Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2- TA 18-02 Late CorrespondencePOLITIS & POLITIS 1055 EAST COLORADO BLVD., 5TH FLOOR PASADENA, CA 91106 Telephone: 213-534-8888 FAX: 888-988-9282 January 3, 2019 City Counsel of Arcadia Historic Preservation 240 Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA Re: Property located at 1014 S. Second Ave., Acadia 91006 To Whom is May Concern: Please accept this letter as our opposition to your proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. Our objections to the proposed ordinance are varied. To begin we question/object to the method by which properties were selected to be on the “historical” list. Examining our property, the list indicates that our property “Appears to be Unaltered.” That statement establishes the lack of investigation or vetting of my property by your agent. At least 50% of the current structure is an addition done in the mid to late seventies. The addition added a family room a second story and two fireplaces to the current structure which was built as a single- story home. Furthermore, the garage doors (also visible from the street) has been changed from the sliding wood double doors to a single roll up door. Finally, the roofing material has been changed over the years and is different that the roofing material originally called for when the home was built. Had your agent taken the time to look up the history of my property he/she would have easily found the additions, changes and alterations made to the property, clearly establishing that my property has been severely altered. This lack of vetting on the part of your agent establishes the lack of good faith on the part of the City. By failing to properly vet my property the City of Arcadia has wrongfully shifted the burden of proof on to my shoulders. It appears that your agent did nothing more than a “drive by” of my home and incorrectly concluded that my home “Appeared Unaltered;” therefore, qualifies to be added to your list. This lax method of selection is not acceptable. To continue, under the Significate/Other Information section your “Individually Eligible Resources”” attempts to articulate the reasons for including each individual property on your list. The articulated reasons are boilerplate at best. Almost all the descriptions for all the “different” properties in this category read almost identical and boilerplate, establishing, again that your agents failed to properly investigate each property on the list. What is troubling, is the City of Arcadia is willing to allow property to be placed on a list with little to no research done on each property and ignore the financial impact this will have on the individual home owners. This lack of concern for the residences of Arcadia is disappointing and legally wrong. The effect of placing properties on your Historical Preservation list will have the following effects: (1) drastically devalue my property. Very few people are willing to purchase a home in which they are severely limited as to what they can do to the home both cosmetically and structurally, (2) Once the property has been deemed a “historical resource” the City Council has more authority over my property than I do-that is wrong. This excessive authority exercised by the City is tantamount to taking the property from the homeowner without adequate compensation. This taking is illegal and Unconstitutional and a violation of the property owner’s Civil Rights. The only recourse the owner has is to sue the City in either an individual lawsuit or in a Class Action lawsuit, (3) Once a home is included as historical landmark we will lose the right to remodel, alter, change windows to energy efficient ones, place solar panels on roofs, place water heating panels on roofs, (4) we can be forced to spend our own personal funds to maintain an old historical structure in a condition that is contrary to current California “green” and structural standards, (5) there is some research that shows the effect of forcing this process results in a decline in property values. If prop erty values decline, then your property tax base will also diminish. If your property tax base diminishes then the school funding will diminish, and the City of Arcadia will lose its standing as a City with a premier school district. This evolution of decline will not happen right away, but it will happen. When my wife and I began our search to purchase a home we had certain criteria in mind, such as a good school system, and city real estate development opportunities. We wanted to know that we would be free to either sell our property or develop our property with a more current, modern updated home. The City of Arcadia presented us with that opportunity. We saw that the City had clearly established and permitted the demolition of smaller older homes to make way for environmentally updated larger modern homes on larger lots. The City of Arcadia made itself know as development friendly City, which made the City popular for new home development. With this development, the City of Arcadia became the recipient of a larger tax base, and the LA times deemed the City as the “Asian Beverly Hills.” Your planning and development department zoning allowances, and real estate pattern of development established an investment opportunity for home buyers, such as my wife and me. We determined when we purchased our home that our lot size would be desirable and consistent with the purchasing and development of properties in Arcadia (larger lot sizes are desirable with the purchasing and development of properties in Arcadia). After 22 years, educating our children, and approaching our retirement we are planning on proceeding with our life plan of selling our home, sizing down with a nest egg to enjoy a comfortable life that we worked for. Now after allowing the development of real estate for the last 30 years you have decided to perform a 180. You have decided to declare our home a “Historical” property without the proper vetting. This act fails to take into account the effect on the current homeowners and their investment. I am 60 years old and my property is my nest egg, and your actions threaten to steal that nest egg. Should I, my wife or either one of my children become ill and I need funds I can either sell the property or “tap” into its equity. This will not be possible if it is placed on the historic list. My children are in college and I will be seeking a loan for tuition. I have been advised by my mortgage broker that should my property be placed on this list the equity in my home will be impacted and it will be difficult to obtain a low interest loan. As mentioned above, both my wife and I are close to retirement and we intend to down size by selling our property in order to obtain the funds to purchase a smaller home outright without the financial burden of a mortgage. Your actions will threaten all of the above. Proposed Remedy A reasonable compromise is to make any inclusion of property on your list voluntary. If the process is voluntary, then all the above referenced issues become moot. