Desecrated and Ellis Acted: Marco Place Court
I’d like to draw everyone’s attention over to this letter submitted by Venice resident Sue Kaplan, who spent over a year collaborating with neighbors on a Historic-Cultural Monument application for Marco Place Court in Venice. Sue and her co-applicants are no strangers to HCM applications, and their thorough research and writing have been acknowledged by the CHC in the past.
This one was shot down cold.
In part (as usual, all bolding is mine):
Importantly the notice states: “You are hereby advised that ... no permit for demolition, substantial alteration or removal shall be issued; and the site, building or structure regardless of whether a permit exists, shall not be demolished, substantially altered or removed ...”
Note that the owner/developer worked on the building approximately 6 days/week since closing escrow, despite being told to stop as far back as 2/27/25. Several inspectors from various departments were called out to inspect but there was no enforcement, despite the applicants making CHC, OHR and Building and Safety aware of ongoing work as early as 2/26/25. (Why were permits issued and construction continued from Jan-April 2025?).
So…work done with no permits, the owner ignoring orders to stop, and NO consequences whatsoever.
…OHR staff asked for the removal of discussion about the “Ownership and Tenant History,” and the section on “Integrity.” OHR decided they were not necessary and didn’t belong. We felt strongly otherwise. These sections provided a good discussion of the early residential history and the kinds of people who populated 924-928 Marco Place Court. Among the many single-family dwellings, the Court was created to house the working class who contributed to the growth of Venice in Abbot Kinney’s vision. The Commission then mentioned the lack of these sections in their hearing discussions.
How can tenant history NOT matter when nominating a historic rental property? It sounds to me like someone at OHR wanted to sabotage the nomination…although I really hope this isn’t the case.
Applicants/neighbors reported all the violations which prompted visits from a string of inspectors from the various relevant departments, none of whom acted to stop Mr. Donovan’s illegal work. The new owner/developer did not respect the historic property and the regulations that were required…
…The Commissioners could not see the charming property as it was when bought by Mr. Donovan only months before and the quality of life that a century of residents enjoyed (images from before the sale were included in the application). For example, the owner/developer cut down old growth trees (he claimed he didn’t like the view of them from his own home at 935 Marco Place!) He followed that with insensitive work on the building itself (windows, staircase, roofs, etc.) At one point, he inexplicably completely covered the windows of one of the occupied units with plywood for several weeks, providing the front door of the unit as the only source of egress, as well as limiting light and air, for the tenant. Mr. Donovan removed the illegal plywood window coverings the morning of the site visit.
As a former property manager, WHAT. THE. F#$%?! How did the owner not get into trouble for covering the windows of an OCCUPIED unit with plywood?
As a preservation-minded Angeleno, it has been my experience that those who don’t respect older rental homes overwhelmingly tend to have even less respect for the human beings who live in them.
Oh, and according to Sue, it gets worse:
Days after your determination of “declined” of 5/15/25, Mr. Donovan served the tenants an order to vacate their homes, issuing a petition to invoke the Ellis Act. After vacating the units, his intent is to rent them out as luxury, market rate rentals. He didn’t disclose that to CHC and OHR, but he told the tenants and neighbors his intention when he first took possession of the property.
This could very well be improper invocation of the Ellis Act. You may recall from the Barrington Plaza case that it’s illegal to put an Ellis Acted unit back on the market within five years. So if the owner actually does that, it’s not legal. (And if the owner does comply with the law, it means the empty units will sit empty for at least five years.)
Oh, and incidentally, all three buildings are subject to the rent-stabilization ordinance. Older RSO homes in Venice used to be a refuge for low-income households; now they’ve become a cash cow for the shameless and greedy.
And we wonder why so many people are living on the streets in Venice.