City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-1
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss and provide comments and direction
regarding the proposed process and timeline for updating the City’s Historic
Preservation Program, including implementation of an updated historic structures
survey, and updates to Sections 15.05, et seq. of the Culver City Municipal Code
(CCMC) related to the Historic Preservation Program.
BACKGROUND:
In 1987, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. completed a field survey that was used as
the basis for the 1990 Culver City Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Report,
which recommended designation of Culver City properties as historical resources.
The field survey, the 1990 report, and an ordinance adopted in 1991, provided the
foundation for Culver City’s Historic Preservation Program which is intended to
protect the City’s unique historical, architectural and cultural heritage. The
Meeting Date: 02/23/2009 Item Number: A-3
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Direction Relating to a Proposed Process and
Timeline for Updating Culver City’s Historic Preservation Program, Including
Implementation of an Updated Historic Structures Survey, Updates to Section
15.05, et seq. of the Culver City Municipal Code Relating to the Historic
Preservation Program, and Updates to Other City Planning Guidelines and Tools
Contact Person/Dept.: Todd Tipton,
Redevelopment Administrator
Sol Blumenfeld/Community Development
Director
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5770
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master Notification List: Master E-Mail Notification List (02/18/09);
Meetings and Agendas – Redevelopment Agency (02/19/09); Meetings and Agendas –
Planning (02/19/09); Meetings and Agendas - Cultural Affairs (02/19/09); City Historian
Julie Lugo Cerra (02/09/09); Culver City Chamber of Commerce (02/09/09); Culver City
Historical Society (02/09/09); Downtown Business Association (02/09/09); Culver City
News Published Notice (02/12/09 and 02/19/09)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld: (02/17/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab: (02/18/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (02/19/09)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry Fulwood: (02/19/09) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-2
preservation of historical resources is not only mandated at the local level, but also
at the state and Federal levels.
State law, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), requires public agencies to evaluate and address the impacts of certain
projects on the environment. CEQA specifically provides regulations for determining
if there is a significant impact to a historical resource, which includes determining
whether the resource is “historically significant” and whether a project would cause a
“substantial adverse change” in the significance of the resource. In order for the City
to make informed decisions on future projects in accordance with the requirements
of CEQA, it is important that the Historic Preservation Program remain consistent
with CEQA guidelines, which requires updating at regular intervals.
In May 2008, staff prepared an informational memorandum for the City Council
outlining the legal necessity, proposed process and an initial estimated timeline for
updating the City’s Historic Preservation Program.
Subsequently, staff has worked with the California Office of Historic Preservation
(“OHP”) which has provided technical assistance relating to general historic
structures survey issues, examples of good context statements, and provided
additional resources and contacts.
Staff has also prepared a draft Request for Proposals (“RFP”), which was reviewed
for comment by OHP, seeking a consultant to perform an historic structures survey
(hereinafter “survey”), which includes updating the last City survey completed in
1987. Updating the existing survey involves the consultant using the existing data
as a foundation and determining whether revisions to the survey are necessary to i)
conform with the new context statement, ii) reflect changes to structures included in
the existing survey, iii) address demolitions, and iv) ensure conformance with CEQA
guidelines and the local preservation ordinance. Additional structures meeting the
minimum age requirement of 45 years may also be added to the existing survey
data, depending on the new context statement and threshold criteria for determining
significance. The draft RFP was considered for comment by the Cultural Affairs
Commission (“CAC”) at its meeting on July 8, 2008.
Staff has also begun the process of reviewing and updating the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance (CCMC Sections 15.05, et seq.). The ordinance update is
expected to be completed prior to initiating the survey. An initial draft of an updated
ordinance was reviewed by the CAC at its meeting on August 12, 2008. Staff will
bring a revised ordinance back to the CAC for comment, prior to submission to the
Council for consideration.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-3
As part of the research effort to develop a preservation work plan, staff sought and
received comments from several community stakeholders, including the Culver City
Historical Society, the City Historian Julie Lugo Cerra and the Chamber of
Commerce on the proposed update to the ordinance and the upcoming survey. The
CAC also had comments regarding the preliminary draft ordinance and asked staff
to provide further information.
DISCUSSION:
Historic Preservation Tasks & Timeline
The draft Historic Preservation Tasks & Timeline (Attachment 1) is designed to
identify the basic components involved in updating Culver City’s Historic
Preservation Program. It is anticipated that the scope of work may be further refined
as necessary at certain junctures and target dates prior to completion. Many of the
tasks included in the timeline relate to one another and are therefore arranged in a
specific order. Below is a brief narrative summary of the sequence of tasks
necessary to complete the project:
1. Advisory Committee
Historic structures surveys demand considerable community outreach and
involvement. Typically an advisory committee, comprised primarily of
community representatives, is formed to help with outreach, to serve as
liaisons, and to provide recommendations at significant junctures during the
process. Significant junctures include involvement in the selection of a
consultant team, review and certification of the context statement, review and
certification of the survey results, and designation nominations. Final
determinations at these junctures are made by the City Council.
In 1989, the City formed an Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
(“HPAC”), comprised of 17 members, to review the results of the 1987 survey,
establish designation criteria, and make recommendations to the City Council
for designations at the local level. The HPAC was also charged with
recommending designation criteria for historically significant buildings and
provisions for rehabilitation of designated structures in a Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
The HPAC was comprised of representatives from the Planning Commission,
Human Services Commission, Redevelopment Project 3 Committee, Culver
City Arts Committee, Historical Society, Chamber of Commerce, Realty
Board, Homeowners’ Association and the Unified School District. In addition, City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-4
after a public solicitation process, eight volunteers from the public were
appointed (October 16, 1989) as “at-large” representatives.
Staff has developed the following list of recommended members for the
advisory committee based upon the project background research:
The City’s two main movie studio lots (1 each – total 2)
The three members from currently designated historical
residential districts (Braddock, Lafayette & McConnell Historic
Districts) (1 each – total 3)
Culver City Historian (1 representative)
Culver City Historical Society (2 representatives)
Culver City Chamber of Commerce (1 representative)
Downtown Business Association (1 representative)
Culver City Unified School District (1 representative)
Two Culver City civic organizations/clubs (2 total)
At-Large Members (2 total)
A representative from the City’s Planning and Cultural Affairs
Commissions (1 each – total 2)
The recommendation to include a representative from the Culver City Unified
School District (primarily for outreach purposes) was made by the CAC at its
August 12, 2008 meeting. In addition, the CAC also recommended at that
time that members represent as many of Culver City’s neighborhoods as
possible and that nominations include persons who have a design, urban
planning or preservation background.
At the January 13, 2009 CAC Town Hall meeting, the above-recommended
list was again presented to the CAC for comment. The CAC recommended
that the representatives of the three residential districts be removed, that the
number of representatives of civic organizations/clubs be increased to three,
and the at-large members increased to five. Per the CAC’s recommendation,
the advisory committee would be comprised of 18 members as follows:
The City’s two main movie studio lots (1 each – total 2)
Culver City Historian (1 representative)
Culver City Historical Society (2 representatives)
Culver City Chamber of Commerce (1 representative)
Downtown Business Association (1 representative)
Culver City Unified School District (1 representative)
Two Culver City civic organizations/clubs (3 total)
At-Large Members (5 total) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-5
A representative from the City’s Planning and Cultural Affairs
Commissions (1 each – total 2)
2. Advisory Committee Application Process
Staff recommends that a simple application form be utilized that addresses
the criteria outlined above and be accompanied by a resume. Consistent
attendance at meetings (which are anticipated to be more frequent through
the spring and summer) is imperative, and an individual’s application should
also reflect their commitment to participate. Prior to initiating the application
process, staff intends to identify when meetings will occur so those applying
are aware and able to make the necessary commitment.
As reflected on the attached timeline, the advisory committee would be
involved in the review and update of the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance, the selection process for a consultant to perform the survey, and
the survey process itself. Staff anticipates returning to the City Council in
April 2009 for consideration of the list of advisory committee nominees and
appointment of committee members.
3. Certified Local Government Status
Per OHP, once a plan is in place to implement an updated City-wide historic
structures survey, Culver City could apply for Certified Local Government
(“CLG”) status in early spring. One of the benefits of CLG status includes
eligibility for state funding. Typical grant awards are between $20,000 and
$25,000 and grant applications can be submitted to offset survey-related
costs. If CLG status is obtained, staff will pursue grants as available and
necessary.
4. Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance was initially adopted in 1991 and
most recently updated in 2001 to reflect the creation of the CAC and its
purview over the historic preservation program. There was also an
amendment to the Ordinance in 2004 to make several clerical corrections. As
a tool for both property owners and staff, a good preservation ordinance
reflects a local community’s priorities for preservation, but should be updated
to remain consistent with CEQA and state and federal guidelines for
designation. Specific areas requiring review include:
Updating list of definitions
Clarifying language in certain areas to ensure consistent interpretation
Updating designation categories
Updating designation threshold criteria
Updating threshold criteria for establishing economic hardship City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-6
Creating financial incentives for historic preservation (e.g.,
implementing a Mills Act program).
5. Historic Structures Survey
Historic structures surveys are typically comprised of a context statement,
completion of a reconnaissance survey (a cursory review of properties
meeting the minimum age requirement to verify whether or not they meet the
criteria for documentation) followed by an intensive survey. The number of
properties included in the intensive survey is a percentage of those included
in the reconnaissance survey phase and involves documentation of
information and images about specific properties onto standardized survey
forms (attached).|1010|
The 1987 Culver City survey includes approximately 180 individual structures
built between ca. 1915 and 1940, which is approximately 10% of the
properties currently recorded as having been constructed between 1900 and
1939.
Typically, existing surveys are updated when new surveys are initiated (i.e.,
the information in an existing survey is incorporated and then amended as
appropriate). Staff and OHP recommend that this process be followed for the
1987 Culver City survey for the following reasons:
The built environment is constantly changing. Therefore, historic contexts
change with time, and structures not included in the initial survey may
meet the context criteria today.
The 1987 survey does not comprehensively address historical resources
as currently defined by CEQA guidelines.
Structures included in earlier surveys may be altered over time or
demolished. If those structures were not designated or designated
|1010| Survey guidelines (see, e.g., National Register Bulletin 24 – Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for
Preservation Planning) include the development of a context statement as the foundation for any survey which is
based on documentation gleaned from a wide variety of sources, including City records, local historical society
records, and oral interviews. (Footnote continued on next page.)