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, Nicholas Politis NJP:bg Dear City Council Members, Recently, I discovered that there is a proposal for a Historic Preservation Ordinance for Arcadia properties. My home, at the address 45 W. Norman Ave, Arcadia, is currently on this list. As a long time Arcadia resident and homeowner, I object to this designation for my home. I have heard from multiple friends and neighbors whose homes are also on the list, that they object to this proposal as well. This proposal not only limits our rights as homeowners, but also infringes on my property rights by restricting my freedom. I urge the Council members to abandon this ordinance and to leave my property off this designation. According to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, houses built before 1970’s were put on this list. On this list, it shows that my home was built in 1930. However, when I purchased my home, the owner stated that the house was built in 1965 and his real estate agent stated multiple times that they remodeled and made modifications to the front exterior of the house in the early 2000’s. As a result, the front yard, the front exterior, the front gate, and the car port are all no longer original designs from construction of the house. Please inform me of all council meetings pertaining to this proposal so that I can attend and voice my concerns and objections. Sincerely, Andrew Yeh To whom it may concern I have recently got information from the city regarding my home as potentially becoming a historical landmark I assure you I have no interest in that becoming a reality and I would like to voice my opinion against it. Please let me know how I can discuss this in more detail to assure that this does not happen to my property thank you for your attention Sent from my iPhone, please ignore any odd typed words you may find Cheers Peter Cavallo 232 laurel av Arcadia CA Mayor Tay, and City Council Members, I understand that you will be studying the need to adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance tomorrow evening, and also considering the changes to the draft ordinance resulting from considerable public comments shared by concerned members of our community in the last few months. Should you decide there is a need to adopt this ordinance in the future, at a minimum, please adopt the proposed changes. Also, please consider the substantial cost future potential property owners will be subjected to, and the secondary industry of professionals you are creating. One way to mitigate the cost would be to direct City Staff to be available to advise applicants, and to prepare a simple one page form (subject to your review) that is offered over the counter. This should include all required information necessary for an applicant to comply with should you vote to enact a Historic Preservation ordinance. In addition, please expand the list of professionals identified in the ordinance to advise property owners to include Attorneys, Licensed Real Estate Brokers, and Licensed Contractors. These professionals are integral to the commerce of our community, and often are the most informed and trusted advisors sought in making important property decisions. The existing list is self serving, and appears to be drafted by one of the company's that stands to benefit financially if this ordinance is adopted. Although the draft ordinance has correctly removed the "original 11 eligible Districts", it has left open the opportunity to form them in the future. Therefore, it is suggested that the City Council require either 100% property owner agreement to form a District or at least a Super Majority vote. Major Changes Proposed to the Draft Ordinance sent by the City of Arcadia: Change: Do Not include eligible potential Historic Districts in the Ordinance. A neighborhood could still form a District, but the original 11 eligible Districts have been removed. Change: The Ordinance would only protect resources that have been identified as individually eligible for listing at the federal, state, and/or local level (178 resources total) Change: The City Council would now need a Super Majority (4-1 vote) to overturn a decision to nominate an individual property. Thank you, Jack Burk Thank you, Chairperson Brad Thompson, commission members and interested citizens for the opportunity to express my personal and professional opinion about the proposed Citywide Historic Preservation Ordinance (“Ordinance”). First, let me start by noting that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution simply and clearly states: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” My single family residence located at 2431 Florence Avenue has been identified and categorized as one of the approximately 165 historical sites under the Ordinance. Therefore, the Ordinance will prevent me and my family from remodeling our own home to meet our personal needs and tastes, taking away our fundamental rights guaranteed under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. When we bought our home, we had no idea that our fundamental constitutional right to do as we please with our own home would be taken away 10 years later by the Ordinance; we would not have purchased the home had we known. Besides being a resident of Arcadia, I am also the principal of In Realty, Inc located at 1108 S. Baldwin Avenue #207, Arcadia. As a long time real estate broker specializing in the residential homes market in Arcadia, it is my professional opinion that the Ordinance will cause significant decrease home prices in Arcadia. Therefore, I strongly oppose the Ordinance for the following reasons: 1. The prices of my home will decrease significantly; 2. The guidelines for historical designation are both arbitrary and illogical. 3. The Ordinance is unconstitutional, causing “taking” of property without just compensation 4. The Ordinance will cause damage to the property value in Arcadia and dampen potential buyer interest in purchasing houses here In my professional opinion as a licensed realtor with extensive experience in sales transactions of private homes in Arcadia, the Ordinance will cause homes designated as historical to decrease in value at least 30% to 50%. The Ordinance will have a rent control ordinance like effect on homes in Arcadia. As to the homes that are identified as being historical, the owners will have no incentive to maintain the properties—just as the rent controlled apartments are not maintained— because there will be almost no market for such homes. People do not want to purchase rapidly ageing and deteriorating homes that cannot be remodeled to meet their familial housing needs. Especially as homes become more and more multigenerational, with often 3 generations of families living together, the restrictions for modification caused by the Ordinance will deter these families from choosing homes in Arcadia. Given choices between my house and a similar house, buyers will surely choose the house that does not have regulations attached to it. Without having been designed by a famous architect or lived in by a celebrity, my house has no marketable advantage over other houses in the area. Secondly, I disagree with the selection criteria for the ordinance. If the Ordinance aims to select houses of a particular historical style, then it seems illogical that my house would qualify. For example, in 2005 the previous owner hired a mere handyman to make drastic changes to the exterior of the house (exhibit 1). Before that, one previous owner used a cheap solution to build an addition to increase the size of the living room. By foregoing the cost of redoing the roof, this method changed the lateral symmetry of the house entirely (exhibit 2). If you select my house solely because it is an old Spanish style house, I can easily find hundreds of such homes in San Gabriel and Alhambra (exhibit 3). Furthermore, the underlying public interest—keeping homes to keep the cultural and historical heritage of Arcadia—will not be served by the Ordinance. For example, no reasonable person will argue against the underlying public interest furthered by identifying and protecting historically significant homes such as the Huntington Library or the Getty Villa. The public clearly benefits from protecting such landmarks. However, my modest Spanish style home is no such landmark and no public interest will be served by preserving it. The Ordinance will not further its stated public interest. Third, the Ordinance is unconstitutional. Clearly, the Ordinance is a clear example of regulatory taking of private property by the government requiring just compensation under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitutions. The US Supreme Court extended the availability of takings actions from government appropriations and physical invasions of property to the mere regulation of property use. This critical expansion of takings jurisprudence to “regulatory takings” acknowledged that purely regulatory interferences with property rights can have economic and other consequences for property owners as significant as appropriations and physical invasions. The regulatory taking concept opened up vast new legal possibilities for property owners and underlies many of the Supreme Court’s takings decisions from the 1970s