Saving History One Building at a Time

The city is slowly working its way towards more protections and incentives for preserving local buildings and homes that add to the amazing character of our neighborhoods.  Recently I was talking to a PG&E guy from Menlo Park who came to fix the outage on our street.  He looked up and down the street and was amazed that it was so nice since "they're tearing everything down in Menlo Park".  I said "Yep" and left it at that while feeling sorry for him.  The Draft "Chapter 25.35 - Historic Resources" is winding its way through the process and would represent an upgrade to the existing, limited code just for the central downtown Ave area found on the City website here.

We definitely need this--now more than ever as various local and state-wide forces seek to shred local character with the mistaken idea that it would help "affordability" and would come with no unintended consequences.  Wrong.

The Historic Register has eleven criteria for inclusion and "shall only occur upon request of the property owner" and if officially designated "are eligible for incentives detailed in Section 25.35.080 Preservation Incentives."  Those are the "carrots".  The Planning Commission study session last week focused on the "sticks" as described by the Daily Journal

The Burlingame Planning Commission weighed Monday, June 14, proposals which would punish any homeowner who destroyed a structure identified on the city’s historic registry.  Forcing a property owner to rebuild a replica of the destroyed historic structure or feature then ban any further construction at the site for 20 years was among the repercussions considered. No decision was made at the meeting and the issue will return for more deliberation later.

While the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council will weigh the sticks, I like to focus on the carrots; like more flexible parking requirements when adding floor space and an extra 25% lot coverage allowance.  In addition, the 1972 Mills Act, named for former state senator James Mills of San Diego who passed away in March, offers the real carrot for regular homeowners looking to save a bit of property tax.  Realty Times notes that it "provides a way whereby owners of designated historic properties may receive significant property tax relief in return for restoring and maintaining their property."  You can click through for some of the details, but the bottom line is it is an incentive that the draft B'game code says "is often a benefit to the community as a whole and the owners of surrounding properties".  We've been in short supply of that kind of thinking lately with the onslaught of ADUs, SB 9, short-term rentals, etc. 

Comments

[David]

Sounds like a positive for neighborhoods like Lyon Hoag, where there have been numerous teardowns of Spanish-style homes built in the 1930s that have been replaced with largely vanilla designs that have nothing in common with the homes around them. I'm wondering if there is any discussion about reducing the FAR (floor area ratio). Every new home is maximum size and some streets are beginning to resemble row houses with minimal space between them and two stories built to maximum height. I understand folks have a right to build the home they want but any charm that attracted them to the neighborhood is slowly but surely being chipped away, to Joe's point.

[Joe]

From the DJ today:

Editor,

Burlingame’s potential penalties for historic structure demolition (SMDJ June 19 edition) sounds like window dressing to me.

Charming craftsman homes have been dropping like flies with the blessing of the Planning Commission. There are state laws that can be utilized to save historic sites, yet they never are. The Historic Society seems to be comprised of former members of the City Council and neither they nor the present council made any attempts to save the Gates House, Burlingame’s oldest residence. When all is said and done, more will be said than done.

Tim Donnelly

[Joe]

And the response from Russ in the DJ:

Editor,

Recently a letter by Tim Donnelly titled, “Saving our historic buildings” appeared in these pages. He has written before about the Gates House. In those letters and in this one he has repeated misinformation about the demise of the historic house.

The fact is that I, along with other members of the Burlingame Historical Society, did everything we possibly could have to persuade the owner to save the house. Mr. Donnelly’s belief that the society did not do anything is simply not based in any fact. The state laws that he mentions are designed to protect older homes are voluntary.

I would suggest that if Mr. Donnelly wants to save properties, he needs to first educate himself on the laws regarding historic properties and then get more involved in the issue; attend meetings of the Planning Commission and the City Council and participate in a more meaningful way than simply writing letters filled with fiction from the comfort of his own home.

I write this to not only defend the reputation of the society but as a former member of the City Council who was a strong advocate for preservation.

Russ Cohen

Burlingame