Once completed, the context statement becomes the basis against which all properties meeting the minimum
age criterion are assessed. This first survey phase is referred to as a “reconnaissance” survey. A smaller
percentage of those properties are then actually recorded using standardized survey forms available through
OHP that includes images, narrative descriptions and a California Historical Resource Status Code. (For
purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act “CEQA”, resources included in a local register or deemed
significant through a survey meeting OHP requirements and given a status code between 3 – 5, are presumed
historically or culturally significant.)
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-7
“recognized,” (an honorary designation that bears no preservation
protections), then the significance of those properties may have changed
over time.
Structures included in earlier surveys may become more significant over
time. There are several examples of this in Culver City’s 1987 survey, the
most recent being the Gateway Station Post Office at 9942 Culver
Boulevard. In the 1987 survey, the post office was given a “B” ranking
which meant that it was neither architecturally or historically significant
enough for National Register consideration but that it maintained local
importance. The post office was subsequently recommended for and
designated “recognized,” a category bearing no preservation protections.
In October 2008, the US Postal Service sent a report to OHP stating that
the Gateway Station Post Office is eligible for listing on the National
Register based on a Section 106 review prepared in conjunction with the
proposed sale of the property. (Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects
that their federally funded activities and programs have on significant
historic properties.)
Comprehensive city-wide surveys, which include updating existing
surveys, are preferable to partial surveys in that information is gathered
and assessed within the larger context of the entire community.
6. Designation Nominations
Context statements, survey results and ordinance criteria are used to make
historic designation recommendations at the local level. An updated survey
completed according to OHP standards, would also identify properties for
potential listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The
necessity for making additional designations would be determined by the City
Council once the survey is completed.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The cost for the historic structures survey will be known after responses to the RFP
are received The final amount will include costs for development of a context
statement, completion of the survey, compilation of reports, development of a
database, public noticing and community outreach program. Staff anticipates the
final amount being funded from the Art Fund, a restricted Capital Improvement Fund
and the Redevelopment Agency (in an amount proportional to the percentage of
properties to be included in the survey that fall within Agency component areas).
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-8
Finally, at the time the RFP is issued, consultants bidding on the project will be able
to provide cost estimates for completing a comprehensive survey versus several
partial survey options. A draft RFP will be brought to Council for consideration prior
to its release which is currently scheduled for May 2009.
A successful CLG status and grant application – as noted above -- could assist in
offsetting the fiscal impact of this project.
Additional costs associated with other tasks included in the timeline (Historic
Preservation Ordinance update, adoption and implementation of a Mills Act, etc.)
require further research and will be included when each of those respective items
are presented to City Council for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Historic Preservation Tasks & Timeline
2. May 12, 2008 Memorandum to City Council Re Updated City-Wide Historic
Structures Survey
3. Letter from Culver City Chamber of Commerce, dated September 25, 2008
4. Letter from Sol Blumenfeld to Culver City Chamber of Commerce, dated January
8, 2009
5. Letter from The Culver Hotel, dated September 20, 2008
6. Memorandum from Julie Lugo Cerra, dated September 18, 2008
7. Summary of Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Data for Culver City, 1900 –
1964
8. Sample Survey Forms (DPR 523A & B)
9. The Top Ten Myths About Historic Preservation
10. 2008 Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Report Card
MOTION:
That the Culver City City Council:
1. Provide input and direction regarding the process and timeline for updating the
City’s Historic Preservation Program, including implementation of an updated
historic structures survey, updates to CCMC Sections 15.05, et seq. related to
the Historic Preservation Program, and updates to other City planning guidelines
and tools; and,
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A3-9
2. Direct staff to implement projects associated with updating the City’s Historic
Preservation Program as included in the Historic Preservation Tasks & Timeline;
and,
3. Direct staff to proceed with the advertisement of an opportunity to serve on the
advisory committee and return to City Council for consideration of appointments
to that committee.
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2009
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Process and Timeline for Updating Culver City’s
Historic Preservation Program, Including Implementation of an
Updated Historic Structures Survey, Updates to the Section 15.05
et seq. of the City’s Municipal Code Relating to the Historic
Preservation Program, and Updates to Other City Planning
Guidelines and Tools.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Draft Historic Preservation Tasks & Timeline 1 - 3
2. May 12, 2008 Memorandum to City Council Re 4 - 10
Updated City-Wide Historic Structures Survey
3. Letter from Culver City Chamber of Commerce, 11 -12
dated September 25, 2008
4. Letter from Sol Blumenfeld to Culver City Chamber 13 -14
of Commerce, dated January 8, 2009
5. Letter from The Culver Hotel, dated 15 -16
September 20, 2008
6. Memorandum from Julie Lugo Cerra, dated 17 -19
September 18, 2008
7. Summary of Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel 20
Data for Culver City, 1900 – 1964
8. Sample Survey Forms (DPR 523A & B) 21 - 23
9. The Top Ten Myths About Historic Preservation 24 - 27
10. 2008 Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Report 28 - 59
Card DRAFT
Historic Preservation Tasks & Timeline, Including
City-Wide Historic Structures Survey &
Updated Historic Preservation Ordinance
TASK DATE
1. City Council reviews general issues related to FEBRUARY 2009
updating the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
completing a City-wide historic structures survey,
and establishment of a community advisory
committee, including protocol for the advisory
committee.
Prepare staff report outlining legal and permitting issues
related to updating the City’s Historic Preservation
Program
Identify form, organization and composition of CAC
Identify historic preservation ordinance updated planning
and implementation issues
Identify historic structures survey planning and
implementation issues
2. City Council identifies community advisory committee APRIL 2009
members based on cross-section of potentially affected
interests.
[Composition of advisory committee to be
determined by City Council on February 23, 2009.]
3. Apply for Certified Local Government Status APRIL 2009
Complete resolution and application and present to
City Council for consideration
Submit application to California Office of Historic Preservation
02/17/09 - 1 -
ATTACHMENT 1
1
TASK DATE
4. Commence Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
Staff and CAC work together on APRIL /
Historic Preservation Ordinance update MAY 2009
Relevant Commissions provide comments MAY 2009
to updated draft Historic Preservation Ordinance
City Council considers revisions/updates to JUNE 2009
Historic Preservation Ordinance at first reading
City Council considers revisions/updates to JULY 2009
Historic Preservation Ordinance at second reading
5. Commence Historic Survey Update
City Council authorizes staff to release RFP MAY 2009
for consultant to perform historic structures survey
Staff to being implementing Mills Act Property Tax JULY 2009
Abatement Program
Interview and selection of consultant to perform JULY 2009
historic structures survey
City Council considers recommendation JULY/
regarding consultant to perform historic structures AUGUST 2009
survey
Consultant works with staff to develop timeline AUGUST/
or survey, creating an educational/community SEPTEMBER 2009
outreach program, and establishing dates for CAC
meetings and wider community meetings
City Council and all community stakeholders SEPTEMBER 2009
updated with detailed timeline and critical benchmarks
02/17/09 - 2 -
2
TASK DATE
6. Data collection, perform survey & documentation: SEPTEMBER 2009 –
APRIL 2010
Development of context statement and eligibility criteria
Reconnaissance survey of all parcels containing structures
in or prior to 1964
Complete DPR forms for eligible properties based on initial
reconnaissance survey
Review and verify survey results
7. Identify Whether Survey Results Merit Additional MAY 2010
Designation Nominations and Make Recommendations
to City Council
Prepare additional documentation (if necessary)
for nominations and make recommendations to
City Council consideration
Update all City permitting, GIS, OHP and
County Assessor databases as necessary
8. Implementation of Other Planning Tools JULY –
SEPTEMBER 2010
Identify other City documents and Planning tools that
require updating to remain consistent with survey results,
possible additional designations and Historic Preservation
Ordinance updates (e.g., General Plan and Zoning Code)
Identify and outline tasks, process and timeline for
implementing the additional update and present to
Commissions and/or City Council as necessary
Implement updates
02/17/09 - 3 -
3
9770 CULVER BOULEVARD CULVER CITY, CA 90232-0507
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: 05/12/2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director
Todd Tipton, Redevelopment Administrator
FROM: B. Christine Byers, Public Art & Historic Preservation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Updated City-Wide Historic Structures Survey
Overview of Survey Process and Timeline
This memorandum serves to provide background information and an overview of
why an updated City-wide historic structures survey is necessary and the steps
involved in this multi-phased project. Some of the steps as outlined in more
detail below are:
• Council approve additional funds required to update City-wide survey in
FY 2008 – 09 budget (June 2008)
• City Council establishes Community Advisory Committee (June 2008)
• Review and update of City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CCMC
15.05 et seq.) (June/July 2008)
• Issue Request for Proposal for consultant team to perform survey (July
2008)
• Complete field survey and verify results (July 2008)
• Complete nominations and designations of properties included in survey
(September 2009)
BACKGROUND
The first and last City-wide historic structures survey in Culver City was
completed in 1987 by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. This survey was completed
under contract with the Culver City Redevelopment Agency. Based on this
survey, a Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Report (“HPAC”) was
released in August 1990 that became the premise for establishing Culver City’s
initial register of historic resources. Based on the HPAC Report’s
recommendations, 124 sites (this number may vary slighting depending on how
each of the structures at each site are counted) were designated by the Culver
City City Council in 1990 – 1991 in one of three categories, “Landmark”,
“Significant” or “Recognized.” In addition, three residential districts were
ATTACHMENT 2
4 Page 2 of 7
FILE NAME: APRIL 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE SURVEY TO CITY COUNCILPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
designated locally. (A complete copy of the 1987 Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
survey, Historic Resources Advisory Committee Report, and list of Culver City
designated
structures is available at
http://www.culvercity.org/cultural/preservation.asp?sec=arts.)
Three of Culver City’s historically designated structures are also listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (“National Register”); others are eligible for
listing on the National Register either as individual structures (e.g., the
Administration Building at The Culver Studios) and/or as districts (e.g., the entire
Culver Studios movie lot). National Register listed or eligible structures (or
districts) are by default eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources (“California Register”). Other structures locally designated or
currently undesignated may be eligible for listing on the California Register and
the National Register.
Although the overview of the 1987 survey specifically states that the survey
information remains consistent with the California State Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) inventory forms (DPR 523 -- attached), these forms were not
utilized in the last Culver City survey nor did the individual survey entries include
all the information specified in the various fields of the DPR 523 form. This
becomes problematic when making a correlation between local survey results to
state and federal standards for historical resources. A basic 50 year benchmark
was however used for most buildings and/or sites included in the 1987 survey,
resulting in an inventory that included structures built from ca. 1915 - 1940. The
1987 field survey did also include descriptions for each property surveyed that
reference one or more of the four National Register criteria for significance.
