CAN THE SILVER PLATTER BAR BE SAVED?

T Plus Forty-Four Weeks and Counting

I wasn’t planning to write about the pending demolition of the Silver Platter bar, located at 2700 W 7^th Street in the Westlake district. But now I must because of misinformation I posted in a recent Substack comment.

In my comment, I asked if everyone had overlooked the expiration of project approval. I was sure that the entitlements expired in April. I was in error; project approval is still active. And, contrary to a subsequent post on Esotouric’s Secret Los Angeles, my comment wasn’t a bombshell, but a dud.

WHERE DID I GO WRONG?

Based on further investigation, the issuance of a demolition permit is possible. I apologize for putting out false hope that the Letter of Determination (LoD), (provide link) the official document that specifies the approved entitlements, has expired.

My error is due to an assumption on my part that the LoD is a self-contained document. The LoD clearly specifies various dates such as approval (17 April 2022), last day to file an appeal (1 April 2022), and effective date (2 April 2022). The LoD clearly states on page 5, condition 20, that the LoD expires within 3 years pending certain conditions:

20. Expiration. In the event that this grant is not utilized within three years of its effective date (the day following the last day that an appeal may be filed), the grant shall be considered null and void. Issuance of a building permit, and the initiation of, and diligent continuation of, construction activity shall constitute utilization for the purposes of this grant.

However, nowhere is it stated within the LoD document or on the City Planning Case File project page that the COVID-19 emergency tolling period applies. You’re just supposed to know. Mayor Garcetti approved the tolling ordinance on 21 March 2020. Mayor Bass rescinded the ordinance on 28 February 2023.

During the tolling period, all compliance dates were placed on hold. With the expiration of the tolling period, the clock restarted. Building permits and related documents received a special adjustment that added time to comply, Community Plans and ordinances requiring City Council approval received no such adjustment. It was a clear example of developers receiving special treatment while the public was rushed to get back up to speed and provide comment.

The LoD for the Silver Platter project took effect 2 April 2022 with expiration originally set to occur on 2 April 2025 (i.e., 3 years). The tolling period adds to the original expiration date the time from when the LoD takes effect to the end of the tolling period plus 6 months. If my math is correct, the revised expiration date is 28 August 2026, about 9 months from now and 17 months from the original date.

In my defense, City Planning should clearly call out the actual date of expiration on each and every permit and supporting document. I tried to check the effect of the tolling period prior to commenting, but all I found was a Department of Building and Safety webpage announcing the expiration of the tolling ordinance. The webpage states ”Click here for important information regarding expiration dates of your permits and related documents,” but there is no clickable link.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

While the threat of demolition still looms over the building, I believe there is much the city can do to support the Silver Platter bar. Back in early July 2024, I contacted CD-1 Councilmember Hernandez and her staff to discuss some actions that the city could take to honor the history of the bar. Proposed actions included:

• Approach the developer and ascertain the potential for adaptive reuse. Demolition of the building may be prompted by the inclusion of elevated and below grade parking. Demolition and excavation can be avoided by the elimination of parking as now allowed by AB 2097 for TOC projects.

• Instruct the Office of Historic Resources to direct Sapphos Environmental to revise their Historic Assessment Report to address the cultural significance of this legacy “safe haven” business to the Los Angeles LGBTQ and Latin community. The exclusion of cultural significance is a major omission and a slight to the community. Please note, correcting the report does not require Council to halt or disapprove the project. The intent of correction is to give proper respect to a beloved institution.

• Dependent on the findings of the corrected Historic Assessment Report, CD-1 and OHR staff should nominate the intersection of 7th and Rampart as Silver Platter Square. This nomination by the City does not affect the demolition process but does acknowledge the importance of this legacy “safe haven” business to the community.

• Arrange for a meeting between the developer and the owner of the bar to determine the possibility of this legacy bar reopening in the ground floor commercial space at a reduced lease rate. Adaptive reuse, and the elimination of parking, should generate sufficient savings to offset the reduction in the lease.

CD-1 staff replied with a very cordial message. They were thankful for my advocacy on the issue. They then mentioned the complex state and local planning issues, that the major site revisions I proposed were not feasible.

THE TYPICAL CITY RESPONSE

Notice, I did not request major site revisions. I requested CD-1 to facilitate a meeting with the developer to explore the potential option of adaptive reuse. I requested CD-1 to contact OHR and direct the developer to correct the historic record. Instead of taking constructive action, CD-1 staff chose to take a “hands off” position and view my suggestions as impossible, beyond their authority to act.

Their reply went on as to how there was nothing they could do because the project was “deemed complete” under state law and that the 90-day appeal period had passed. They also brought up the State Housing Crisis Act (HCA) and if the city violates the HCA, they would be subject to financial daily penalties and be in jeopardy of losing all affordable housing dollars received from the State.

My emails to CD-1 staff continued for days as I tried to confirm the basis of their claims. Every document I sent, every question I posed about the law, was met by silence. Based on my research, their claims as to the HCA impacting their ability to alter a project once it is “deemed complete” are not correct in reference to the designation of a potentially historic building.

Their reference to the city being fined for every housing unit denied is a red herring. It’s a sanitized story put out by the City Attorney. It’s a claim stated by rote when the public asks their councilmember for help in protecting a building. I’ve written elsewhere about this issue and will provide a brief summary. If you want more details, see my post “Is the Housing Accounting Act Anti-Preservation?”.

THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Briefly, the Housing Act (Section 65913.10(a)) requires the historic determination for a housing project to be made when the application is deemed complete. City Planning has 30 days to review and rule the application complete, pending corrections for errors. The intent of the law is to prevent cities from repeatedly delaying projects by coming up with new requirements.

