The Los Angeles City Council on Sept. 12 sent the dispute over the Holiday Bowl on Crenshaw Boulevard to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee after receiving an agreement from the property owner to refrain from pulling demolition permits for 60 days.

Council Member Mark Holden, who chaired the committee hearing, urged the council to preserve the Holiday Bowl for one year while preservationists seek a buyer or funding to restore the building. "My recommendation to the council ... is that the bowl be reserved for the period of a year," Holden said, adding that the structure has local historic and social value.

The council heard competing presentations from preservation advocates and the property owner’s representatives. Jay Orrin of the Cultural Affairs Department told the council the Holiday Bowl, built in 1957, "is a good example of increasingly rare Googie style modern architecture" and that the Cultural Heritage Commission found the site "a culturally important sports and entertainment center associated with Los Angeles African American and Japanese American history." Ken Bernstein of the Los Angeles Conservancy said designation met the cultural heritage ordinance criteria and urged the council to protect the building.

Representing the property owner, Elizabeth Watson of Greenberg Glusker told the council the site is dilapidated and that the owners are in escrow with a developer. Watson said the developer "has hit the ground running" and that national and regional retailers are interested; she told the council that potential tenants and lenders will not finalize deals while the designation cloud remains. Watson said operators and equipment vendors told the owner the estimated investment to reopen the site as a bowling alley would be about $5,500,000 and that vendors would not commit that capital.

Architect Vicky Barbieri, who said her firm works on revitalization and preservation projects, told the council it was "practically an impossibility to make any design that makes any economic sense whatsoever, preserving the building as it is," citing zoning, planning and building code constraints.

Council Member Holden said the property is four acres and that the Holiday Bowl occupies roughly one acre at the front of the site; he said the proposed new stores would sit toward the rear and that, in his view, preservation for a fixed period would not prevent construction of the new retail development. Preservation advocates stressed the building’s role as a community anchor and recalled its long history as an integrated meeting place.

After extended debate and public testimony on both sides, the council voted to refer the matter to PLUM and to accept a developer stipulation. Elizabeth Watson agreed on the record to a 60-day period during which the owner will not apply for a demolition permit while the council and stakeholders pursue review and negotiation. The referral passed on a 13-0 vote.

The council also recorded that the Cultural Heritage Commission had recommended designation under the cultural heritage ordinance, and that preservation advocates were willing to negotiate further measures — including reusing distinctive architectural elements — after designation and during the PLUM review.

The PLUM referral means the council will consider the planning review, possible design alternatives and any legal constraints before returning the item for a final vote. The council clerk recorded the full set of public testimony for the official file; the council chair said unanswered cards would be made part of the record.

Council members repeatedly asked for a practical resolution that balanced revitalization and preservation. The 60-day developer agreement preserves time for negotiation; the council’s referral signals further staff and committee analysis ahead of any final designation or permit action.