Winston Churchill famously said that “we shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”
The statement provides an insightful take on the way that architecture has shaped the human experience for centuries.
Isn’t this true in Coronado?
Think about the Crown Manor, the Coronado Village Theatre, Lamb’s Players Theatre, and the countless houses recognized as past and current homes of Naval aviators. Or the Hotel Del, which recently underwent a $550 million renovation with historical preservation at the forefront of every decision.
The list could go on. The very essence of Coronado is shaped by the existence of certain structures. Which is why it is important to fight for historical preservation. Not because people cling to nostalgia, but because foundations of the past remind us of where we’ve been, who walked before us and, maybe, where we are going.
Striking a balance between maintaining a city’s historical heritage, and doing it in a way that is fiscally responsible, is a dance that Coronado knows all too well. The concept of historical preservation is something that Coronado has been trying to define for a while now, and as it currently stands, the objectives are not very clear.
At a council meeting this month, city leaders will potentially vote on an updated ordinance outlining a new historic review process. The goal is to develop a clear standard for designating historical properties in a responsible way.
The topic has Coronado roots dating to 1972, when former state senator and longtime resident James Mills authored an economic incentive program to preserve historic buildings. This bill, known as the Mills Act, was drafted in response to a proposal to demolish the Hotel del Coronado.
Through the Mills Act, owners of historical homes get a property tax break as long as they follow certain preservation guidelines. But to qualify, homes must first be designated as historical through the city.
To do so, Coronado currently uses a process adopted in 2000 that includes subjective criteria and lacks clearly defined historic preservation goals.
Before being demolished or remodeled, all homes 75 years or older must undergo a historic analysis through a third-party research consultant, which the city pays for at an amount which often exceeds $200,000 annually.
The process includes evaluating properties to see if at least two of five historic criteria are met. If the Historic Resource Commission determines two or more are met, your home is deemed historic and remodel options change significantly. If not, you’re free to demolish. Additionally, property owners with no intent of demolition can voluntarily submit an application to see if their home qualifies.
The bottom line here is that this process is costly to both the city that pays for each historic review, and to homeowners who may lose property value due to the uncertainty around the historic designation process. Not to mention — loss in tax revenue on historically designated homes.
A 2023 staff report calculated the amount of foregone revenue since the program was implemented in 2001, and in those 22 years, the fiscal impact was over $7 million.
Time and money are being spent analyzing homes that have no clear link to history. Structures end up being identified as “potentially historic,” resulting in confusion for homeowners and new residents.
The new process, now under consideration, would use survey data to exempt unqualified properties from review. Since the vast majority of historically designated homes meet criterion C – which says a home must possess distinctive characteristics of architectural style without being substantially altered – the city hired a consultant to evaluate structures in the Village area that could potentially qualify under C. Those homes were categorized into three tiers:
- Tier 1: Unaltered or minimally altered historical condition. (184 properties)
- Tier 2: Recognizable as a particular architectural style but are somewhat altered. (140 properties)
- Tier 3: Substantially altered. (1,662 properties)
If this proposal passes, Tier 3 properties would be off the table for mandatory historic review, even after reaching 75 years of age.
The new process streamlines the old policy, but should be taken a step further. The current standards are too subjective. And to establish clearly defined goals, the city needs to take a step back and answer a key question: How many historic homes does the city want to preserve, and how many homes can the city afford to preserve, given the financial cost of Mills Act designation?
We can be smart, and strategic, while maintaining the historic charm of the island. We don’t need to hold close to 20% of our homes hostage while we develop the next iteration of historic preservation. That’s not preservation. Let’s set the appropriate hurdle rate and balance between growth, innovation and preservation.
