Historic Battle Rages Over Preservation Law

Douglas and Donna Sutcliffe wanted to re-shingle their roof. But because their 1906 California bungalow is on a list of historic homes in image-conscious Sierra Madre, that meant seeking approval from a review board.

And that also meant, the Sutcliffes say, red tape and delay.

So four years ago they joined 28 other property owners in an effort to free themselves from the city’s historic preservation law, launching a political and legal tangle that has snowballed into a lawsuit drawing in a dizzying array of players statewide.

“This case concerns the future of the 29 properties,” said Susan Brandt-Hawley, an attorney in the case. “But it also has broad impacts statewide.”

Each party has something to lose. Environmental groups fear that the California Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a decision on the suit today, could undermine state environmental laws. Leaders of cities and counties across the state worry that the court will reduce their ability to place ballot measures before voters.

And historic preservationists say nothing less than the state’s cultural character is at stake.

It began, quietly enough, in the three-square-mile town of Sierra Madre, which grants tax advantages to houses on a local historic register but requires approval from the city Cultural Heritage Commission for any work on those homes that is visible from the street.

In 1997, the 29 irate property owners objected that the law infringed on their rights and that they hadn’t sought listing on the historic register to begin with. Among them was Nel Solt, the owner of the city’s signature giant wisteria vine, who worried that her ability to trim the plant could be restricted by the historical ordinance.

Responding to the complaints that year, the City Council created a ballot measure to remove the property owners from the list.

In April 1998, the measure was approved by 65% of the voters. The result was promptly challenged in court by historic preservationists who complained that the City Council should have performed environmental impact reports for each home--reports that can cost as much as $2,500 each.

After losing in a Los Angeles courtroom that year, the city lost again in 1999 at a state appeals court, which agreed with environmentalists that the California Environmental Quality Act requires environmental reports for such measures placed on ballots by local governments. City leaders appealed to the California Supreme Court, which heard the case Feb. 7.

Among those siding with the plaintiffs are state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and members of the Planning & Conservation League, a coalition of environmental groups that lobbies on statewide policy. These critics worry that a victory by the city would create a legal loophole allowing local governments to escape environmental studies for big developments by putting them on the ballot.

A city that wants to allow construction of a shopping center without the expense and delay of environmental reviews, for example, “would say, ‘Hey, let’s put it to the vote of the people and let them decide,’ ” said Bill Yeates, a lawyer with the planning league. “We worry that the environmental issues would never be considered.”

And it’s important that residents know the environmental effects of a project before voting, Yeates added.

But Kate Stacy, a deputy San Francisco city attorney representing the California State Assn. of Counties and 87 cities that are backing Sierra Madre in the case, argues that voters wouldn’t let local governments wreak environmental havoc. More importantly, requiring cities and counties to perform an environmental study before putting a project before voters would stifle the initiative process, she said.

An unfavorable decision would make it difficult for a city or county to place a measure on the same ballot as a competing citizen initiative, because of the time required to prepare an environmental review, Stacy said.

“The voters won’t have the choice of two initiatives,” she said.

The Building Industry Assn., a construction trade group, also supports Sierra Madre, arguing that projects will be cheaper and quicker to build if environmental reports are not required for proposals the city places before voters.

Joining the environmentalists on the other side is the California Preservation Foundation, which sees the environmental reviews as necessary to protect the state’s heritage. Three of the Sierra Madre homes in question, local preservationists point out, were built by famous architects Irving Gill and brothers Charles and Henry Greene.

“We want historical resources to remain a part of [the environmental quality act],” said foundation executive director Roberta Deering. “If valuable parts of our heritage and environment aren’t given adequate consideration, we could lose them.”

Sierra Madre has two options if the justices vote against the city, said Michael Zischke, an attorney for the city: conduct environmental studies on each of the 29 properties or leave it to citizens to place on the ballot a measure removing the homes from the historic register. Citizen-sponsored initiatives are exempt from the environmental-study requirements.

Councilwoman Kris Miller Fisher, who opposed appealing the city’s two court defeats, said the city has spent more than three times as much on legal bills as it would have for environmental studies to remove the homes from the list.

“For Sierra Madre, with a small budget, to challenge state law is outrageous,” Fisher said.

But Mayor Robert Stockly thinks the battle has been worth fighting.

“The question was put before the voters,” who agreed to take the homes off the historic register, he said. “It’s really incumbent for us to pursue that before the courts.”

Donna Sutcliffe said she and her husband, who have lived in their home since 1969, would seriously consider moving out of town if the Supreme Court decision put their home back on the historic register.

“I never thought it would get this big,” she said. “I was naive.”