on. The four takings cases decided by the Court during its 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 terms were all decided in favor of the property owner. If this Ordinance is passed, it will give people the belief that the government can and will arbitrarily deprive citizens of their property without regard to their wellbeing. As a result, the Ordinance will even have a chilling effect on the homes that are not currently identified as being historical. Potential buyers will fear that at the criteria used in the Ordinance may be changed at any time which would make their homes historical and dramatically reducing the future home values. I certainly did not expect my home to be labeled as being historical when I purchased it 10 years ago and I certainly would not have bought the home had there been any indication the risk. Consequently, the property value of prices throughout Arcadia will fall as a result. In conclusion, I do not believe that the Ordinance will achieve the purpose it intends to serve. While intended to keep the aesthetic of these houses a certain way, houses designated as the Ordinance will make homes such as mine nearly unmarketable and the owners will not have neither the incentive and/or funds to maintain such homes. The criteria for designation of a historical property is unduly broad in its definition and illogical in its execution. This Ordinance will hurt Arcadia’s vibrant economy by reducing the property values. It will not serve any public interest. Most importantly, the Ordinance may be unconstitutional. For the following reasons, I strongly oppose the Ordinance. Exhibit: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Dear Arcadia City Planning Commissioner and Councils, I am writing to you regarding the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) proposed by the City of Arcadia. Since the historic preservation process began in 2015, there has been a lot of confusion and many concerns regarding this proposal. My property is located at 439 W. Palm Drive which is designated on the list of 176 properties to be registered as Historic Landmarks. Based on my investigation, I found many questions and inconsistencies as follows: 1. What is the historic nature of these properties that warrant such designation? Many of these properties are just old and in need of repairs. They do not offer nor represent any historical significance or architectural styles. Old structures do not necessarily offer historical significance. 2. Why are some properties designated while other similar properties in terms of age, style, and location are left off the HPO list? How is this selection process done? 3. Why do most of the HPO properties have larger lot sizes of 10,000 sqft or more? Why are similar properties with smaller lot sizes not designated? 4. Why are some newer 1950’s-built homes with larger lot designated in the HPO? The HPO list seem to target mostly homes with larger lots which are be ideal candidates for new home developments. Similar homes with smaller lots are left off the list. Is this an illegal attempt to impose new home development moratorium under the disguise of historic preservation? Until the City can answer the above questions, it would be illegal discrimination toward a certain group of homeowners and members of the community. If the City wants to impose new building moratorium, then it should put it to a vote by the citizens. It should not use the HPO as a pretense to restrict new home developments. This would be unfair and discriminatory. Our rights as property owners would be severely infringed if HPO were passed. We have no veto power to prevent our properties from being nominated to be Historical Landmarks. The City Council has the sole authority to designate a historic resource and supersedes the owner's objections. We lose our rights to remodel, alter, or even choose the color of paint for our homes because of strict restrictions imposed by the City. Moreover, we could be forced to spend enormous personal resources to maintain an older 'historic' structure per City regulations with diminished return and limited compensation. These potential designations have caused the home values in Arcadia to decline recently due to reduced buyer interest and cancelled sales transactions. ln the long term this could lead to stagnation or even significant decline in our property valuation with a profound negative impact on the community. I have been a property owner and community member of Arcadia for 30 years. I am nearing retirement age with a fixed income and budget. This house is my nest egg for my retirement. This discriminatory practice of selective HPO designations is illegal and unconstitutional. This City action will have a substantial negative impact on my medical and retirement needs. To be clear, I DO NOT oppose anyone who would like to register his/her property as a Historic Landmark. However, as long term vested property owners, we should have the right to control and enjoy our homes. Our rights should not be eliminated by the government without due process. Kindest Regards, Property owner Shirley Yang Comment & objection to the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance By Kay and Kwang Kim January 8, 2019 Page 1 Our names are Kay and Kwang Kim and we are the owners of 1150 and 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue. We are submitting the following comments and objections to the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance (the Ordinance). The Ordinance should not be passed, does not achieve its purported goals, causes an undue financial burden, and will cost homeowners both equity value, as well as unforeseen financial hardship. We object to this Ordinance on the following grounds: 1. Designation is an undue financial hardship as we have entered our retirement years. We do not have nor have had the opportunity to save funds required to comport with the Ordinance. 2. Our properties should not be included on the list of possible structures subject to the City Ordinance 3. If the property is included, we will object and ask that we not be included on the list. 4. The Ordinance itself should be changed, excluding all properties that file an objection from inclusion on the list. 5. The City has not given us a fair opportunity to be heard on the list of possible structures and has no factual grounds to include our properties on the list. 6. We own a ranch home that has been significantly changed over the many past decades under prior and current owners. Any requirement to change or manage the property under the Ordinance would require us to expend funds we do not have. We are deeply concerned that this will impact the quality of our life, our retirement, our estate planning, and our property value. 7. We believe that this Ordinance simply penalizes people who have not renovated properties recently. The City has allowed the razing of homes and structures without a historical ordinance for decades. In fact, many of the homes on the current contemplated list were recently renovated or rebuilt. The City has allowed the face and culture of the City to change often for the benefit of the City and its homeowners. Limiting citizens’ rights to alter their property going forward through the enforcement of this Ordinance seems completely unreasonable in light of the City’s past policies and practices. 8. My husband and I do not want to own a historically designated home. We bought the home with the vision of making it our own for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. It reflects our vision for the property and we want our family to continue this tradition. 9. Some of our changes to the home reflects our Korean heritage as well as our American experience. Forcing us to adhere to the standards that the City deems to be of historical significance ignores our family’s heritage and experience as long term residents of Arcadia, California. Asking us to change our vision of the home is culturally insensitive as it negates the freedom of Comment & objection to the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance By Kay and Kwang Kim January 8, 2019 Page 2 our property rights and our vision for the property. We will face penalties if we do not adhere to these standards many of which simply ignore the cultural significance of Asian Americans in the community. 