Questions raised over the possible historic status of a Burlingame house halted its pending sale and resulted in additional costs for the owners primarily because the city does not have an ordinance for such situations — which could be addressed after the Planning Commission suggested a study of the neighborhood in question.

A property over 50 years old is not on its own historic, but could be. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, a building that is at least 50 years old is a potentially historic property. Burlingame has been addressing potentially historic properties on a case-by-case basis. Last night, the Burlingame Planning Commission discussed if the city should continue that method, research the historic nature of a particular neighborhood recently highlighted or conduct a citywide historical survey. The commission decided to ask the council to fund a study regarding the neighborhood in question.

Commissioner Michael Brownrigg was unsure of spending the money on a full-city study, but understood the possibility of researching a district currently thought to have potential historic value.

Community Development Director Bill Meeker estimated such a study could cost $50,000, a cost the city could not put on property owners.

Chair Richard Terrones worried doing one district would not answer questions in other areas that have a similar history.

“I’m a fan of history, but I’m not a fan of uncertainty,” said Terrones, who hoped the study would eliminate much of the uncertainty raised.

Commissioner Stanley Vistica questioned if the study could be expanded to include cursory comparisons to other neighborhoods, a notion Meeker said would expand the study exponentially. The details will be determined with the consultant, said Terrones, which could be determined by price.

In the meantime, Commissioner Sandra Yie hoped the city could provide information to the public about the potential benefits of a historic status. Meeker said such an explanation is available in the city’s downtown specific plan information.

Burlingame’s review was prompted by a home at 1540 Newlands Ave., owned by Rawson Hobart. The home was put up for sale and promptly sold after the family invested money and time. In September, the potential buyer alerted Vice Mayor Cathy Baylock, who lives on Newlands Avenue, of plans to demolish the property. She felt obliged to alert the city of historic documents on the home. Those questions resulted in a $3,000 study to the Hobarts — who are unsure of their total loss — that showed no historic value.

The situation prompted the city to discuss how to better deal with simular situations in the future.

Last night, attorney Anna Shimko, an expert in real estate, land use and environmental law, explained the different categories in which a property could fit regarding being a historical resource — mandatory, presumed and optional.

CEQA considers a historical resource mandatory if listed in the California register of Historical Resources; if the property is determined to be eligible for the registry; or if the building meets the historical resource eligibility criteria. Criteria for being considered historic include: Being associated with events that contributed to the state history and cultural heritage; being associated with the lives of important persons of the past; embodying distinctive characteristics of type, period, region or method of construction; represents work of an important person; or yields information important in prehistory, she said.

Presumed historic resource titles, normally those identified locally, can be overcome with evidence, she added.

Neighborhoods can be deemed historic even if the individual properties would not be considered historic on their own, she said.

Establishing what is historic was another question. Small changes to a property may not change a home’s value, but commissioners wondered about the local definition of historic.

Commissioner David Cauchi noted a home that made small changes, such as upgrading windows, would not negate the home’s historic value.

Brownrigg added events noted by the state probably did not occur in Burlingame. But thought Burlingame as a community may feel it’s important to maintain property that has local significance.

Such an additional standard could be established as a step beyond state minimums, Meeker said.

Opinions of how to move forward varied among Burlingame residents in attendance.

Neil Dobson thought the study would open a Pandora’s Box of possible issues and favored maintaining the case-by-case method currently in place.

On the other hand, Betsy McGinn noted the negative situation such an approach created when the city was studying historic properties in the downtown.

Last year a draft inventory of small details and buildings put together as part of the Downtown Specific Plan caused a rift between those hoping to maintain the historic nuances and property owners who felt blindsided by the requirements such a denotation brought with it. Grievances were aired at a special study session, but no decision regarding the list has been made.

McGinn argued paying for a professional study would answer many of those crazed concerns eliminating chances of a similar situation.

Heather Murtagh can be reached by e-mail: heather@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 105.