Council Designates Beach House a Landmark

By Mark McGuigan
Staff Writer

August 27 -- A century old beach house in Ocean Park will remain standing after the City Council voted 5 to 0 Tuesday night to uphold a controversial decision by the Landmarks Commission to designate the wooden structure a City Landmark.

The two-story American Foursquare at 128 Hollister Avenue -- originally one of six built around 1905 during the early years of Ocean Park -- found itself at the center of a dispute following a petition by owners Charles and Jacqueline Ying to demolish the property.

The Landmarks Commission's decision to spare the wrecking ball with an eleventh-hour landmark status left the owners stuck with a property they don't want, said Rosario Perry, the attorney for the applicants. “Shouldn’t the City bear some responsibility?” Perry asked the council. “It puts out a list, it tells people 'These are the properties you can and can’t buy. These are the responsibilities you’re going to bear when you buy them.’ "Shouldn’t they be responsible to some respect so that we don’t switch these horses in mid-stream?”

The decision by the Landmarks Commission to confer landmark status on the property followed a request for a demolition permit filed February 23. On March 10, the commission requested further information on the historic value of the house, noting that the property had been classified as a “5D” in the City’s Historical Resources Inventory -- “a contributor to a potential historic district.”

Although the resulting staff report concluded that “findings for City Landmark designation might be made," it added that "they are fairly weak and general.” The Landmarks Commission found otherwise, concluding that the property was “pristine and a great candidate for preservation.”

But preservation is an expensive business, according to Perry, who argued that the costs involved in repairing and renovating the house to make it safe and habitable would be considerable. Perry cited a report that stated “a complete retrofit to make the structure habitable would cost approximately $140,000.”

“This is not the house our client wishes to live in,” Perry told the council.

But the notion of owning a house designated a landmark should not be considered a hardship, argued Landmarks Commissioner Ruth-Ann Lehrer, one of five members of the public who supported of the landmark designation.

“We don’t believe the designation is a hardship,” Lehrer said. “There are many buildings in this neighborhood that are being renovated, and renovation seems to be the M.O. (modus operandi) for the South Beach tract in Ocean Park.”

In defending the decision by the Landmarks Commission, Council member Pam O’Connor noted how opinions on buildings frequently change, particularly when dealing with a constantly shifting cityscape.

“If you want a clear world where things are black or they’re white, then you don’t work as an historic preservation consultant because it's a continuum," said O'Connor, who is a historic preservationist. "There are lots of shades of gray.

“Over time our knowledge and understanding of buildings changes," she said. "There’s a cultural sensitivity and a social cultural milieu that these decisions are made in and that changes over time, and that’s why surveys need to be updated over the years.”

But the City’s about-face did not sit well with all council members. In mulling over his decision, Councilman Bob Holbrook empathized with the property owners.

“I’m sitting here hoping that the owner can unload this property to someone who is truly interested in buying it and doing the things that the City would like them to do with it,” Holbrook said. “It just seems like a crime that a person could buy a property to develop it or change it and then get slammed with a thing like this.

“This is easy to sit here and do without really understanding the consequences on the purchaser," he said before abstaining. "I really struggle with this kind of thing.”

Councilman Herb Katz also struggled with the issue. He said it wasn’t fair for the City to change its mind and leave property owners to suffer the consequences.

“We need to have more certainty out there,” Katz said. “To do this to people when they think they’re okay and then let them have it right in the teeth after they bought it, I don’t think is right.”

While Perry noted that his clients understood there was an underlying historical significance to the building, updating the designation to landmark status was still an unfair burden to bear for the City’s oversight.

“We don’t mind it being designated a structure of merit, we do mind that we now have the burden of this landmark designation for all time,” Perry argued. “It’s not a simple thing. You can’t just wave your hand and undesignate a designated building.”

But Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown would not be swayed, moving to uphold the recommendation that the house be designated a City Landmark.

“Mr. Perry spoke of the difficulty of undoing the landmark designation,” McKeown said. “I believe it’s still less difficult than to undo a demolition.”