Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultan ts.com
May 29, 2025
Project No: 24-16651
Zachary Dahl
Director, Community Development
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
via email: [email protected]
Subject: San Mateo Preservation Ordinance Research and Analysis The purpose of this report is to provide analysis and results of research undertaken by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) regarding the City of San Mateo’s (City) Historic Preservation Ordinance and to:
1. Provide a background and understanding of the current status of the existing historic preservation ordinance.
2. Highlight issues and opportunities for improvement of the current h istoric preservation ordinance.
3. Provide recommendations for revisions to the h istoric preservation ordinance and seek feedback on desired outcomes from the City.
Background
In 1974, the City adopted the Environmental Resources Management Element Plan as part of the City’s General Plan. One recommendation of the report was to consider the adoption of a h istoric preservation ordinance that would “identify through an official register historically significant structures, sites, and areas,” and was suggested to be completed before 1976 as a tribute to the nation’s centennial year celebration (City of San Mateo 1974: 3-2 - 3-3).
In 1987, the San Mateo County Historical Association (Association) requested funds from the Peninsula Community Foundation to establish a historic preservation program serving local governments. In 1988, the Association contacted local cities, including San Mateo, that had expressed interest in documenting and preserving their historic resources. During this period, the City updat ed its General Plan, which served as a catalyst for the survey effort (City of San Mateo 1989: 1) In 1988-1989, the Association undertook a historic resources survey effort in partnership with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), with the help of professionals and volunteers. The 1989 survey generally focused on the east side of El Camino Real, where the bulk of the City’s pre- 1940 buildings were present (City of San Mateo 1989 : i). Buildings were evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and were assigned a rating of 1 -6, corresponding with its potential eligibility according t o OHP’s Survey Workbook (City of San Mateo 1989: 5). Today, these are known as the California Historical Resource Status Codes, and were last updated in 2020 to include more detailed information (OHP 2020).
As a result of the survey and evaluations, as outlined in the 1989 City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey Report (Survey Report) , several buildings were recommended NRHP -eligible for individual listing, potentially NRHP-eligible pending further research , eligible for local listing, and some were City of San Mateo
Study Session
2 recommended ineligible for the NRHP and local listing (City of San Mateo 1989) . Additionally, two historic districts were documented and recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP, the Central Business District and the Glazenwood Residential District (City of San Mateo 1989: 19-23, 32).
At the time of the survey, the City did not have a historic preservation ordinance; however, the Survey Report presented planning strategies for encouraging historic preservation, including an ordinance (City of San Mateo 1989: 66). In 1990, the City adopted the Revised General Plan, thereby identifying all “individually eligible” and “contributor” historic structures based on the Survey Report. The City adopted a historic preservation ordinance in 1993. That same year, the City adopted a resolution to allow for establishing Mills Act agreements between the City and property owners of historic properties (City of San Mateo 1993a) . The Mills Act is an incentive program that provides property owners with property tax relief for those who actively maintain and restore their historic property. Eligible properties included those listed in the NRHP; those located in a NRHP-listed historic district; and those identified as “individually eligible” or “contributor” buildings in the Survey Report.
In November 1993, the City passed a resolution establishing the Downtown Historic District, the City’s only locally designated historic district (City of San Mateo 1993b) . The ordinance was subsequently updated in 1995 to expand its applicability to properties throughout the city and not only properties in the Downtown Area Specific Plan and Downtown Historic District (City of San Mateo 1995). It was updated again in 2010 as part of the 2010 General Plan Update to expand its applicability to buildings that met the criteria for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and documented in a form consistent with the City of San Mateo Historic Building Survey. The most recent update, completed in 2022, further refined its applicability to buildings listed in the NRHP and/or CRHR or buildings determined to be individually eligible for the NRHP or CRHR through documentation in a historic resources report . It also provided refined definitions. In 2024, the City adopted General Plan 2040, which replaced the prior General Plan 2030. The General Plan addressed historic preservation as part of the Community Design and Historic Resources Element. Within this Element, the Historic Resources Section included a goal for historic preservation (Goal CD-5), to “preserve historic and culturally important resources to maintain San Mateo’s special identity and continuity with the past” (City of San Mateo 2024: 115). The General Plan included corresponding policies and actions. The first listed action is Action CD 5.8 Historic Preservation Ordinance, which states:
Update the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to create a framework for the designation of historic resources and districts, establish review and permitting procedures for historic alterations, demolitions or relocations, be consistent with federal and State standards and guidelines, and align with the other goals and policies outlined in this element (City of San Mateo 2024: 116).
