8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
1/32
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
2/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 The Countywide Report Card:
Fostering Preservation at the Local Level
5 Digital Report Card:
A New, Dynamic Resource for Communities
6 Methodology: New Focus on Clarity, Support
8 Summary of Findings
11 Summary of Grades
12 Notable Improvements
13 How to Improve Your Score
15 Elements of a Strong Preservation Program
23 2014 Preservation Report Card (chart)
COVER PHOTOS
Top row:
(lt) Beverly Hills Hotel (1912), the first designated landmarkin the City of Beverly Hills
(cropped; Tony Hoffarth on Flickr)
(rt) YWCA Building (1921), designed by Julia Morgan, Pasadena(Big Orange Landmarks)
Middle row:
(lt) Harvard Heights historic district (Historic PreservationOverlay Zone), Los Angeles (Larry Underhill)
(rt) Engine Co. No. 8 (1929), Long Beach (Mike EdwardsPhotography, mikeedwardsphotography.com)
Bottom row:
(lt) The Rock House (1921-1923), the first residential landmarkdesignated by the City of Burbank
(City of Burbank, Planning & Transportation Division)
(rt) Johnies Coffee Shop (1956), designated as a Los AngelesHistoric-Cultural Monument in November 2
(Stephen Russo)
On this page: Chez Jay (1959), designated as a Santa Monicalandmark in 2012 (Mark Mitchell on Flickr)
2014 Los Angeles Conservancy. All rights reserved.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
3/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 3
THE COUNTYWIDE REPORT CARD:FOSTERING PRESERVATION AT THE LOCALLEVEL
The Los Angeles area has a rich architectural heritage that issurprising
vulnerable, with important historic places facing ongoingthreats of dem
olition and insensitive alteration. In Southern California, themost effe
tive protections against these threats often lie in the hands ofloc
government, which can create and enforce substantive laws andince
tives to foster historic preservation.
Los Angeles County spans more than 4,000 squa
miles and contains eighty-nine local governmen
eighty-eight cities, plus the County governme
with jurisdiction over the unincorporated areas
the County. Each of these jurisdictions operates i
dependently and has its own protectionsor la
thereoffor preserving its historic resources.
The nonprofit Los Angeles Conservancy wor
through advocacy and education to recogniz
preserve, and revitalize historic resourc
throughout L.A. County. As part of this effort, it
important to understand how preservation wor
in each of the countys different jurisdictions, he
governments create or improve preservation programs, andrecogni
those with strong protections in place.
In 2003, the Conservancy launched a broad initiative to assessthe state
local preservation policy. The Conservancys CountywidePreservatio
Report Card grades each of the countys eighty-nine jurisdictionson t
elements they have in place at the local level, such asordinances and i
centive programs, to help preserve historic places.
The Report Card has been very well received, spurring somecommuniti
to take long overdue action to protect their historic resourcesand offeri
models from other cities. The ultimate goal of the Report Cardis to help i
prove preservation at the local level, and the Conservancyserves as a resourfor any community seeking to create or enhance apreservation program.
We issued the first edition of the Report Card in 2003 and thesecond
2008, both of which provided snapshots of preservation in L.A.County
a specific point in time. The new 2014 edition reflects someexcitin
changes and a more proactive approach to helping communitiessuccee
in their preservation efforts.
Top: The County of Los Angeles is working on a historic
preservation ordinance to protect gems such as the 1927
Self Help Graphics & Art Building in unincorporated EastL.A.
Photo by Edgar Garcia.
Bottom: The City of West Hollywood has a number of
designated landmarks, including the 1927 former home and
studio of architect Lloyd Wright (son of Frank LloydWright).
Photo by a75 on Flickr.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
4/32
What the Report Card Is NOT
The Preservation Report Card is not intended as a comprehensiveasse
ment of all preservation efforts in L.A. County. It does notassess the gene
state of preservation of the cultural resources of Los AngelesCounty; t
stewardship of publicly held cultural or historic resources; orthe comm
ment, drive, and influence of local advocacy organizations.
All these factors are of great importance to preservation in LosAngel
County. We applaud the heroic efforts of the many groups andindividua
across the county who tirelessly advocate for, and carry out,the preserv
tion of our architectural and cultural heritage.
The Report Card does assess local governments current efforts toensu
the preservation of historic and cultural resources. It simplyseeks to re
ognize those jurisdictions that actively foster preservation andencoura
them to keep up the good work, as well as to offer practicalmodels, be
practices, and motivation to those jurisdictions that have fewerprotectio
in place.
A Note on Vocabulary
Since the County government is not a city, we do not use theterm cit
when referring to the eighty-nine jurisdictions in L.A. County.For the pu
poses of the Report Card, we use the terms jurisdiction andcommunit
instead of city to refer to these entities.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 4
Top: Though Inglewood has no ordinance,
local advocates are working to preserve
important places including the 1949 Fox Theatre.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
Bottom: Culver Hotel (1924) in Culver City,
designated as a local landmark and listed
in the National Register of Historic Places.
Photo by Justin Officer.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
5/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 5
DIGITAL REPORT CARD:A NEW, DYNAMIC RESOURCE FORCOMMUNITIESlaconservancy.org/report-card
With this new edition in 2014, the Conservancy has built adigital versio
of the Report Card on our website atlaconservancy.org/report-card. T
Digital Report Card offers exciting new features including:
The ability to update scores and grades in real
time, as communities make improvements, rather
than issuing static snapshots every five years
Links to more in-depth information about
communities preservation programs
A searchable database with easy access to
information about nearby communities, to
provide context about preservation in the region
Access to a growing library of Conservancy
resources, such as a model ordinance, to help
communities create or improve preservation
programs
In concert with the Digital Report Card, we have createdcommunity pag
on our website for each of L.A. Countys eighty-ninejurisdictions, featurin
Details of the communitys current Report Card results andpreservatio
program, including success factors and/or areas ofimprovement
Information about historic places and any active preservationissue
in the community
Information about local agencies and/or advocacy groups, tohelp
residents get involved in preserving their local heritage
A way for residents and local officials to share informationabouttheir community
The Digital Report Card and new community pages offer a robust,dynam
resource for preservation at the local level. We welcomefeedback on an
aspect of these new features to help us refine and improve themover tim
The Conservancys website (laconservancy.org)
has a new Digital Report Card to serve as
an ongoing resource.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
6/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 6
METHODOLOGY: NEW FOCUS ON CLARITY, SUPPORT
This new version of the Preservation Report Card also reflectschanges
our methodology. While our basic process remained the same, wecreat
a more quantifiable scoring system to clarify how grades weredetermin
and identify areas of improvement. With the Digital Report Card,we w
also be able to provide more resources to help communities, aswell
update scores and grades as communities ma
progress.