The National Register is an authoritative guide used by Federal, state and local
governments, private organizations and citizens in identifying historical and
cultural resources. These criteria for establishing the significance of a structure
or site, as included in National Register Bulletin 24 – Guidelines for Local
Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning, are that the structure or site is:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess
high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
5 Page 3 of 7
FILE NAME: APRIL 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE SURVEY TO CITY COUNCILPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
D. Have yielded, or may likely yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Cultural Resources
In order to remain in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), historical surveys should be updated every 5 – 10 years. A City’s
review of any development project is impacted by CEQA with regard to historical
resources. CEQA was significantly updated with regard to historical resources in
1993 and again in 1998. Because of the changes to CEQA in the 1990s, the
1987 Culver City field survey standards do not reference current CEQA
requirements with regard to historical resources. Further, a historical resource as
currently defined by CEQA includes sites listed on the National Register, eligible
for listing on the National Register, listed on the California Register, and those
eligible for listing on the California Register. How many structures in Culver City
and which ones are eligible for listing on the California Register are currently
unknown.
Without an updated survey, it is impossible to conduct CEQA review with regard
to the impact of a development project on an historical resource using updated
environmental conditions. This also applies to structures that are at present
undesignated at any level (i.e., locally, at the state level or at the national level)
and structures built between ca. 1940 – 1963 as no evaluation has been
completed with regard to their significance as historical resources.
In cases such as the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment at The Culver
Studios and the Pleasant View site project, Cultural Affairs staff conducted an
updated environmental assessment of the structures and sites as they pertain to
CEQA during the planning phase (Historical Resources Group was hired for The
Culver Studios project, and Architectural Resources Group provided the CEQA
analysis for the Pleasant View site). This enabled City staff to use updated
information to complete environmental review. However, using consultants on a
case-by-case basis is neither cost effective nor time efficient as we move forward
with development throughout the City and should in the future be utilized only in
exceptional circumstances.
Section 106
Under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings
on historic properties that are listed on the National Register or that meet the
criteria for listing on the National Register. At the local level, this translates into
any federal grant or federal project funding requiring a Section 106 review on a
National Register listed or National Register eligible property prior to release of
6 Page 4 of 7
FILE NAME: APRIL 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE SURVEY TO CITY COUNCILPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
federal funds. An updated historic structures survey using the California OHP
inventory forms streamlines the planning and Section 106 review process for
projects involving any federal funding.
Preservation and Sustainability
According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the construction,
operation and demolition of buildings accounts for 48% of the United States’
greenhouse gas emissions. Federal and state preservation agencies now
actively advocate for preservation as a form of sustainability in that older and
historic buildings comprise more than half of the existing buildings in the United
States. Retention and adaptive reuse preserves the materials, embodied energy,
and human capital already expended in their construction. Further, preservation
groups and public agencies have embraced both the LEED and the California-
based GreenPoint Rated system for new construction and remodeling projects,
and advocate applying these criteria to older buildings to increase their energy
efficiency. Surveys assist communities in managing change responsibly with
regard to the built environment in that they identify a building’s or site’s
significance based on the four National Register criteria and establish the
guidelines for sustainable development for each project.
SURVEY PROCESS
Historic structures surveys require development of a context statement that
includes integrity thresholds and eligibility requirements. They also include the
inventory of structures that meet the established thresholds and requirements as
outlined in the context statement. A good context statement is not just a
recitation of historical facts but explains the condition of the current built
environment in terms of the forces that shaped it, including planning and zoning
decisions. Context statements become the basis for historic designations of
structures / sites at either the local, state or national levels and are the first step
to completing a well-thought out survey.
Surveys also demand considerable community outreach and involvement.
Typically a community advisory committee (such as the Historic Preservation
Advisory Committee created in Culver City in 1989) is established to help with
outreach, to serve as community liaisons, and to provide input at significant
junctures during the process. Significant junctures include development of an
RFP for the consultant team conducting the survey, review and certification of the
survey results, and designation nominations at the local, state or national levels.
7 Page 5 of 7
FILE NAME: APRIL 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE SURVEY TO CITY COUNCILPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Staff recommends that a community advisory committee in Culver City include
representatives from:
• The City’s two main movie studio lots
• Currently designated historical residential districts
• Culver City Historical Society
• Various homeowner’s associations
• Staff from the City’s Planning and Parks Departments
• Culver City Chamber of Commerce
• Downtown Business Association
• Various civic organizations/clubs
• A representative from the City’s Planning and Cultural Affairs
Commissions
A comprehensive survey process could be divided into two primary phases.
Phase I includes the following steps and tentative timeline:
• Appoint a Community Advisory Committee for City-wide survey (June
2008);
• Updating the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance as needed
(June/July 2008);
• Issue an Request for Proposal for the consultant survey team (a
preservation firm that includes architectural historians that meet the
Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards) (July 2008);
• Develop a context statement and eligibility criteria (December 2008)
• Complete reconnaissance survey of all parcels containing structures
built prior to 1963 (45 year age benchmark is current base standard)
and complete survey forms for relevant properties per the context
statement and eligibility criteria (May 2009);
• Review and verification of the survey results (July 2009)
• Complete nominations and designations where applicable (September
2009)
• Update all City permitting and GIS databases according to survey
results (October 2009).
Phase II would include:
• Updating General Plan and Zoning Codes as needed;
• Applying to OHP for Certified Local Government Status (which would
qualify the City for state grants for future surveys);
• Implementing a Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program.
8 Page 6 of 7
FILE NAME: APRIL 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE SURVEY TO CITY COUNCILPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BUDGETING AND STAFFING
Based on information available within the local preservation community in 2005,
Cultural Affairs staff requested $75,000 from the General Fund for a City-wide
survey for the FY 2005 – 06 budget. This request was denied.
The following year, staff requested the same amount from the Art Fund, noting
that although Fund 413 (Art Fund) was designated as a CIP fund, there was
enough compelling evidence to support this request. The City Council approved
this request in the adopted FY 2006 – 07 budget. Due to staffing shortages in
Cultural Affairs and competing work program priorities, this work program and the
appropriated amount from the Art Fund was carried over to the FY 2007 – 08
year.
Since the initial budget appropriation in 2006, staff has spoken with other smaller
cities in California having just completed or in the midst of completing surveys,
including West Hollywood and Santa Monica. In addition, OHP have been
helpful in providing a perspective on what has been going well and not so well
with regard to recently completed surveys or surveys currently under way. Santa
Monica is spending approximately $280,000 to survey between 13,000 - 14,000
properties; the City of West Hollywood is spending approximately $250,000 to
survey approximately 2,100 (all multiple units) properties. In the past few years,
technology and GIS have significantly come to play a larger role in conducting
surveys and making results available to the general public which have also
contributed to the increase in costs.
IT/GIS staff have provided preliminary information based on the LA County
Assessor data that is available to us. At this time, we know that there are
approximately 8,165 properties that would be included in the reconnaissance
phase of the survey as they contain structures built in 1963 or earlier.
Approximately 18% of these properties are within Redevelopment Component
Areas.
Based on current information, a budget of $200,000 would be required to
complete Phase I of the survey. Per Redevelopment Agency counsel, it would
be appropriate to use Agency funds for areas included in the survey that fall into
Redevelopment Component Areas which would be approximately $35,000 of the
total budget and would come from Agency bond funds. The remaining balance
of $165,000 would be requested from the Art Fund with $75,000 of this already
appropriated. This revised budget and the Art Fund / Agency allocations were
discussed with the City Manager and Budget staff during a review of the CIP
budget requests for FY 2008 – 09.
Because of the scope of this project, Cultural Affairs staff should work in
conjunction with Planning, IT, Building & Safety and Parks (open spaces,
9 Page 7 of 7
FILE NAME: APRIL 14, 2008 MEMORANDUM RE SURVEY TO CITY COUNCILPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
landscaping and civic campuses such as the Veteran’s Memorial Complex are
potentially significant in surveys).
Cultural Affairs staff met with City Historian Julie Lugo Cerra and Stu Freeman,
President of the Culver City Historical Society, together with Commissioners
Koosed and Hanami (Cultural Affairs Commissioners who sit on the CAC’s
Historic Preservation sub-committee) on April 21
st
to discuss the survey process
and general timeline. Staff will be providing the Cultural Affairs Commission
information on the survey process and timeline at its next meeting on May 13,
2008.
10ATTACHMENT 3
1112ATTACHMENT 4
1314ATTACHMENT 5
1516ATTACHMENT 6
171819PROPERTIES FROM 1900 - 1964
1900-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1964
Commercial 100 151 261 78 590
Residential 1564 2269 2673 264 6770
Industrial 17 82 134 32 265
Studio 40 0 2 6
Open Space 20 2 0 4
Undesignated 512 7 2 26
TOTAL # BUILT PER YEAR
1692 2514 3077 378
TOTAL # WITH DESIGNATED ZONE
1687 2502 3070 376
***TOTAL # OF PROPERTIES IN CULVER CITY = 13,615. PROPERTIES WITH BUILD DATE OF "0" = 672
SOURCE: County Assesor's Parcel Data
DESIGNATED
ZONING
BUILD DATE
TOTAL #
PER ZONE
REVISED: 02/02/09
ATTACHMENT 7
20ATTACHMENT 8
212223ATTACHMENT 9
24252627LO S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y
2008 Lo s A ngele s Cou nty
Preservation Report Card
ATTACHMENT 10
28L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Introduction
4 Methodology
6 Elements of a Good Preservation Program
12 Report Card Grades
13 Summary of Findings
17 Notable Improvements
22 Extra Credit: The Top Cities (chart)
26 2008 Preservation Report Card (chart)
Cover Photos
Top row (l-r): Casa de Cadillac (1949), Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles (Larry Underhill);
Lane-Wells Company Building (1937), Huntington Park (Dean Cheng).
Middle row (l-r): Driftyland Dairy-Port (1961), El Monte (John Eng);
Premiere Lanes (1961), Santa Fe Springs (Adriene Biondo).
Bottom row (l-r): La Laguna de San Gabriel Park (1965), San Gabriel (Dean Cheng);
Windsor Square Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, Los Angeles (Larry Underhill).
© 2008 Los Angeles Conservancy. All rights reserved.
29INTRODUCTION
Los Angeles County is a treasure trove of architecturally and culturally
significant sites. From the early adobes of colonial days, to Craftsman
and period revival structures of the early twentieth century, to stunning ex-
amples of Art Deco, to groundbreaking mid-century modernism and be-
yond, the county has an extremely rich and diverse architectural heritage.