In August 2024, the City released a Request for Proposals for Historic Preservation Services. The outlined scope of services included updating the City’s historic preservation ordinance. At the January 21, 2025, City Council meeting, Rincon presented the project’s proposed scope of work for Council’s consideration of the appropriation and agreement. The scope of work entails updating the historic preservation ordinance and develop a city -wide historic context statement. Council approved the resolution to appropriate the Historic Preservation Services contract with direction to staff to include a provision for property owner consent for designation in the ordinance.
An effective historic preservation ordinance is essential for a successful historic preservation program.
A successful historic preservation program provides an element of certainty and consistency into the regulatory process for local development for City staff, project applicants, and stakeholders. Historic preservation programs foster compatible economic development, while providing avenues for identifying, preserving, and celebrating the community’s historic and cultural values. Additionally, comprehensive historic preservation programs enhance local preservation values, provide guidance City of San Mateo
Study Session
3 for future impacts to historic resources, and inform the planning and design of future developments.
An ineffective historic preservation ordinance can limit the success of a historic preservation program by creating uncertainty and hurdles in efficient administration, such as burdensome or unclear requirements that require additional staff or commissioner/council time.
The analysis below is intended to outline components of an effective historic preservation ordinance, comparison of other ordinances, and recommendations for City Council to consider.
Results of Historic Preservation Ordinance Review
Components of an Effective Historic Preservation Ordinance 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.
Common historic preservation ordinance pitfalls include:
• Too detailed that they are ineffective
• So ambitious that they cannot be supported by staff
• So rigid that change is difficult
The City’s historic preservation ordinance is missing several key elements generally included in effective historic preservation ordinances. The current historic preservation 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 historic preservation ordinance was established, in part, as the result of the 1989 Survey Report and the ordinance has continued to be tied to that effort, though the City has changed over time and the field of historic preservation has evolve d over the last 35 years. As a result, the administration of the historic preservation ordinance has been 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 to make designations. Section 27.66.020 continues by saying 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.” It does not, however, prov ide clear details on how 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, t he current historic preservation ordinance is inadequate in several areas because it is missing imperative components and it is too tied to the 1989 survey effort, resulting in deficiencies as outlined in Table 1.
City of San Mateo
Study Session
4 Table 1 Historic Preservation Comparison Matrix
Pitfall Ordinance Section Issue
Detailed 27.66.010 – Purpose Makes unnecessary specific reference to the downtown historic district.
Inconsistent 27.66.020 – Applicability Definitions for “individually eligible” and “contributor” buildings are inconsistent in (b)
and (c).
The ordinance directs to the General Plan for
the identification of historic resources, which
includes an informational map with confusing
status codes and includes a glossary of terms
inconsistent with definitions in the ordinance.
Rigid 27.66.020 – Applicability Makes specific reference to other Plans and Documents, that requires additional work for
staff and applicants to understand what is/is
not a historic resource or eligible resource.
The definitions “individually eligible” and
“contributor” building are from the 1989
Survey Report, but removed from context with
appropriate explanation.
Rigid 27.66.030 – Review Required Applicable to results in survey findings that are over 35 years old and have not been
updated.
Missing Enabling Authority It is important to clearly establish the local government’s authority to adopt a historic
preservation ordinance.
Missing Historic Preservation Commission It is important to identify the local entity charged with administering and enforcing the
ordinance and provide a list of their specific
responsibilities.
Missing Procedures for Designation Clear criteria for the designation of historical resources are an essential feature of a
historic preservation ordinance.
Missing Economic Effects of Designation To ensure compliance with federal and state requirements, the ordinance should include a
procedure for allowing a property owner to
make a case, in some circumstances, that
enforcement would cause an economic
hardship.
Missing Appeals and Enforcement
Provisions
A defined appeal process provides a clear
understanding of the rights of the property
owners, public agencies, and other citizens to
appeal decisions and produces a record for
review in the event of a court challenge.
Missing Definitions Clear and concise definitions are necessary to help clearly establish the scope of regulation
provided in the historic preservation
ordinance.
Source: Title 27 Zoning/Chapter 27.66 Historic Preservation City of San Mateo
Study Session
5 For the reasons outlined above, the City’s existing historic preservation ordinance is not especially effective. Its inflexibility, inconsistency, and lack of clarity where necessary has contributed to its inability to be successfully understood and used b y residents, applicants, staff, commissioners, and council members. As a result, the City’s historic preservation program is misunderstood and has developed a reputation as being part of a difficult, arbitrary, and unfair process.