10. There are numerous provisions in the Ordinance that would allow a person to exercise de facto power over a home that s/he does not own. The Ordinance should not allow any person to apply for historic designation and should limit this to the homeowner. Overruling an Owner’s objection by the City Council should be subject to service of process, longer appeal process, and remedy in a court of law since it will constitute a potential taking. a. If another will will be allowed to ask for designation who is not the homeowner, then there should be extra procedures that require additional time and notice to the homeowner for objection. 11. Economic hardship is defined too narrowly. Almost nothing will qualify as an economic hardship under this current definition. 12. The Mills Act program contract should automatically be granted with any designation by the Council and it should not be offered only once a year, but rather regularly through the year. Since designation will cause financial hardship, the City must provide the means to ameliorate this burden. 13. The Appeals process currently drafted makes no sense with time limits and should require service of process to start the time ticking. 14. The City should reject the Ordinance outright. The City has long used redevelopment funds to incentivize commercial development (until the change in the laws). It has participated in the restructuring of the community and approved countless projects that have ignored the historical significance of structures throughout its history. This has benefitted the community by bringing in more tax revenue for commercial projects. The City should maintain the status quo and allow the citizens of the community the ability to manage and to rebuild the community in a free and market based manner. Based upon the way the Ordinance is structured, the Ordinance is overbroad and strips those subject to it to unnecessary regulation, especially in light of the arbitrary nature of the selected properties. The Ordinance should not be approved or enacted. City Council:    I have read Arcadia's Historic Preservation Ordinance Draft and  wish to commend you on your efforts to recognize and  preserve Arcadia's unique architecture and neighborhoods. I  completely agree that an ordinance is necessary and long  overdue.     Too many fine examples of Arcadia's past have been destroyed,  the Anita Baldwin home for example. What a wonderful  treasure that could have been saved for future generations. I  can just imagine the number of people who would have made it  a point to visit, like the Gamble House and the Wrigley Mansion  in Pasadena. With entrance fees, weddings, corporate events  and concessions, the home would have paid for itself.     I urge you to press ahead with Arcadia's Historic Preservation  Ordinance.     Regards,    Roger Nemrava  1648 Highland Oaks Drive   Arcadia, CA  91006  I have lived in Arcadia for 19 years and believe a Historic Preservation Ordinance is long overdue.  Many  potentially eligible properties have already been demolished.  However, individual property rights must  also be respected to avoid the possibility of government over‐reach.  I believe incentives for the owner  to sign up are preferable to any penalty and note that the ordinance is mostly crafted in that manner by  using the Mills Act and similar incentives.     There is one article in the Draft Ordinance that needs to be re‐visited.  That is article H under the  designation procedures.  In this article, a supermajority of the City Council may override an individual  owner’s decision not to participate.  While supermajority sounds good, in the case of a small Council like  Arcadia’s, it is only one vote more than a simple majority.  As written, the ordinance allows a mere four  individuals to override an owner’s desire to not participate in historic designation.  I believe the override  should require a unanimous decision by the Council.  If an override is truly justified, the four should be  able to convince the fifth Councilmember.     Thank you for considering my input.  I hope this input will be passed to the full City Council.     Very Truly Yours,        John D. McMahon  118 Ilene Drive  Arcadia, CA 91006  Dear Arcadia City Council Members: I support Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) as benefitting all residents & businesses here. Passage of the HPO shows enlightened thinking about moving forward. It permits our city to formally identify, celebrate and protect buildings, homes and various other resources. The Consultant money was well spent when our Arcadia City Council approved the esteemed Architectural Resources Group to categorize and identify various assets. I expect your passage of the HP Ordinance will erase the FAIL grade that Arcadia has received over the years from the L.A. Conservancy. Informed residents look forward to tracking that improvement. Sadly, some homeowners are still trapped by old myths, fearing their Constitutional rights and property values are lowered by HPO & that their property can be seized illegally by the city through a form of eminent domain. Please consider placing these two links on the Arcadia City Hall website to correct such rumors.. www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Top%20Ten%20Myths.pdf https://www.arcadiaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=17924 This second link explains remodeling benefits. Perhaps the free booklet Single Family Residential Guidelines booklet can include a label on the inside to amended to include these useful links. Thank you for considering my views and link suggestions. Yours, Caroline Blake Village Resident The City of Arcadia is considering adopting a historic preservation ordinance. The ordinance will establish a process to allow homeowners to designate their home as historic. Historic designation enables the homeowner to apply for tax credits (up to 50%) on their property tax bill. This sounds like a good idea to me. Our Home Owner Associations have already been acting like preservationists which is why so many of the homes in the HOAs are identified as potentially eligible for historic designation. We have been fortunate that our HOAs have preserved the harmony and character of our neighborhoods which has resulted in excellent property values. This ordinance isn't just about homes, it also includes commercial property, such as the Race Track and Denny's restaurant. Denny's just spent $200,000 refurbishing its windmill, a prime example of historic preservation and they paid for all of it. If we had an ordinance, Denny's would have been eligible for tax credits to help defray the cost of that repair. It would have been nice if the City of Arcadia had done that for Denny's. There is a lot of misinformation concerning historic preservation. One statement I often hear is that historic preservation decreases property values. This is not true. If it were true, San Marino's property values should have crashed years ago and we all know that didn't happen. It continues to have the highest property values around. The same applies for the Bungalow Heaven district in Pasadena. Its property values continue to increase and are actually higher than similar homes outside the district. There are many studies that show that property values increase due to historic preservation ordinances. Another example of misinformation is that an ordinance restricts what a homeowner can do with his/her property, such as remodeling the kitchen or building an addition. Again, not true. In fact, the homeowner would be eligible for tax credits to help pay for the projects. This link discusses some of the myths regarding historic preservation: http://www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Top%20Ten%20Myths.pdf I hope you will join me in supporting the City in this important endeavor. It is time for Arcadia to appreciate its history and recognize the value of its architecture and neighborhoods. If you'd like to review the City's draft ordinance, here's the