This heritage is also surprisingly vulnerable, with
cultural resources facing ongoing threats of dem-
olition and insensitive alteration. The most effec-
tive protections against these threats often lie in
the hands of local government. Yet Los Angeles
County, which spans over 4,000 square miles,
has eighty-nine local governments: eighty-eight
incorporated cities plus the county government.
Each of these jurisdictions operates inde-
pendently and has its own protections—or
lack thereof—for preserving its historic resources.
The nonprofit Los Angeles Conservancy works
through advocacy and education to recognize,
preserve, and revitalize historic resources throughout Los Angeles
County. A crucial part of this effort is understanding how preservation
works in each of the county’s different jurisdictions, encouraging better
practices when needed, and applauding those with the strongest pro-
tections in place.
The Conservancy is the nation’s largest local historic preservation organ-
ization, with a membership of 7,000 households. It was founded in 1978
in the wake of the demolition of several beloved L.A. landmarks, and as
part of the community-based effort to save the Los Angeles Central Li-
brary from the same fate. At that time, local governments in Los Angeles
County had few tools available to protect historically significant sites.
For our twenty-fifth anniversary in 2003, the Conservancy decided to as-
sess how far local governments had come in protecting and revitalizing
their historic resources.This assessment took the form of a “report card,”
grading cities on the efforts they make and tools they have to foster the
preservation of their built heritage. We then issued the first-ever county-
wide Preservation Report Card, offering a snapshot of the different ways
in which our county’s historic resources are protected (or not).
The 2003 report card was very well received, and it opened a lot of eyes
to important needs and opportunities for preservation policies throughout
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 2
Top: Self Help Graphics & Art Building (1927),
unincorporated East Los Angeles, Los Angeles County
(Conservancy staff)
Bottom: El Mirador Apartments (1929),
West Hollywood Landmark (Conservancy staff)
30the county. The Conservancy decided to update the report card for our
thirtieth anniversary in 2008. We were pleased to discover that over the
past five years, more than a dozen cities have taken steps to launch or
strengthen their preservation programs. Others fared less well, but we
hope that this new edition of the Preservation Re-
port Card will help to spur preservation efforts
and offer practical models from other cities.
While it may seem that this report is intended as
a comprehensive assessment of preservation
efforts in L.A. County, some caveats are in order.
This report is not meant to assess the general
state of physical preservation of the cultural re-
sources of Los Angeles County; the existence or
success of efforts to preserve publicly held cul-
tural or historic resources; or the commitment,
drive, and influence of local advocacy organiza-
tions. All of these factors are of great importance
to the general state of preservation in Los Angeles County today, and
we applaud the heroic efforts of the many groups and individuals across
the county who tirelessly advocate for, and carry out, the preservation
of our architectural heritage.This report is intended solely as a snapshot
assessment of local governments’ current efforts to ensure the preser-
vation of historic and cultural resources that are in private hands. Its
goal is to recognize those jurisdictions that actively foster preservation
and encourage them to keep up the good work, as well as to offer prac-
tical models and motivation to those jurisdictions that have fewer pro-
tections in place.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 3
Top: World’s oldest remaining McDonald’s (1953), Downey
(Conservancy archives)
Bottom: Village Motel (1948), Santa Monica
(Conservancy staff)
Right: Many buildings built for industrial and utility uses
are architecturally significant, such as the Art Deco
Vernon Light & Power Building (1932) in Vernon.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
31METHODOLOGY
To prepare the 2008 Los Angeles County Preservation Report Card, Los
Angeles Conservancy staff conducted phone interviews with represen-
tatives from each of the local governments in
Los Angeles County, from May through Octo-
ber 2008.
For each jurisdiction, we spoke with city repre-
sentatives who are directly involved with the
specific community’s planning review process,
as well as staff members responsible for over-
seeing historic preservation programs in cities
that have them. For ongoing reference, we also
compiled contact information for other people
in the community involved in historic preserva-
tion or compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA), an important
preservation tool in California.
We asked each interviewee about the following topics (described in more
depth in the next section):
• Current historic preservation issues in their respective cities
• What ordinances the city had in place to designate historic landmarks
or districts
• How long such ordinances had been in place
• How many resources had been designated as historic
• Whether the city had implemented the Mills Act Historic Property
Contracts Program, a valuable preservation incentive (see page 8)
• Whether the city had conducted surveys of historic and/or
architectural resources
In addition to conducting interviews, Conservancy staff reviewed the ex-
isting preservation ordinances of cities that have them. In most cases, a
city’s historic preservation ordinance is accessible through the official
website of the city, within the municipal code.When possible, we also ob-
tained and reviewed city surveys of historic resources. We also checked
with the National Park Service to identify which jurisdictions participate
in the Certified Local Government Program, which indicates a strong
commitment to preservation (see page 10).
Conservancy staff evaluated the results using a ranking system based
on whether an individual jurisdiction had enacted certain identification or
protection programs or policies for historic resources. The rank then
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 4
Top: County of Los Angeles Hospital,
Old Administration Building (1909), Lincoln Heights
(courtesy Fields Devereaux)
Bottom: Historic resources are not limited to buildings.
La Laguna de San Gabriel Park (1965, San Gabriel)
is significant for its association with sculpture artist
Benjamin Dominguez, whose whimsical concrete
forms were designed as children’s play spaces.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
32translated into a “grade” for each jurisdiction.This report includes a sum-
mary of the results, followed by tables with supporting data.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 5
Top left: The modernist Barry Building (1951)
in Brentwood was declared Los Angeles Historic-
Cultural Monument No. 887 in 2007. Resources from
the postwar era are increasingly being designated
as local landmarks, and several cities are taking steps
to ensure that their local surveys are updated to reflect
the significance of their mid-century architecture.
Photo by Robert Cleveland.
Top right: This residential street in Jefferson Park,
Los Angeles, is part of a neighborhood district
proposed for historic district (HPOZ) designation.
Photo from Conservancy archives.
Bottom right: Oasis Apartments (1965), West Covina.
This Polynesian-themed apartment complex represents
a distinctive resource type common in the postwar era.
Photo by John Eng.
33ELEMENTS OF A GOOD PRESERVATION PROGRAM
The Preservation Report Card ranking system stems from historic preser-
vation protections and programs that serve as the basic tools by which
cities can begin to protect their historic resources. Below is a description
of the elements of a good preservation program and their relation to our
ranking system.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
A local historic preservation ordinance is one of
the most important tools a city can use to protect
privately owned historic resources. The effective-
ness of a preservation ordinance depends on its
scope and language, and ordinances vary among
jurisdictions. Their basic provisions enable a city
to designate significant local sites as historic and
list them on a local listing of historic resources.
These designated sites are referred to by a vari-
ety of names, such as “historic landmark” or “his-
toric-cultural monument,” depending on the city. A preservation ordinance
outlines the criteria the city has established for designating such land-
marks. These criteria are often based on those used by both the National
and State Registers, which in turn are based on generally accepted
preservation standards. Each city can tailor its designation criteria to re-
flect the specific significance of the community’s unique local resources.
Strong local historic preservation ordinances require that requests for
building permits for designated structures be reviewed by city staff or a
special local commission to ensure that proposed alterations conform to
preservation standards. They also give the city the power to deny per-
mits for inappropriate alterations or demolitions. In order to protect a sig-
nificant structure from demolition or severe alteration by its owner, a
strong preservation ordinance does not require owner consent for a his-
toric resource to be designated. Ordinances that require owner consent,
or that allow the owner to have a designation removed, are far less ef-
fective in using landmark designation as a method for protecting threat-
ened resources. Weaker preservation ordinances do not prevent
demolition of a designated resource, but merely delay demolition for a
set number of days. The weakest ordinances contain no language re-
garding the protection of the designated resource: such designated sites
enjoy only honorary status and no protections at all. Naturally, the
stronger the preservation ordinance of a city, the higher the ranking under
this criterion.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 6
Top: Claremont Packing House (1909-46),
Claremont Register Resource (Sally Egan).
Bottom: Higgins Building (1910), Los Angeles Historic-
Cultural Monument No. 873 (Conservancy archives).
Both of these historic resources, a former citrus
packing house and a downtown office building,
have become models of adaptive reuse.
34A few cities have a “scorched-earth” provision in their ordinances. This
provision prohibits new construction on a site for a set period of time after
an illegal demolition has occurred.
The final aspect we reviewed when analyz-
ing cities with historic preservation ordi-
nances was the effectiveness of their
programs. We reviewed the number of des-
ignated local landmarks in each city and
how often designations were made, consid-
ering the relative size of the community. A
few cities have had landmark ordinances for
several years, but have yet to designate any
resources. Others have active programs
and a growing list of designated landmarks,
often fueled by the strong promotion of the
benefits of owning a historic property, such
as property tax relief under the Mills Act
(see page 8).
HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE
A city’s ability to designate historic districts is an important tool in pro-
tecting large numbers of historic resources and preserving historically
significant neighborhoods. In many cases, a city’s historic preservation or-
dinance includes language allowing for the designation of historic dis-
tricts. In other cases, a city establishes a separate ordinance for this
express purpose.
Historic districts may be referred to by a variety of names, depending on
the jurisdiction, including Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs),
conservation districts, and Historic District Overlay Zones.They are gen-
erally defined as physically contiguous groups of structures, developed
within a single period or in a similar style, that retain and continue to ex-
press the design and patterns of the time in which they were developed.
Though historic districts are primarily contiguous, non-contiguous re-
sources may also be eligible for designation as a thematic grouping.
Each historic district has geographic boundaries. Within those bound-
aries, most of the structures must be considered “contributing,” meaning
that they are historically significant to the neighborhood and have main-
tained the integrity of their original design. A historic district will inevitably
include some percentage of “non-contributing” structures as well—those
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 7
Top: Several Los Angeles County cities have
adopted ordinance language allowing for the desig-
nation of historic districts, which protect the historic
character of a diverse range of historically signifi-
cant neighborhoods. Glendale designated its first
historic district, Royal Boulevard, in 2008.
Photo courtesy of the City of Glendale Planning
Department.
Bottom: A housing tract in Mar Vista designed
by architect Gregory Ain is one of Los Angeles’
twenty-four historic districts (known as Historic
Preservation Overlay Zones, or HPOZs),
and the city’s first postwar HPOZ.
Photo by Larry Underhill.
35built outside the district’s established “period of significance,” as well as
those that have been greatly altered.
