Preservationists Hail Vote Blocking Bungalow Razing

In a dramatic victory for preservationists, the Los Angeles Building and Safety Commission voted 4 to 0 Tuesday to revoke demolition permits for Highland-Camrose Bungalow Village, a cluster of 13 early-Hollywood homes that the City Council has authorized as a historic and cultural landmark.

The commission action effectively prohibits developers from tearing down the 60- and 70-year-old buildings without first preparing an environmental-impact report, which would assess the historic merit of the structures and the impact of the demolition. City officials would then be able to deny any new demolition permits if they so chose, deputy City Atty. Mark Brown said.

In addition, the action assures preservationists of at least six additional months to come up with the $2 million necessary to buy and preserve the village, located at Highland and Camrose avenues near the Hollywood Bowl.

The Jan Development Co., which owns the 1.3-acre site, obtained demolition permits in February in hopes of tearing down the village and building a 180-unit luxury apartment complex. The permits were suspended two weeks after they were issued so that city officials could consider whether to designate the village a historical landmark--a status the City Council approved in April.

‘We’re Delighted’

“This will remove the threat of demolition and put us in better stead for protection,” said Brian Moore, president of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns., a homeowners group that has fought to preserve the bungalows. “We’re delighted about the (environmental report).”

Moore said an environmental report would justify the preservation. He said residents have lined up a third-party investor who intends to provide much of the money necessary for the effort, although he refused to disclose details of the plan.

Preservationists are scheduled to report on their progress Wednesday to the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission.

Edward Czuker, vice president of Jan Development, said the company is--and has been--willing to let residents acquire the property for the $2 million the firm spent to buy it late last year. The company sent eviction notices to bungalow tenants in January, but residents fought the evictions by launching a preservationist movement.

Residents described the structures, built in California Craftsman and Dutch Colonial architectural styles, as valuable legacies of early Hollywood. Many are believed to be the former homes of screen stars of the 1920s and 1930s.

Court Fight

In a battle of attorneys, developers argued Tuesday that they should be allowed to keep the existing demolition permits in case preservationists are unable to raise the money to protect the village. If the preservation effort fails, developer attorney Gary Green argued, the company should be allowed to tear down the buildings as previously planned.

Green said the company had complied with the suspension of the permits and that the developer would guarantee that no buildings would be destroyed unless the preservation movement fell through.

“We’re asking to maintain the status quo,” he told commissioners. “The structures will and shall continue to exist.”

Deputy City Atty. Brown argued that the permits should have been formally revoked as soon as the council took action in April to approve the bungalows as cultural monuments. The council action retroactively voided the permits and made it impossible for the structures to be torn down without an environmental report, he said.

In an initial vote on the issue, commission members Benito Sinclair and Rosa Leong sided with company officials, arguing that the council’s action should not have had a retroactive effect on the demolition permits. But they later voted against the company after Czuker tried to deal with commissioners by offering to prepare an environmental report.

In an interview, Czuker said he was less concerned about the estimated $20,000 to $50,000 cost of an environmental report than by the additional delays the commission action might cause. A six-month delay in construction could cost the company perhaps $50,000 to $100,000 in mortgage payments and interest costs, he said.