LA OBSERVER-A charming Los Feliz home built 100 years ago - a rare work by A.C. Martin Sr., who had a hand in designing City Hall and is one of LA’s best-known early 20th century architects - seems headed for the dustbin.
The final nail in the coffin of the Martin-designed Oswald Bartlett House is likely to be supplied shortly when the City Council considers a recommendation that would, in effect, okay the house’s demolition.
Those seeking to save the Bartlett house by having it designated a historic-cultural monument contend they have been frustrated by a developer using his City Hall pull to grease the skids of city government to get his project approved. And make no mistake, there is evidence to back their suspicions.
But there’s also an amusing irony in this story. A twist, unlike other elements in this murky little drama, that can be nailed down.
Key players in the Bartlett house drama have been Brentwood developer Elan Mordoch and his associate Gabriel Eshaghian, a real estate investor with The Somerset Group whose involvement in this controversy has escaped media scrutiny.
Mordoch’s Kenmore Investments LLC owns the Bartlett property and wants to tear down the house to make way for a six-unit townhome project. That plan has been and still is opposed by community activists and homeowners seeking to protect the Bartlett from the wrecking ball with monument status.
The pro-monument folks have been a headache for Mordoch; he has testified that his adversaries are costing him big bucks by stalling his ability to demolish the house (his demo permit is in limbo as long as the application for monument status is active).
At a public hearing, Bill Zide, chairman of the Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council, testified Eshaghian was a friend of his and that Eshaghian was an interested party in Mordoch’s project. How interested Zide has not said. Also, the former caretaker of the Bartlett house says Eshaghian accompanied Mordoch during a walk-through of the house before the property was sold to Mordoch’s Kenmore Investments LLC.
Later, when the mayor’s office demonstrated its disapproval of the monument project (more about this later), the pro-monument folks suspected Eshaghian, with his strong ties to Garcetti, was their nemesis.
In fact, Eshaghian may have pull with Garcetti: records show he donated $2,600 to Garcetti’s mayoral campaign and another $1,000 to Garcetti’s officeholder account.
{module [862]}
{module [662]}
But Eshaghian did not just contribute to Garcetti’s campaign. He also signed up to co-host at least two fund-raisers for Garcetti, one at Jimmy Kimmel’s home (LA Times, Oct. 10, 2013, “Garcetti Favors Familiar Faces: At Least 75% of His Appointees Already Had Ties to the Mayor”).
As a co-host Eshaghian’s job was not just to contribute himself but to gin up contributions from friends, relatives and business associates.
And Garcetti did appear to reward Eshaghian’s fund-raising work by appointing 40-year-old real estate investor to the plum job of city airport commissioner. The LA Times suggested as much in its Oct. 10, 2013 article.
Now we get to the irony part of this story.
There was another fund-raiser Eshaghian co-hosted for Garcetti that has not previously been reported. This one was held on Nov. 17, 2011 at Eshaghian’s own home.
After a little digging, it turns out that while Eshaghian opposes making the Bartlett house a monument he has benefited personally from the city’s monument program.
In 2008, Eshaghian got city approval to declare his Hollywood Hills home a monument, officially known now as the Clarence G. Badger Residence. This city monument (#932) is named after a former owner, a film director of the 1920’s and ‘30’s whose films, an LA Times calendar section reporter once charitably wrote, “probably are known more to connoisseurs than to garden-variety old-movie buffs.”
Eshaghian also chose to take the additional step of signing an “historical property contract” with the city. This little-known arrangement requires Eshaghian to maintain and preserve the historic-cultural integrity of his home.
In return for signing that contract, Eshaghian was entitled to a property tax break that, according to the LA County Assessor’s office, has saved Eshaghian about $15,300 a year. His house, purchased in 2005 for $1.4 million, has been assessed property tax purposes at $280,000 for at least the last three years.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out Eshaghian’s property tax savings under this program have been more than enough to pay for his campaign contributions to Garcetti and to cover the cost of holding that Garcetti fund-raiser at his historic, tax break-favored home.
