When Palo Alto launched its effort last year to expand the city's inventory of historical homes, city officials were hoping to add more than 150 new buildings to a list that already includes iconic structures such as the Roth Building on Homer Avenue and the stucco commercial building on Ramona Street that houses Coupa Café.

But as the city prepares to hold its third hearing on the historic upgrade next week, they are confronting a stark reality: about half of the property owners whose buildings would be added to the list aren't thrilled about it. And in some cases, they have no idea why their buildings were selected while their neighbors' very similar homes were not.

The Historical Resources Board considered nominating 38 sites for the local historic registry at its Dec. 14 hearing, and opted to withdraw 19 from consideration (at least for the time being) because of objections from property owners. Similarly, more than 35 property owners filed objections prior to the board's Nov. 9 meetings, when the board was considering adding 67 properties.

Additional opposition is expected to surface on Jan. 11, when the Historic Resources Board considers the third and final batch of proposed historical listings, which includes 41 properties that staff identified as worthy of historic status. If the pattern holds, the board will quickly vote to recommend advancing about two dozen of these to the registry while pulling the rest from the list for the time being.

To identify potential additions to the inventory, the city's consulting firm, Page & Turnbull, leaned heavily on the results of the city's last survey, which was conducted in 2001. While that two-decade-old effort identified dozens of properties for possible inclusion, the city never went ahead with placing those buildings on the inventory.

The city has two main reasons for pursuing the effort. One is to finish what they started in 2001 and protect from demolition cherished buildings that are part of the city's heritage. Another is to make these properties exempt from Senate Bill 9, a state law that allows property owners to build up to three additional dwellings on a single-family lot. The bill, which Palo Alto had formally opposed, makes an exception for historical properties.

Many property owners, however, have indicated that they see little benefit — and much downside — in being listed on the inventory, a move that would saddle them with new design restrictions and force them to undergo additional environmental reviews and permitting hurdles if they ever decide to renovate or demolish their houses.

Some have argued that a listing would cause their property values to decrease. Michael Dreyfus, a local real estate agent, argued in a letter to the city that a historical classification can reduce a property's value by 10% to 20% because it creates new hurdles for the property owners.

"Local Realtors would unanimously prefer to lift the historic designation if possible," Dreyfus wrote.

Palo Alto's current effort groups homes by categories that are based on criteria of significance. In some of these categories, more than half of the property owners have opted to have their homes removed from the consultant's list. The Dec. 14 list included, for example, nine properties that consultants deemed to be eligible for both Criterion 5 (the architect or building was important) and Criterion 6 (the structures demonstrate "outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship"). Five of the nine properties have filed objection letters.

Charlotte Lowell, who owns a Spanish Colonial home at 1423 Hamilton Ave., was among them. She was one of many residents who wondered why their house was selected while similar homes in the neighborhood were not. Lowell told the board at the Dec. 14 hearing that the process of picking homes for the inventory is confusing.

"Even if there are reasons for selecting my house – it does have a lovely doorway or something - there are multiple other houses that are very similar that are actual Birge Clarkes. Mine is not," Lowell said.

While Palo Alto architecture is often associated with the Spanish Colonial style championed by local architect Birge Clark (think stucco walls, arcades and red-tile roofs in the downtown area) and the modern, outdoor-oriented style popularized by the builder Joseph Eichler (mostly one-story buildings with large glass windows and walls and spacious yards), the city's list of potential additions to the inventory includes a wide mix of styles.

The Dec. 14 list, for example, included 381 Guinda St., which was constructed in 1908 and which the city's historical consultants identified as an "unusually large example of a Craftsman Bungalow." The home at 2264 Bowdoin St., a Colonial Revival cottage that was built in 1907, was described as an "important local house type that was designed with standard pattern book details." Meanwhile, the home at 1341 University Ave., in the Crescent Park neighborhood, was identified as "a rich example of the Mediterranean Revival style in Palo Alto, and an apparent work by the important local builder H.H. Dabinett."

In all three cases, however, the property owners have asked that their homes be withdrawn from the list. The board agreed on Dec. 14 to postpone its decision on the nominations.

These objections, as well as those filed by property owners for the Nov. 9 and Jan. 11 hearings, will be reviewed on Jan. 25. After that, the board's recommendations will be passed on to the City Council, which will have the option of accepting or rejecting homeowner's objections.

Himanshu Dwivedi and Kusum Pandey, who live in Old Palo Alto, are among those whose home will be evaluated on Jan. 11. In a letter to the city, they urged the board to reject the recommendation from consultants to add their home to the historical inventory.

The survey by Page & Turnbull concluded that their home is significant under three criteria: It is an "excellent example of the intention of developers of the Seale Addition." It serves as a good example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture. And it is associated with J. Byron Blois, a long-time Palo Alto mayor (a somewhat peculiar finding, given that the mayor is a largely symbolic role in Palo Alto that rotates every year).

"We hold immense respect for the heritage and history of our locality, and we recognize the importance of preserving significant historical landmarks," Dwivedi and Pandey wrote to the council. "However, after careful contemplation, we firmly believe that our property should not fall under the designation of a historical site."

The board, for its part, has yet to reach a consensus on how to proceed with its recommendations. While board members have generally supported exempting property owners who have filed objections, there was some disagreement over what to do with the rest of the properties. Board member Gogo Heinrich suggested making the entire inventory update an "opt-in" process in which only those property owners who have indicated that they want to be on the inventory get added.

Board member Caroline Willis, whose home is also being added to the list (with no objections), favored an approach in which the board would recommend nominations to the council even if property owners did not indicate a preference one way or another. Like her colleagues, however, she supported excluding those property owners who don't want to have their homes listed on the inventory.

"We are not going to recommend to the council that they put them on over the expressed objections of owners," Willis said.