History, Homes, and Hostility in Hancock Park
by Quentin Dunne

Historical preservation hardly seems like a topic that would inflame a community, yet it is precisely the proposal to designate Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) status for the Hancock Park area that has its citizens so divided and emblazened.


Susan Hilton, a lifelong resident of the area, strongly supports the measure to give Hancock Park houses and their landscapes historical preservation status. "I agree with the whole thing. There's some people who move in and do good things with their houses, but there's others who come in and ruin their own treasures. They may think it looks nice, but they look awful. You just say, 'Oh, my God. What have they done with this house?'"


Michael Rosenberg and his wife Sheryl have lived in the Park for 16 years and just as strongly oppose the measure on the grounds it will yank away the rights of homeowners. "Anything you want to do, anything you want to change with your home will be a costly and time-consuming process. Just putting in a swimming pool or planting a tree will take additional fees and reviews." Rosenberg feels so strongly on the matter he has assumed the presidency of the Hancock Park Residents’ Association to lead the fight against the proposed HPOZ, adding, "This is the first time in my life I've been in the front of an issue."

People on both sides find agreement that historic preservation is, in certain cases, a noble and important goal. When the State passed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it did so to assure any work done on a historic landmark would first be carefully reviewed and approved to preserve its character and integrity. Being under the HPOZ would, presumably, shield unique cultural and architectural features from falling prey to shortsighted developers, bottom-line corporate sharks, and the more benign (but just as damaging) threats of neglect and decay.

In the simplest of terms, historic landmark status, in accordance with the Mills Act, provides homeowners with a break on their property taxes, allowing the homeowner to use the money they've saved to maintain the house itself. There is also, of course, the prestige of living in a house that has been deemed worthy of historic preservation which, the hope is, would in turn lead to higher property values. The disadvantage is any and all exterior changes in either the home or its landscape must first be approved by various city planning commissions.

Homeowners who have fully considered the responsibilities and rewards of having a home under HPOZ are free to apply for such status. The controversy in the Hancock Park case is that the measure would cover the entire neighborhood, and home-owners would be forced to comply with the standards whether they want to or not. The measure's opponents paint a scenario of a bureaucratic nightmare of stifling red tape, whistle-blowing neighbors, and decreased property values when prospective buyers learn how little control they will actually have over their new home.

The seeds of the controversy began in August of 2000 when former LA City Councilmember John Ferraro commissioned a $50,000 survey to determine whether or not to recommend Hancock Park HPOZ status. The submitted survey recommended the change, but critics contend that the survey itself was narrow and misleading. Ask anyone, they say, if they're in favor of having their neighborhood protected by the city and of course they'll say yes. Explain to them the full nuances of such protection and they may have second thoughts.


Rosenberg and other residents claim such nuances were never mentioned as the pro-HPOZ forces led by Jim Wolf of the Hancock Park Homeowners' Association went to work. (Calls to Wolf at the HPHA went unreturned.) Anti-HPOZ activists are asking for a freeze on the process and a 90 day period to review the initial survey and check its validity.


As the process stands now, when all of the information is fully gathered and presented, Councilmember Tom LaBonge will cast a deciding vote for or against the measure. LaBonge's spokesperson, Jane Galbraith, says he is presently neutral and waiting to review the full facts.


Although many aspects of the HPOZ controversy are legal and financial, the debate, at times, can venture into uncomfortable territory. One pro-HPOZ Hancock Park resident I spoke with complained, "There's a lot of non-Americans who come in and bastardize the houses, just like the Iranians did in Beverly Hills." At another point, the person commented, "The Koreans are absolutely awful to their houses." When I related the concerns articulated by Michael Rosenberg, the party had questions of their own: "I'd be curious to know about Michael Rosenberg. Where is he from? Is he an American? What's his background?"


Studio City resident and publicist Jim Dobson has heard that the HPOZ will go back to the original guidelines of the ‘20’s when Hancock Park was developed as a closed community to keep out “undesirables,” including Hollywood actors, and that residents don’t fully understand that. He said that he heard gays, blacks, and Jews would be prevented from buying property in Hancock Park if the status is approved.


It may be instructive to look at another area that is already under HPOZ. Laurie Frank has lived in the Whitley Heights area of the Hollywood Hills since ‘88. She describes her house, once owned by Maurice Chevalier, as her "Dream home." In fact, so many of the neighboring houses were equally beautiful and also boasted past movie star inhabitants that the neighborhood gained historic preservation status 5 years ago. The result, Frank says, was horrific. "Some HPOZ's at least try to be fair, and some are micromanaged. We had one that was micromanaged by power-hungry people. People don't understand how stringent it can be."


Several years ago, Frank wanted to buy 11 Moroccan windows to place in the back of her house, an area she claims is almost entirely out of view from her neighbors. At the time, she planned to use money she had in the stock market to pay for the windows. When she asked permission to install the windows, she was turned down. So she appealed and kept fighting, insisting, "I didn't choose to live in a museum." Eventually, she won the right to install half as many windows as she'd originally wished. However, the process took so long that, by the time her approval came, she'd lost a great deal of money in the stock market and was no longer able to afford the windows. Even now, the memory stokes her anger. "I think this is really a constitutional issue. They're violating my rights as a homeowner. If I had the money, I would really take this all the way to the Supreme Court."


Still, many remain steadfast in their support of all-encompassing HPOZ's. When told of Laurie Frank's story, Susan Hilton responded, "Well, what kind of house did she have to begin with? Did she want to add Moroccan windows to a Tudor-style house?"


Although the Homeowners Association and the Residents Associations have been polarized on the preservation issue, some maintain a more neutral stance. And perhaps it's a calmer voice that deserves the last word. Real estate agent Lisa Hutchins grew up in Hancock Park and now resides in the Windsor Square area. Her thoughts? "Some days I'm for it and some days I'm against it," she says. When pressed for a more specific answer, Hutchins remains noncommittal but elaborates a bit. "It's a tough call. On the one hand, you see these monoliths going up and you want to do something to preserve the neighborhood's character. But on the other hand, some of the language used for the HPOZ is pretty close to fascist."


For further information, visit the Hancock Park Residents Association at www.HPLA.org/hpoz.shtml or call the Hancock Park Homeowners' Association at (323) 931-5478.