Historic houses hang in limbo Historic houses hang in limbo (June 25, 2004)

Council will discuss preservation ordinance next week

By Jon Wiener

Yvonne Kwong has enough to worry about without having to wonder how much longer her roof is going to stay up. That's why she has taken to writing herself notes on her hand. "Call Larry," said a recent message.

Larry is her landlord's son. His English is better than his father's, so Kwong wants to ask him what everybody else seems to be is asking her -- what's going to happen to the building at 902 Villa St.?

The house, believed to have been built in 1888, was one of the flashpoints in Mountain View's battle over historic preservation. Its owner, Tan Sung Lu of San Jose, wanted to demolish the building and replace it with a noodle shop in 2001. That became impossible when the city council passed an interim historic preservation ordinance in April 2002, protecting it and 93 other properties from demolition.

But now that the interim ordinance has expired, "it's likely that any number of buildings could come down," said Alison Hicks, chair of the Mountain View Historic Preservation Alliance. The 902 Villa house, which the group considers historic, is chief among them.

Kwong signed a one-year lease for the property in April and opened a toy and clothing store, Forgotten Treasures, in May, knowing the interim ordinance was about to expire. It wasn't long before she started hearing rumors that Lu was getting ready to demolish the house.

Al Savay, the city's deputy zoning administrator, said that Lu never applied for a demolition permit, but has applied to build a three-unit apartment building on the site behind the existing building. Savay said Lu put that application on hold until after the city council votes on a new historic preservation ordinance, which is scheduled in August. Lu was not available for comment.

Some of the homeowners affected by the interim ordinance still have a bitter taste in their mouths from the experience of complying with the interim ordinance. They argue that their houses are not historic and just old and that the cost of preserving them is too high.

Paulette Spencer, who owns the house at 696 California St. that the city considers historic, said being the owner of a protected property was an "economic and psychological burden."

Spencer said she has rented to the same family for 14 years and has no plans to do anything with the house.

Bob Byer, on the other hand, is eager to get moving on his. He reached a deal with the city in March 2003 so that he could renovate his house at 340 Palo Alto Ave. for his wheelchair-bound son Douglas. Bob Byer said that his son has spent $240,000 to comply with the city's conditions, and construction is slated to begin in July.

The city council will discuss the details of a potential voluntary ordinance at a study session on June 29. While the incentives for historic property owners that it will include are not clear, Hicks is doubtful they will be effective inducements to preservation.

Kwong, too, is awaiting the outcome of the council's decision.

"It's really up to the city in terms of what they do with the ordinance," she said. "I really like this place, but if I have to, I'll move some place else."

E-mail Jon Wiener at jwiener@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.