practice areas | public agencies | community groups | members of the firm | hiring

HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP has extensive experience representing public agencies, community groups and individuals in connection with projects that would affect historic values. The firm has drafted and helped implement historic preservation ordinances and general plan changes regarding historic preservation. The firm has also advised public agencies and preservation organizations regarding compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and local historic preservation laws and regulations.

• The firm represented the Jack London Neighborhood Association in several matters, including a successful challenge to the City of Oakland’s approval of a project that jeopardized Oakland’s Historic Waterfront Warehouse District’s eligibility for the National Historic Register. The firm persuasively argued that the City violated CEQA and its own Historic Preservation Element by failing to consider feasible alternatives that would avoid impairing the District’s historic integrity and National Register eligibility.  

• The firm represented the Asian Art Museum Foundation on historic preservation issues related to the Foundation’s new museum in San Francisco. The firm’s work with the Asian Art Museum included providing advice regarding the applicability of the NHPA and San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, appearing before the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness for signage on an historic building.  

• The firm has represented the San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD) on historic preservation issues connected with preparation of environmental impact reports for two new campuses in San Francisco. The firm advised the SFCCD with respect to all aspects of compliance with federal, state and local laws related to historic preservation, including SFCCD’s participation in a Memorandum of Agreement under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in connection with a related low-income housing project sponsored by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The firm drafted and reviewed the Agreement and consulted with HUD officials regarding historic preservation issues. The firm successfully defended SFCCD in litigation related to historic preservation.
  

• The firm represented clients before the City of Richmond regarding proposed alterations to a contributing structure within the Point Richmond Historic District. The matter involved novel issues under the City’s recently-enacted historic preservation standards, as well as issues relating to the Secretary of Interior’s standards for historic preservation.
  

• The firm represented Heritage Orange County in its successful efforts to preserve historic buildings originally slated for demolition. Working in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the General Services Administration, the firm effectively negotiated a solution that preserved the neighborhood while allowing the project applicant to achieve its goals.
  

• The firm represented the Oakland Heritage Alliance in a case involving several novel issues and the relationship between CEQA, recent revisions to the City of Oakland’s Historic Preservation Element, and other state laws governing historic preservation. The firm’s representation resolved the issue of whether properties not officially designated on local, state or national historic registers could still be considered historic for purposes of CEQA analysis.
  

• The firm represented residents of in Palo Alto in developing an historic preservation ordinance that was more protective of the City’s historic resources than the ordinance originally proposed by City staff. The firm analyzed the City’s existing and proposed historic preservation ordinances and prepared comments detailing the inadequacies of the proposed ordinance and recommending changes to strengthen historic preservation. As a result, the ordinance eventually adopted by the City was more protective of historic resources and incorporated a number of the firm’s recommendations.