As with previous editions of the Report Card, L
Angeles Conservancy staff conducted phone i
terviews with representatives from each of th
local governments in Los Angeles County. The
interviews took place in the fall of 2013. For ea
jurisdiction, we spoke with representatives wh
participate directly in the specific community
planning review process, as well as staff membe
responsible for overseeing historic preservatio
programs in communities that have them.
We asked each interviewee about various elements of theirpreservatio
program, including:
How preservation fits into the structure and functioning oflocal
government (e.g., staffing, decision making)
Incentives offered for preservation, such as the Mills ActHistorica
Property Contract Program
The existence and strength of a local preservation ordinance
The existence and number of designated landmarks andhistoric
districts
The existence and scope of surveys of historic places
Community involvement (e.g., local groups, current preservationissue
For more information about the elements of a strong preservationprogram
see page 15.
In addition to conducting interviews, Conservancy staff reviewedthe exi
ing preservation ordinances of communities that have them. Inmost case
the historic preservation ordinance is accessible through theofficial webs
of the jurisdiction, within the municipal code. When possible,we also o
tained and reviewed community surveys of historic resources.
Top: County of Los Angeles Hospital,
Old Administration Building (1909), Lincoln Heights.
Photo 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 childrens play spaces.
The City of San Gabriel designated the playground
as a local landmark in 2009.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
7/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 7
We checked with the National Park Service to identify whichjurisdictio
participate in the Certified Local Government Program, whichindicate
strong commitment to preservation. We also began to trackcommunitie
use of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), thoughwe d
not grade specifically on this category.
Conservancy staff evaluated the results using a new scoringsystem th
assigned specific values for various programs and activities. Ina new a
dition for 2014, we also assigned Extra Credit for specificpreservation
forts that fall outside the parameters of the Report Cardscoring. The tot
scores then translated into a grade for each community. Thisreport i
cludes a summary of the results, followed by a chart withsupporting da
SCORING SYSTEM
Policy/Program/Activity Points
Historic preservation ordinance 150 (10 if only honorar
Dedicated Historic Preservation Commission 5
Dedicated preservation staff 15
Ability to designate historic districts 15
Owner consent not required for 10
landmark designation
Active landmark designation (at least annually) 5
Survey of historic resources 15 citywide/10 partialSurveyupdated within the past five years 5
Mills Act incentive program 10
Additional incentives 5
Status as a Certified Local Government 5
Historic Preservation Element or Plan 5
Maximum Total Score 245
Extra Credit: Other specific accomplishment(s) 1-25
Grading System
A 90 100%
B 80 89%
C 70 79%
D 60 69%
F 0 59%
Top: The modernist Barry Building (1951)
in Brentwood was designated as a Los Angeles
Historic-Cultural Monument in 2007.
Photo by Robert Cleveland.
Bottom: This residential street is part of the
Jefferson Park historic district (Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone, or HPOZ),
designated by the City of Los Angeles in 2011.
Photo from Conservancy archives.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
8/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 8
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In addition to specific grades, our in-depth research unearthedsome i
teresting trends in local preservation throughout L.A.County:
One size does not fit all.
Communities pursue preservation in diffe
ent ways. While good preservation program
require certain basic elements, they can b
used and combined in various forms to su
the specific needs of the community.
Through the new scoring system, the Cons
vancy has more clearly articulated what w
consider the most important benchmarks f
communities. Yet we also want to recogni
communities that may not have reached the
specific benchmarks but are making progre
in other ways. These communities are taki
somewhat of a hybrid approach to prese
vation, combining some if not all the key e
ments of a strong preservation program.
One example is La Caada Flintridge, whi
adopted the popular Mills Act property t
abatement program in 2012 but has yet adopt a historicpreservation ordinanc
Without a historic preservation ordinanc
the city lacks the ability to protect historic r
sources through local landmark designatio
However, the Mills Act program is a stro
preservation incentive. The citys impleme
tation of the program has led several owne
of historically significant residences to app
for Mills Act contracts, which offer local d
sign review and limited protection.
Another example is Carson. Despite lacking any historicpreservation po
cies, Carson has demonstrated a willingness to recognizearchitectural
significant structures and ensure that they continue to reflectthe comm
nitys character. The city provided Community Development BlockGra
(CDBG) funds to aid in faade and signage repainting of theprivate
owned and operated Carson Car Wash, a highly intact 1956 Spa
Age/Googie car wash.
Top: La Caada 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.
Bottom: Carson Car Wash (1956).
Photo by Mike Hume.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
9/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 9
An ordinance alone is not enough.
Even an iron-clad ordinance is not as effective as a cohesiveapproach
preservation using a range of tools. In California, one of thestrongest too
for preservation is the California Environment
Quality Act (CEQA). Communities need to und
stand their responsibilities in using CEQA to pr
tect threatened resources. For more informati
about the importance of CEQA, see page 21.
CEQA sometimes is not fully embraced by a co
munity, in terms of identifying historic resourc
and considering preservation alternatives. Two e
amples from 2013 include a 1930 Mediterrane
Revival building at 3901 San Fernando Road
Glendale and the 1959 Mid-Century Modern S
Marthas Episcopal Church in West Covin
Though the Conservancy submitted comments and/or testified thatbo
structures were architecturally significant, they were approvedfor dem
lition as part of certified development projects for theirrespective sites
In each case, the cities relied on and accepted flawed culturalresour
evaluations that were part of the environmental review for thedevelopme
projects. Neither structure was identified as a historicresource in its r
spective environmental review. Yet the Glendale building hadbeen p
viously surveyed and identified as eligible for listing in boththe Californ
and National Registers, and the historical record for the WestCovinchurch included substantial and compelling evidence of itssignificanc
Comparing previous grades is not apples to apples.
The new scoring system has changed the distribution of gradesamo
communities. While the number of A grades has more than doubledsin
2008, the number of F grades has also increased. We discouragemaki
direct comparisons of the 2014 scores to those from 2003 and2008, whi
would be misleading.
We have designed a scoring system to be more helpful byclarifying th
elements and priorities of a strong preservation program. Ratherthan maki
an inaccurate comparison to previous grades, we encouragecommuniti
to focus on the specific elements of their grades for 2014 andhow they c
improve, using specific resources and assistance (see page13).
Despite being identified as significant, this 1930
building in Glendale was approved for demolition in the
environmental review process for a replacement project.
Photo by Adrian Scott Fine/L.A. Conservancy.
The City of West Covina relied on flawed cultural
resource evaluations in approving the demolition
of the 1959 St. Martha's Episcopal Church.
Photo by Alan Hess.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
10/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 0
The recession greatly hindered progress in preservation.
