Historic preservation debated Historic preservation debated (March 19, 2004)

Council requests more time to consider options

By Grace Rauh

Preservationists appear to be losing ground in their battle to save historic homes and businesses in Mountain View.

At a Tuesday night study session, city council members made it clear they aren't convinced older properties that meet certain criteria should be forced to join an official register of historical buildings.

Instead, council members overwhelmingly voiced support for a voluntary ordinance. The council is considering adopting a permanent preservation ordinance for the city that could potentially save architecturally and historically significant homes and commercial properties for generations to come.

Historic preservation opponents say property owners' rights would be severely curtailed under an ordinance that mandates certain properties to join. But in order for a voluntary ordinance to successfully bring people on board, historic preservationists say the city must provide property owners with substantial incentives to join the program.

The council was expected to vote on an ordinance at an April 13 meeting, but its members unanimously agreed they need to hold another study session on historic preservation before making any decisions.

Some council members said they want to further explore creating historic neighborhoods as an alternative to singling out individual homes or commercial properties for recognition. Others questioned the ordinance's aim altogether.

"What are we really trying to do here?" said Council member Mike Kasperzak. He advocated taking "baby steps" towards formulating a solution despite the council's looming April deadline, when the city's interim historic ordinance will expire.

The city adopted the interim ordinance on April 23, 2002 when a home at 902 Villa Street considered to be historically significant was slated for demolition. Since then, the city staff has been scrambling to map out a permanent ordinance for the council to adopt.

Kasperzak fears that without more time to dissect an ordinance and debate other options, the council will be pressured to adopt an unsatisfactory program.

Council member Mary Lou Zoglin said she would support an ordinance that preserves the charm and character of Mountain View's older neighborhoods.

"What you are trying to build is an ambiance," she said.

But with less than 100 Mountain View properties on the interim register, Council member Greg Perry is worried that the city doesn't have enough homes to merit architectural or historical districts.

"Ninety-three properties? You're halfway down the block," he said.

Speaking during the public comment period, St. Francis High School student Chris Perry urged the council to preserve the atmosphere he treasures today in Mountain View. He wants to return to the city in 50 years and see the historic buildings he remembered from his youth, he said, but he's convinced the city needs a mandatory historic ordinance to protect Mountain View from losing its appeal.

If property owners volunteer for the register, it "really takes the guts out of the whole ordinance," Chris Perry said.

But Perry's was one of the few voices raised in support of a mandatory ordinance at the study session. Nearly everyone who spoke at the meeting opposed a mandatory measure, including Red Byer, who asked the council several pointed questions. He is the brother of Douglas Byer who owns and wants to demolish a historic house at 340 Palo Alto Ave.

"Where are the city-wide polls" showing support for an ordinance, asked Red Byer. "How did this process get so far in the face of so much resistance?"

The Environmental Planning Commission recommended in November that the council adopt a mandatory ordinance, which opponents say would restrict an owner's ability to replace or remodel a historic home.

The ordinance now recommended by city staff is modeled from Palo Alto's historic preservation ordinance. It would allow most residential properties to volunteer for the register, but would mandate most commercial properties to join, as long as the city adopted a special incentive program. If the council decides to not pursue an incentive program that gives historic property owners additional development rights, then commercial properties would not be required to join.

E-mail Grace Rauh at grauh@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.