link: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=17924 Let's do this! Please send an email to City Council today declaring your support. Send it to citycouncil@arcadiaca.gov. All you need to say is you think historic preservation is needed and you support the City's efforts. Also, it would be great if you could attend the Council meeting on February 15 at 7pm and comment. Regards, Roger Nemrava *The following cannot be displayed as a part of the presentation this evening, however you can select the links below and view on your mobile device: Dear Jeramie Brogan: The five Planning Commissioners using Powerpoint on screen tonight could perform a valuable public service tonight by making these two links available onscreen for tonight's audience . Of course advance permission from the five Planning Commissioners would be necessary. Since up to 50% property tax credits can be earned by homeowners and businesses for repairs, the financial benefit will likely eliminate most opposition to the HP Ordinance . The links came from the L.A. Conservancy and are supported by our HOAs. Debunking Myths surrounding Historical Preservation: www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Top%Ten%20Myths.pdf The freedom of homeowners to remodel and gain tax credits: www.preservation.lacity.org/files/Top%20Ten%20Myths.pdf If a label with these links is placed inside Single Family Residential Guidelines , homeowners renovation & repair costs will be reduced. Thanks to Roger Nemreva for providing the links. Thanks, Caroline Blake Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commission, and City Manager,  This email is a request to remove our property located at 118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia from  the "Individually Eligible Resources" of the "List of Potential Historic Resources for the Draft HP  Ordinance".  This request is based on the inaccurate information of the property that is  represented in the City’s list and the actual physical conditions of the structures that are on the  property. See attached primary report prepared by McKenna et al., whose name was given to  us by the City of Arcadia Planning Department as one (1) of the three (3) Historic Resources  Consultants.  According to McKenna’s evaluation, the property is not eligible to be in the  "Individually Eligible Resources” list based on inconsistencies between the city’s reported data  and the detailed research and field investigation by McKenna et al.    The property in question has APN 5779‐010‐030 and is located at 118 El Dorado Street in  Arcadia. Below are some of the inaccuracies in the City’s above mentioned list:   The property is a multi‐family residence that includes 2 structures (118 El Dorado St.  and 120 El Dorado St.) and a garage, not a single‐family residence as mentioned in the  report. Also, the zone for the property is multi‐residential.   The structure at 118 El Dorado St. is more of a simple form of a California Bungalow  and not a craftsman style of architecture. See attached primary report.   The elements that the city noted were clearly not based on any detailed visual  inspection of the property.  Several more alterations were made as stated below:   Replacement of original roofing material and fascia boards.   Chimney has never been operational since the property was purchased by  us.   The modest bracing supporting the porch is a modern addition not indicative  of   any original construction.   The primary door replacement also reflects an alteration to the eave and  roof design.  See more alterations in the primary report attached.  The primary report created by McKenna et al. found that the property did not meet any of the  four main criteria presented in the federal and state guidelines:   This property was not associated with any historical events (Criterion A). See  attached primary report.     The property was not associated with any significant persons in national, state,  regional or local history (Criterion B), and not associated with any architect of note  nor a contractor or artisan of note (Criterion C). See attached primary report.     The property structure is not intact as it has been altered and there have been  changes in some of the original materials. Further, this style of architecture is not  “increasingly rare” but evident in the presence of thousands of examples throughout  Los Angeles County (Criterion C). See attached report for more details and  information.     The property yielded no evidence of archeological or paleontological resources,  negating the potential for this property to add to general scientific knowledge  obtained from such resources (Criterion D). See attached primary report.  Not only does the property not meet the state and federal eligibility criteria, but the McKenna  et al. report also took local issues into account and determined that it is ineligible for  recognition as a historically important cultural resource, even on the proposed ordinance local  level. See attached report. Because there was no city‐specific criteria to follow in determining  whether a property is historical, the claim that our property is historical is baseless.     Draft Historical Preservation Ordinance Fact Sheet, page 8, reads “… the status code could only  be changed if the property is re‐evaluated and/or designated and assigned a different status  code.  This would be done by a qualified architectural historian or historian that meets the  Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards.”  This is also acknowledged on the first  paragraph of Page 4 of the staff report, dated January 8, 2019, to the Planning Commission.  Guided by the Fact Sheet, we hired McKenna et al., one of the consultants provided to us by  City of Arcadia Planning Department as a qualified consultant, to perform the evaluation.  In  their letter, dated December 9, 2018, to the Planning Administrator, McKenna affirms that the  City’s survey designation of the property as 5S3 (individually eligible resource) is inaccurate and  that the designation should be changed to 6Z (ineligible).  See attached letter addressed to Ms.  Flores and accompanied primary report.      Pursuant to the City of Arcadia Draft Historical Preservation Ordinance Fact Sheet, the McKenna  et al. letter, and the primary report submitted to the Planning Department, we respectfully  request that our property, located at 118 El Dorado, be removed from the List of Potential  Historic Resources.    Sincerely,  Issa Malki  Hani Malki  Good Morning Ms. Flores, This is in response to our two meetings held in your office on November 30th and December 14th, 2018. I respectfully request the property located at 118 El Dorado be removed from the “Individually Eligible Resources” of the “List of Potential Historic Resources for the Draft HP Ordinance.” This request is based on inaccurate information of the property that is represented in the list. The property in question has APN number 5779010030 located at 118 El Dorado Street in Arcadia. Below are some of the inaccuracies in the City’s above mentioned list: First Inaccuracy List Number APN Number Street Suffix City Report 69 5779010030 118 El Dorado St Actual 118/120 El Dorado St Comments: The property is a multi-family residence that includes 2 structures (118 El Dorado St. and 120 El Dorado St.) and a garage. Not a single-family residence as mentioned in the report. Also, the zone for the property is multi-residential. Second Inaccuracy Name or Description City Report Single-Family residence Actual Multi-Family residence Comments: The property is actually a multi-family residence that includes 2 structures (118 El Dorado St. and 120 El Dorado St.) and a garage. Not a single-family residence as mentioned in the report. Third Inaccuracy Architectural Style City Report Craftsman Actual California Bungalow Comments: The structure at 118 El Dorado St. is more of a simple form of a California Bungalow and not a craftsman style (see attached primary report). Fourth Inaccuracy Alterations City Report Primary door replaced, AC unit added at front window, Chimney altered Actual Several alteration, see comments. Comments: The elements that the city noted were