Historic preservation programs were far from immune to therecession
the late 2000s. Local budget reductions led to changes such asreducin
the number of planning staff, eliminating the position of adedicat
preservation planner, eliminating a dedicated HistoricPreservation Co
mission and transferring its duties to the existing PlanningCommissio
and indefinitely postponing specific preservation efforts suchas creati
historic districts. Despite the recent upturn in the economy,many of the
negative impacts remain today, significantly hinderingcommunitie
preservation efforts.
Some postwar communities think they have no historicresources.
We spoke with a number of local representatives who simplymaintain th
their community has no historic resources because it isrelatively youn
Yet each jurisdiction should view its built heritage through thelens of
own historical development, not in comparison to oldercommunities.
All jurisdictions within Los Angeles County ha
places that are at least fifty years old, which is th
typical threshold for assessing historical signi
cance. Postwar development is a critical part of t
countys rich heritage. We encourage younger com
munities to conduct historic resources surveys
identify potential historic and cultural resourc
before they are lost.
We have a long way to go.
While the Conservancy saw some improveme
between 2003 and 2008, in the past five year
progress in preservation programs has slow
throughout the county, largely for reasons not
above. The Conservancy recognizes the need for proactive work incom
munities, and we will be reaching out with more resources,tools, and tec
nical assistance. Our new Digital Report Card will help in thiseffort, bwe will also pursue other proactive outreach. For moreinformation o
how communities can improve their grades, see page 13.
Top: John Byers Adobe (1924),
a designated Santa Monica Landmark.
Photo courtesy Santa Monica Conservancy.
Bottom: Some communities or neighborhoods
may not think they have any significant buildings,
because they developed primarily after World War II.
Yet more resources from the recent past are gaining
recognition, such as the remaining Los Encinos Homes
in Woodland Hills. These 1976 homes were identified
as a potential Historic Preservation Overlay Zone
(historic district) in the City of Los Angeles SurveyLA.
Photo by Adrian Scott Fine/L.A. Conservancy.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
11/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 1
SUMMARY OF GRADES
A , A, or A-Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Claremont, CulverCity, Glendale,
Huntington Park, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Monrovia,Pasadena,
Pomona, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, South Pasadena,
West Hollywood, Whittier
B , B, or B-Glendora, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel
C , C, or C-Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bradbury, Commerce, La Verne,Rolling Hills
Estates, Santa Clarita, Sierra Madre, West Covina
D , D, or D-Bell Gardens, Covina, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach,Irwindale,
Maywood, South El Monte, South Gate
fa*goura Hills, Alhambra, Arcadia, Artesia, Avalon, Bell,Bellflower,
Carson, Cerritos, City of Industry, Compton, Cudahy, DiamondBar,
Downey, Duarte, El Monte, Gardena, Hawaiian Gardens,Hawthorne,
Hidden Hills, Inglewood, La Caada Flintridge, La HabraHeights,
La Mirada, La Puente, Lakewood, Lancaster, Lawndale, Lomita,
Los Angeles County, Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach,Montebello
Monterey Park, Norwalk, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates,Paramount,Pico Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills,Rosemead, San Marin
Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill, Temple City, Torrance,
Vernon, Walnut, Westlake Village
For detailed scoring information, please see the Report Cardchart startin
on page 23.
Note: The Conservancy has made every effort to ensure theaccuracy
our evaluation and scoring. If you believe that we have made anerro
please contact us at [emailprotected] or (213)623-2489.
Also note that with our Digital Report Card, we will updatescores
communities make progress in their preservation efforts. For thelate
information, please visit laconservancy.org/report-card.
Top: Lane-Wells Company Building (1937), Huntington Park.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
Bottom: Tour of Hollywood Grove Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ).Photo by Adrian Scott Fine/L.A.Conservancy.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
12/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 2
NOTABLE IMPROVEMENTS
Congratulations to the following cities, which have madesignifica
strides in their preservation programs since the release of ourlast Prese
vation Report Card in 2008.
Beverly Hills
In 2008, Beverly Hills had a very weak historic preservationordinance th
offered honorary landmark status and no true protections (andhad nev
even been used to landmark any structures). The city had updateda 200
survey of its commercial area, but the existing citywide surveyfrom 198
was over twenty years old and sorely out of date.
Sometimes, the threats to a specific historic buildingand theefforts to sa
itgalvanize support that leads to something much bigger. BeverlyHills
a good example; in the wake of some high-profile demolitions,the city c
apulted ahead with a strong and active historic preservationprogram. T
city adopted an innovative and strong historic preservationordinance
2012 and has implemented the Mills Act program, a powerfulpreservatio
incentive. The city has also hired a dedicated historicpreservation plann
and created a Cultural Heritage Commission. Now celebrating itscent
nary, Beverly Hills is conducting a comprehensive update to itscitywi
survey and has already designated more than a dozen locallandmarks.
Burbank
In 2008, Burbank had yet to designate any local landmarks,despite ha
ing had a historic preservation ordinance since 1994. Theordinance dnot allow for the designation of historic districts, andit contained lan
mark designation criteria that were not based on sta
or national models. Since 2009, Burbank has tran
formed its approach to historic preservation by makin
significant improvements to its program. The city com
pleted a citywide survey and historic context stateme
in 2009, adopted the popular Mills Act program in 20
and has begun to designate local landmarks.
The city updated its historic resource management odinance in2011, with notable amendments including th
ability to designate local historic districts. The city h
further demonstrated its commitment to historic preservationthroug
public education and outreach via the web. Like a growing numberof com
munities, Burbank has a dedicated webpage for its historicpreservati
program that includes links to its historic context report andpreservati
plan. To engage the next generation, Burbank has also developeda kid
section on its website.
Bobs Big Boy (1949) in Burbank, a beloved community
gathering place that was once threatened with demolition.
Photo by Holly Hayes on Fl ickr.
The Witchs House (1920), a designated
local landmark in Beverly Hills.
Photo by Lori Branham on Flickr.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
13/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 3
Calabasas
In 2008, Calabasas had recently adopted its h
toric preservation ordinance, implemented t
Mills Act, and was conducting its first citywid
survey of historic resources. The city has cont
ued to make great strides in developing its prese
vation program. Calabasas became a Certifi
Local Government in 2009, indicating its stron
commitment to a professionalized preservatio
program. The city has also been actively design
ing local landmarks, which include structur
from the recent past of the 1970s and 80s, and
adding cultural landscapes to the citys histor
context statement.
_____________________________________________________________
HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE
The underlying goal of the Preservation Report Card is to helpcommuniti
improve their preservation programs by proactively pointing outspecif
areas that might need attention. The Conservancy is eager tohelp any com
munity in this effort. We have a thorough knowledge of bestpractices a
can offer direct technical assistance.
