San Mateo council approves consultant contract to update preservation ordinance, requires owner consent before surveys or designations

SAN MATEO, Calif. — On Jan. 21, 2025, the San Mateo City Council voted 3-2 to appropriate approximately $328,000 and award a professional services agreement to Rincon Consulting to update the city's historic preservation ordinance and produce a citywide historic context statement, with council direction that the city not survey or designate properties without owner consent.

The vote implements actions in the recently adopted General Plan 2040's community design and historic resources element and follows months of public debate. The scope approved directs Rincon to complete archival research, public outreach, an ordinance audit and recommended code revisions, and an implementation plan; staff said the combined work would take roughly 12 to 14 months if done concurrently.

Staff told council the ordinance in the zoning code (Chapter 27.66) dates to the 1990s and lacks definitions and processes now typical under state and federal best practices. Rincon presenters Margo Nayer, a cultural resources principal, and Julianne Murphy, the project manager, said the consultant team will review the existing ordinance and surveys, prepare a historic context statement (a thematic history report rather than property-level evaluations), and develop outreach materials and implementation tools. "We're going to develop this plan to support the implementation of the ordinance amendments, the context statement, and the policy documents," Nayer said.

The contract cost figures were discussed at several points during the presentation. Rincon noted a base price shown in their proposal of $285,843; staff and consultants said a 15% contingency brings the total for the concurrent approach to approximately $328,000, which is the appropriation the council approved. Staff also described a sequential alternative that staff estimated would cost roughly $343,011 (presented later in the meeting as a higher-cost sequential option, with a staff estimate including contingency described in the packet as about $394,000 depending on scope and sequencing).

Public comment drew 43 requests to speak and split sharply. Supporters said the city's ordinance is overdue for an update and that a historic context statement would bring clarity and consistency. "This update is long overdue," said Lori Watanuki, a District 3 resident who urged adoption of option 1. Chris Eckert, a resident of the Glazenwood historic district, told council that buyers pay a premium for historic neighborhoods and urged approval.

Opponents emphasized property-rights and cost concerns and repeatedly asked the council to require homeowner consent before any surveys or local designations. "No consent, no historic," said Rick Bonilla, a former mayor, during public comment. Speakers raised additional concerns about insurance availability for homes with historic designation, added costs for maintenance or specialized work, and the city's current budget pressures.

Council discussion focused heavily on whether to require property-owner consent before the city or its consultant could identify, survey or propose any designation for properties or districts. Councilmember Soriko Kadiki asked detailed procedural questions about current code and the General Plan 2040 actions; Kadiki said she would only support moving forward if an ordinance developed from the work included a consent requirement before any surveying or designation. Councilmember Diaz Nash and Councilmember (recorded in the roll call) Kuglitschke joined Kadiki in voting to approve option 1 with that direction; Councilmember Fernandez and Deputy Mayor Lorraine voted no. The clerk recorded the final tally as 3-2 in favor.

Staff said the work would be funded from the city's advanced planning fund, a restricted fund for long-range planning and policy work, and would not come from the general fund. Staff also said the project would include robust outreach and at least two public hearings as the ordinance is drafted. Rincon described a community-engagement plan of in-person and virtual meetings, focus groups and materials in appropriate languages.

The council motion approved the concurrent approach (update of the ordinance and preparation of the context statement together) and added the council's direction that any future surveying, identification or local designation require property-owner consent before such work is undertaken. City staff said the council's direction will be folded into the project scope and the ordinance-development process and returned for additional study sessions and required public hearings.

Next steps: staff and Rincon will begin the scope-of-work kickoff and outreach planning consistent with the council's motion. Any ordinance revisions will return to the planning commission and council for public hearings; council action will be required before any local designation or code changes take effect.