clearly not based on any detailed visual inspection of the property. Several more alterations were found as stated below: ●Replacement of original roofing material and fascia boards. ●Chimney has never been operational since the property was purchased by new owner. ●The modest bracing supporting the porch is a modern addition not indicative of any original construction ●The primary door replacement also reflects an alteration to the eave and roof design. See more alterations in the primary report attached. Fifth Inaccuracy Context 1 (Criterion A) Theme 1 City Report Early Subdivision and Growth, Residential development, 1910- 1935 1910-1935 Actual Does not meet criterion A Comments: This property was not associated with any historical events (Criterion A). See attached primary report. Sixth Inaccuracy Significance/Other Information 1 City Report This 1920 single-family residence is significant for its association with Arcadia’s early patterns of residential development and for exemplifying the accelerated growth of residential subdivision efforts across the city during the early 20th century. Intact residential properties from this period are increasingly rare. Actual The property is multi-family residence (not single-family) The property is a simple form of California Bungalow and not a Craftsman style of Architecture. The property is not an intact residence property and thus not increasingly rare. Comments: The property structure is not intact as it has been altered and there have been changes in some of the original materials. Further this style of architecture is not “increasingly rare” but evident in the presence of thousands of examples throughout Los Angeles County. See report for more details and information. In addition, the property was not associated with any significant persons in national, state, regional or local history, and not associated with any architect of note nor a contractor or artisan of note. See attached primary report. Due to the inaccuracy in the City’s list, I would like the property located at 118 El Dorado be removed from the “Individual Eligible Resources” based on actual physical conditions of the structures that are on the property. Thank you, Issa Malki DPR 523A (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 1 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date: Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update P1. Other Identifier: APN 5779-010-030 *P2. Location: Arcadia, CA Not for Publication X Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Wilson Date:1995 T 1N ;R 11W; NE ¼of NW ¼of Sec 34;S.B.B.M. c. Address: 118 El Dorado Street City: Arcadia, CA Zip:91006 d. UTM: Zone: 11 (NAD 83);405269 mE/3777532 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:425 East of Santa Anita Avenue; between 1st and 2nd Avenues; south side of El Dorado Street and within a residential area of single family and multi-family residential units. *P3a. Description:(Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) modest 2 bedroom/1 bath residence dating to ca. 1924 (See Continuation Sheet for additional details). *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP-2 (Single-Family Residential Property) *P4. Resources Present:Building(s)Structure Object X Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)Dec. 7, 2018 (S) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources X Historic Prehistoric Both *P7. Owner and Address: Issa G. Malki 805 Faye Lane Redondo Beach, CA 90277 *P8. Recorded by: (affiliation and address) Jeanette A. McKenna 6008 Friends Avenue Whittier, California 90601 *P9. Date Recorded:Dec. 9, 2018 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Assessment/ Evaluation *P11. Report Citation:(Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") McKenna, Jeanette A. (2018)Architec- tural Assessment and Evaluation of 118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, California 91006. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA. *Attachments:NONE X Location Map Archaeological Record X Continuation Sheet(s) X BSO Record Sketch Map District Record Rock Art Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Artifact Record Photograph Record X Other (List): Photos DPR 523B (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BUILDING, STRUCTURE, and OBJECT RECORD Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 2 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update B1. Historic Name: E.C. Neher Residence B2. Common Name:Malki Property B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: California Bungalow *B6. Construction History:(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)1924 (888 square feet), 2 bed/1 bath. Additional detail presented on Continuation Sheets. *B7. Moved?X No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Detached garage to south; second residence (relocated) to south; no driveway; parking off alley to south; property surrounded by single and multi-family properties of various dates of construction. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: R.R. Hopper (possibly) *B10. Significance: Theme:Residential Dev.Area Arcadia, Los Angeles Co., California Period of Significance:1924 (+)Property Type:Residential Applicable Criteria:NONE (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This area was originally developed in the late 1920s-early 1930s as a single family residen- tial neighborhood on lots averaging 5 subjective to additional improvements, rendering many lots as multi-family properties in- termixed with the original single family residential properties. The development periods are representative of the population growth and need for affordable housing in the LA sub- urbs, especially areas in the San Gabriel Valley. Arcadia was developed as a middle-lower middle class community for working class families between WWI and WWI, with significant growth following WWII. Many local residents supplemented their incomes by providing additional residential opportunities. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)NONE *B12. References:McKenna, Jeanette A. (2018) (Sketch Map with North Arrow Required.) B13. Remarks: Demolition and Redevelopment *B14. Evaluator: Jeanette A. McKenna 6008 Friends Avenue Whittier, California 90601 (562) 696-3852 *Date of Evaluation: Dec. 9, 2108 (This Space is Reserved for Official Comments) DPR 523B (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION BUILDING, STRUCTURE, and OBJECT RECORD Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 3 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)120 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update B1. Historic Name: Milton P. Ward Residence B2. Common Name:Malki Property B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: California Bungalow *B6. Construction History:(Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)1926-32 (888 square feet+), relo- cated from adjacent lot (aka 116 El Dorado Street) in 1959; 2 bed/1 bath). Additional detail presented on Continuation Sheets. *B7. Moved?No X Yes Unknown Date:1959 Original Location:116 El Dorado Avenue *B8. Related Features: Detached garage to south; second residence (original to property) to north; no driveway; parking off alley to south; property surrounded by single and multi-family properties of various dates of construction. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: R.R. Hopper *B10. Significance: Theme:Residential Dev.Area Arcadia, Los Angeles Co., California Period of Significance:1926-32 (+/-)Property Type:Residential Applicable Criteria:NONE (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This area was originally developed in the late 1920s-early 1930s as a single family residen- tial neighborhood on lots averaging 5 subjective to additional improvements, rendering many lots as multi-family properties in- termixed with the original single family residential properties. The development periods are representative of the population growth and need for affordable housing in the LA sub- urbs, especially areas in the San Gabriel Valley. Arcadia was developed as a middle-lower middle class community for working class families between WWI and WWI, with significant growth following WWII. Many local residents supplemented their incomes by providing additional residential opportunities. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)NONE *B12. References:McKenna, Jeanette A. (2018) (Sketch Map with North Arrow Required.) B13. Remarks: Demolition and Redevelopment *B14. Evaluator: Jeanette A. McKenna 6008 Friends Avenue Whittier, California 90601 (562) 696-3852 *Date of Evaluation: Dec. 9, 2108 (This Space is Reserved for Official Comments) DPR 523J (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 4 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, CA 91006 Name of Map:USGS Mt. Wilson Scale:1:24000 Date:1995 DPR 523K (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAERIAL PHOTOPrimary #HRI#TrinomialPage7of61*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118El Dorado Street, Arcadia, Los Angeles County, CA 91006Drawn by:Jeanette A. McKenna*Date:December 9, 2018 DPR 523K (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONSTREET VIEW PHOTOPrimary #HRI#TrinomialPage8of61*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118El Dorado Street,Arcadia,Los Angeles County, CA 91006Drawn by:Jeanette A. McKenna*Date:December 9, 2018 DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DE- PARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 10 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado St., Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 12 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update Sanborn Map of 1929 without Mapping Coverage. DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 13 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update The property identified as Assessor Parcel No. 5779-010-030 is cross referenced as 188 El Dorado Street, but is actually a multi-family residential property that also includes 120 El Dorado Street. The history of the property is a bit complicated, mainly because the residence associated with 120 El Dorado Street was moved onto the lot (from 116 El Dorado Street) and there are gaps in both the development history of the property and the permit files. Not all alterations were completed with applicable permits. McKenna et al. addresses the three improvements on this property: 118 El Dorado Street, 120 El Dorado Street, and the garage on the alley to the south of the residences. General background: Following the separation of Mexico from Spain, the Mexican government began a program de- signed to secularize the Missions in Alta California (1824 to 1834). The lands of the Mission San Gabriel de Archangel were claimed by the government and reissued, in part, as large land grants to persons who served the government (military or civil). APN 5779-010-030 is geographically located within the historic Rancho Santa Anita, granted to Hugo Reid, an immigrant to California in 1832, who married an educated Native American of high standing and became a Mexican citizen. He acquired the Rancho Santa Anita in 1841, under Governor Alvarado, and the grant was reaf- firmed in 1845 by Governor Pio Pico. Originally consisting of 13,319.06 acres, the Rancho covered areas now associated with, but not limited to, the cities of Sierra Madre, San Marino, Arcadia, and Monrovia. Reid sold his rancho to Henry Dalton in 1847 and Dalton sold the rancho to Joseph A. Rowe in 1854. In 1858, after suffering financial losses, Rowe sold the rancho to Albert Dibblee, William Corbitt and Mr. Barker (as summarized by Zack 2009). After selling some portions of the rancho, the remaining 11,000 acres were sold to William Wolfskill. Wolfskill (the elder) transferred owner- ship of the rancho to his son and daughter-in-law, Lewis Wolfskill and Louisa Dalton (daughter of Henry Dalton) by 1866. Wolfskill (the younger) eventually sold approximately 8,500 acres to Harris Newmark (a businessman in Los Angeles), in 1875. Newmark, in turn, sold his rancho lands to eventually subdividing and selling properties for development. In this case, the current project area is associated with the southernmost portion of the rancho (Township 1 South, Range 3 West, Section 3) and within the historic Santa Anita Tract (ca. 1886), as directed by Elias Baldwin. In this case, the property was within the boundaries of Block 63, bounded by First Avenue (west), Second Avenue (east), Genoa Street (south) and El Dorado Street (north). Despite being defined in 1886, the subdivision of Block 63 did not occur until 1910, when Tract No. 866 was defined and Block 63 was subdivided into north and south halves (bisected by Fano Street). DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 14 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update The northern half of Block 63 was referred to as Block 63 ½, while the southern half remained Block 63. Block 63 ½ was further subdivided into 36 parcels. APN 5779-010-030 was originally identified as Parcel 32, measuring 50 feet wide and 160 feet deep. Since it was originally defined, the lot lines have not changed. This particular area of Arcadia, while technically within the incorporated City boundaries, was out- side the core area of the developed City and not covered by the historic Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as late as 1932 (despite the improvements pre-dating 1932). This suggests the develop- ments in this area were sparse and, according to the maps, detailed definition of developed lots ended on the north side of El Dorado Street. A cursory review of the development of lots surrounding the property now identified as 118-120 El Dorado Street provided the following dates of construction: 406 S. First Avenue (Commercial) 1950 500 S. First Avenue (Commercial) 1938-1954 506 S. First Avenue (Residential) 1939-1958 115 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1980 116 El Dorado Street (Residential) Vacant 119 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1999 122 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1924-1927 123 El Dorado Street (Residential) 2005 125 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1965 126 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1927-1962 129 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1925-1962 130 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1923-1973 132 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1959 135 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1936-1939 137 El Dorado Street (Residential) 1936 138 El Dorado Street (Residential) 2006 139 El Dorado Street (Residential) 2007 Of the 17 properties listed, 6 have improvements post-dating 1965 and, of these, 4 post-date 1999. Of the earlier improvements, 4 date to the 1920s, 4 date to the 1930s, and 2 date to the 1950s, suggesting there were no improvements during WWII and/or shortly after the war. One lot is va- cant, but associated with a ca. 1926 improvement that was relocated (see later discussion). It I noted, 116 El Dorado Street, 118 El Dorado Street, and 122 El Dorado Street were all developed between 1924 and 1926. DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 15 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update 118 El Dorado Street: The residence at 118 El Dorado Street was originally constructed in 1924 and described by the County Assessor as a 2 bedroom/1 bath residence of 888 square feet a relatively small residence Although constructed in 1924, no original building permit is on file with the City. The earliest occu- pant of the property was identified as Elmer C. Neher (per directories), who remained on the prop- erty until at least 1936. In fact, in 1935, the City permit file identified Neher as the owner. Elmer C. Neher (married to Pauline N.) was born in 1895 and died in 1982. Directories identified him as a teacher in Arcadia and, eventually, an administrator in the San Marino School District. After 1936, Neher is living on Fairview Avenue. Subsequent owners/occupants were identified as: 1942-1956 +/- Mrs. Louella Perry (1874-1956; widow of C.C. Perry) 1959- Albert J. (1927-2000) and Lorraine L. Miller 1988- Hugh Hausetz reroofed garages No significant permits were filed for 118 El Dorado Street, indicating there were no major changes or alterations