If you would like to improve your communitys Report Card score,consid
these tips:
Note which areas of your communitys Report Card have a scoreof
0, and pick one of these areas as a starting point for yourefforts. Yo
can refer to the chart at the end of this document or find yourresul
on our website, on the Report Card tab of your communityspage
(under Explore L.A.).
Check the Resources in the Report Card section of ourwebsite(laconservancy.org/report-card) for any tools that might berelevan
such as:
Model Ordinance for Historic Preservation one of the newe
offerings in our growing range of resources, the modelpreser
vation ordinance can be used as a starting point for acommuni
just beginning its preservation program, as well as by commu
nities that want to strengthen their existing programs.
Calabasas has designated buildings from the recentpast,including the 1984 Benson House designed by Frank Gehry.
Photo by Larry Underhill.
The City of San Dimas led the effort to restore and
rehabilitate the Walker House (c. 1887), earning a
Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Award in 2010.
Photo by Pete Bleyer.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
14/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 4
Guide to Using the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) available in English and Spanish, this introductory
guide outlines the basics of CEQA and how you can use it to
protect historic places in your community.
Incentives for Preserving Historic Buildings an overview of
incentives available for residential and commercialstructures
Glossary of Preservation Terms quick definitions of com-
monly used terms in historic preservation.
Review the overall chart on the Report Card microsite on ourwebsi
and find other communities that have higher scores in your areaof
interest. Visit their community pages on our website (underExplor
L.A.), as well as their own websites, and review any relevantmateria
they offer, such as historic resources surveys.
Attend workshops and/or conferences on topics such as CEQA,
local landmarks, historic districts, and more. Workshops areoffere
periodically by a number of groups, including theConservancy
and the California Preservation Foundation. For moreinformation
visit the Upcoming Events page of our website atlaconservancy.org
At any point in the process, please feel free to contact theConservancy f
personalized technical assistance. You can reach us at (213)623-2489
[emailprotected].
Top: The City of Lancasters 1940 post office, anincreasingly
threatened building type across L.A. County and the U.S.
Photo by Thomas Hart on Flickr.
Bottom: Despite the significance of the Bowler Residence(1965),
Rancho Palos Verdes offers no preservation ordinance.
Photo by Conservancy staff.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
15/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 5
ELEMENTS OF A STRONG PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Historic Preservation Ordinance
A local historic preservation ordinance is one of the mostimportant too
a community can use to protect historic resources. Theeffectiveness of
preservation ordinance depends on its scope and language, andord
nances vary greatly among jurisdictions. Their basic provisionsenable
community to designate significant local sites as historic, listthem on
local listing of historic resources, and provide a level
protection through a design review process.
These designated sites are referred to by a variety
names, such as historic landmark or historic-cultur
monument, depending on the jurisdiction. A preserv
tion ordinance outlines the criteria the community has e
tablished for designating such landmarks.
These criteria are often based on those used by both t
National Register of Historic Places and the Californ
Register of Historical Places, which in turn are based o
generally accepted preservation standards. Each comm
nity can tailor its designation criteria to reflect thespeci
significance of the communitys unique local resources
Strong local historic preservation ordinances require thatrequests f
building permits for designated structures be reviewed by citystaff orspecial local commission to ensure that proposedalterations conform
preservation standards. They also give the city the power todeny perm
for inappropriate alterations or demolitions. In order toprotect a signi
cant structure from demolition or severe alteration by itsowner, a stron
preservation ordinance does not require owner consent for ahistoric r
source to be designated.
Ordinances that require owner consent, or that allow the ownerto have
designation removed, are far less effective in using landmarkdesignati
as a method for protecting threatened resources. Weakerpreservation odinances do not prevent demolition of a designatedresource, but mere
delay demolition for a set number of days. The weakestordinances co
tain no language regarding the protection of the designatedresource: su
designated sites enjoy only honorary status and no protectionsat all.
A few communities have a scorched-earth provision in theirordinanc
This provision prohibits new construction on a site for a setperiod of tim
after an illegal demolition has occurred.
Top: The lack of a preservation ordinance in
Palos Verdes Estates led to the 2012 demolition of
the highly intact Moore House (Lloyd Wright, 1959).
Photo by Adrian Scott Fine/L.A. Conservancy.
Bottom: The Moore House after demolition.
Photo by Flora Chou/L.A. Conservancy.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
16/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 6
The final aspect we reviewed when analyzin
communities with historic preservation ord
nances was the effectiveness of their program
We reviewed the number of designated loc
landmarks in each community and how oft
designations were made, considering the re
tive size of the community. A few jurisdictio
have had landmark ordinances for sever
years, but have yet to designate any resource
Others have active programs and a growing l
of designated landmarks, often fueled by th
strong promotion of the benefits of owning
historic property, such as property tax reli
under the Mills Act.
Dedicated Historic Preservation Staff and/or Commission
Communities that value their historic resources typically havededicated sta
to pursue preservation efforts, as well as a HistoricPreservation Commissi
to designate landmarks and review proposed changes to historicpropertie
Preservation staff or local commissions typically review permitsfor de
olition or alteration of historic resources, administer MillsAct program
and designate new landmarks. They are often responsible forcommenti
during the CEQA process regarding historic properties. In manycomm
nities, they are also important advocates for historicpreservation and
great resource for property owners on preservation techniquesand practice
In the new Preservation Report Card scoring system, communitieswith
staff member dedicated to historic preservation received morepoints th
those that assigned preservation-related duties to the generalstaff pool
Similarly, communities with a Historic Preservation Commissiondevot
to identifying and designating their historic resources receivedmore poin
than those that delegated these duties to an entity whoseprimary purpose
not preservation.
Ability to Designate Historic Districts
A communitys ability to designate historic districts is animportant tool
protecting large numbers of historic resources and preservinghistorical
significant neighborhoods. In many cases, a local historicpreservation o
dinance includes language allowing for the designation ofhistoric d
tricts. In other cases, a community establishes a separateordinance for th
express purpose.
Top: Thirty communities in L.A. County have the
ability to designate historic districts, which protect
the unique character of historic neighborhoods.
Pictured: Glendale designated its first
historic district, Royal Boulevard, in 2008.
Photo courtesy City of Glendale Planning Department.
Bottom: A housing tract in Mar Vista designed by architect
Gregory Ain is one of Los Angeles twenty-nine historic
districts (known as Historic Preservation Overlay Zones,
or HPOZs), and the citys first postwar HPOZ.
Photo by Larry Underhill.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
17/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 7
Historic districts may be referred to by a varie
of names, depending on the jurisdiction, includi
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZ
and Historic District Overlay Zones. They a
generally defined as physically contiguo
groups of buildings, developed within a sing
period or in a similar style, that continue to e
press the design and patterns of the time
which they were developed. Though historic d
tricts are primarily contiguous, non-contiguo
resources may also be eligible for designation
a thematic grouping.
