Historic buildings have no special protections in the town of Atherton, but historically significant tchotchkes do.
Atherton’s Lindenwood neighborhood in particular is sprinkled with elegant street lamps, massive urns, gates and other remnants of Linden Towers, the elaborate 1880 estate of Silver King James C. Flood.
But since these historic artifacts are, for the most part, portable, keeping them unharmed and in town could be a problem, said historic consultant Laura Jones.
“You’ve been slowly losing these treasures,” she told the Atherton City Council at its Sept. 20 meeting.
With property owners’ permission, Ms. Jones created an inventory of about three-dozen historic artifacts and researched their significance. She said her contacts at the Smithsonian were captivated and amazed by the value of the town’s artifacts from its “great estates” period, which ended in the 1930s.
The City Council voted to approve a historic preservation ordinance that penalizes property owners who damage, destroy or remove artifacts without permission.
The ordinance requires owners to get a permit from the Planning Commission to demolish an artifact, make major alterations, or make minor alterations, such as replacing missing parts, moving it off the property temporarily to repair it, or changing the color.
There will be a $5,000 penalty for altering an artifact without a permit. Removing or demolishing an artifact without a permit carries a fine of the appraised value of the artifact, plus 25 percent.
The council approved the ordinance unanimously after removing a provision that would have required property owners to pay a $750 fee for permits. Property owners shouldn’t be financially burdened, council members said.
The ordinance may require some additional tweaking, but council members said it needed to be passed immediately because a year-old moratorium protecting the artifacts is due to expire October 19.
Councilman Alan Carlson said that if the council didn’t vote to introduce the ordinance, the moratorium would expire before the ordinance would go into effect, creating a regulation-free window of opportunity for anyone who wanted to remove or destroy an artifact.
As with most historic preservation ordinances, opinions were divided about the effect of regulations on private property rights.
“I own three of the artifacts, two of which were in complete and total disrepair,” Atherton resident Lisa Lamb said at the meeting.
She said she spent $5,000 apiece to restore two large urns, and moved them from her front yard to her backyard for safety. She said the ordinance would take away personal property from Atherton residents, and was the wrong way for the town to protect the artifacts.
“We will be moving, and our goal is to move those artifacts to our new home,” said her husband Randy Lamb, a member of the town’s General Plan Committee.
Another resident suggested the town create a fund and use it to buy the historic artifacts, rather than put the burden on property owners, an idea Councilwoman Kathy McKeithen said she is interested in pursuing.
“There are not a lot of artifacts left, and we must preserve and protect what we have left,” said Marion Oster, president of the Atherton Heritage Association, who spoke in favor of the ordinance. “Once an artifact is moved, it’s gone. It’s lost its value.”
The original, 45-day emergency ordinance was enacted April 20, 2005, amid concerns that a sizable three-tier fountain was threatened by a prospective owner’s development plans. The property’s impending sale lent urgency to a proposal to protect the town’s historic artifacts that the council had been mulling over for several months.
Ms. Oster ultimately purchased the property, which is adjacent to her own, in order to preserve the fountain.
Phil Lively, president of the Lindenwood Homes Association, also spoke in favor of the ordinance.
“Sometimes, you have a situation where you as an owner have a public trust,” said Councilman Jim Janz. “Even if it’s an urn in your backyard, it’s still there, still in Atherton for future generations.”
“Property has its duties as well as its rights,” he said.
Ms. Jones’ official historic inventory extensively documents artifacts belonging to property owners who permitted her on their property. Artifact owners also participated in several study meetings about the ordinance, Ms. Jones said.
Her study does not include artifacts belonging to owners who refused to participate, such as the three on the Lamb property, she said.
However, the ordinance applies to all artifacts in Atherton that meet certain historic standards, not just the three dozen that Ms. Jones documented.
