Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PLUM sustains demolition approval for designated Barry Building after contested CEQA appeal
Summary
The committee denied the CEQA appeal of the Barry Building demolition and sustained the Board of Building and Safety and Planning Department findings, after a long hearing in which preservationists argued procedural defects and neighbors and owners cited structural and public‑safety concerns.
The PLUM Committee voted 5–0 to deny an appeal of the environmental impact report and related findings for the proposed demolition of the designated Barry Building at 11973 San Vicente Boulevard, sustaining the Board of Building & Safety's earlier action.
Angelenos for Historic Preservation, represented by attorney Jamie Hall, argued the city's 75‑day deadline to act on the appeal had expired, criticized the timing of rebuttal materials submitted by the applicant, and contended that the EIR improperly segmented analysis and failed to evaluate preservation alternatives. "The applicant conflates the minimal requirements of the soft‑story ordinance with millions of dollars in voluntary full‑scale structural upgrades," Hall said, calling the record incomplete and asserting a history of "demolition by neglect."
Applicant representatives and supporters described extensive technical review in the administrative record, argued preservation alternatives are economically infeasible, and emphasized safety hazards and repeated vandalism at the site. "The city's detailed CEQA findings concerning the economic infeasibility of preserving this building was supported by an additional eight technical reports," said Edward Casey, counsel for the applicant. Neighbors and community members who live near the property repeatedly urged approval on safety grounds, describing the structure as a fire and crime risk.
Planning and Building & Safety staff recounted the administrative record and explained proposed revisions to the mitigation monitoring program to add tribal cultural resources precautions; staff recommended upholding the EIR and findings. After lengthy testimony from advocates on both sides, the committee sustained the project certification and related findings.
Why it matters: The decision resolves a high‑profile dispute between preservation advocates and neighborhood safety proponents. Appellants flagged procedural and substantive concerns that could form the basis of future legal challenge; the city amended mitigation measures to add tribal monitoring procedures as a voluntary safeguard.
Next steps: With the committee vote sustaining the EIR and findings, demolition permitting may proceed consistent with the conditions adopted by the Board of Building & Safety and the administrative record.