Each historic district has geographic boundaries. Within thoseboundarie
most of the buildings must be considered contributing, meaningthat th
are historically significant to the neighborhood and havemaintained th
physical integrity of their original design. A historic districtwill inevitab
include some percentage of non-contributing structures aswelltho
built outside the districts established period of significance,as well
those that have been greatly altered.
The strongest historic district ordinances enable a localHistoric Prese
vation Commission to deny inappropriate alteration or demolitionof histo
structures within district boundaries. They also allow fordesign review
new construction within the district, to help ensure that newdevelopme
is compatible with the neighborhoods uniq
historic character and context.
Owner Consent Not Required for Designation
If a community can designate a local landma
without the consent of the propertys owner, it c
protect a significant yet threatened building
site. Concerned advocates can submit landma
nominations in an effort to protect significa
structures in their communities. Many importa
places remain standing today because local advcates nominatedthem for local designation wh
they were threatened with demolition.
Some jurisdictions have historic preservation ordinances that dorequi
owner consent for landmark designation. This requirement has aprofoun
effect on the effectiveness of an ordinance as a preservationadvocacy to
hindering the communitys ability to protect significantstructures when th
become threatened. In jurisdictions with such an ordinance,preservati
Santa Monicas Landmarks Commission can designate
a landmark without owner consent, which allowed the city
to prevent the demolition of its last ocean-facing cottage
(ca. 1905), now a designated Santa Monica Landmark.
Photo courtesy Santa Monica Conservancy.
Right: Conservancy Student Advocates helping with the survey
for the Balboa Highlands Eichler Tract HPOZ, Granada Hills.
Photo by John Eng.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
18/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 8
advocates cannot use landmark designation as a way to protect athre
ened building. A property owner seeking to redevelop a site willcertain
not consent to the designation of a building that they want todemolish
Active Designation of Landmarks
Establishing a historic preservation ordinance is an importantmileston
for any jurisdiction, but merely having an ordinance in placeisnt enou
to protect buildings. To truly benefit the community, ajurisdiction shou
promote its ordinance by encouraging residents to nominatesignifica
properties for landmark designation. A few jurisdictions in LosAngel
County have historic preservation ordinances yet have designatedfew
no landmarks. In some instances, a communitys most recentlydesignat
buildings were landmarked years ago.
In these cases, a community may have created an ordinance at theheig
of a prominent preservation issue as a way to protect asignificant structu
and then abandoned it as a preservation tool once the initialadvoca
threat was resolved.
Survey of Historic Resources
A comprehensive survey documenting the historic resources withinan ar
is another powerful preservation tool. Historic resourcessurveys are oft
done as part of the preparation of a communitys General orSpecific Pla
Surveys that meet state standards may identify properties ashistorical rsources for the purposes of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality A
(CEQA), which may then provide for a public review process andcons
eration of preservation alternatives, especially in casesinvolving egregio
alterations or demolition. Surveys also serve as an invaluableeducation
tool to inform city officials and residents about the rich builtheritage
their communities, and to assist in thoughtful development andenviro
mental planning.
The mere existence of a comprehensive historic resources surveyis no
particularly good indicator of the strength of localpreservation efforts. be truly useful, a survey must be regularlyreviewed and updated, so th
historic buildings or sites that have lost their significancecan be note
and buildings or sites whose significance was not determined atthe tim
the survey was prepared can be recognized. A number of thecommuniti
we contacted for the Preservation Report Card did havecomprehensi
historic resources surveys. Yet many had not updated theirsurveys in mo
than twenty years, limiting their practical utility.
The City of Los Angeles is conducting its first citywidesurvey
of historic resources, SurveyLA (surveyla.org), usinginnovative
technology and outreach to identify potentially historic
places and encourage participation by residents.
Photo courtesy SurveyLA, City of Los Angeles
Office of Historic Resources.
More than fifty communities in L .A. County have completed,
or are now conducting, partial or citywide surveys of
historic resources. The City of Burbank completed its
citywide survey in 2009. Pictured: Burbank City Hall (1943).
Photo by Conservancy staff.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
19/32
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 1 9
Mills Act Incentive Program
The Mills Act Historic Property Contracts Program is the singlemost i
portant economic incentive program in California for therestoration an
preservation of qualified historic buildings by private propertyowners
is a state law that allows local jurisdictions to enter intocontracts with p
vate property owners to guarantee the preservation of designatedhistor
sites or structures.
Property owners who participate in the Mills A
program make a contractual agreement with the
respective jurisdiction to adhere to a schedule
maintenance repairs and upkeep on their histor
property for the duration of the contract, whi
spans ten years and self-renews at the end of ea
year. In exchange, the property owner is entitl
to an alternate evaluation of the property for t
purposes, which usually results in a reduced proper
tax bill.
Despite its clear and considerable value, the Mi
Act has been implemented by only twenty-five L
Angeles County jurisdictions to date: Beverly Hil
Bradbury, Burbank, Calabasas, Claremont, Gle
dale, Glendora, Huntington Park, La Caa
Flintridge, La Verne, Lawndale, Long Beach, L
Angeles, Monrovia, Pasadena, Pomona, RedonBeach, San Dimas, SanGabriel, Santa Clari
Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, South Pasaden
West Hollywood, and Whittier. The County of L
Angeles is currently in the process of establishin
a Mills Act program.
Since the Mills Act is typically the only econom
incentive tool available to local jurisdictions, t
existence of a program at the local level is a goo
indicator of a particular jurisdictions commitmeto historicpreservation.
In most Los Angeles County jurisdictions that have implementedthe Mi
Act program, properties eligible for participation must eitherbe designat
as a local landmark or be a contributor to a locally designatedhistoric distri
Many more property owners will initiate or approve thedesignation of the
properties if they can reap tax savings through the Mills Actprogram.
Top: The 1925 Aztec Hotel in Monrovia has a
Mills Act contract. Photo by Larry Myhre on Flickr.
Bottom: More than 700 properties have benefited from theCity
of Los Angeles Mills Act program. Twenty-four communities
in L.A. County now offer this important preservationincentive.
Pictured: The Lydecker House (1939), Studio City.
Photo courtesy Lydecker House.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
20/32
Additional Preservation Incentives
A community can offer preservation incentives in many forms,such
waiving permit fees or plan check application fees forpreservation projec
giving such projects priority in the plan check process, waivingparkin
and/or setback requirements, and/or approving a use for aproperty th
isnt specifically allowed in the propertys zoning yet is allowedin oth
zones. The existence of such incentives generally indicates thatthe com
munity has a strong commitment to historic preservation.
Status as a Certified Local Government
Created in 1980 through amendments to the National HistoricPreservatio
Act, the Certified Local Government Program forms a partnershipamo
participating local governments, the State Office of HistoricPreservatio
and the National Park Service.