And is it perhaps possible that Eshaghian is now cashing in on his (taxpayer-subsidized?) investment in a special relationship with Garcetti by obtaining mayoral support in the Bartlett dispute.
It’s all pretty funny. And ironic.
But none of this amuses those fighting the uphill battle to save the Bartlett house.
The potentially lethal blow in their battle was dealt by the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC). The CHC voted 4-0 to reject the community’s nomination of the Bartlett as a monument, saying it was not a significant Martin work. But proponents say the Bartlett is a rare, well-preserved example of Martin’s early work and shows off his personal aesthetic in a design meant for his friend, Oswald Bartlett, a well-to-do businessman.
Now the CHC recommendation is before the City Council, and it appears the Bartlett house has no champions there.
Councilman Tom LaBonge, who represents the area where the Bartlett house is located (1829 N. Kenmore Ave.), initially assisted the pro-monument crowd. But after the CHC decision, LaBonge signaled he will no longer go to bat for the Bartlett. That probably means the CHC recommendation will be ratified by the council, the stop work order on the demo permit will be lifted and the bulldozers will deliver the coup de grace.
Bartlett supporters knew they faced stiff odds when a veteran City Council staffer informed them of an encounter in which Garcetti staffers vigorously tried to block LaBonge’s early support for the pro-monument forces. Moments after that encounter, the staffer told Bartlett supporters she had never seen anything like it.
When an LA Times reporter asked the mayor’s office about this encounter, her call was not returned.
I wanted to get to the bottom of this tangled controversy after a very brief gig as a media consultant to the pro-Bartlett folks. On my own, I filed a public records act request to determine if there were any CHC documents to show if the Garcetti office tried to nix CHC approval of the Bartlett monument proposal.
There were no smoking guns in the material provided pursuant to my records act request.
But I did find several emails showing Kevin Keller, Garcetti’s Director of Planning and Housing Policy (not to be confused with the city’s Planning Department director), was in communication with Ken Bernstein, the chief staffer to the CHC, about the Bartlett matter.
On Sept. 3, at 7:42 pm, Keller emailed Bernstein the following: “Can you please update me with the current status of this nomination [note that Keller assumed Bernstein knew exactly what nomination he was inquiring about]? I know it was heard on the 21st….and was continued? What was the action of the CHC [Cultural Heritage Commission]? We can discuss more details in person but just need the official status to answer a question here [emphasis added]. For the record: This email is quoted in its entirety.
Other emails show Bernstein and Keller seeking to arrange a meeting about the Bartlett matter.
I asked Bernstein more questions, like why the mayor’s office was interested in a little six-unit project.
Bernstein emailed me that Keller never revealed what the mayor’s position was, denied commissioners were contacted – much less pressured – by the mayor’s office over the Bartlett matter and claimed the CHC decision to reject the monument nomination was based purely on the merits of the case.
I also asked Bernstein about an email he sent on Oct. 2 to members of his staff in which he stated “no one at the Mayor’s Office had contacted either commissioners or staff on this matter.” Isn’t that contradicted by the emails he received from Keller, a member of the mayor’s office, I asked. In an email reply, Bernstein provided no explanation for that discrepancy and insisted Keller’s interest was routine.
Finally I emailed Eshaghian and asked him to explain his ties to Mordoch and asked if he, as a real estate investor, had a financial stake in Mordoch’s project? No reply.
On the statement of economic interests he must file as an airport commissioner, Eshaghian does not report any financial link to Mordoch’s project. Still, Eshaghian would not be required by city rules to make such a disclosure on this document because he must only report his stake in any real estate ventures located within two miles of LAX.
Also, Eshaghian has not filed a “statement of city-related business” with the City Ethics Commission; such a report must be filed by top city officials, including commissioners, within ten days of “a City action that affects their personal financial interests.”
When city officials batten down the hatches and refuse to fully explain what’s going on you can interpret that how you please. Some might say where there’s smoke – and stonewalling - there’s fire.
I’ll let you decide.
(John Schwada is a former reporter for Fox 11 in Los Angeles, the LA Times and the late Herald Examiner and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 90
Pub: Nov 7, 2014