Preservation Ordinance Vote Postponed Again

It has been nearly a year since Texas rancher Barton English enraged preservationists across the country by buying the landmark Blacker House and promptly stripping it of its original lighting fixtures.

Although that uproar has died down, a proposed ordinance specifically designed to prevent such actions has generated almost as much controversy.

After ordering several revisions, the Board of City Directors is still grappling with amendments to a cultural heritage ordinance that would restrict alterations to structures more than 50 years old, a classification that includes 25% to 30% of the buildings in Pasadena.

On Monday evening, the board again postponed a decision on the amendments after hearing more than 20 speakers, including members of the Chamber of Commerce and the Pasadena Board of Realtors, complain that the proposed revisions are too restrictive.

“I believe it’s an invasion of property rights,” resident Bill Thomas said.

He was followed to the podium by another resident, Ed McNamara, who told the board: “This ordinance is not acceptable. As amended, the proposed ordinance is an open door. There (are) no holds barred if the commission can suggest that the property be put up as a treasure with no approval from the owner.”

‘It’s Overkill’

Tom Snelson, executive director of the Chamber of Commerce, said: “We feel it’s overkill.”

The proposed ordinance and its attendant problems were spawned by the actions of English, the Texas rancher who bought the Blacker House last June for $1.2 million and promptly stripped it of roughly 50 original lighting fixtures valued at about $1 million.

In its current form, the proposed ordinance states that a structure more than 50 years old may be designated as a “historical treasure” if it meets certain historical preservation criteria. Under such a designation, the owner would be prohibited from changing the interior, exterior or landscaping without city approval.

The ordinance also provides economic incentives, such as waiving fees and zoning requirements, for preserving historic buildings.

Historical Treasure

At issue in the ordinance are two provisions that stipulate that a building may be designated as a historical treasure without the owner’s consent and that eminent domain proceedings may be used to block demolition of a historically significant structure.

Although the ordinance says that the first provision may be used “only as last resort, when no feasible alternative is seen,” almost all of the speakers on Monday demanded that it, and the eminent domain clause, be removed.

The board did not vote on the proposed amendments because two members, Loretta Thompson-Glickman and John Crowley, left early. Another hearing on the issue has been scheduled for 5 p.m. Monday in City Hall.

City directors are divided on the issue, with Glickman and Jo Heckman, who is a real estate dealer, opposing it, and the other five directors expressing varying levels of support.

‘Difficult, Complex Process’

“The board is not of one mind on this issue, which is part of the problem . . . so we don’t have a clear picture from them on what they want,” said Paul Gleye, the city’s principal planner in the Housing and Community Development Agency and author of the ordinance. “It’s been a much more difficult, complex process than we had originally intended.”

Despite their differences, board members said Wednesday that the measure will probably pass if the two contested provisions are removed.

“I think it will pass,” Director Jess Hughston said. “I think everyone will vote for it, if those two things are removed, except Jo Heckman. I think she’ll vote against it no matter what.”

‘Like Living in Russia’

And Heckman confirmed that she would vote against the ordinance. “I don’t like it. I think it’s ambiguous. I’m for preservation, but the way I feel about it now, I’d like to see it dropped. It feels like we’re living in Russia.”

Glickman, who said she will grudgingly vote for the ordinance if the two conditions are dropped, expressed dismay over the whole issue. “I’m just appalled that we could consider doing something . . . that would take away people’s property rights. I would probably go ahead and support the ordinance with the adjustments, but I wouldn’t support it as it stands now.”

Last June, English enraged preservationists across the country, who called his removal of the fixtures “rape.” City directors immediately passed an emergency ordinance barring the removal of interior and exterior fixtures from buildings more than 50 years old, and have extended it several times since then while they struggled to come up with a permanent law.

Built by pioneering Pasadena architects Charles and Henry Greene, the turn-of-the-century house is the largest and most elaborate California bungalow ever designed by the Greene brothers, who became internationally known for their Craftsman style of architecture.

The three-story, 20-room residence sits on a one-acre parcel in the exclusive enclave of Oak Knoll.

City officials and members of Pasadena Heritage, a private preservation group, and the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission, negotiated for months with English to try to get him to return the fixtures and to sell the house to new owners who would preserve it intact.

Despite several meetings, English rejected all offers and has refused to return the fixtures.