Comments
PERSPECTIVE - In the world of Los Angeles land use, there is the law, and then there is City Hall Logic.
On Tuesday, April 14, 2026 the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee has scheduled yet another hearing for the appeal filed by the Angeleno’s for Historic Preservation (AHP) to prevent the demolition of the Barry Building (HCM #887). AHP will be in attendance, but let’s be clear: they are appearing strictly under protest.
This hearing isn't a routine meeting; it is a desperate attempt by the City to cure the egregious procedural and legal violations that occurred during the February 24, 2026 PLUM hearing. While the City tries to hit the reset button on its own misconduct, AHP is showing up only to ensure their right to seek judicial relief remains firmly preserved.
The reason for AHP’s protest is a matter of law, not just opinion. According to the City’s own appeal form CP13-7840, which explicitly cites the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), the authority to act on this CEQA appeal officially expired on March 6th. By failing to hold a valid, lawful hearing before that deadline, the City allowed the clock to run out. Under the law, the appeal is now deemed denied.
This is what it reads on form CP13-7840:
“The appellate body must act on the appeal within a time period specified in the LAMC Section(s) pertaining to the type of appeal being filed. Los Angeles City Planning will make its best efforts to have appeals scheduled prior to the appellate body’s last day to act in order to provide due process to the appellant. If the appellate body is unable to come to a consensus or is unable to hear and consider the appeal prior to the last day to act, the appeal is automatically deemed denied, and the original decision will stand. The last day to act as defined in the LAMC may only be extended if formally agreed upon by the applicant.”
The only reason the public is being summoned to this legislative séance is that the City is desperate to resurrect a process they killed themselves. The original February 24, 2026 hearing was such a blatant violation of the Brown Act that it rendered the entire proceeding a nullity.
AHP is only participating to prevent the City from later claiming AHP failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when it inevitably takes this matter to a real court - one that actually respects both the public’s right to be heard and the statutory deadlines on the calendar.
The Quorum That Wasn't
This do-over hearing is only happening because of the City’s own procedural stumbles, and by holding it the City confirms the Brown Act violations asserted by AHP.
This legal mess was born of a "show must go on" attitude that prioritized optics over the law. During the February 24th hearing, the Committee lost its quorum, the minimum number of members required to legally conduct business. Instead of stopping or pausing the meeting as the law requires, Councilmembers Blumenfield and Raman simply decided to keep up the appearance of a meeting, ushering the proceedings forward as if their lack of legal authority were a mere technicality. By treating the City Charter and the Brown Act as optional suggestions, they effectively turned a government hearing into a hollow performance.
The most surreal—and shameful—moment of this performance occurred when a public speaker identified himself as an indigenous person to provide testimony on the City’s violation of AB 52 (the law governing Tribal Consultation). As he spoke about the protection of his community's cultural resources, Councilmembers Blumenfield and Raman didn't just ignore the legal weight of the testimony; they engaged in a casual personal conversation right over his voice. It was a masterclass in institutional disrespect. By treating an indigenous person's formal testimony as public background noise while simultaneously violating the Brown Act, the Committee made it clear that they aren't just ignoring the law—they are ignoring the very people the law is meant to protect.
The Empty Lot Fairy Tale
The core of AHP’s latest supplemental letter exposes a logic gap you could drive a bulldozer through. The applicant has claimed, under penalty of perjury, that there is no future project planned—only the demolition of a Historic-Cultural Monument, with no replacement project whatsoever. Yet, in a classic case of double-speak, the City justifies destroying the Barry Building by citing future housing benefits. You cannot legally claim housing credits while simultaneously refusing to analyze the environmental impacts of that very development.
The reality is far less noble: the property owner intends to sell the site. Rather than selling it with the Historic-Cultural Monument in place, they are attempting to use the power of city government to clear the land and generate a higher sale price at the expense of our heritage. The public is expected to believe that a property owner is enduring years of litigation and EIR expenses just to leave behind a vacant dirt lot in Brentwood. It’s a fairy tale, and a legally defective one at that.
What’s at Stake
Beyond the piecemealing of the project, the City continues to dismiss expert evidence while the applicant has obstructed building access. Additionally, the City prematurely closed consultations with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, ignoring evidence of tribal cultural resources on the site.
How the Public Can Help
AHP and Barry Building supporters are not going away. This is an election year, and it is time to remind your representatives that the law applies to them, too.
1. Show Up: Join AHP at City Hall on April 14, 2026 at 2:00 PM in City Hall Council Chamber, Room 340. Let the PLUM Committee members see that the public is watching this process with a very critical eye.
2. Email the Committee members: Reach out to Councilmembers Blumenfield, Nazarian, Raman, Hutt, and Lee. Tell them to grant the appeal based on the evidence in Council File 25-1518.
3. Remind the Mayor: Voters care about this city’s heritage and the integrity of the law. Let them know your vote depends on them upholding both.
AHP and Barry Building supporters are asking the City to do the right thing: reverse the demolition approval, rescind the EIR certification, and deny the permit. It shouldn't take a do-over to follow the law, but here we are.
(Ziggy Kruse Blue and Bob Blue are frequent contributors to CityWatchLA. They can be reached at [email protected])
