Burlingame crafts a historic resource demolition penalty

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.

“It’s really meant to draw the line at doing something without permission and asking for forgiveness later,” Community Development Kevin Gardiner said, regarding the proposed penalty.

Officials have been grappling with the issue over the last year, following councilmembers agreeing to expand the Mills Act program across the city allowing historic home owners to seek a variety of tax credits and incentives when considering renovations.

Registration is voluntary, and homeowners are incentivized by the potential financial benefits to participate. And inclusion on the registry does not ban renovation or demolition, though it does require approval by City Hall.

If a property is deemed historic, the extent of allowable renovation is often limited and collaboration with city officials is required to find an appropriate project which preserves the important elements.

Yet despite the regulations, officials have observed instances when unapproved construction started on registered properties, leading to destruction of historic homes, structures or features.

To quell the issue, councilmembers earlier this year requested formation of potential punishments that homeowners could face if they begin work without first seeking approval from City Hall.

For his part, Gardiner acknowledged the severity of the potential repercussions, but suggested such a response could be a necessary deterrent for a city hoping to preserve its history.

More specifically, effectively freezing for two decades the amount of allowable construction would be a direct response to the motivation for unauthorized demolition or renovation of an historic resource, he said.

“That is pretty significant. We thought that rather than fines, we felt that kind of gets at the heart of why would somebody possibly destroy an historic resource without authorization, and it is usually in the interest of creating more development capacity,” he said.

What’s more, officials noted that fines are an ineffective deterrent because those inclined to destroy a registered property would likely layer the potential penalty into their overall project budget.

Commissioner Michael Gaul lauded the concept.

“I liked the proposal of freezing the property for 20 years just to really catch their attention,” he said, while raising some fears that such a mandate could lead to lots sitting vacant after demolition for an undetermined amount of time.

Gardiner noted that such an outcome would be avoided under the requirement to rebuild a replica of the lost historic resource.

Some other commissioners expressed reservations with the punitive measures, questioning whether it is fair to potentially penalize someone who unknowingly owns a historic resource.

Gardiner recognized the threat of such an outcome, and noted that officials have thought about launching a citywide survey intended to identify homes which could be historic resources.

Councilmembers have been wary of such a proposal in the past, partially due to fears that those properties flagged in the survey would be notified that further study and investment would be required to determine whether the land is historically significant.

Yet despite the reservation, members of the Burlingame Historical Society called for establishment of a historic resource inventory.

“It’s the easiest way by far to determine whether you are purchasing a home that is potentially historic, at least. So I would ask you to consider that. I know that’s a heavy lift, I know that other commissions and other councils have resisted doing it,” society Vice President Russ Cohen said. “But maybe the time has come to at least consider it and start the conversation.”

austin@smdailyjournal.com