Proposal for Huge Historic Zone Raises Complex Issues for Planners

The Los Angeles Planning Commission is expected today to sort out a host of issues posed by a local effort to establish what would be the largest historic preservation district in the city.

A neighborhood group and the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission are calling for the creation of a historic district covering a wide swath of Highland Park and including about 3,000 structures. It would have five times as many buildings as the largest of the city’s five existing historic districts.

In such areas, called Historic Preservation Overlay Zones, an appointed community board reviews proposed demolition and construction projects to ensure that they complement the historic character of the neighborhood.

The proposed boundaries raise questions about how to properly administer a large historic district that also contains many architecturally undistinguished buildings, as well as commercial areas.

The Planning Department has suggested reducing the district’s size or creating a limited number of smaller zones that would be administered by separate boards.

But members of the Highland Park Heritage Trust, a neighborhood preservation group, adamantly support the larger district. “We’re looking at a community. We’re not just looking at a neighborhood within a community,” trust board member Charles Fisher said.

The irregularly shaped district proposed by the Cultural Heritage Commission includes a corridor along both sides of Figueroa Street and bounded by Avenue 35 on the south and York Boulevard on the north.

In order for such a large area to be effectively administered, the 1983 ordinance that established historic districts will need to be amended, according to a Planning Department report released last week.

For example, the low concentration of historic structures in the proposed Highland Park district has led planners to consider creating a separate review process that would be less costly and time consuming for owners of property not deemed to have historic merit.

But the ordinance governing historic districts subjects all buildings within the zone to the same review process, regardless of their architectural value. Any change to that process would require an amendment to the ordinance.

The Planning Commission may also consider whether to require a minimum concentration of historic buildings within a historic district and how much policy-making power to give the community associations that oversee those districts.

Decisions about the creation of the Highland Park district will affect future historic zones in the city, said Fernando Torres-Gil, vice president of the Planning Commission. Discussing general policy issues raised by the Highland Park proposal will be the commission’s first priority at the hearing tonight, he said.

The Highland Park Heritage Trust and the Planning Department have each sponsored surveys of the community’s numerous Spanish Revival, Craftsman and Victorian houses and do not agree on the percentage of historic structures within the boundaries.

Only half of the 3,000 buildings in the boundaries designated by the Cultural Heritage Commission have historic merit, compared to at least 80% of the structures in the five other districts, city planner Daniel M. Scott said.

But Fisher said data on historic buildings is still being gathered and the percentage of historic structures is closer to 65% or 70%.

Rather than issuing a single recommendation or suggested maps, the Planning Department report released last week outlined options for the Planning Commission to explore. They include reducing the size of the proposed district, breaking it up into a limited number of zones and creating a large district with boundaries that resemble those proposed by the Cultural Heritage Commission in May.

The report did not rule out a proposal made in August by hearing examiner Eric Ritter to form 15 smaller zones within the larger boundaries proposed by the Cultural Heritage Commission.

But the planning staff called Ritter’s proposal “functionally impractical” because, under the current ordinance, each of the 15 zones would require its own appointed board. Assembling so many boards would be too difficult, city planners say.

Each panel consists of four members appointed by the mayor, the City Council and the Cultural Heritage Commission and a fifth chosen by the other four. Representatives of real estate and the construction industry, and an architect, also must be included.

The volunteer panel examines all proposals for new construction or major alteration to buildings within the zone and then recommends to the Planning Commission whether to grant a “certificate of appropriateness.” The panel can also draw up design standards for new construction and remodeling projects.

Not everyone in the community shares the heritage trust’s desire for expansive boundaries.

Virginia Johannessen, a resident of Mt. Washington, argued that the group’s proposed boundaries are too large. “It’s putting a huge financial burden on people who will never see that money back,” she said.

Currently, a “certificate of appropriateness” costs a property owner or developer about $300 in city fees.

City Councilman Richard Alatorre, who represents part of the area, supports the creation of a large district similar to the one proposed by the Cultural Heritage Commission. Councilman Mike Hernandez, who represents the remainder of the area, is waiting for a Planning Commission recommendation before taking a position, a spokesperson said.