Jurisdictions designated as Certified Local Governments (CLGs)are eli
ble for state and federal grants to support efforts such aspreservatio
plans, historic resources surveys, and preservation educationand ou
reach programs. CLGs also receive valuable technical assistancefrom t
State Office of Historic Preservation and have a specific rolein the revie
of local sites to the National Register of Historic Places. Ajurisdictions s
tus as a CLG indicates both a high degree of protection forhistoric r
sources and a strong commitment by local government
continue improving its preservation programs.
To qualify as a Certified Local Government, a jurisdictionmu
demonstrate to the State Office of Historic Preservation that ith
several aspects of a strong preservation program in place,includin
A historic preservation ordinance allowing for the
designation of local resources
An established Historic Preservation Commission
A regularly updated survey of historic resources
As of late 2013, only eleven cities within Los Angeles Countywere Certifi
Local Governments: Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale, Long Beach, LosAngele
Pasadena, Pomona, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, South Pasadena,an
West Hollywood. Beverly Hills had submitted an application forCLG stat
and was awaiting official recognition.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 2 0
Top: The Arts Building (1930), Long Beach.
Photo by Dean Cheng.
Bottom: The City of Pasadena has been a
Certified Local Government since 1986.
Pictured: Colorado Street Bridge (1913)
and Vista del Arroyo Hotel (1903).
Photo by Dean Cheng.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
21/32
Historic Preservation Element or Plan
A Historic Preservation Element or Plan is a document thatoutlines prese
vation-related goals to guide a communitys efforts in protectingits cultur
resources. It describes the various components of an effectivehistor
preservation program and serves as a useful roadmap for chartingfutu
progress. For jurisdictions that are just establishing ahistoric preservatio
program, such a document can be invaluable as an educationaltool f
both planning staff and local residents.
A Historic Preservation Element is generally an optionalcomponent o
jurisdictions General Plan. As mandated by state law, every cityand coun
is required to adopt a General Plan that serves to guide ajurisdictions futu
development. Seven required elements address topics includingland u
and housing. Although one of these required elements isconservation, th
element generally encompasses community character and thenatural e
vironment, not the built environment.
A Historic Preservation Element is intended to establish along-range v
sion for the protection of historic resources in a jurisdiction.It sets forth
series of goals, objectives, and policies to accomplish thatvision over tim
For jurisdictions that have adopted Historic PreservationElements, it
often suggested that they integrate language about historicpreservati
into other General Plan elements, such as land use and housing,to ensu
compatibility among elements. A Historic Preservation Element isa stro
indicator of a jurisdictions commitment to establishing orstrengtheni
a historic preservation program.
While a Historic Preservation Element is part of a General Plan,a Histor
Preservation Plan is a similar yet independent document existingoutsi
a jurisdictions General Plan.
Use of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
While we did not score specifically on this category, theeffective use
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is essential toa stro
preservation program. A communitys use of CEQA is difficult toquantiyet important to track because of its critical role in how acommunity a
proaches preservation.
CEQA is a state law passed in 1970 that declares it state policyto devel
and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future,and
take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhancethe env
ronmental quality of the state. This environmental qualityincludes s
nificant, irreplaceable examples of our cultural heritage.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 2 1
The Conservancy has an easy-to-use guide to CEQA,
available in English or Spanish on the Resources
section of our website at laconservancy.org.
The City of San Fernandos Historic Preservation
Element earned an L.A. Conservancy
Preservation Award in 2005.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
22/32
CEQA is the primary legal tool used to protect historicresources in Ca
fornia. It requires a thorough, public review of the potentialenvironment
impacts of a proposed development project. It also requiresgovernme
agencies to avoid or minimize these impacts to the extentfeasible by examinin
alternative approaches to the project.
In a number of instances, jurisdictions reviewing proposeddevelopme
plans have failed to adequately identify potential historicresources as pa
of a projects environmental review. As a result, historicallysignifica
buildings go unrecognized as such and are demolished withouteven a
evaluation of their potential for adaptive reuse or additionalpreservati
alternatives.
In other examples, jurisdictions merely search through availablerecor
to determine if any structures within a proposed project areaare designat
landmarks on a local, state, or national level. While adesignated landma
or contributing structure in a historic district is properlytermed a histor
resource, historical significance is an inherent quality that isnot conferr
by landmark status but, rather, recognized by it. Jurisdictionsshould re
ognize the existence of potential historic resources that havenot be
officially designated. A structure might not have been evaluatedas a histor
resource simply because no survey of the area was everundertaken,
because the structure had not yet reached a particular age whena surv
of the area was last conducted.
After consulting existing data, a jurisdiction should retain aqualified histor
preservation consultant to assess structures within a projectarea for thepotential eligibility for listing in the CaliforniaRegisterwhich is the tru
benchmark for considering a structure as a historic resource forpurpos
of CEQA.
If substantial and compelling evidence is submitted into therecord tha
structure is or may qualify as a historic resource (making thefair argumen
it does not suffice for the lead agency to opt not to treat thestructure as
historic resource in the environmental review simply because theretain
consultants findings are contradictory. Rather, it is theresponsibility
the lead agency to err on the side of caution when substantialevidensupports a fair argument that a building qualifies as ahistoric resourc
For more information about CEQA, visit the Resources section ofthe Co
servancys website, where you can download our guide, UsingCEQA
Protect Your Community, in English or Spanish.
L O S A N G E L E S C O N S E R VA N C Y P r e s e r v a t i o nR e p o r t C a r d | 2 0 1 4
P A G E 2 2
In its 2009 Historic Context Report, the City of Long Beach
identified this 1958 sign for the former Angel Food Donuts.
When the sign was proposed for removal in 2014, theL.A.Conservancy and Long Beach advocates pressed for the sign
to be treated as a historic resource as part of CEQA. Thesign
will now be reused in place as part of a new Dunkin' Donuts.
Photo from Conservancy archives.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
23/32
COMMUNITY Grade Total Score(out of apossible 245,plusExtraCredit)
Historic PreservationOrdinance (150) /Honorary Ordinance(10)
DedicatedHistoricPreservationCommission (5)
DedicatedPreservationStaff (15)
Ability toDesignateHistoricDistricts(15)
OwnerConsent NotRequired forDesignation(10)
ActiveLandmaDesigna(at leastannuall
P A G
AGOURA HILLS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALHAMBRA F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARCADIA F 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARTESIA F 35 0 0 0 15 (City has 00ordinancelanguageestablishinga specificHistorical Districtzonethat contains
two structures.)
AVALON F 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
AZUSA C 180 150 5 0 15 0 0
BALDWIN PARK C- 175 150 0 (Planning 0 15 10 0Commission sitsasHistoric ResourceAdvisory Committee.)
