A Bitter Building Battle
Land Owners, City Duel Over Measure That Would Impact Changes to Older Properties
by Anna Scott
Published: Friday, June 5, 2009 5:47 PM PDT
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - A proposal that could make it more difficult to raze or even renovate historic buildings in Los Angeles has created a bitter divide in Downtown. Some local property owners claim the measure would make it needlessly difficult to upgrade their structures, while those behind the effort say it will protect historic properties and ultimately benefit property owners.
The proposal would likely impact Downtown more than any other part of the city because of the concentration of more than 100 historic buildings in the area.
The Planning Commission on Thursday, June 11, will consider several key changes to the Cultural Heritage Ordinance, a 47-year-old measure that lays out the rules for protecting city-designated Historic-Cultural Monuments. The most dramatic changes are proposals to give the five-member panel that oversees monuments the power to deny demolitions and the ability to review plans for interior upgrades.
Currently, the Cultural Heritage Commission can delay demolitions of those properties but not prevent them, and it can only review large-scale interior renovations. The proposed changes have sparked opposition from property owners who believe the new ordinance would be too restrictive.
"These older buildings weren't built to last forever, and there will come a point when some buildings need to be demolished," said Karen Hathaway, president and managing partner of the Los Angeles Athletic Club, a 1912 edifice at Seventh and Olive streets that is a designated Historic-Cultural Monument. "I think this ordinance will have a chilling effect on investment in our city, particularly in the Downtown area, where density and development make a lot of sense. What kind of investor would step into the straitjacket that the city is proposing?"
Even though the City Council would have final say over demolitions and renovations under the new rules, an adverse Cultural Heritage Commission ruling has the potential to create headaches for landowners who already contend with the complications and expenses of maintaining a historic property, say Hathaway and others.
But Ken Bernstein, manager of the city's Office of Historic Resources, who spearheaded the overhaul of the Cultural Heritage Ordinance, said the changes are overdue.
"We don't think this will in any way have an impact on any owner's ability to upgrade their building," he said. "We think, in many ways, it will clarify the current procedures instead of the vague process of the current ordinance."
Demo and Ammo
The update to the Cultural Heritage Ordinance has been in the works since early last year, with a group of stakeholders from business and other sectors (but not property owners) weighing in on the process. This would be the first time the measure has been significantly altered since it was adopted in 1962.
"Since then, our basic preservation law really has not caught up with the direction of other cities and even the tremendous evolution in cultural preservation here in Los Angeles," said Bernstein.
The ordinance has been repeatedly updated during the planning process. The latest draft, released last month, expands on the existing law in several areas. The most significant changes are the provision giving the Cultural Heritage Commission the ability to deny demolitions, and a requirement that property owners obtain a special approval for any interior renovations beyond the most basic repairs.
Some in Downtown question the need for the demolition stipulation.
"The view is, if it's not broke, don't fix it," said Carol Schatz, president of the Central City Association, which was part of a working group that gave input on the proposal. "Under the existing ordinance, only about 3% of historic buildings have been demolished, so a number of property owners are saying, 'Why are we doing this?'" Particularly, she added, during a down market.
Linda Dishman, executive director of preservationist organization the Los Angeles Conservancy, agrees that only a tiny portion of the city's Historic-Cultural Monuments, if any, face demolition most years. Still, she said, the Commission should have wider authority in that area. As an example she pointed to the efforts involved in protecting the former St. Vibiana's Cathedral (now an event venue called Vibiana) when it faced demolition more than a decade ago.
"That was one of the city's great treasures, and the city didn't have much power to protect that building from demolition," said Dishman. "There are so few buildings demolished, but this is an extra bit of ammo for the city to stand up and defend its historic resources."
The new ordinance would not prohibit demolitions, Bernstein asserted. It would allow Historic-Cultural Monuments to be demolished if the owner can prove economic hardship, or if the benefits of an alternative use for the property are found to outweigh the benefits of preservation. Property owners could also appeal any Commission decision to the City Council.
"We tried to balance it," Bernstein said.
Interior Design
The other major proposal would require owners of historic properties to obtain a so-called Certificate of Appropriateness from the Cultural Heritage Commission, made up of political appointees, for nearly all renovations.
Currently, Cultural Heritage Commissioners only review substantial renovation proposals that require Building and Safety permits. Under the new ordinance, commissioners would have to sign off on any work that might affect the property's historic character.
Some property owners are concerned about the definition of what constitutes historic character, and the potential time and expense involved.
"When a historical landmark is established, a list of defining features should be passed through that registration," said Jessica Susnar, assets manager for attorneys Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck, who own the 1926 Fine Arts Building and the 1912 former Financial District firehouse known as Engine Co. No. 28.
"With the new ordinance being so strict, would they have been allowed to put in the elevator lobby?" she asked, referring to the Engine Co. building. "If not, you end up with smaller square footage, and it's harder to make it usable. It's not as cost-effective to own."
Bernstein said the ordinance would only formalize what has been common practice for years. As it is, most renovations beyond minor repairs already cross the Cultural Heritage Commission's desk through the Department of Building and Safety, he said, and only a small number of projects warrant in-depth review.
"Last year, only 11 cases were referred to the commission for review, versus over 1,000 sign-offs," he said. He does not expect the situation to change under the new ordinance.
"We have created an 'Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness,' basically a sign-off, which we anticipate will be used 90% of the time," said Bernstein. "It's the way most cities handle their historic preservation approvals. We're unusual in having our approach based around a permit objection."
Bernstein said other elements of the ordinance would benefit property owners, such as proposals to expand the Cultural Heritage Commission from five to seven members and require that one commissioner be a Historic-Cultural Monument owner. He also pointed to a proposal that historic property owners be notified early in the process if their properties are being considered for monument status (if someone besides the building owner begins the nomination process).
Darryl Holter, owner of the "Felix the Cat" auto dealership on Figueroa Boulevard north of USC, agrees that the latter is a significant change for the better. Two years ago, he fought against preservationists who sought to designate the Felix sign and showroom below it as Historic-Cultural Monuments — an effort that died before reaching a Council vote.
"The problem I had with the attempts to designate the Felix the Cat showroom and sign was… we didn't really know about it," said Holter. "I was really behind the curve. If an improvement in the process in terms of notification comes out of this, then that's a good thing."
If the Planning Commission votes in favor of the ordinance on Thursday, it will go to the City Attorney's office for review. Bernstein expects the ordinance to reach the full council for a vote by the fall.
page 1, 06/08/2009
©Los Angeles Downtown News. Reprinting items retrieved from the archives are for personal use only. They may not be reproduced or retransmitted without permission of the Los Angeles Downtown News. If you would like to re-distribute anything from the Los Angeles Downtown News Archives, please call our permissions department at (213) 481-1448.