However, the Housing Act also includes a disclaimer (Section 65913.10(c)) that states that nothing in Section 65913.10 supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the requirements of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. Under CEQA, the Cultural Heritage Commission can revisit a prior historic assessment when new information is brought to light.

A new historic evaluation can lead to the filing of an HCM application, and the acceptance of the application triggers a stay on demolition. If the building is designated historic, additional steps are required to justify building demolition. Designation is not project denial, all it does is move the controlling regulation from the housing act to CEQA. All of these actions are possible, but the city has yet to acknowledge their authority to do so as granted by section 65913.10(c).

What about the fines? Will the City be subject to a court-imposed fine of $10,000 or more per housing unit denied as specified Section 65589.5 of the HAA? I’m not a lawyer, but the Technical Assistance Advisory issued by the State in September 2020 presents a very different picture.

When a city denies a compliant housing project, the developer or an interested party may bring the city to court. In court, the city must defend their action and show that denial was not done in bad faith. If the city successfully defends their action, the case is dismissed and the denial stands. If the city cannot defend their action, the judge will order compliance. The city has 60 days to approve the project. Fines are imposed if the city refuses to comply with the Court order, not for project denial.

The intent of the HAA is to prevent cities from rejecting projects on the sole basis of size or aesthetics alone. The law is not intended to prevent the preservation of historic resources as clearly indicated by the inclusion of Section 65913.10(c). In failing to use their authority, the city is allowing potentially historic buildings to be destroyed all for the sake of avoiding a court case to defend their actions.

THE $64,000 QUESTION

The city is taking the position that the HAA is absolute, forcing them to allow the demolition of a potentially historic building even if the assessment is flawed or outdated. I contend that CEQA allows for the reassessment of a building whenever new information comes to light. If reassessment results in the building being declared historic, then the project is no longer CEQA exempt. Historic status kicks the project out of the HAA, and fines due to project denial no longer apply. The major question is which law controls with reference to historic buildings?

I posed this question to the Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) with the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The HAU is responsible for answering questions and addressing violations of the Housing Accountability Act and its subset, the Housing Crisis Act.

After filing my request for technical assistance and submitting additional emails about the nature of my inquiry, I had to attend an online meeting. The meeting was cordial, but it was more for me to explain my inquiry again and respond to questions. In the meeting, I was told it was their job to help project applicants use the law to defend against violators (i.e., cities). It was highly unusual for them to assist in a case where the Housing Act might violate another law such as CEQA. Here’s the extent of their help that I received in an email:

Thank you for reaching out to the Housing Accountability Unit and submitting a request through our portal. HCD understands your frustration. However, upon completing our initial review of the request, the HAU is unable to identify a clear violation of a housing law for which HCD has enforcement authority and will be closing the case.

No clear violation, no enforcement authority. What they are saying is that I am not a developer with a denied project, so they see no violation. They see their job as only going after cities that deny housing projects. The misuse of the housing law to tear down historic buildings and prohibit historic designation is not their concern.

I replied that I was disappointed that they decided to close my case. I understood that they did not have enforcement authority regarding my specific issue, but they are the primary source for answering questions about housing law. If they cannot provide an answer, who can? Here’s their subsequent reply:

I understand your frustration. Limitations in staff resources necessitate prioritization among submitted technical assistance requests. At this point you may be best served consulting a qualified land use attorney to further explore your CEQA question. I’ve copied City Planning for awareness.

All of these exchanges occurred in July 2024. I have received no further replies from CD-1, from City Planning, or from the State as to my inquiry. Subsequent emails went unanswered. No information has been forthcoming from CD-1 or City Planning as to project status. Esotouric reports that the bar owner is looking to relocate and that the developer’s website has gone dark. No effort has been made by OHR to correct the historical record.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Trying to figure out complex planning and environmental regulations is never an easy task. The laws are loaded with qualifiers and exceptions, any one of which can change the meaning of the law. Lawyers are paid large amounts because they have an obligation to remain current and up to date in reference to case law. Court rulings are often where the specific details of a law are defined and worked out.

I know many people who are trying to make a difference in this complex field. It’s a difficult road to travel, and mistakes will happen. My mistake prompted this post. I’ll try to do better.

It’s sad to say that our city, once a leader in the field of historic preservation, now lags behind. We no longer have an independent Historic Cultural Commission and the advice received often parrots City Planning. Our City Attorney, an official office that could help, is on record that she is not there to serve the public.

Our local council members might be of help, but the council district system tends to hide the extent of the problem and dilute public effort. Public comments are handled case-by-case, address-by-address, making it easier for officials to ignore the size and extent of the problem. An historic building is lost, people move on, and the routine repeats in another district with new players.

Today I’m talking about the Silver Platter bar in the Westlake district. Tomorrow I might be talking about the Hollywood Center Motel in Hollywood. But my comments about housing law and historic preservation apply equally throughout the city. Where is the mechanism by which the public can enact change city-wide?

We need some form of recognized collective where people can come together to help and aid each other. A place where problems can be identified and the solutions derived from crowd-sourced support. The seeds of such a collective are slowly taking root. There is a community effort underway to address the problems associated with vacant buildings and demolition by neglect. I’ll soon be posting about it.

Of course, none of this helps the Silver Platter bar, and I’m sorry I cannot do more. I tried to propose some viable solutions but was met by opposition. When city officials refuse to ask a developer to consider adaptive reuse, when they refuse to ask for the correction of errors and omissions in a project document, and when the nomination of a public space is viewed as asking for the impossible, we know that this city does not give a damn about preservation and their thanks for our advocacy tastes like ashes in our mouths.