Boisterous Annual Meeting
Leads to a Productive Summit
on Clarifying HPOZ Guidelines

 
Both Sides Agree
that the Neighborhood Must be Protected

The 33rd annual Miracle Mile community meeting featured a sometimes noisy display of free speech as opponents to the Miracle Mile HPOZ made their case to keynote speaker, Councilmember David Ryu [photo above]. Tensions were high but Ryu and MMRA President James O’Sullivan encouraged civility and dialogue between residents on both sides of the issue.
 
This past September, shortly before the Cultural Heritage Commission recommended approval of the Miracle Mile Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ), a group of opponents led by local realtor Jay Schoenfeldt, distributed fliers and took to social media to lobby against HPOZ.
 
Their campaign has played fast and loose with the facts but their one accurate and salient attack was aimed at the somewhat obtuse language in the draft Preservation Plan, which serves as the design guidelines for the HPOZ.
 
It was the express intent of the Preservation Plan Committee – a group composed of a dozen community members working under the aegis of the city’s Office of Historic Resources – to devise a plan that was as unrestrictive and flexible as possible while still in compliance with the fundamental tenets of historic preservation. But the devil is always in the details and both sides agreed that the language in the Preservation Plan, as written, was too ambiguous and could be interpreted to be more restrictive than desired.
 
At the Los Angeles Central Planning Commission hearing in October, opponents expressed their discontent with the Preservation Plan. Councilmember Ryu then arranged a meeting between the “pro” and “con” camps to review and discuss the design guidelines.
 
Julia Duncan, Ryu’s Planning and Land Use Deputy, moderated the meeting which took place on November 7th. Ken Bernstein, head of the Office of Historic Resources, and Renata Dragland, City Planning Associate in charge of the Miracle Mile HPOZ, also attended.  Representing the supporters of HPOZ were James O’Sullivan, Mark Zecca, Lisa Landworth, Ken Hixon, and Peter Haidos; representing the opponents were Scott Kelsey, Henry van Moyland, Jay Schoenfeldt, Randy Greenwald, and Curt Lukert.
 
The opponents brought a detailed list of criticisms of the Preservation Plan. What tensions existed between the two sides quickly dissolved as ready agreement was found over the lack of clarity in the guidelines. HPOZ supporters felt that the plan as written did not accurately reflect their objective to make the rules as flexible as possible. Opponents were pleased to have their complaints acknowledged. This resulted in a collegial and successful discussion of how to simplify and revise language in the plan to accurately reflect the will of the community. This task was delegated to Ken Bernstein and staff at the Office of Historic Resources, which is responsible for administrating HPOZs in Los Angeles.
 
Opponents raised a dozen specific issues, which they said needed to be addressed, to make the HPOZ acceptable. Proponents agreed to nearly every objection raised. Here are the bullet points that all parties agreed on:

• No regulation of paint colors. Property owners are free to paint their homes and buildings as they wish without review.

• Reiterate that the exteriors of all properties in their present condition are “grandfathered” once HPOZ is adopted. No changes of existing elements (windows, roofing, etc.) are required even if or when the property owner seeks approval to remodel a particular part of the exterior (HPOZ does not regulate interior remodeling).

• No regulation or review of landscaping as long as at least 60 percent of the front yard is planted with some sort of greenery. Drought tolerant planting is permitted.

• Allow second story additions as long as they are adequately set back from the front façade. Property owners will be free to expand their properties as long as they are sensitive to massing and scale so as not to have an adverse impact on their neighbors.

• Permit solar panels on the front of the structure if that is the only place they can most efficiently operate. Ditto satellite television dishes. Also, do not regulate the placement of mechanical equipment, such as air conditioner units or electrical boxes. Most property owners display common sense in these matters, so there is no need to micromanage this.

• Allow for modern designs and contemporary architecture on infill projects in vacant lots or as replacement structures for properties lost to fire or natural disasters as long as they are properly scaled to be sensitive to the existing historic homes in the immediate area. Both sides expressed a strong distain for “faux” period architecture.

• Backyard additions and/or remodeling will be unregulated (other than by existing city building codes) as long as this work is not visible from the street. This work will be reviewed only to determine that it, indeed, qualifies for this exemption.

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or “granny flats” are already permitted by law and cannot be prohibited in an HPOZ. As long as they cannot be seen from the street they will be exempt from the design guidelines.

• HPOZ guidelines will only apply to those portions of a structure that are visible from the street. Both sides agreed that “sight visibility” should be defined as what is actually seen from the street and not what could be seen in the theoretical absence of fences, landscaping, driveway slope, and so on.

• Clarify that in the event of a natural disaster any historic properties destroyed do not have to be rebuilt as replicas and can be replaced with structures of a modern or contemporary design.