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 (see Attachment 1 ). Rincon also reviewed guidance and training materials from OHP , the California Preservation Foundation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (OHP 2005 and 2020, CPF 2019, Miller n.d). 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.
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 designated and criteria can be crafted to reflect local history and the existing built environment (Bohannan v. City of San Diego, 30 Cal. App. 3d 416). San Mateo’s current historic preservation ordinance does not include criteria for local designation.
Of the 19 other cities in San Mateo County, 9 or 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 or 61 percent have historic preservation ordinances. Four of the 36 communities use the same exact criteria for listing as the California Register of Historic al 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 person significant in history;
• architectural significance for design and/or examples of the work of an important or notable architect;
• 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 N RHP or CRHR are also listed locally, without requiring of 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 City of San Mateo
Study Session
6 (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, 4 or 18 percent have a tired designation program.
In summary, historic preservation ordinances are widely utilized as a planning tool throughout the region and state. All of the ordinances reviewed contained criteria for designation either consistent with the CRHR or adapted for local interests.
Reviewing Bodies
The legitimacy of the d esignation 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.
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, b uildings, 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.
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
o The 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. T he nomination for a historic district must be submitted by a group of residents that represents at least ten (10) percent of property owners in the proposed district. Individual property nominations may be submitted by any persons or group. o In 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 City of San Mateo
Study Session
7 district boundary will not include any property without the written consent of the property owner.
o In 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
o In 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.
o In 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
o In 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.
o In 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 were 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
Owner consent is not required to make a historic preservation ordinance legal, and it is legitimate and constitutional under state and federal law to designate property without owner consent (East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California , 24 Cal.4th 693, 730, 740 n. 6, 743-745; Theodore 2008, 19). However, how a local jurisdiction handles owner consent in their 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/or protest provisions. • 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.
City of San Mateo
Study Session
8 • 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 uses a regulatory approach to designation and will not officially list a property over owner objection and 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, within the California regulatory context, California Environmental Quality Act ( 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.
However, l ocal municipalities generally 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 4 1 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 propert y 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 express ed 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, the 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 , City of San Mateo
Study Session
9 nomination and listing. The City of Glendale require s 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 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 (Miller 1991: 1029, 1034). With consent, the treatment of local historical resources becomes a private negotiation between the property owner and city, instead of a n application of the regulatory process (Miller 1991: 1030). 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 (OHP 2005: 35). 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 impl emented the requirement through varying approaches of either the type of consent required or timing of consent. Ultimately , it is up to the City Council to decide what direction to provide on the subject of owner consent, and staff can assist with potential 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 City of San Mateo
Study Session
10 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 ex empt 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 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.
Recommendations
Following review of the City’s historic preservation ordinance, Rincon recommends the following:
• Update the city’s historic preservation ordinance to identify the enabling authority, establish a reviewing body, provide procedures for designation or resources, recognize the economic effects of designation, describe appeals and enforcement provisions, a nd include a set of concise definitions.
• Update selectively where the code is too rigid, inconsistent, and/or detailed (see Table 1). • Consider the following items and provide direction on:
o If the criteria for designation should conform to the CRHR requirements, or if the city should have additional criteria to acknowledge the city’s unique history and development.
o If the ordinance should include a mechanism to designate historic districts locally. o What avenue for owner consent should be included and consider if owner consent will apply to all locally designated properties or just to historic districts. o The desired effects of designation and if they should vary dependent on resource type or level of designation.
City of San Mateo
Study Session
11 Conclusions
We ask that the City Council consider the information provided herein and our recommendations and provide guidance on next steps.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
JulieAnn Murphy
Senior Architectural Historian
Margo Nayyar
Cultural Resources Principal
City of San Mateo
Study Session
12 References
Bohannan v. City of San Diego, 30 Cal. App. 3d 416, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court- of-appeal/3d/30/416.html, (accessed April 2025).
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2020. California Historical Resource Status Codes. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1068/files/Resource-Status-Codes.pdf (accessed April 2025). __________. 2005. Technical Assistance Series 14: Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/14_hp_ordinances.pdf (accessed April 2025).
California Preservation Foundation (CPF). 2019. Owner Consent & Designation: Summary and Strategies.
