When the First Baptist Church of Venice — a multi-generational Black heritage site, a sacred community space — was threatened by developers, Venice organized and fought back. We won that fight. But it taught us something about how heritage gets treated in Council District 11: if our communities are not watching, they will take it from us.
So when a designated Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in Brentwood is being demolished — not because it’s beyond saving, but because a billionaire family let it sit vacant and rot for a decade — Venice is paying attention. Not because we have a stake in mid-century modern architecture. Because we recognize the playbook.
Here is the demolition-by-neglect playbook in six steps:
If the City approves this for the Munger family in Brentwood, that playbook becomes available to every property owner in Los Angeles. Every designated landmark in Council District 11 — including the First Baptist Church of Venice and other Black, Brown, and Indigenous heritage sites — is on the clock.
This is not a Brentwood story. It is a CD11 story.
The Barry Building at 11973-11975 W. San Vicente Boulevard in Brentwood is a 1951 mid-century modern landmark designated as Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument HCM #887. For 24 years, it housed Dutton’s Brentwood Bookstore — one of the most beloved independent bookstores in Los Angeles, where authors like Kurt Vonnegut and Isabel Allende held readings.
In 2006, the building was acquired by Charlie Munger — Warren Buffett’s longtime partner at Berkshire Hathaway. After Dutton’s was forced out and the bookstore closed in 2008, the building has sat vacant, fenced, and unmaintained for approximately a decade. The Munger family proposed a development for the site (Green Hollow Square) and then withdrew it. They are now pursuing demolition with no replacement project — just clearing the lot. This is unprecedented for a designated Los Angeles landmark.
The procedural state of play:
The full City Council vote is now imminent. The window for public comment is open.
Brentwood sits on Gabrielino ancestral land. The Indigenous tribal entity that formally consulted on this project under California state law (AB 52) raised serious concerns about tribal cultural resources at the site — including the potential presence of buried ancestral remains.
The City’s response was systematic suppression.
The “Five-Foot Falsehood”:
The City’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) justified a “No Impact” finding on tribal cultural resources by claiming that excavation would only disturb “previously disturbed artificial fill.” But the City’s own 2020 documentation confirms that artificial fill at the site only extends to two feet depth. The demolition project requires excavation to five feet for foundation and utility removal.
That three-foot gap is undisturbed native soil — the exact zone the consulting tribal entity flagged as high-sensitivity for tribal cultural resources.
The “No Impact” finding is not a conclusion. It is a fabrication.
The consultation silence:
In August 2022, the consulting tribal entity sent a formal written demand to the City, requesting documentation confirming whether native soils had truly been removed and replaced, or simply excavated and backfilled in the same location.
Since that August 2022 demand: zero further communication between City staff and the consulting tribal entity. Over three and a half years of silence.
When the public sought records of the consultation paper trail, internal communications were shielded under attorney-client privilege, blocking access to documentation of how and why the City stopped engaging.
The PLUM dais:
At the February 24, 2026 PLUM hearing, an Indigenous advocate testified about AB 52 violations and sacred site protections at the Barry Building location. Two PLUM committee members were caught on citizen video having a private conversation on the dais during this testimony. They voted to reject the appeal minutes later.
Under AB 52, the burden of meaningful consultation falls on the lead agency — in this case, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS). The tribal entity raised concerns. The tribal entity demanded documentation. The City had a legal obligation to respond. It did not.
A recent California court decision in a Koi Nation case confirmed that meaningful AB 52 consultation “is not merely procedural, but substantive — requiring reciprocal communication, thorough documentation, and a demonstrable effort to address tribal concerns.” That court vacated the City’s environmental review and ordered consultation to restart.
The Barry Building case fails this standard at every layer.
This demolition did not happen without Council District 11’s councilmember. It happened through her office.
The receipts:
This is what CD11 governance looks like under Traci Park: billionaire interests over community heritage, procedural manipulation in service of capital, and Indigenous consultation treated as an obstacle to be silenced rather than honored.
It is the same pattern Venice has seen on every fight in this district.
The Barry Building precedent does not stay in Brentwood.
If the City establishes that a property owner can acquire a designated landmark, evict the anchor tenant, abandon maintenance for ten years, and obtain a demolition permit with no replacement project, then every heritage site in Council District 11 becomes vulnerable to the same playbook.
Black, Brown, and Indigenous heritage sites become disposable while institutional machinery protects the interests of capital. The racial pattern is not an accident. The system is working as designed.
Precedent travels. Brentwood today, Venice tomorrow.
The full City Council vote is expected within days. The single most effective thing you can do right now is send your public comment directly to the councilmembers most likely to break from the rubber-stamp pattern.
Use the form below to send an email — from your own address — to five councilmembers whose progressive bases are watching how they vote on this:
Submit a public comment to the official council file: The City of Los Angeles maintains a public comment portal where any resident can submit comments that attach permanently to Council File 25-1518 and are visible to every councilmember and staffer reviewing the file.
Submit a public comment to Council File 25-1518
Share this page: The more people who know about this, the harder it is to push through quietly. Share this page on Instagram, Twitter/X, Facebook, Bluesky, and group chats. Tag your representatives. Use the hashtags:
#SaveTheBarryBuilding #DefendVenice #CD11 #StopDemolitionByNeglect #AB52 #TraciPark
Show up to the full Council vote: Public comment is accepted at City Council meetings in person and remotely. Check the City Clerk’s calendar for the scheduled vote date and the agenda link once it is posted.
Los Angeles City Council Calendar
CityWatch LA — by Ziggy Kruse Blue and Bob Blue (Angelenos for Historic Preservation):
Esotouric — independent preservation journalism (Kim Cooper and Richard Schave):
LA Conservancy:
The Barry Building fight is not about one building in Brentwood. It is about who the City of Los Angeles protects when push comes to shove — billionaires with lobbying firms, or communities with histories.
Every comment in the council file is a receipt. Every voice matters.
If we do not push back on this, the same playbook arrives in Venice next.
Defend Venice is a community accountability platform documenting power, displacement, and resistance across the Westside. Visit defendvenice.org for ongoing coverage of CD11 governance and Westside heritage fights.