What’s Historic? Escondido Reviews Its Law in Wake of Shack Owner’s Protest

Margaret Cobb’s house isn’t much to look at, but the city of Escondido says it has historic significance.

The boarded-up shack sits at the unfashionable end of Escondido Boulevard, which is lined with thrift shops and mom-and-pop businesses.

Cobb has been trying to sell the house for months, but a prospective buyer, who wants to use the land for commercial purposes, will only make a deal after the house has been torn down.

And there’s the rub. Cobb can’t demolish it without paying a significant fee because, unbeknown to her, in 1983 the city declared the shack to have historic value.

Then, last month, the city waived the demolition fee, paving the way for Cobb’s house to be razed--though that hasn’t happened. When the waiver was voted, many questions about the city’s historic-preservation ordinance were raised.

“I think the City Council’s decision indicated that the ordinance needs some fine-tuning,” said Rick Mercurio, chairman of the city’s Historic Preservation Committee. “We need some new policies to be more selective in the houses that we go to bat for, so to speak.”

More than 600 structures in Escondido have been declared historic, but not until the Cobb house dispute was the city’s demolition fee challenged. The controversy also put the spotlight on revisions that began a year ago in response to a review of the historic ordinance by a city-hired consultant.

Escondido is not alone in trying to fine-tune the way historic structures are handled.

San Diego also is revising its historic-site ordinance to give the city’s Historical Site Board significant new powers in regulating the demolition or alteration of historic sites. Preservationists have complained that, without the powers, the board has no teeth.

Escondido began designating historic structures in 1983. The main criterion was the age of buildings. All properties 50 years or older were deemed to have historic value.

“On one end of the spectrum, there are people who want to save everything,” said Dawn Suitts, principal planner for Escondido. “On the other end, there are people who feel that the buildings aren’t worth saving, that they’re old or run-down, so why bother.”

And then there are people like Cobb, who says: “If the city wants it, then let the city take it. If there is someone who feels it’s unique and can use it, then they can have it.”

Cobb, who bought the house 20 years ago, didn’t find out about its designation as a historic site until last September, the day before she was to close a deal to sell the house.

The prospective sale came only after she had repeatedly tried to give away the late-1800s house. A City Council majority has three times refused to participate in moving the house to a temporary location.

It wasn’t until late February, with the help of City Councilman Kris Murphy, that a temporary site for the house was found and funds were raised to move it.

“Those involved in preservation feel strongly that the building is significant and unique and should be saved,” Murphy said.

Mike Bamber, who has agreed to offer his vacant land on North Iris Lane as a temporary site for the house, admits the house is “not a real eye-catcher.”

“The construction of it is more significant than the actual design,” Bamber said of the building’s single-wall construction. “That type of construction has been outdated for a long time, and it can be used to show future generations how they did it in the old days.”

The house move has been delayed by recent rains.

One problem with the historic-site designations in Escondido, Cobb contends, is that property owners were never notified.

“I shudder to think what legal mess I would have been in if I had actually sold the house, and the new owners found out” about its historic-site designation, Cobb said.

Cobb believes that the historic-site designation took away her property rights. Already, she said, it has cost her by delaying the sale six months.

“There was no due process as far as taking away my property,” Cobb said.

Cobb’s complaint has found an ear on the City Council. City Councilman Sid Hollins said the primary reason the council waived the demolition fees for Cobb was because she wasn’t notified about the designation or the demolition fee.

Hollins said the city has notified all owners of historic properties, eliminating the need to waive future demolition fees.

Suitts, the Escondido city planner, said that the city met its legal obligation of notification through the newspapers, but that the city is now in the process of notifying owners individually.

Also, Suitts argues, owners of historic buildings really have very few restrictions.

“If you have a property that is historically significant, you can really do whatever you want with the property, even demolish it, except you would have to go through the process to do it,” he said.

But Suitts concedes that the “process” could include significant fees.

The modification of Escondido’s historic-structures ordinance includes both carrots and sticks to encourage owners of historic sites to renovate their properties.

Owners of a select group of historic houses can now apply for up to $3,300 in matching funds for renovations or additions to those houses. Owners may also become eligible for as much as a 70% break in property taxes.

To discourage destruction of historic structures, the city levies a $15-per-square-foot fee against owners proposing to demolish historic houses. Proceeds from the fee, adopted in 1989, were to go toward preserving existing historic structures.

Suitts said the city hopes to broaden the incentives program to include more historic structures and, although alterations in the demolition fees are being considered, no one is sure what they will be.

A draft ordinance is expected to be drawn up by the end of the year, Suitts said.

In San Diego, there is debate over whether the city’s Historical Site Board should have the power to approve or deny permits to demolish or substantially change historic structures. There are about 800 structures in San Diego that have been designated as historic.

At the same time, the proposed San Diego ordinance will provide more specific criteria for what is a historic structure in an attempt to assuage fears that “there will be a rush to designate local taco stands” as historic, according to Ron Buckley, historic-site representative from the city planning department.

“And there’s always someone who’s from Philadelphia who is saying that what we’ve got here isn’t historic,” Buckley said.

Buckley said picking historic sites is part of the city’s power to protect its resources.

“We register historic properties for the same reasons and manner we regulate hillsides, flood plains and canyons,” Buckley said.

Buckley rejects the idea of demolition fees, comparing it to “medieval times--when the king wanted to be absolved of a sin, he would just pay off the church.”

The existing San Diego ordinance only regulates work that requires a building permit and gives the Historical Site Board the power to delay the work.

The draft ordinance, however, would require an environmental impact report before any demolition or substantial alteration could be done.

Under the proposed ordinance, to obtain a demolition permit, owners of historic sites would have to show that at least one of several conditions have been met, including:

* The site is a public hazard and repairs are physically impossible.

* The site is required for public use.

* Denial of the permit would result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owners.

* The proposed work would not adversely affect the architectural features of the building.