BELL F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
BELL GARDENS D+ 165 150 0 0 15 0 0
BELLFLOWER F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BEVERLY HILLS A+ 240 150 5 15 15 10 5
BRADBURY C 180 150 0 (Planning 0 0 0 0Commission sits asHistoricResourceAdvisory Committee.)
BURBANK A 235 150 5 15 15 0 5
CALABASAS A+ 245 150 5 15 15 10 5
CARSON F 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
CERRITOS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CITY OF INDUSTRY F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 1ANOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
24/32
COMMUNITY Survey of HistoricResources:Citywide (15) /Partial(10)
SurveyUpdatedWithin Past5 Years (5)
Mills ActIncentiveProgram(10)
AdditionalIncentives(5)
CertifiedLocalGovernment(5)
HistoricPreservationElement orPlan (5)
Extra Credit(1-25)
P A G
AGOURA HILLS 0 0 0 0 0 0
ALHAMBRA 10 (1984-85; covers 2 0 0 0 0 0neighborhoods and25sites of significance)
ARCADIA 0 0 0 0 0 5
ARTESIA 10 (Cultural and Historic 5 (General 0 5 (Parking 00Resources sub-element in Plan, which requirement
the General Plan's includes waivers for Community, Culture, andidentified historic Economic Element identifies significantresources some significant sites.) sites, was owned by the
updated in city and2010.) Portuguese Hall.)
AVALON 15 (Cultural Resources 5 (General 0 0 0 0Element inGeneral Plan Plan, whichcontains a citywide includessurvey ofhistoric a citywideresources.) survey,
was updatedin 2013.)
AZUSA 10 0 0 0 0 0
BALDWIN PARK 0 0 0 0 0 0
BELL 10 (Cultural Resources 0 0 0 0 0Element in General Plan
includes list of identifiedsignificant sites.)
BELL GARDENS 0 0 0 0 0 0
BELLFLOWER 0 0 0 0 0 0
BEVERLY HILLS 15 (in progress) 5 10 5 0 (application5pending)
BRADBURY 15 (in progress) 5 10 0 0 0
BURBANK 15 (2009) 5 10 5 5 5
CALABASAS 15 (2008) 5 10 5 5 5
CARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 (City made funds available torepaintexterior of mid-century1956 Carson Car Wash in 2012.)
CERRITOS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CITY OF INDUSTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 1BNOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
25/32
COMMUNITY Grade Total Score(out of apossible 245,plusExtraCredit)
Historic PreservationOrdinance (150) /Honorary Ordinance(10)
DedicatedHistoricPreservationCommission (5)
DedicatedPreservationStaff (15)
Ability toDesignateHistoricDistricts(15)
OwnerConsent NotRequired forDesignation(10)
ActiveLandmaDesigna(at leastannuall
P A G
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 2ANOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
CLAREMONT A+ 245 150 (No traditional historic 0 15 15 105preservation ordinance, but the
city has passed several ordinancesthat together provide designreviewprotection for historic resources.All historic resourcesidentified
through survey updates becomelisted in the Claremont Registerandreceive corresponding designreview protections.)
COMMERCE C- 175 150 0 (Planning Commis- 0 15 10 0sion sits asCulturalResource Manage-ment Commission.)
COMPTON F 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
COVINA D+ 165 150 5 0 0 0 0
CUDAHY F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
CULVER CITY A- 220 150 (includes three classifications 5 15 1510 0for designating structures/districts)
DIAMOND BAR F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOWNEY F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUARTE F 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
EL MONTE F 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
EL SEGUNDO D 160 150 0 0 0 0 0
GARDENA F 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
GLENDALE A- 225 150 5 15 15 0 5
GLENDORA B 205 150 0 0 (The city 15 0 5 previously had one, butsince 2012 the Plan-
ning Commis-sion has sat as
the HistoricPreservationCommission.)
HAWAIIAN GARDENS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAWTHORNE F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HERMOSA BEACH D+ 165 150 0 0 0 0 0
HIDDEN HILLS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTINGTON PARK A 230 150 5 15 15 10 5
INGLEWOOD F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
26/32
COMMUNITY Survey of HistoricResources:Citywide (15) /Partial(10)
SurveyUpdatedWithin Past5 Years (5)
Mills ActIncentiveProgram(10)
AdditionalIncentives(5)
CertifiedLocalGovernment(5)
HistoricPreservationElement orPlan (5)
Extra Credit(1-25)
P A G
CLAREMONT 10 0 10 0 0 5 25 (The city adopted amansionizaordinance in 2009 that is part of th
zoning standards and can reducepotential size of new homes. Itspecfloor area ratios and setback requments, and it establishes amaximhouse size regardless of lot size. cannot be combined to builda bighouse. In neighborhoods with smlots, the size of the housemust berelative to the size of the lot.)
COMMERCE 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMPTON 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 (The city was involved infollowpreservation guidelines for windo
renovations at Compton City Hall, a prothat received aConservancy PreservaAward in 2013.)
COVINA 10 (Covina Town Center 0 0 0 0 0Historic Survey,2007)
CUDAHY 10 (Old Houses in the 0 0 0 0 0Community, 1984)
CULVER CITY 15 (1987) 0 0 5 0 5
DIAMOND BAR 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOWNEY 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUARTE 15 (2003) 0 0 0 0 5
EL MONTE 0 0 0 0 0 5
EL SEGUNDO 10 0 0 0 0 0
GARDENA 15 (1981) 0 0 0 0 0
GLENDALE 10 0 10 5 5 5
GLENDORA 15 (mid-1990s) 0 10 5 0 5
HAWAIIAN GARDENS 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAWTHORNE 0 0 0 0 0 0
HERMOSA BEACH 10 (partial list of identified 0 0 5 0 0 resourcesin General Plan)
HIDDEN HILLS 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTINGTON PARK 15 (2006) 0 10 5 0 0
INGLEWOOD 10 (1998) 0 0 0 0 0
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 2BNOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
27/32
COMMUNITY Grade Total Score(out of apossible 245,plusExtraCredit)
Historic PreservationOrdinance (150) /Honorary Ordinance(10)
DedicatedHistoricPreservationCommission (5)
DedicatedPreservationStaff (15)
Ability toDesignateHistoricDistricts(15)
OwnerConsent NotRequired forDesignation(10)
ActiveLandmaDesigna(at leastannuall
PAG
IRWINDALE D+ 170 150 0 0 0 10 0
LA CAADA F 20 0 0 0 0 0 0FLINTRIDGE
LA HABRA HEIGHTS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LA MIRADA F 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
LA PUENTE F 15 0 5 0 0 0 0
LA VERNE C+ 190 150 (No true ordinance, but 0 0 15 (City creates0 0properties can be landmarked specific planthrough councilresolution.) areas that work
as historic dis-tricts with designreview protection.)