City of San Mateo. 1974. Environmental Resources Management Element, Technical Supplement, PA 74-74, September 25.
__________. 1989. Historic Building Survey Report Final Report. https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47850/Historic-Building-Survey-1989 (accessed April 2025).
__________. 1993a. Resolution No. 125 Establishing Mills Act Agreements for Historic Property Preservation.
__________. 1993b. Resolution No. 124 Establishing the Downtown Historic District. __________. 1995. Ordinance No. 1995-13, Amending Chapter 27.66 Regarding Historic Preservation.
__________. 2010. Ordinance No. 2010-15, Amending Certain Sections of Title 27, the “Zoning Code,” of the San Mateo Municipal Code to Implement the 2010 General Plan Update. https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/ordinances/2010/15 (accessed April 2025).
__________ 2022. Ordinance No. 2022-10. Senate Bill (SB 9). https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/ordinances/2022/10 (accessed April 2025).
__________. 2024. Strive San Mateo, Geneal Plan 2040, March 18, https://strivesanmateo.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/03/StriveSanMateo_GP2040_Adopted_3-18-2024_Web.pdf (accessed April 2025).
East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California, 24 Cal.4th 693, 730, 740 n. 6, 743- 745. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/24/693.html (accessed April 2025).
Los Angeles Conservancy. 2025. “Historic Preservation Ordinance.” https://www.laconservancy.org/historic-preservation-ordinance/ (accessed April 2025).
Miller, Julia Hatch . 1991. “Owner Consent in Historic Preservation Ordinances: Are They Legal?” in Preservation Law Reporter. February.
__________ n.d. A Layperson’s Guide to Historic Preservation Law: A Survey of Federal, State, and Local Laws Governing Historic Resource Protection, National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP). https://cdn.savingplaces.org/2023/03/27/15/39/04/344/NTHP%20Preservation%20Books_A%2 0Layperson%60s%20Guide%20to%20Preservation%20Law.pdf (accessed April 2025).
City of San Mateo
Study Session
13 Theodore, Jess. 2008. “Over My Dead Property! Why the Owner Consent Provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act Strike the Wrong Balance Between Private Property and Preservation,” Georgetown University Law Center.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=hpps_papers (accessed April 2025).
Attachment 1 Summary of Historic Preservation Ordinance Comparison City County Historic
Preservation
Ordinance
CRHR Criteria Owner
Consent
Separate
Review
Commission
Mills Act
Program
Other
Incentives
Local Historic
District
Designation
Authority
Historic
District
Specific
Designation
Process
Arden-Arcade Sacramento N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Brisbane San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Colma San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Daly City San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
East Palo Alto San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
El Monte Los Angeles N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Foster City San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hillsborough San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Inglewood Los Angeles N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Millbrae San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Norwalk Los Angeles N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
San Bruno San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
San Marcos San Diego N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Tracy San Joaquin N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Woodside San Mateo N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Atherton San Mateo Y Y Y N Y N Y N
Belmont San Mateo Y N N N N N Y N
Burbank Los Angeles Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Burlingame San Mateo Y N Y Y Y Y Y N
Chico Butte Y N N Y Y Y Y N
El Cajon San Diego Y N Y N Y N N N
Escondido San Diego Y N Y N Y Y Y Y
Half Moon Bay San Mateo Y N N N N N Y Y
Hesperia San
Bernardino
Y N N N N N N N
Laguna Beach Orange Y N Y Y Y Y Y N
City County Historic
Preservation
Ordinance
CRHR Criteria Owner
Consent
Separate
Review
Commission
Mills Act
Program
Other
Incentives
Local Historic
District
Designation
Authority
Historic
District
Specific
Designation
Process
Menlo Park San Mateo Y N N N N N N N
Pacifica San Mateo Y N N N N N N N
Palo Alto Santa Clara Y N N Y Y Y Y N
Portola Valley San Mateo Y Y N N N N N N
Redwood City San Mateo Y N N Y Y N Y N
Rialto San
Bernardino
Y N N Y N N Y Y
San Jose Santa Clara Y N N Y Y N Y Y
San Luis
Obispo
San Luis
Obispo
Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
South San
Francisco
San Mateo Y N Y N N N Y N
Vacaville Solano Y N N N N N Y N
Vista San Diego Y Y Y N Y Y N N
West Covina Los Angeles Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Affirmative Response Total 22 4 9 10 13 9 16 7
Source: Applicable municipal codes