Planning Commission recommends 25 city landmarks

Discussion centered on balancing property rights with preservation.

How do you balance the preservation of historical sites for the public with the private property rights of owners?

That was the central discussion at Wednesday's meeting of the Planning Commission, which voted 4-0 to recommend 25 historical structures be deemed city landmarks. By becoming landmarks, they would receive stricter zoning protections than they currently receive on the historical resource list.

But several property owners at the meeting expressed worries that those protections – which basically keep structures from degrading, decaying, or collapsing from neglect – would restrict their ability to develop or alter buildings.

Jennifer Blake, a property owner, recently requested her property not be added to the historic resource list (which is not the same as the landmark list). She worried that too many properties were being included for historical protection, and many owners could find themselves facing severe restrictions on developing their homes in the future.

"I think it should be up to an individual owner's right to be on or off (the list)," she said. "Where does this end? Are they going to be coming after all property owners that own properties built in the 40s because they're over 50 years old? At what point do they stop requiring a historic designation?"

Mike Cotter, Historical Society president and Landmark Task Force member said if anything, the landmark list and protections offer owners "all carrots and no sticks."

"I challenge anyone to show me one burden we've placed on a landmark owner," Cotter said. He referred to five incentives benefiting historical landmark owners that were recommended for approval by the Commission last week. "We give them free permits, a liaison at the Planning Commission, educational opportunities so the public can understand what they have – there's not a single burden on a historical property owner."

The proposed landmarks were recommended by the Landmark Task Force, which worked for a year to compile the list. They also established a definition of what constitutes a landmark and criteria for identifying them as such.

The first time the Planning Commission had a chance to vote on the proposed list was October 2006, when there were only 24. Since then, St. Clement's Church expressed a desire to be added because of its ties to Ole Hanson, who donated the church's land and whose daughter was the first child baptized there.

Of the 25 structures on the current list, three dominated the discussion: The Beachcomber Motel, the Casino Building, and the San Clemente Theater, better known as the Miramar. Beachcomber owner Bob Laidlaw said being on the list prevents him from developing a quality hotel in place of his current structure, which he said has "the cheapest, shoddiest construction you could ever get."

"This is a terrible taking of my property rights and values," he told the commission. "I could pay enough money to hire a lawyer to get me off the list, but why should I have to?"

Commissioner Larry Brook said he personally felt the motel was "an eyesore." When he asked a group of his peers how they felt, all of them told Brook it would be better replaced with a new development.

Brook voted for the proposed list, however, saying "there are ways of developing that spot and still staying within the guidelines … I know that there's options available to (Laidlaw). We're not closing the door to him, he just needs to pursue people who know what's there and how to work with it."

Commissioner Donald Prime contended that the criteria for being on or off the list were developed from objective sources – the Historic Resources Group, the State Department of Parks, and the Secretary of the Interior.

"You can get on, you can get off (the list) if you show that you do not meet the criteria," Prime said. "That's not open to the winds of interpretation at all."

Contact the writer: agood@ocregister.com, or 949-492-5128