to the property. It remained a small, single family residential property until it was purchased by Albert J. Miller. McKenna et al. has concluded the original owner of the property was Elmer C. Neher. After relocating to Fairview Avenue, the property on El Dorado was owned and occupied by Mrs. Louella Perry, who remained on the property until her death in 1956. Subse- quently, the property was purchased by Albert J. Miller (1927-2000). By the late 1980s, Miller had sold the property. Research identified Albert J. Miller as a partner in the Glasser-Miller-Lamb Mortuary, est. ca. 1938, on the corner of First Avenue and El Dorado Street. Miller did not join in the partnership until much later, in the 1950s, when he first appears in the general area (although still in Arcadia). In 1940, Miller was living on Euclid and first appears on El Dorado Street in ca. 1953 (at 116 El Dorado Street). ist as a potentially important (significant) historical resource and referenced as a single family resi- dential property with a 1924 Craftsman residence. The list noted the front door has been replaced, there is an A/C unit mounted in a front window, and the chimney has been altered. These elements were clearly noted from the street (windshield survey) and not based on any detailed visual inspec- tion of the property. DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 16 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update The list also presented the qualifying criteria as being associated with the early development of Arcadia and the early residential development of Arcadia (1910-1935). With respect to the specific reasoning for listing, the following was presented: This 1920s single- early patterns of residential development and for exemplifying the accelerated growth of residential subdivision efforts across the city during the early 20th century. Intact residential properties from this time period are increasingly rare. McKenna et al. visited this property on Saturday, December 8, 2018, and confirmed the presence of the 1924 residential improvement. However, contrary to erty list, McKenna et al. found the property to be a multi-family residential property (NOT single family) and the 1924 residence to NOT be a Craftsman style of architecture, but a more simple form of a California Bungalow. Specifically, the residence is a small, rectangular structure on a County Assessor, has 888 square feet of living space. The residence has two bedrooms and one bath, fairly consistent with a California Bungalow of the 1920s. The residence is a wood-framed structure clad in clapboard siding and exhibits the original double hung, wood framed windows. The main entrance on the north elevation does exhibit a replaced front door, but also reflect an alteration to the eave and roof design. Specifically, the front porch is a simple concrete porch with an extension of the roof to provide cover from bad weather and/or direct sunlight. When originally designed, this porch roofing was squared. It has since altered to reflect the rounded arch and corresponding curved roof. Likewise, the single, off-centered roof vent is an addition that is inconsistent with the remainder of the roof design. The gable roof design with beveled east and west ends, reflects the rectangular design of the structure and the variations in building materials also indicate these two features are later additions to the structure. Each was likely added when the roof was replaced (without permits, but prior to c. 1988). The alterations were likely completed by Albert J. Miller. The north elevation exhibits a modest eave (less than two feet deep) with simple 2 by 4 rafters not capped with any fascia boards. These rafters are not overt, but somewhat covered by the roofline and are not stand-out features. Likewise, the modest bracing supporting the porch roof are modern additions and not indicative of any original construction. The east, west, and south elevations appear to reflect the original design of the building. On the east elevation, the short chimney is flanked wood-framed casement windows (original). To the DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 17 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update south, the building recesses slightly and there are two wood-framed windows (one fixed and one sash). The water heater is located on the exterior of the east elevation (modern), as are the utility boxes and water pipes. The eaves are modest (e.g. one foot) with a solid fascia board trim. There is evidence of some exposed rafters and braces, but not in the context of being considered indica- tive of a true Craftsman design. With respect to the chimney, it is a simple red brick chimney (painted), but in a state of deterioration. The bricks are beginning to separate and there is a gap between the bricks and the residence. The chimney rises and penetrates the roofline (the width of taller, but the top was removed likely after suffering earthquake damage or general settlement. In any case, the owners noted the chimney/fireplace has never been operational since their pur- chase, indicating it was damages some time ago, possibly during the 1987 Whittier earthquake and/or later 1994 Northridge earthquake. Either way, the existing chimney is not indicative of the originally designed chimney. The west elevation is a flat expanse with two larger sash windows flanking a single paned casement window (at the location of the bathroom, between the bedrooms). The siding and windows are original, but the eaves illustrate a replacement of the original roofing materials and fascia boards. There are two exposed beams at the base of the roofline (north and south ends), suggesting a Craftsman element, but consistent with the California Bungalow design. The south elevation is also a flat expanse, exhibiting a rear entry accessed from a poured concrete stoop and located near the eastern end of the structure. This entrance is associated with the kitchen/service porch area of the residence. The door, itself, is a modern replacement door de- To the west of the doorway are a series of three windows two larger sash windows flanking a smaller sash window. These are original to the residence, as is the siding. The eave is approxi- mately two feet deep, with exposed 2 by 4 rafters (no fascia board). Overall, this residence is a simple example of a California Bungalow with evidence of alterations in the form of a redesigned main entrance, some roof line alterations, replacement of the original roofing materials, the removal of the upper portion of the chimney, and a small addition of a wood railing to the south elevation porch. While these alterations do not take away the overall identifica- tion of the residence as a California Bungalow dating to the 1920s, they do reflect impacts to the original construction. has concluded the residence, while reflecting the original siding and windows, is NOT intact, as it has been altered and there has been a change in some of the original materials. Further, this style DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 18 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update of throughout Los Angeles County. California Bungalows are quite common and, when found in groupings, could be considered a district. In this case, there is no district, as too many of the surrounding properties have been redeveloped or reflect periods of construction and designs in- consistent with the requirements for district identification. Rather than maintaining the status code of 5S3, McKenna et al. recommends a shift to 6Z (ineligible for listing or recognition; also see later discussion). 120 El Dorado Street: The residence originally located at 116 El Dorado Street was constructed in 1926, with a suggestion of additional construction in 1932. The 1932 construction was likely the small auxiliary structure once located to the rear of the property. Permits show the original construction was completed at the request of the property owner, Milton P. Ward (1878-1943 residence was described as a 2 bedroom, 1 bath residence of 888 square feet. Given the similar size and nature of this residence, it is possible the contractor, R.R. