude in respect to acceptable replacement materials for features like exterior siding or windows within historic districts. Additionally, the cities with a tiered level of significance criteria require different levels of protection, design review, and incentives for properties with different levels of significance.
In summary, the development of effects of designation in a historic preservation Ordinance is an important tool for a community to decide how and when they want to regulate effected properties. This element of a historic preservation Ordinance, in addition to criteria development, is an aspect of the Ordinance that is adaptable to the needs of the community and can be developed to respond to its unique circumstances.
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION:
Based on the information shared in this agenda report, staff is seeking direction from Council on the following questions:
Should staff proceed with drafting updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance to identify the enabling authority, establish a reviewing body (the Planning Commission), provide procedures for designation or resources, recognize the economic effects of designation, describe appeals and enforcement provisions and include a set of concise definitions?
Should the criteria for a local historic designation conform to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) requirements, or should additional criteria be included to acknowledge the city’s unique history and development? Should the Historic Preservation Ordinance include a mechanism to designate historic districts locally? If yes, should owner support be required and at what level?
What form of owner consent should be included in the Historic Preservation Ordinance – affirmative/expressed consent, owner veto, or protest provisions? And, should the owner consent requirement apply to all local designations or just to historic districts?
BUDGET IMPACT:
This work is being completed as part the professional services agreement with Rincon Consultants that was approved by City Council on January 21, 2025. The work is being funded by the Advance Planning Fund (Fund 225) and does not have an impact on the City's General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This Study Session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).
NOTICE PROVIDED:
All meeting noticing requirements were met. In addition, meeting notifications were sent out to the interested parties list, included in the City’s weekly eNews and pushed out through the City’s social media channels.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Historic Preservation Ordinance Research and Analysis Report Att 2 – Outreach and Engagement Plan
STAFF CONTACTS
City of San Mateo Rincon Consultants
Zachary Dahl JulieAnn Murphy Margo Nayyar
Director Community Development Senior Architectural Historian Cultural Resources Principal [email protected]