Residents in Professorville, Crescent Park and Downtown North have every right to feel like they have a particularly strong connection to Palo Alto's history.

Many of their homes date back to the city's earliest days, even if they share little resemblance, and are connected to architectural styles that over the decades came to define the city.

But now, the city's ongoing effort to update its historical registry and to add dozens of homes in these neighborhoods, as well as others, to the local list is striking a sour note with these homeowners.

A critical step in the process will take place on Nov. 9, when the city's Historic Resources Board considers whether to nominate 68 local buildings that are associated with both important events and a significant architectural style. In considering each nomination, the board will get to weigh the building's history with the present wishes of its occupant.

Recent community meetings on the topic suggest the two aren't always aligned.

The list of 68 is the largest of the three batches of potentially historical properties that the board will consider over the next three months. On Dec. 14, the board will look at 38 other properties that had previously been deemed eligible for either important events or for architecture. On Jan. 11, it will move on to the 41 total properties that were found eligible for their association with historically significant individuals.

To further this effort, Palo Alto's consultants completed last month a "reconnaissance survey," a review of the 165 properties that had previously been deemed historical in a 2001 study by the firm Dames & Moore.

The goal of the new survey was to see whether each of those properties still retains its "historic integrity," a quality that Page & Turnbull consultant Christina Dikas defined as "the ability of a property to convey its historic significance through its physical characteristics."

After looking at each property and excluding those that had been demolished or had undergone major alterations, Page & Turnbull found that 139 properties remain eligible for the national registry and 11 remain eligible for the California registry.

The big question now is whether to place these 150 properties on the local registry, a status that could bring a bit of clout but also potentially more restrictions and requirements for future redevelopment.

During an Oct. 24 community meeting on the topic, several homeowners said they're not sold. One speaker questioned the city's timing and characterized the exercise as an imposition that may lower his property values. Another said that the city should create clear incentives for property owners to seek the historical designation.

A third said that she feels her home is unfairly targeted because it is one of only a few on her block that is listed as a potential historical resource, which would hinder future redevelopment.

"I don't want the town destroyed by developers either," she said. "At the same time, I don't want to be disadvantaged in a significant way to protect the town for everyone else's sake, and I feel like the city is not really giving us great incentives."

Who gets the final say?

One fundamental question that the Historic Resources Board and the City Council will have to wrestle with is: Should property owners have the final say over historical status of their homes? Under local law, the answer is currently no.

The city could technically choose to place a building on its inventory over the homeowner's objections. Furthermore, residents can nominate buildings that they don't own for historical designation, as happened recently when an individual nominated the former cannery at 340 Portage Ave. to the local inventory. (The council did not advance the nomination.)

Resident John Kelley was among those who pushed the city at the Oct. 24 meeting to explicitly require a property owner's permission before their property is listed on the historical registry.

"If you want a historic designation, you've got to ask for it and it can't be imposed without your application," Kelley said. "It should be that the owner's application is required."

Darlene Yaplee, whose Waverley Street home is on the city's list, said she is concerned that the proposed historical listing may have implications for projects that further other city goals: namely, environmental sustainability. The status may, for instance, prevent her from being able to place solar panels in the front of her home, she said.

"I'm not against 'historical,' but I can't live in the 18th century alone. There's evolution," Yaplee said.

It will ultimately be up to the council to decide how much weight to give to the homeowners. But planning staff and members of the Historic Resources Board assured attendees at the meeting that their voices will be heard.

Board member Caroline Willis told residents that the board will be "open minded" and pushed back against the idea voiced by several residents that a historical designation may lower property values. There are people in Palo Alto who can buy anything they want to but they choose to live in historical buildings, she said.

"If we feel it's really important to have it in our inventory and there aren't really negatives, I think we might advise the council to go for it," Willis said. "If we don't see much value in adding it to our inventory and it's just another house as far as we're concerned and the owner doesn't want it, then I think we'll listen to the owner."

Chief Planning Official Amy French noted that when it comes to state and national registries, the property owner can opt not to move ahead with the designation. While the property owner does not have a similar veto power in Palo Alto, French assured residents that their positions will be considered.

"We don't suspect the council would designate a property to the inventory over the objections of the property owners," French said.

The vast majority of the 68 properties that the board will consider on Nov. 9 are in north Palo Alto neighborhoods. The list contains numerous properties in Crescent Park, including 855, 951 and 975 Hamilton Ave. and at 1056 University Ave.

In explaining the historical status of the neighborhood, the 2001 evaluation by Dames & Moore describes the neighborhood as a "self-conscious attempt by Palo Alto civic leaders and the real estate industry to create an elite community" by (among other things) excluding minority groups and imposing minimum design standards. The neighborhood, which was developed in the 1920s and 1930s, was populated primarily by real estate developers, attorneys and business executives, according to the study.

Other properties that are being proposed for the historic inventory are there precisely because they were more common, in both prevalence and appearance. There are 482 Everett St. and 162 Bryant St., which are both on the Nov. 9 list and which both serve as great examples of the type of modest one-story wood frame cottage that dominated Palo Alto in its earliest days, according to the 2001 evaluation.

Built in the 1890s and 1900s, they are often ornamented with Queen Anne, Colonial Revival and bungalow details, according to Dames & Moore, and they were the most common houses for middle class people until about 1910.

"Collectively, these houses convey, better than any other buildings or building types, the character of Palo Alto in its early years," the study states.

The city does provide development incentives to homeowners who are restoring a historically significant building. Property owners can get an extra 250 square feet of floor area under Palo Alto's building code, for example. They can also apply to get property tax breaks through the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits program and get assistance from the city for restoration projects.

On the downside, property owners would have to go through a more stringent review process, including hearings in front of the Historic Resources Board, if they want to make major alterations or pursue demolition. They would also be required to undergo a more thorough environmental analysis before such projects.

During the board's Oct. 12 discussion, some residents urged the city to more clearly communicate to the homeowners the benefits of being on the registry. John Bard, who lives on the 900 block of Waverley and whose home is among those that will be considered at the Nov. 9 meeting, cited concerns among property owners about the historical designation creating restrictions that will serve as a deterrent to potential future buyers.

"I think it's going to be important to have public outreach and to make sure it's clear what the process is: what the impact of the potential changes could be that would potentially impact the value of their home going forward and make sure you have good communications of incentives," Bard said.