Glaser Weil 310.553.3000 TEL 310.556.2920 FAX November 25, 2015 Timothy Mcosker
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
/ <-z tfp '} ( 333 S. Hope Street Suite 2610 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Glaser Weil 310.553.3000 TEL 310.556.2920 FAX November 25, 2015 Timothy McOsker Direct Dial 310.556.7870 VIA HAND DELIVERY Email tmcsoker@giaserwei!.com President Herb Wesson Honorable Members of the City Council 200 North Main Street 200 North Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Nomination of 118-126 Flores Avenue as a Historic-Cultural Monument President Wesson and Honorable Members of the City Council: This office represents BLDG Flores, LLC (“BLDG”), the owner of the property located at 118-126 Flores Avenue in Los Angeles (the “Property”) which is the subject of item no. 13 on the City Council agenda of November 25, 2015 (CF 15-1170). The Property does not qualify as a Historical-Cultural Monument (“HCM”) under the City’s standards. The application for nomination was submitted by a holdover tenant seeking to evade the landlord’s legal use of the Ellis Act. Approval of the HCM application would deprive BLDG of substantially all economic value of its property. Furthermore, an approval would violate due process and private property rights, and subject the City to significant liability. For all these reasons, described in more detail below, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the historic designation of the Property. 1. The Flores Property Does Not Qualify as an HCM. After conducting extensive due diligence on the Property and finding no restraints or limitations due a historic designation, BLDG purchased the Property. After BLDG’s purchase of the Property and as BLDG was preparing its application for a small lot subdivision, the citywide historic resources survey, SurveyLA was published for the area and concluded that the Property potentially contributed to a possible historic district (though no such district exists today or has ever existed). There is substantial evidence that the Property does not qualify as an HCM, as set forth in greater detail in the correspondence from Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP, dated September 1, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Cultural Heritage Commission (“CHC”) ignored these salient details and recommended to your body to nominate the Property as a monument. This was largely due to the fact that Mendel Meyer designed and lived at the Property at some point in time during his life. The CHC concluded that the Property is identified with historic personages or with ITT MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE 10978-42.1 November 25, 2015 Page 2 important events in the main currents of national, State or local history, and found that the Property is a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her age. While we do not refute that Mendel Meyer had a significant influence on the architecture of Hollywood and the Los Angeles area, we question, as you should too, if a building should be designated a historical monument because a famed person once lived there for a short while. The City recently concluded that the answer to this question is no. Earlier this year, the City stated that one of the former homes of actress Marilyn Monroe did not qualify as a historic monument, because the time she lived in the house did not coincide with a “productive period in her career.” As Ken Bernstein, Director of the Office of Historic Resources aptly stated, “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of houses associated with celebrities.”1 Similarly, the Property does not qualify as a monument because it was not built during Mendel Meyer’s height of fame and significance, the 1920s, nor was it the type of building for which he was known. Mendel Meyer built many significant non- residential buildings in LA, including Grauman’s Egyptian Theater in 1922 and the Chinese Theater in 1927. The building on the Property is residential and was constructed in the 1930s. The National Register instructs us that properties that post date an individuals’ significant accomplishments are usually not eligible. The City used these instructions and denied the designation of a property in another similar instance. The Bartlett Residence was built in 1914 and was designed by Albert Carey Martin, Sr. and was one of the few remaining single-family residences from his firm. As described in the CHC staff report, attached hereto as Exhibit C, though A.C. Martin is considered a master architect, the house is not a notable example of his work. A.C. Martin is known for “his contribution to commercial, industrial, institutional and ecclesiastical designs that have become iconic structures in Los Angeles.” What this all boils down to is not a debate about the period of significance or even a discussion about historical monument qualifications. This is about an illegitimate designation to protect a tenant who refuses to vacate his apartment after BLDG exercised its legal rights. 2. Survey LA’s Designation Constitutes a Taking. The facts in this case demonstrate that the City is using SurveyLA as a de facto historic designation of property, without notice to property owners. The SurveyLA process has been underway for almost a decade. Yet in all those years we are not1 1 (See http://www.daUynews.com/lifestyle/20150616/former-marilyn-monroe-house-in-vaUey- village-razed-while-poised-for-potentiai-preservation and Exhibit B, CHC staff report.) 1097842.1 November 25, 2015 Page 3 aware that the City has ever provided notice to property owners of the results of the survey process nor has there been any process for challenging or reversing the survey results. SurveyLA is problematic because it decreases the value of the Property for purely speculative purposes. SurveyLA states that the Property contributes to a historic district. However, it is important to note that no action has been taken to establish an overlay zone to create this district and there is no evidence of when it may be created in the future. Therefore, the purpose for maintaining the Property is wholly speculative and constitutes a taking. 3. Designation of the Property as an HCM Would Constitute a Taking of Private Property Without Just Compensation. Designation of the Property as a historic cultural monument would result in a taking of private property for a public use without just compensation in violation of Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S, Constitution because BLDG will have no reasonable or beneficial use left to them. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, (1978) 438 U.S. 104. On February 5, 2015, the City approved BLDG’s Notice of Intent to Withdraw Units from Rental Housing, as set forth in Exhibit D. The removal of rental units from the rental market is legal under existing law. It is also a highly regulated field, where property owners must demonstrate to the City that it has met all of the technical requirements set forth in the Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) before the City provides its approval. BLDG provided evidence of its compliance to the City, and the City approved its application. The LAMC also contains severe penalties for property owners that return their property to the rental market after approval of an Ellis Act authorization. Specifically, LAMC §151.25 makes BLDG liable to both the City and the former tenants for actual and exemplary damages. Thus, BLDG could only re-rent the units at the Property at its own risk and if it were willing to expose itself to significant monetary damages. Because of the liability imposed by the Ellis Act, if the City Council approves the CHC’s recommendation to designate the property as an HCM, then BLDG will be deprived of substantially all beneficial use of its property for a term of years. Under the Ellis Act, BLDG cannot rent the property and under the historic monument status BLDG cannot demolish the property to continue its plans to take the Property off the rental market and make beneficial economic use of such property. 1097842.1 November 25, 2015 Page 4 The deprivation of economic use would be based on two different - and in this case conflicting - affirmative actions of the City. Here, City staff has actively worked to devalue the Property by declaring it an HCM. Now, it proposes to take that a step further and deprive BLDG of virtually all economic value by effectively taking away BLDG’s right to take the property off the rental market or to use it for the coming years. Instead, BLDG will be forced to maintain the Property at significant expense, with no opportunity for revenue. This problem is exacerbated by City staff’s attempts to find a buyer for the Property without BLDG’s knowledge or consent. For all of the above reasons, approval of the property as an HCM would constitute a taking of a private property without just compensation. This letter is written without waiver of or prejudice to any and all of our clients rights and remedies. Tim mcosker of GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP cc: Mike Feuer, City Attorney 1097842.1 Exhibit A Correspondence from Armbruster Goldsmith a Delvac LLP dated September 1, 2015 ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP LAND USE ENTITLEMENTSdLITIGATION ^MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY 12100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1600 Dave Rand LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 Tel: (310)209-8800 Fax: (310)209-8801 E-MAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.AGD-LandUse.com November 10, 2015 VIA E-MAIL Mr. Richard Barron President Cultural Heritage Commission 200 North Spring Street, Room 1010 City Hall Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Proposed Designation of 750 N. Edinburgh Avenue (CHC-2015-3386- HCM1; November 19, 2015 Commission Agenda.