The strongest historic district ordinances enable a city’s historic preser-
vation commission to deny inappropriate alteration or demolition of his-
toric structures within district boundaries. They also allow for design
review of new construction within the district, to help ensure that new de-
velopment is compatible with the neighborhood’s unique historic character.
The City of Long Beach has designated seventeen historic districts, which
receive local design review by the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission.
MILLS ACT HISTORIC PROPERTY CONTRACTS PROGRAM
The Mills Act is the single most important economic incentive program in
California for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic build-
ings by private property owners. It is a state law that allows local juris-
dictions to enter into contracts with private property owners to guarantee
the preservation of designated historic sites or structures. Property own-
ers who participate in the Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
have made a contractual agreement with their respective city to adhere
to a schedule of maintenance repairs and upkeep on their historic prop-
erty for the duration of the contract,
which spans ten years and self-renews
at the close of each year. In exchange
for this agreement, the property owner
is entitled to an alternate evaluation of
the property for tax purposes, which
usually results in a reduced property
tax bill.
Despite its clear and considerable
value, the Mills Act has been imple-
mented by only nineteen Los Angeles
County municipalities to date:
Calabasas, Claremont, Covina, Glen-
dale, Glendora, Huntington Park, La Verne, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Monrovia, Pasadena, Pomona, Redondo Beach, San Dimas, Santa
Monica, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, West Hollywood, Whittier
Since the Mills Act is typically the only economic incentive tool available
to local jurisdictions, the existence of a program at the local level is a
good indicator of a particular city’s commitment to historic preservation.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 8
Top: Fox Theatre (1949), Inglewood
(Dean Cheng)
Bottom: Kramer House (1966), Los Angeles
Historic-Cultural Monument No. 933, Granada Hills,
Los Angeles (Aaron Kahlenberg)
36In the majority of Los Angeles County cities that
have implemented the Mills Act program, proper-
ties eligible for participation must either be desig-
nated as a local landmark or be a contributor to a
locally designated historic district. Many more
property owners will initiate or approve the desig-
nation of their properties if they can reap tax sav-
ings through the Mills Act program. In the report
card rankings, cities with Mills Act programs in
place received higher ratings than those that did
not, and cities with a larger number of Mills Act
contracts rated even higher.
The City of West Hollywood has an active Mills Act program and currently
holds seventy-three contracts with property owners. Of particular note is
West Hollywood’s expansion of their Mills Act program to include, as
eligible properties, individual condominium units within historic buildings.
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY
A comprehensive survey documenting the historic resources within an
area is another powerful preservation tool. Historic resources surveys are
often done as part of the preparation of a city’s general or specific plan.
Surveys that meet state standards may identify properties as “historical
resources” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), which confers its own level of protection against egregious al-
terations and demolition in some cases. Surveys also serve as an in-
valuable educational tool to inform city officials and residents about the
rich built heritage of their communities, and to assist in thoughtful devel-
opment and environmental planning.
The mere existence of a comprehensive historic resources survey is not
a particularly good indicator of the strength of local preservation efforts.
To be truly useful, a survey must be regularly reviewed and updated, so
that historic structures or sites that have lost their significance can be
noted, and buildings or sites whose significance was not appreciated at
the time the survey was prepared can be recognized. A number of the
cities we contacted for the report card did have comprehensive historic
resources surveys, but many of those had not updated their surveys in
over twenty years, limiting their practical utility.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 9
Several Los Angeles County cities are in the process
of updating surveys of their architectural and cultural
resources. The City of Burbank is currently working
on a citywide windshield survey and historical
context study. Pictured: Burbank City Hall (1943).
Photo by Conservancy staff.
The Mills Act program is the single most important
preservation incentive in California, providing property
tax relief for owners of qualified historic properties.
Mills Act benefits are currently available in nineteen
cities throughout Los Angeles County, with many
property owners seeking landmark designation to take
advantage of the tax savings. Pictured: Lydecker House
(1939), Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument
No. 918 (courtesy Lydecker House).
37CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUS
Created in 1980 through amendments to the National Historic Preserva-
tion Act, the Certified Local Government Program forms a partnership
among participating local governments, the
State Office of Historic Preservation, and
the National Park Service. Cities designated
as Certified Local Governments (CLGs) are
eligible for state and federal grants to sup-
port efforts such as preservation plans, his-
toric resources surveys, and preservation
education and outreach programs. CLGs
also receive valuable technical assistance
from the State Office of Historic Preserva-
tion and can play a larger role than other-
wise in the review of local sites to the
National Register of Historic Places. A city’s
status as a CLG indicates both a high de-
gree of protection for historic resources and
a strong commitment by local government to continue improving its
preservation programs.
To qualify as a Certified Local Government, a jurisdiction must demon-
strate to the State Office of Historic Preservation that it has several
preservation programs in place, including:
• A historic preservation ordinance allowing for the designation of
local resources
• An established historic preservation commission
• A regularly updated survey of potentially historic resources
As of November 2008, only ten cities within Los Angeles County were
Certified Local Governments:
Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Pomona,
Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, West Hollywood
Los Angeles became a Certified Local Government in 2007.The city has
applied for and received two grants through the program that will assist
with the implementation of its first citywide survey of historic resources.
The grants will be used for language translation and duplication of an in-
formational video on the SurveyLA process, as well as the creation of a
template for community participation in the citywide survey process.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 0
Top: West Hollywood’s Harper Avenue Historic
District contains a collection of architecturally
significant multi-family dwellings, including the
Villa Primavera apartments (1923).
Photo by Conservancy staff.
Bottom: John Byers Residence (1924),
Santa Monica Landmark No. 52
(courtesy Santa Monica Conservancy)
38DEDICATED PRESERVATION PERSONNEL
Communities that value their historic resources typically have dedicated
staff to pursue preservation efforts, as well as a historic resources com-
mission to designate landmarks and review proposed changes to historic
properties. Preservation staff or local commissions typically review per-
mits for demolition or alteration of historic resources, administer Mills Act
programs, and designate new landmarks.They are often responsible for,
or are important consulting parties in, CEQA determinations regarding
historic properties. In many communities, they are also important advo-
cates for historic preservation and a great resource for property owners
on preservation techniques and practices.
In the Preservation Report Card rankings,
communities with a staff member dedicated
to historic preservation scored higher than
those who assigned preservation-related du-
ties to the general staff pool. Similarly, com-
munities with a historic resources
commission devoted to identifying and des-
ignating their historic resources scored
higher than those who delegated these du-
ties to an entity whose primary purpose is
not preservation.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 1
Top: Clock Market (1929), Beverly Hills
(Larry Underhill)
Bottom: Rives Mansion (1912), Downey
(John Eng)
39REPORT CARD GRADES
A
Cities earning an “A” on the 2008 Preservation Report Card have estab-
lished ordinances that enable them to designate historic landmarks and
districts, and they use those tools to actively designate landmarks and
districts.They do not require owner consent to designate individual land-
marks, and historic district designation does not require the consent of a
supermajority of property owners. In most cases, these communities can
prevent outright the demolition or inappropriate alteration of individual
landmarks or contributing buildings within historic districts. These com-
munities typically have many Mills Act contracts, are likely Certified Local
Governments, and have recently completed or updated historic resources
surveys. Grade “A” communities distinguish themselves through the thor-
oughness of legal protections for historic resources and the dedication
and energy of city officials in recognizing and preserving these resources.
B
Communities earning a “B” actively designate historic landmarks and dis-
tricts, and typically have implemented the Mills Act program for a con-
siderable number of properties. Although they may require some degree
of owner consent for districts or landmarks, the designations are binding
upon future owners. These communities have the power to prevent or
significantly delay demolition or alteration of landmarks or buildings within
historic districts. They likely have completed a historic resources survey.
C
Cities earning a “C” typically have ordinances in place to designate his-
toric landmarks or districts. They can prevent or significantly delay dem-
olition or alteration of landmarks or buildings within historic districts.
However, these communities require owner consent for designation, and
they may have designated few or no landmarks or districts. These cities
often have completed a historic resources survey.
D
Typically, communities earning a “D” have completed a historic resources
survey, but the survey provides little protection for these resources.They
also lack ordinances to protect individual landmarks or historic districts.
F: Preservation Truants
Cities earning an “F” have no historic preservation ordinances or ele-
ments and have conducted no historic resources surveys.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 2
Top: South Seas House (1902), West Adams,
Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument No. 757
(West Adams Heritage Association)
Bottom: Covina Bowl (1955), Covina
(John Eng)
40SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Cities are listed in alphabetical order. Please see the tables at the end of
this report for more information.
The A List: Congratulations to the seven cities who earned an A or A-
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Santa Monica,
West Hollywood, Whittier
Long Beach
The City of Long Beach is currently reevaluating many of its historic
preservation programs, which have been in place for a number of years.
The city’s historic preservation ordinance is undergoing a revision that
will strengthen protections for the city’s historic resources. The current
version of the ordinance delays the demolition of a designated landmark
for up to one year, but cannot prevent demolition outright. Long Beach
currently has 130 designated landmarks, seventeen historic districts, and
a dedicated Cultural Heritage Commission that meets regularly. The city
has a Mills Act program and currently holds forty-two contracts. Incen-
tives offered to owners of designated properties include relief from cer-
tain zoning and parking requirements, and use of the California State
Historic Building Code. Long Beach has been a Certified Local Govern-
ment since 1992. The city’s General Plan is undergoing a comprehen-
sive update that will include a new Historic Preservation Element. The
first phase of Long Beach’s first citywide survey is underway.
Los Angeles
See Notable Improvements, page 17
Pasadena
The City of Pasadena has many protections in place for its historic re-
sources. Its preservation ordinance allows for the designation of individ-
ual landmarks and historic districts, as well as significant signs and trees.
The city has designated 110 landmarks and a total of twenty-seven his-
toric districts. Although ten of these districts are listed solely in the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places (not locally), Pasadena has worded its
historic preservation ordinance to extend preservation protections and
review to those resources as well. The city’s Historic Preservation Com-
mission has the power to deny both inappropriate alterations and demo-
litions that are proposed for designated landmarks and contributing
structures in historic districts. Pasadena has an active Mills Act program,
with 103 contracts currently held.The city has been a Certified Local Gov-
ernment since 1986. Several context statements and related surveys
have been prepared for various portions and building types of the city,
although only about thirty percent of the city has been surveyed to date.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 3
Top: Like several other cities throughout Los Angeles
County, Long Beach is currently in the process of
updating the city’s historic preservation ordinance aimed
at strengthening protections for the community’s historic
resources. Pictured: The Arts Building (1930), Long Beach.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
Bottom: Pasadena is home to a diverse collection of
significant resources, including the Colorado Street Bridge
(1913, Pasadena Landmark) and the Vista del Arroyo Hotel
(1903). The city’s historic preservation ordinance is notable
for providing the same design review and protections to
local properties listed in the National Register of Historic
Places as to those that are designated as local Pasadena
landmarks. Photo by Dean Cheng.
41Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica has many programs in place to protect its ar-
chitectural and cultural heritage. The city’s landmarks ordinance affords
protection from demolition and inappropriate alterations to historic re-
sources. Santa Monica’s Landmarks Commis-
sion, which meets monthly, reviews proposed
design changes to designated historic resources,
as well as proposed demolitions to all structures
throughout the city that are forty years of age or
older. The city is in the process of updating its
comprehensive citywide historic resources sur-
vey, which required resources to be at least forty
years old to be considered potentially significant.
Santa Monica has designated eighty-nine land-
marks and two historic districts.The city does not
require owner consent to designate landmarks,
and historic district designation requires the sup-
port of only fifty-one percent of all property own-
ers within the district’s boundaries. The city’s
active Mills Act program currently includes forty-one contracts.The city of-
fers a wide range of other incentives to owners of historic properties, in-
cluding priority plan check processing; waivers of Certificates of
Appropriateness, planning application fees, and plan check application
fees; and exemption from requirements of the city’s construction rate pro-
gram. Santa Monica has been a Certified Local Government since 1992.
The city adopted a Historic Preservation Element for its General Plan in
2002, and it plans to conduct a substantive revision of its landmarks or-
dinance within the next year.
South Pasadena
The City of South Pasadena actively promotes and protects its architec-
tural and cultural heritage. The city’s historic preservation ordinance al-
lows for the designation of both landmarks and historic districts. It does
not require owner consent for landmark designation, and historic district
designation requires the support of only fifty-one percent of all property
owners within the district’s boundaries. The ordinance also contains a
“scorched-earth” provision, which helps to prevent un-permitted demoli-
tions. The city has a dedicated Cultural Heritage Commission that has
designated fifty landmarks and four historic districts. The Commission
plans to create a public outreach committee to further promote aware-
ness of historic resources and their maintenance. South Pasadena par-
ticipates in the Mills Act program and currently holds eight contracts.The
city has been a Certified Local Government since 2001.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 4
Santa Monica’s Landmarks Commission reviews proposed
demolitions for all structures forty years of age or older,
which allowed the city to prevent the demolition of its last
ocean-facing cottage (ca. 1905), now designated
Santa Monica Landmark No. 74, pictured above.
Photo courtesy Santa Monica Conservancy.
South Pasadena Public Library (1907, expanded
in 1917), South Pasadena (Suzanne Strong)
42West Hollywood
The City of West Hollywood has a notable historic preservation ordinance
that allows for the designation of both individual landmarks and historic
districts. It does not require owner consent for the designation of either in-
dividual landmarks or historic districts. The
city has designated a total of seventy-three
landmarks and six historic districts. It has
an active Mills Act program with seventy-
three contracts to date, including some with
owners of condominium units within locally
designated buildings. West Hollywood has
been a Certified Local Government since
1991.The city’s Historic Preservation Com-
mission meets monthly and has the power
to deny inappropriate alterations and dem-
olitions proposed for historic resources.
These same design review protections are
extended to structures identified in the city’s
historic resources inventory, which is currently being updated. The city
offers a variety of incentives to owners of designated resources, including
waiving permit fees and parking and setback requirements. West Holly-
wood also holds an annual event specifically to promote historic preser-
vation and the city’s architectural legacy.
Whittier
The City of Whittier has designated 101 landmarks and three historic dis-
tricts; it does not require owner consent for either type of designation. Its
preservation ordinance enables the city to deny proposed demolitions
and inappropriate alterations to historic resources.Whittier has a Historic
Resources Commission that meets monthly. While the city is not yet a
Certified Local Government, it does have an active Mills Act program,
with thirty contracts currently held. Whittier has a historic resources sur-
vey that was completed in 2001 and covers one-third of the city. The city
adopted a Historic Preservation Element for its General Plan in 1985 and
updated it in 1993.
B+, B, or B-
Claremont, Culver City, Glendale, Glendora, Huntington Park,
Monrovia, Pomona, Redondo Beach, San Dimas, San Gabriel
C+, C, or C-
Artesia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Burbank, Calabasas, Commerce,
Covina, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, La Verne, Rolling Hills Estates,
San Fernando, Sierra Madre, South Gate, West Covina
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 5
West Hollywood holds an annual event each
summer to promote historic preservation
and the city’s architectural heritage.
Photo courtesy of the City of
West Hollywood Planning Department.
Whittier’s historic preservation ordinance does not
require owner consent for the designation of local
landmarks, increasing its effectiveness as a tool for
protecting the city’s architectural heritage. Pictured
above: National Bank of Whittier (1923),
Whittier Historic Resource. Photo by Conservancy staff.
43D+, D, or D-
Alhambra, Avalon, Beverly Hills, Cudahy, Duarte, Gardena, Inglewood,
Irwindale, La Canada Flintridge, La Puente, Lancaster, Lawndale,
Los Angeles County, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Montebello, Norwalk,
Palmdale, Pico Rivera, San Marino, Santa Clarita, Signal Hill,
South El Monte, Torrance, Vernon
F: Preservation Truants
These cities currently have no legal protections for privately owned
historic resources, nor have they completed any surveys to identify
potential resources within their borders:
Agoura Hills, Arcadia, Bell, Bellflower, Bradbury, Carson, Cerritos,
Compton, Diamond Bar, Downey, El Monte, Hawaiian Gardens,
Hawthorne, Hidden Hills, City of Industry, La Habra Heights, La Mirada,
Lakewood, Lomita, Lynwood, Maywood, Monterey Park, Palos Verdes
Estates, Paramount, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rosemead,
Santa Fe Springs, Temple City, Walnut, Westlake Village
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 6
La Canada Flintridge is home to several architecturally significant resources,
including the Katherine B. Flint Residence (1929), designed by renowned
architect Paul Revere Williams. Photo by Conservancy staff.
Bowler Residence (1965), Rancho Palos Verdes
(Conservancy staff)
44NOTABLE IMPROVEMENTS
Congratulations to the following cities, which have made significant
strides in their preservation programs since the release of our first Preser-
vation Report Card in 2003.
Huntington Park: F to B+
The City of Huntington Park has a rich history and many significant re-
sources. Yet it had no protections in place until 2006, when the city
adopted a historic preservation ordinance after carefully
studying effective ordinances in other cities. One of the
ordinance’s most notable provisions is the ability to des-
ignate significant public or semi-public interior spaces
and signage, in addition to landmarks and historic dis-
tricts. It does not require owner consent for landmark
designation. In the two years since adopting its ordi-
nance, Huntington Park has designated six landmarks.
The city has a historic preservation commission that can
deny proposals for demolition or inappropriate alterations.
A citywide windshield survey of historic resources was
conducted in 2006, and the city has just implemented the
Mills Act program. Other incentives available to owners of
historic properties include the reduction of planning ad-
ministrative fees, zoning variances, and a conditional
waiver of parking requirements. The city promotes historic preservation
each May (National Preservation Month) by bestowing awards on a hand-
ful of properties that exemplify historic preservation and good steward-
ship of historic buildings.
Huntington Park has shown a remarkable turnaround, improving its grade
from an F to a B+ in five short years. The city has demonstrated a firm
commitment to establishing a strong set of preservation protections and
programs. Its preservation ordinance earned a 2007 Preservation Award
from the Los Angeles Conservancy. Huntington Park continues moving
forward in its preservation efforts, working to create the city’s first historic
district and become a Certified Local Government.
Los Angeles: B+ to A-
The City of Los Angeles has established itself as a preservation leader
on several fronts. The city established an Office of Historic Resources in
2006 to coordinate Los Angeles’ historic preservation activities and sup-
port its Cultural Heritage Commission. Los Angeles became a Certified
Local Government in 2007. The city’s active Mills Act program is the
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 7
Top: Lane-Wells Company Building (1937),
Huntington Park (Dean Cheng)
Bottom: Huntington Park celebrates historic preservation
each year by issuing historic preservation awards.
Photo courtesy Huntington Park Planning Department.
45second largest in the state, with over 380 contracts. Los Angeles has des-
ignated over 930 Historic-Cultural Monuments (local landmarks) and
twenty-four HPOZs that encompass more than 14,000 properties. The
city’s cultural heritage ordinance, created in 1962, is currently undergo-
ing its first major revision that would enable the city to deny, not merely
delay, the demolition of a designated resource. Los Angeles has launched
its first-ever citywide historic resources survey, the largest such project
ever undertaken by a single municipality, spanning over 800,000 parcels.
This multi-phase, multi-year survey seeks to actively involve the com-
munity; aggressive outreach includes a dedicated website, a speakers
bureau, and an award-winning video.
Los Angeles earned an A- (versus a B+ in 2003) for its demonstrated com-
mitment to historic preservation in a variety of areas, particularly estab-
lishing an office with dedicated historic preservation staff. The city has
received a number of awards for its preservation efforts, including a 2008
Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award and honors from the Amer-
ican Planning Association and the California Preservation Foundation.
West Covina: F to C
The City of West Covina has made significant strides in protecting its his-
toric resources. The city established a historic preservation ordinance in
2007 that allows for the designation of both landmarks and historic dis-
tricts, and enables the city to deny requests for inappropriate alteration or
demolition. West Covina has completed a citywide survey of its historic
resources and recently designated its first landmark.
West Covina earned a C (versus an F in 2003)
for implementing two important programs for
safeguarding historic resources in the commu-
nity. The citywide survey and the historic preser-
vation ordinance have enabled West Covina to
identify potential resources throughout the city
and to create a register of designated properties
that will receive substantial protections. How-
ever, the city does require owner consent for
both the designation of individual landmarks and
the inclusion of properties within historic dis-
tricts, limiting West Covina’s ability to protect its
architectural heritage.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 8
The City of Los Angeles won a 2008 Los Angeles
Conservancy Preservation Award for its Historic
Homeowner Education Program, which includes this
brochure, printed in English, Spanish, and Korean,
explaining the city’s HPOZ program (Historic Preservation
Overlay Zones, the city’s term for historic districts).
Image courtesy Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.