LAKEWOOD F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LANCASTER F 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
LAWNDALE F 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOMITA F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LONG BEACH A 230 150 5 15 15 10 0
LOS ANGELES A+ 240 150 5 15 15 10 5
LOS ANGELES F 45 0 (ordinance in progress) 5 15 0 0 0COUNTY
LYNWOOD F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MALIBU F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MANHATTAN BEACH F 40 10 0 0 0 10 5
MAYWOOD D- 150 150 0 0 0 0 0
MONROVIA A- 220 150 5 15 15 0 5
MONTEBELLO F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
MONTEREY PARK F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NORWALK F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 3ANOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
28/32
COMMUNITY Survey of HistoricResources:Citywide (15) /Partial(10)
SurveyUpdatedWithin Past5 Years (5)
Mills ActIncentive Program(10)
AdditionalIncentives(5)
CertifiedLocalGovernment(5)
HistoricPreservationElement orPlan (5)
Extra Credit(1-25)
P A G
IRWINDALE 10 (list of resources 0 0 0 0 0 identified in GeneralPlan)
LA CAADA 10 (partial list of resources 0 10 0 0 0FLINTRIDGEidentified in General Plan)
LA HABRA HEIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 0
LA MIRADA 0 0 0 0 0 0
LA PUENTE 10 (1992) 0 0 0 0 0
LA VERNE 10 (1986) 0 10 5 0 0
LAKEWOOD 0 0 0 0 0 0
LANCASTER 10 (2003; 2008) 5 0 0 0 0
LAWNDALE 10 (list of identified 0 10 0 0 0significant sites inGeneralPlan, 1983)
LOMITA 0 0 0 0 0 0
LONG BEACH 10 (1980s; 2010) 5 5 5 5
LOS ANGELES 15 (in progress) 5 10 5 5 0
LOS ANGELES 10 5 10 (Adopted in November 2013, 0 0 0COUNTY withadministrative guidelines
in progress and programactivation anticipated insummer2014.)
LYNWOOD 0 0 0 0 0 0MALIBU 0 0 0 0 0 0
MANHATTAN BEACH 10 5 0 0 0 0
MAYWOOD 0 0 0 0 0 0
MONROVIA 10 5 10 5 0 0
MONTEBELLO 10 (1989) 0 0 0 0 0
MONTEREY PARK 0 0 0 0 0 0
NORWALK 10 (three identified 0 0 0 0 0significant sites inGeneralPlan, 1996)
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 3BNOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
5 (Program has beensuspended for the past fiveyears; no newcontractsaccepted while the cityreassesses theprogramsfeasibility.)
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
29/32
COMMUNITY Grade Total Score(out of apossible 245,plusExtraCredit)
Historic PreservationOrdinance (150) /Honorary Ordinance(10)
DedicatedHistoricPreservationCommission (5)
DedicatedPreservationStaff (15)
Ability toDesignateHistoricDistricts(15)
OwnerConsent NotRequired forDesignation(10)
ActiveLandmaDesigna(at leastannuall
P A G
PALMDALE F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
PALOS VERDES F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ESTATES
PARAMOUNT F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PASADENA A+ 240 150 5 15 15 10 5
PICO RIVERA F 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
POMONA A 235 150 5 15 15 10 5
RANCHO PALOS F 15 0 0 0 0 0 0VERDES
REDONDO BEACH A- 220 150 5 15 15 0 5
ROLLING HILLS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROLLING HILLS C- 175 150 0 0 15 10 0ESTATES
ROSEMEAD F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SAN DIMAS B 205 150 (No true ordinance, but the 5 (The city'sDesign 0 15 (Two potential 10 0city's surveyed historic resourcesReview Board districts have beenreceive design review protection.)reviews proposed identified; the
alterations or contributingdemolitions of all propertieswithinproperties identified these two proposedin the citys historicdistricts receiveresource inventory.) protection through
design review bythe citys DesignReview Board.)
SAN FERNANDO B+ 215 150 0 15 15 0 5
SAN GABRIEL B 205 150 0 0 15 10 5
SAN MARINO F 20 10 0 0 0 10 0
SANTA CLARITA C 185 150 (In 2013, an amended 0 0 0 0 5ordinancereduced the numberof designated landmarks from43 to 11.)
SANTA FE SPRINGS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SANTA MONICA A+ 245 150 5 15 15 10 5
SIERRA MADRE C+ 190 150 0 15 0 0 5
SIGNAL HILL F 30 0 0 0 15 (Specific Plan 0 0establishesguide-lines for relocatinghistorically signi-ficant dwellings
to the HistoricDistrict, as wellas guidelines formodificationstoexisting historicbuildings. Demo-lition of structureswithinhistoricdistrict can bedelayed for threemonths.)
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 4ANOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
30/32
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
31/32
8/12/2019 LAC Preservation Report Card 2014
32/32
COMMUNITY Survey of HistoricResources:Citywide (15) /Partial(10)
SurveyUpdatedWithin Past5 Years (5)
Mills ActIncentiveProgram(10)
AdditionalIncentives(5)
CertifiedLocalGovernment(5)
HistoricPreservationElement orPlan (5)
Extra Credit(1-25)
SOUTH EL MONTE 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOUTH GATE 0 0 0 0 0 0SOUTH PASADENA 15 (2001) 5 10 5 5 5
TEMPLE CITY 10 (Partial reconaissance 5 0 0 0 0 survey in 2012was planned
as a citywide survey, madepossible by a National TrustLosAngeles PreservationFund grant. Yet no supportingdocumentation wasincluded
in the completed survey,and the city attorney decidedit wouldnot be valid fordetermining historic resource
status per CEQA.)
TORRANCE 10 5 0 0 0 0 25 (In 2013, the city rehabilitatedthe1913 Pacific Electric Railway El Prado Bridge, designed bymasarchitect Irving Gill, and celebrat
the bridges centennial with TorraHistorical Society and OldTorranNeighborhood Association.)
VERNON 0 0 0 0 0 0
WALNUT 10 (list of 10 identified 0 0 0 0 0significantstructures)
WEST COVINA 15 (2006) 0 0 5 0 0
WEST HOLLYWOOD 15 (1987) 5 10 5 5 5
WESTLAKE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0
WHITTIER 10 (2001) 0 10 5 0 5
2014 LOS AN GEL ES C ON S ER V AN C Y P R ES ER V ATI ON R EP ORT C AR D ( 5BNOTE: THIS CHART SPANS TWO PAGES FOR EACHCOMMUNITY.
![LAC Preservation Report Card 2014 - [PDF Document] (2024)]()