City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance

MEMO FROM THE LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY:

LOS ANGELES PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UNDER ATTACK:  Help Needed to Defend Against Assault on Landmark Protections 

 

The Los Angeles Conservancy needs your help to support the first comprehensive overhaul of the city's Cultural Heritage Ordinance since 1962.  We need to show that L.A.'s heritage belongs to everyone, and not just a vocal minority opposing its adoption.  Please attend the Planning Commission Meeting this Thursday, June 11th to voice your support. 

 

Date:    Thursday, June 11, 2009 

Time:   Arrive by 1:00 p.m. 

Location: Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring Street; 10th Floor, Room 1010  

 

Although speaking points are provided below for those wishing to address the Commission, we encourage you to share personal examples to illustrate how the proposed ordinance will benefit your own neighborhood.  Please limit your remarks to one minute.  It will be critical to have a large turnout of supporters at this meeting, even if you prefer not to speak.  If you have any questions, please contact Mike Buhler, Director of Advocacy, at (213) 430-4203 or mbuhler@laconservancy.org. 

 

What's at Stake? 

The proposed Cultural Heritage Ordinance is under attack by a few entrenched downtown business interests seeking to weaken its provisions and roll back many existing protections.  Those opposing the ordinance want to make it harder to designate new monuments and easier to demolish existing ones, while eliminating longstanding protections for significant interior spaces and clearing the way for owners to repeal monument status – even if they've intentionally damaged their property. 

 

Developed during an extensive, sixteen-month public process, the proposed Cultural Heritage Ordinance is a long overdue update of the city's preservation law.  It will help to clarify the local designation and demolition review processes, while improving owner notification and consolidating preservation incentives and existing maintenance and enforcement provisions all in one place.  You can read more about the proposed ordinance and threats facing its adoption on the Conservancy's website at www.laconservancy.org/issues/issues_ordinance.php4. 

 

Benefits of the Proposed Ordinance 

●  Allows for the denial, not merely the delay, of a local landmark's demolition.  Unlike most big-city preservation ordinances, L.A.'s current ordinance allows the Cultural Heritage Commission to delay – but not deny – the demolition of a designated landmark.  The proposed changes would rectify this extraordinary shortcoming in the city's preservation law. The updated ordinance would also include demolition review earlier in the development process, benefiting everyone involved. 

●  Protects potential landmarks from demolition while their nominations are pending.  If the owner of a historic property opposes its landmark designation, s/he currently has a window of opportunity to demolish the structure before it can be considered for landmark status.  This preemptive demolition has happened on several occasions -- most recently for Lou Ehlers Cadillac on Wilshire Boulevard.  The proposed ordinance changes would correct the flawed process that can lead to preemptive demolition, while ensuring fairness for property owners by notifying them earlier of the nomination. 

●  Enforces and penalizes violations such as illegal demolition and alteration.  Although the city does have a five-year building moratorium under its "scorched-earth" ordinance to punish owners who illegally demolish historic landmarks, the current preservation ordinance makes no mention of it.  The update would clearly reference this punishment, and clarify an owner's duty to keep a historic resource in good repair by referencing existing maintenance requirements in the Building Code applicable to all properties, whether historic or not. 

●  Clarifies designation criteria for Historic-Cultural Monuments.  The proposed ordinance would more clearly spell out existing criteria for designating a resource as a Historic-Cultural Monument. Similar to most preservation ordinances throughout the U.S., the new Los Angeles ordinance would require designated Monuments to retain their historic integrity.  "Integrity" refers to a property's ability to convey its significance, not its current condition – historic resources can keep their integrity despite physical deterioration. Its inclusion in the criteria gives the Cultural Heritage Commission guidance in this area that they've lacked in the past. 

Threats Posed by Opponents to the Proposed Ordinance 

While the proposed Cultural Heritage Ordinance is the product of a lengthy public process based on extensive dialogue and mutual compromise, a small group of property owners is pushing to rewrite and weaken the ordinance to serve its own interests, with no public input whatsover.    

 

●  Opponents would like to make it easier to demolish Monuments.  Opponents to the proposed ordinance would like to seriously weaken protections for Monuments by lowering the threshold for showing economic hardship and allowing demolition if a replacement project provides a "benefit to the public" that outweighs the benefit of historic preservation.   Because "public benefit" is not defined and no other hardship would need to be established, this proposal leaves the door wide open to "public benefit" demolitions.  The city's proposed ordinance greatly narrows the circumstances under which demolition can be sought for overriding public benefit.   

 

●  Opponents would like to eliminate existing protections for historic interiors.  Opponents are seeking to eliminate longstanding protections for significant "private" interior spaces, even if they have been voluntarily designated by the owner.  The existing ordinance has allowed for designation of significant interior spaces – including the Eames House, Lautner's Goldstein Office, and the Doheny Mansion – since its enactment in 1962.  The proposed ordinance allows the Cultural Heritage Commission flexibility to approve alterations to interior spaces, even if the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.    

 

●  Opponents want to make it easier to repeal Monument status.  Opponents want to make it easier to repeal Monument status – and thereby pave the way for demolition – if a building no longer meets criteria for designation, even if the loss of eligibility is caused by the willful neglect or intentional acts of the owner.  The city's proposed ordinance allows for repeal of Monument status so long as the loss of eligibility is outside the control of the property owner.