Establishing a historic preservation ordinance and
completing a citywide survey of historic resources have
enabled West Covina to begin protecting its architectural
heritage. Pictured: Jobe House (1891), West Covina.
Photo courtesy City of West Covina Planning Department.
46Calabasas: D- to C+
The City of Calabasas has demonstrated its commitment to historic
preservation by establishing several programs and protections for its
significant buildings and sites. In 2008 alone, the city has adopted a good
historic preservation ordinance, has implemented the Mills Act program,
and is conducting its first citywide survey of historic resources. In addition
to landmarks and historic districts, the city’s ordinance specifies historic
landscapes as eligible for designation. A notable feature of Calabasas’
ordinance is the local review and protection of all state and national land-
marks within the city, which are automatically included in the local regis-
ter. Calabasas has created a historic preservation staff position and has
a historic preservation commission that can deny proposals for demoli-
tion or inappropriate alteration.The city is currently producing a series of
design guidelines for historic property owners, covering a range of topics
including the proper treatment of historic building materials and appro-
priate ways to design an addition.
Calabasas earned a C+ (versus a D- in 2003) for its efforts to implement
a full range of programs to protect the community’s historic structures and
landscapes. While the city has not yet designated any local resources, it
already serves as a notable model for surrounding communities.
San Fernando: D- to C
The City of San Fernando recently adopted a historic
preservation ordinance that enables the designation of
individual landmarks and historic districts. The ordi-
nance will protect designated resources from demoli-
tion and inappropriate alteration, as well as enable the
city to implement the Mills Act program. The ordinance
marks the latest in a series of continuous efforts on the
city’s behalf to promote and protect its cultural heritage.
A citywide windshield survey in 2002 identified more
than 200 potentially historic sites within the city.The city
adopted a comprehensive Historic Preservation Ele-
ment that garnered a 2005 Preservation Award from the
Los Angeles Conservancy. San Fernando continues to
expand its efforts, with future goals including becoming
a Certified Local Government.
San Fernando earned a C (versus a D- in 2003) for its marked progress
in establishing protections and incentives for the preservation and pro-
motion of the community’s architectural heritage.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 1 9
The City of San Fernando recently adopted a historic
preservation ordinance that enables the designation of
individual landmarks and historic districts. As part
of the process, the city held community workshops to
engage residents, collect input, and build support.
Photo courtesy City of San Fernando
Planning Department.
Calabasas is currently conducting its first citywide
survey of historic resources, which includes the
Andy Anderson House (1938). The city recently
adopted a historic preservation ordinance.
Photo courtesy City of Calabasas
Planning Department.
47Manhattan Beach: F to D+
The City of Manhattan Beach adopted a historic preservation ordinance
in 2006 that allows for the designation of significant local landmarks,
though it currently provides only honorary status and does not offer any
protections against inappropriate alterations or demolition.While the cur-
rent version of the ordinance cannot be considered
an effective tool for protecting the city’s historic re-
sources, it has sparked an active dialogue between
residents and the city about the value of significant
buildings throughout the community.The city has also
established a City Council-appointed task force, the
Manhattan Beach Cultural Heritage Conservancy,
whose goal is to increase public awareness of the
city’s cultural and architectural heritage. A total of five
local landmarks have been designated, with additional
applications pending.
Manhattan Beach earned a D+ (versus an F in 2003)
for its active and successful outreach efforts to raise
awareness of the city’s architectural heritage.This marks a promising first
step, and we encourage Manhattan Beach to introduce language into
their ordinance that would offer protections against demolition and inap-
propriate alterations. This, coupled with a citywide survey of historic re-
sources and the implementation of an incentive program such as the Mills
Act, would chart the city on a successful course toward protecting its his-
toric resources.
Duarte: D- to D+
The City of Duarte recently adopted a Historic Preser-
vation Element for its General Plan that outlines objec-
tives for developing a comprehensive preservation
program, including establishing a historic preservation
ordinance. Duarte is currently drafting language for such
an ordinance, which the city expects to adopt within the
next year. The city also completed a citywide windshield
survey of architectural resources in 2003, which has
identified several sites of local significance.
Duarte earned a D+ (versus a D- in 2003) for its ongoing
efforts to establish a historic preservation ordinance. While this grade is
still low in this issue of the report card, we anticipate significant improve-
ments over the coming years.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 2 0
Manhattan Beach has taken steps to promote the city’s
diverse architectural heritage, which includes the mod-
ernist South Bay Bank (1957) by noted architect Craig Ell-
wood. Adopting a historic preservation ordinance was an
important step for the city, though the ordinance currently
affords only honorary status to designated landmarks. A
future revision to the ordinance could strengthen it to be-
come an effective tool for protecting the city’s historic re-
sources. Photo by Dean Cheng.
Duarte completed a citywide survey of its architectural
resources in 2003 and is currently in the process of
drafting its first historic preservation ordinance.
Pictured: Former Duarte School (1909).
Photo courtesy City of Duarte Planning Department.
48Santa Clarita: F to D+
The City of Santa Clarita had no protections in place for its historic
resources until recently. The 2006 demolition of a locally significant
residence galvanized the community to move toward establishing a
historic preservation program. As it works on drafting a historic preser-
vation ordinance, Santa Clarita has established an interim review process
to prevent the alteration or demolition of potentially historic resources
identified in past surveys.
Santa Clarita earned a D+ (versus an F in 2003) for
taking steps toward establishing a historic preser-
vation ordinance. The first phase of the city’s initia-
tive to adopt the ordinance has included several
community workshops. We expect Santa Clarita’s
grade to continue to rise as the city implements its
planned historic preservation programs.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o n R e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 0 8
P A G E 2 1
The 2006 demolition of the former residence of
Tex Williams (1917-1985), renowned American Western
musician, prompted the City of Santa Clarita to begin
drafting a historic preservation ordinance.
Photo courtesy Santa Clarita Historical Society.
49City Is owner consent required
for designation?
Does the ordinance
contain language to
deny demolition?
Does the ordinance
prevent inappropriate
alterations?
Additional Notes
P A G E 2 2
Grade
Claremont B+ No. Properties are added to Requires a 90-day delay on any Y es All historic resources identified
Claremont Register by resolution demolition request to explore through survey updates become
of the Architectural Commission. preservation alternatives. This also listed in the Claremont Register
triggers CEQA review, which may and receive corresponding
result in a denied demolition request. design review protections.
Glendale B+ Y es Y es Y es Demolition delay ordinance makes
all demo permits discretionary and
requires CEQA review for historic
resources; permit required for al-
terations with commission issuing
conditions or restrictions as it sees
fit; scorched-earth ordinance;
ordinance requires owners to
maintain designated structures.
Glendora B Y es (but binding upon subsequent No for historic resources (but can Y es for resources, landmarks, and Ordinance requires owners to
owners) for landmarks and historic delay); yes for landmarks; yes for HPOZ contributing resources. keep designated structures in
resources; 51% for HPOZ. HPOZ contributing resources. good repair.
Huntington Park B+ No Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness
needed for alteration or demolition
of landmark or contributing structure
in historic district; ordinance states
“vacant land or non-use will not
constitute a valid replacement/reuse
plan”; duty to keep in good repair.
Long Beach A No Y es for any landmark or Y es for any landmark or Certificate of Appropriateness
improvement within a district. improvement within a district. needed before alteration or demo
lition of any landmark or building
within a district.
P R E S E R V AT I O N E X T R A C R E D I T T H E T O P C I T I E S
50City Is owner consent required
for designation?
Does the ordinance
contain language to
deny demolition?
Does the ordinance
prevent inappropriate
alterations?
Additional Notes
P A G E 2 3
Grade
Los Angeles A- No Can delay demolition up to 360 days Can delay demolition up to 360 Also requires CEQA review for
for landmarks and prevent outright days for landmarks and prevent buildings listed in the National
in historic districts. outright in historic districts. Register of Historic Places or
California Register of Historic
Resources;scorched-earth ordinance.
Monrovia B+ Y es Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness
needed for alteration or demolition
of landmark or contributing structure
in historic district; historic district
special review by commission
required for alteration or demolition
of potential landmark in survey;
duty to maintain; scorched-earth
ordinance.
Pasadena A No for landmarks; 51% for districts. Y es Y es Commission can approve or deny
applications for demolition or alter-
ation of landmarks, contributing
buildings in districts, certain non-
contributing buildings in districts,
and works of Greene and Greene.
Commission can deny demolition
for structures identified in recent
surveys; review of all demolition
permits for structures over 50
years old; scorched-earth ordinance.
Pomona B Y es for landmarks; districts can be Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness or
nullified if 50% + 1 owners write in. Certificate of Economic Hardship
needed for alteration or demolition
of landmarks; any buildings, public
streets, or sidewalks in district;
and all pre-1945 structures. Duty
to keep in good repair.
51City Is owner consent required
for designation?
Does the ordinance
contain language to
deny demolition?
Does the ordinance
prevent inappropriate
alterations?
Additional Notes
P A G E 2 4
Grade
Redondo Beach B Y es, only owners can apply for Y es Y es Landmarks must be at least 50
landmark designation; all property years old, or at least 30 if excep-
owners of resources in historic tional and/or threatened; 75% of
district must apply. buildings in district must be over
50 years old and no more than
25% of buildings in district may be
non-contributing; duty to keep in
good repair.
San Dimas B No. No city ordinance or designation Y es. Design Review Board has Y es. Design Review Board has Proposals to demolish structures
process for individual landmarks. the power to deny demolition of the power to deny inappropriate identified as historic resources are
However, 320+ structures in historic all structures listed in the historic alterations to all structures listed reviewed by the Design Review
resource inventory receive strong resource inventory. in the historic resource inventory. Board and also involve CEQA
protection and design review. review.
Santa Monica A No for landmarks; can be nullified Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness or
for districts if majority of owners Certificate of Economic Hardship
sign petition. needed for alteration or demolition
of landmark or district building;
not needed for Structure of Merit,
but commission can stay the
demolition to negotiate; any time
periods can be extended by the
Director of Planning to comply with
CEQA; review required before
demolition permit issued for non-
listed buildings over 40 years old;
duty to keep in good repair.
South Pasadena A Y es; 50% + 1 must consent for Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness
districts; for landmarks the landmark needed for alteration or demolition
subcommittee must exercise its of landmark or property on the
“best efforts” to obtain owner consent; city’s Cultural Heritage Inventory
no consent needed for Cultural or a structure or natural feature
Heritage Inventory. within a district; affirmative duty to
maintain; scorched-earth ordinance.
52City Is owner consent required
for designation?
Does the ordinance
contain language to
deny demolition?
