Stately Hancock Park Split Over Preservation

When the Los Angeles City Council weighs a plan today to protect historic homes in the stately neighborhood of Hancock Park, the debate could get rather confusing.

Two groups may show up to argue -- one for and one against -- and both will probably claim to be the Hancock Park Home Owners Assn.

As with any other tasty neighborhood dispute in Los Angeles, the roots for this one go back a few years.

Hancock Park is a few miles west of downtown. It is almost entirely residential, with grand homes dating mostly from the 1920s and ‘30s, tree-lined streets and big lush lawns.

In 2001, after prodding from residents, the city surveyed the area and found that in a 66-block area bounded by Highland, Rossmore and Melrose avenues and Wilshire Boulevard, there were 1,113 homes or apartment buildings -- about 86% of the dwellings -- with some historic character.

The report said that many homes had been altered in recent years or replaced with new structures that were out of scale with the neighborhood.

It also reached this not-so-startling conclusion: “The time to preserve Hancock Park is when there is still something left to preserve.”

In 2004, the city enacted an interim law to protect historic properties. After being extended, it is due to expire this fall. In the meantime a permanent law has been drawn up.

But not everyone thought it was such a good idea. Some residents feared that making it a historic district would create rules that were too restrictive.

The dispute managed to take on a religious tint after an Orthodox Jewish congregation tore down a house and relaced it with a larger structure.

The move angered some residents, who said the congregation’s tear-down was illegal -- it later survived legal challenges -- and that it was important that something be done to immediately protect Hancock Park.

Fast-forward to 2005, when the original Hancock Park Home Owners Assn., established in 1948, failed to file annually required forms with the California secretary of state.

This led to suspension of its corporate status. Though the oversight has since been corrected, the lapse allowed an upstart group of homeowners in May to incorporate as the Hancock Park Home Owners Assn.

The old group wanted the preservation plan. The new group didn’t and wasted no time in trying to influence the increasingly divisive debate by attending city meetings.

On July 10, Daniel Stimpert, the lawyer for the upstart group, sent a letter to the original group demanding that members stop referring to themselves as the Hancock Park Home Owners Assn.

On July 11, the new group’s new president, Jimmie Duffy, sent a letter to Hancock Park residents.

In the letter, Duffy alleged that the old group had pretended to represent all of Hancock Park’s homeowners.

He also said the group had acted illegally by spending money and taking public positions even after the state had suspended it.

“To remedy this unfortunate situation, we have legally reconstituted the Hancock Park Home Owners Assn. under new management,” Duffy wrote.

He added: “We believe that the” preservation plan “needs to be tabled.”

In an interview Monday, Duffy elaborated. “This is beyond socialism,” he said. “It’s fascism, where someone can march up your street and tell you that they are in charge and this is the way your house is going to be.”

Duffy said that he is the fourth generation of his family to live in a home designed by architect Paul Williams.

Ten days after he sent the letter, the original Hancock Park Home Owners Assn. filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the upstart of unfair competition and trade libel.

David Makous, lawyer for the original group, said the new group’s claim that it represents area homeowners is “nonsense” and “poppycock.”

It has all led to some confusion. “We were at a city meeting and this group stood up and said they were the association,” said Cindy Chvatal, board member of the original group. “Frankly, it’s silliness. I can say that I am whoever I want to be, but that doesn’t mean that I’m you. It was a deliberate attempt to confuse.”

Historic preservation laws in Los Angeles are nothing new. The city’s planning department says that 21 parts of town have them, including Angelino Heights, West Adams and parts of Van Nuys and Venice.

The thrust of the Hancock Park debate is over what the proposed law would allow residents to do to their homes.

For example, it would allow residents to make a number of changes to their houses as long as they don’t change the facades. Alterations to the front of a house would have to be approved by city planners.

The law would also contain a size restriction: Residents who want to remodel their homes to cover more than 60% of the lot would also have to go to the city.

Opponents fear that despite assurances from the city, any home project would become a bureaucratic tangle.

The City Council is scheduled to vote this morning. The plan was unopposed in the council’s planning committee and it is likely that other members will defer to Councilman Tom LaBonge, whose district includes Hancock Park and who supports the historic preservation plan.

“We feel very comfortable that the majority of people support the plan,” said Renee Weitzer, the chief of staff for LaBonge.

“This is a very rare situation where almost 90% of the homes in an area are deemed historic,” she said. “You find me another area in the U.S. where almost 90% are historic.”