• Remove confusing and restrictive language from the Preservation Plan. This point was pressed by the architects on both sides: Lisa Landworth, Scott Kelsey, and Henry van Moyland. The group as a whole deferred to the architects’ practical experience and reached consensus that the guidelines should be as simple and practical as possible.

Ryu staffer Duncan emphasized, once again, the importance of having the HPOZ in place before the Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) expires in March 2017. The ICO was enacted to prohibit the demolition of single family homes and to stop their replacement by McMansions. Once the ICO expires the Miracle Mile will be unprotected.  The Planning Department and Councilmember Ryu have stated that there are no other viable alternatives available to preserve our community from mansionization, small lot subdivisions, or density bonus apartment projects.

Another meeting is planned once the Preservation Plan is revised. This meeting will take place prior to the Central Planning Commission hearing to review the Miracle Mile HPOZ on December 8th.

Having found common ground on improving the Preservation Plan, and with members of the opposition in agreement that our community should be protected, there should be no further obstacles to adopting the revised HPOZ Preservation Plan.
 

Just the Facts, Ma’am…

(HPOZ Lies Debunked)

 
Lately, residents have been receiving anti-HPOZ fliers that are chockfull of misinformation – and that’s putting it politely. The MMRA welcomes different points of view, but we strive to tell the truth and present the facts. So, let’s fact check the assertions made in one recent mailer, pictured below:
 

“We were told a HPOZ was the only way to stop McMansions. FALSE: The new baseline mansionization ordinance will pass by
the end of the year, BANNING McMansions.”

That’s quite a whopper. The existing Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (BMO) is going through a lengthy and contentious review in an attempt to plug its numerous and infamous loopholes. A revised ordinance is yet to be finalized and brought to the City Council for a vote. Whether that will happen this year is anyone’s guess. It remains to be seen just how watered-down the final ordinance will be. Influential real estate speculators are lobbying City Hall to make the law as toothless as possible. If past is prologue, these developers stand an excellent chance of winning the day. 

Whatever form it takes, the BMO will certainly not succeed in “banning McMansions” as HPOZ opponents assert. At best, a revised BMO will attempt to modify scaling and massing while still allowing for super-sized homes. We’ve reported at length about the reform of the BMO and done several YouTube interviews with Shelly Wagers, who has spearheaded the battle to fix the BMO.

Offering the BMO as an alternative to HPOZ is offering false hope. HPOZ is about the historic preservation of our neighborhood; the BMO will not stop the demolition of historic homes for the construction of over-scaled houses – nor would it inhibit the demolition of historic multi-family buildings for high-density apartment projects.
 

“We were told HPOZ rules would only affect the façade.
FALSE: The new HPOZ rules will control every park [sic] our home’s exteriors – even backyard doors, windows, and decks.”

 
The grammar and spelling of this statement are as impaired as its assertions, which have never been true. The Preservation Plan subscribes to the simple adage: “Out of sight, out of mind.” It does not regulate things that cannot be seen. This is being re-emphasized in the current revisions to the design guidelines, agreed to by both proponents and opponents.
 

“We were told the HPOZ wouldn’t touch front yard vegetation. FALSE: It will control everything we plant if front.”

 
What...? This assertion has no basis in fact. The Preservation Plan does not dictate what you plant in your front yard – it never did. If you like geraniums…plant geraniums. If cactus is your thing…go for it. Drought tolerant landscaping…good for you and the environment. The guidelines simply say that 60 percent of your front yard has to be plant matter of some sort. Period.
 

“The HPOZ will FORBID us from ever putting on a second
story even in the same architectural style.”

 
There’s no polite way to categorize this statement: it’s a lie. The Preservation Plan never banned second floor additions – and the language in the guidelines is currently being enhanced to allow more flexibility for such additions, as opponents wished and proponents agreed.

“THE HPOZ CONTROLS WHAT WE CAN DO
WITH OUR GREATEST INVESTMENT”

 
Reasonable people should consider an HPOZ based on the facts. But the facts are hard to find in fliers like this and, sadly, that is purposeful. These fliers are being written and distributed by realtors and property owners in the Miracle Mile whose bread and butter is real estate speculation. They are misstating the facts to promote their self-interests. They want to cash in and we want to preserve the stability of our neighborhood – and protect it from an onslaught of development from which they would personally profit. They are talking about their investments, when we our talking about preserving our charming and livable community. We live in historic homes and apartments – they live in investments.

The residents of Windsor Square, Hancock Park, Carthay Circle, and 30-plus other HPOZs in Los Angeles have seen the value of their “investments” improve because of the protections provided by historic preservation. Buyers are attracted to the stability of HPOZs. This is a fact, as testified to by Richard Barron, Chairperson of the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission [see article below].

So, whatever your position on HPOZ, listen to the facts – and ignore the fiction.
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

SCROLL DOWN FOR:
The Silent Majority Speaks ~ A Note from the Editor