Does the ordinance
prevent inappropriate
alterations?
Additional Notes
P A G E 2 5
Grade
West Hollywood A No Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness
needed for alteration or demolition
of cultural resource or contributing
resource in district; non-contribut-
ing resource must be reviewed by
commission in case of demolition;
owner can propose to de-list after
five years, but must prove nomina-
tion was in error; duty to keep in
good repair.
Whittier A No Y es Y es Certificate of Appropriateness
needed for alteration or demolition
of historic resource or contributing
resource within historic district;
review required before demo
permit issued for non-listed build-
ings over 50 years old; owners
have a duty to keep designated
buildings in good repair.
53City Grade CLG? Has ordinance
that allows
designation
of historic
landmarks?
How many
landmarks
designated?
Mills Act? Has ordinance that
allows designation
of historic districts?
Number designated?
Has survey of historic
architectural resources?
Has other list of
identified resources?
Historic
Preservation
Officer?
Historic
Preservation
Commission?
P A G E 2 6
2 0 0 8 L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R V A N C Y P R E S E R V AT I O N R E P O R T C A R D
Agoura Hills F No No 0 No No No No No
Alhambra D- No No 0 No No Y es No No
Arcadia F No No 0 No No No No No
Artesia C No No 0 No Y es, 1 No No No
Avalon D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of potential No No
resources in Local
Coastal Program.
Azusa C No Y es 0 (58 potential No Y es, 0 Y es No Y es
historic
landmarks)
Baldwin Park C- No Y es 0 No Y es, 0 No No Planning
Commission
sits as Historic
Resource
Advisory
Committee.
Bell F No No 0 No No No No No
Bellflower F No No 0 No No No No No
Bell Gardens C No Y es 0 No Y es, 0 No No Y es
Beverly Hills D No Y es, but landmark 0 No No Y es. Citywide, 1985. No Planning
designation is Supplemental updates Commission
honorary and in 2004 & 2006. sits as
affords no Architectural
protections. Commission.
Bradbury F No No 0 No No No No No
Burbank C- Y es Y es 0 No No Y es. List of potential No Y es
resources in Historic
Preservation Plan.
Citywide update in progress.
54City Grade CLG? Has ordinance
that allows
designation
of historic
landmarks?
How many
landmarks
designated?
Mills Act? Has ordinance that
allows designation
of historic districts?
Number designated?
Has survey of historic
architectural resources?
Has other list of
identified resources?
Historic
Preservation
Officer?
Historic
Preservation
Commission?
P A G E 2 7
Calabasas C+ No Y es 0 Y es, 0 Y es, 0 No, but conducting first Y es Y es
citywide survey.
Carson F No No 0 No No No No No
Cerritos F No No 0 No No No No No
Claremont B+ No No 980 Y es, 3 Architectural Review Y es, Citywide, 1980. No No
Districts, 3 Updated in 2001.
Commerce C No Y es 3 No Y es, 0 No No Planning
Commission
sits as Cultural
Resource
Management
Commission.
Compton F No No 0 No No No No No
Covina C No Y es 0 No No Y es. Survey of No Y es
downtown, 2007.
Cudahy D- No No 0 No No Y es. Citywide for residential No No
structures, 1984.
Culver City B- No Y es 80 No Y es, 3 Y es. Citywide, 1990. Y es Yes
Diamond Bar F No No 0 No No No No No
Downey F No No 0 No No No No No
Duarte D+ No Drafting this year.0 No No Y es. Citywide, 2003. No No
El Monte F No No 0 No No No No No
El Segundo C- No Y es 0 No No Y es. Portions of city No No
surveyed.
Gardena D- No No 0 No No Y es. Citywide, 1981. No No
Glendale B+ Y es Y es 67 Y es, 28 Y es, 1 Y es. Portions of city Yes Y es
surveyed.
Glendora B No Y es 28 Y es, 17 Y es , 1 Y es. Citywide, 1990. No Y es
Hawaiian Gardens F No No 0 No No No No No
Hawthorne F No No 0 No No No No No
55City Grade CLG? Has ordinance
that allows
designation
of historic
landmarks?
How many
landmarks
designated?
Mills Act? Has ordinance that
allows designation
of historic districts?
Number designated?
Has survey of historic
architectural resources?
Has other list of
identified resources?
Historic
Preservation
Officer?
Historic
Preservation
Commission?
P A G E 2 8
Hermosa Beach C- No Y es 1 No No Y es. List of potential No No
resources and 2 potential
districts in General Plan.
Hidden Hills F No No 0 No No No No No
Huntington Park B+ No Y es 6 Y es, 0 Y es, 0 Y es. Citywide windshield No Y es
survey, 2006.
City of Industry F No No 0 No No No No No
Inglewood D- No No 0 No No Y es. Partial survey, 1998. No No
Irwindale D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of historic No No
resources in General Plan.
La Canada D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of potential No No
Flintridge resources in General Plan.
La Habra Heights F No No 0 No No No No No
La Mirada F No No 0 No No No No No
La Puente D- No No 0 No No Y es. Survey of downtown No No
business district, 1992.
La Verne C+ No No 18, Declared Y es, 9 1, Designated by Y es. Survey of Old Town No No
through Council Specific Plan, but no district, 1986.
resolution general ordinance.
Lakewood F No No 0 No No No No No
Lancaster D- No No 0 No No Y es. Survey of portion of No No
downtown, 2003.
Conducting another
downtown survey, 2008.
Lawndale D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of potential No No
resources in General Plan.
Lomita F No No 0 No No No No No
Long Beach A Y es Y es 130 Y es, 42 Y es, 17 Y es. Survey of downtown, Y es Y es
1980s. Citywide survey
in progress.
56City Grade CLG? Has ordinance
that allows
designation
of historic
landmarks?
How many
landmarks
designated?
Mills Act? Has ordinance that
allows designation
of historic districts?
Number designated?
Has survey of historic
architectural resources?
Has other list of
identified resources?
Historic
Preservation
Officer?
Historic
Preservation
Commission?
P A G E 2 9
Los Angeles A- Y es Y es 939 Y es, 381 Y es, 24 Y es. Approx. 15% of city Y es Y es
has been surveyed.
Multiphase citywide survey
in progress.
Los Angeles D- No No 0 No No No No Y es
County
Lynwood F No No 0 No No No No No
Malibu D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of resources in No No
General Plan.
Manhattan Beach D+ No Y es, but landmark 5 No No Y es. Partial survey, ongoing. No No
designation is
honorary and
affords no
protections.
Maywood F No No 0 No No No No No
Monrovia B+ No Y es 123 Y es, 117 Y es, 1 Y es. List of potential No Y es
resources, 1995.
Update in progress.
Montebello D- No No 0 No No Y es. Survey of Whittier No No
Boulevard structures, 1990.
Monterey Park F No No 0 No No No No No
Norwalk D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of potential No No
resources in General Plan.
Palmdale D- No No 0 No No Y es. Survey of downtown, No No
2005.
Palos Verdes F No No 0 No No No No No
Estates
Paramount F No No 0 No No No No No
Pasadena A Y es Y es 110 Y es, 103 Y es, 17. Y es. 15 contextual surveys. No Y es
Also, 10 additional Most recent survey, 2008.
National Register districts Approx. 30% of city has
receive local design review. been surveyed.
57City Grade CLG? Has ordinance
that allows
designation
of historic
landmarks?
How many
landmarks
designated?
Mills Act? Has ordinance that
allows designation
of historic districts?
Number designated?
Has survey of historic
architectural resources?
Has other list of
identified resources?
Historic
Preservation
Officer?
Historic
Preservation
Commission?
P A G E 3 0
Pico Rivera D- No No 0 No No Y es. List of potential No No
resources in General Plan.
Pomona B Y es Y es 16 Y es, 3 Y es, 3 Y es. Citywide, 1993. No Y es
Rancho Palos F No No 0 No No No No No
Verdes
Redondo Beach B Y es Y es 70 Y es, 70 Y es, 2 Y es. Windshield surveys No Y es
in 1986 and 1996.
Rolling Hills F No No 0 No No No No No
Rolling Hills C- No Y es 3 No No No No No
Estates
Rosemead F No No 0 No No No No No
San Dimas B No No 0* Y es, 6 No Y es. Citywide, 1991. No Design Review
*However, 320+ The 320+ identified resources Board
structures receive receive equivalent protections
strong protection. to landmark designation.
San Fernando C No Y es 2 Y es Y es, 0 Y es. Citywide windshield No Y es
Declared survey, 2002.
through Council Update in progress.
resolution.
San Gabriel B- No Y es 16 Y es, 2 Y es, 1 Y es. Four portions of city No No
have been surveyed.
San Marino D- No Y es, but landmark 2 No No No No No
designation is
honorary and
affords no
protections.
Santa Clarita D+ No Drafting this year.0 No No Y es. Lists of potential No No
resources in General
Plan & Downtown Newhall
Specific Plan.
Santa Fe Springs F No No 0 No No No No No
58City Grade CLG? Has ordinance
that allows
designation
of historic
landmarks?
How many
landmarks
designated?
Mills Act? Has ordinance that
allows designation
of historic districts?
Number designated?
Has survey of historic
architectural resources?
Has other list of
identified resources?
Historic
Preservation
Officer?
Historic
Preservation
Commission?
P A G E 3 1
Santa Monica A Y es Y es 89 Y es, 41 Y es, 2 Y es. Citywide. No Y es
2009 citywide update
in progress.
Sierra Madre C No Y es 47 Y es, 18 No No No No
Signal Hill D+ No No 0 No 1
Designated by Specific Y es. Citywide, 1986. No No
Plan, but no general
ordinance.
South El Monte D+ No Y es 0 No Y es, 0 No No No
South Gate C- No Y es 3 No No No No No
South Pasadena A Y es Y es 50 Y es, 8 Y es, 4 Y es. Citywide. No Y es
Updated in 2001.
Temple City F No No 0 No No No No No
Torrance D- No No 0 No No Y es. Citywide, 1979. No No
Vernon D- No No 1 No No No No No
Declared
through Council
resolution.
Walnut F No No 0 No No No No No
West Covina C No Y es 1 No Y es, 0 Y es. Citywide survey. No No
West Hollywood A Y es Y es 73 Y es, 73 Y es, 6 Y es. Citywide, 1987. No Y es
Citywide update in progress.
Westlake Village F No No 0 No No No No No
Whittier A No Y es 101 Y es, 30 Y es, 3 Y es. Approx. 33% of city No Y es
has been surveyed.
59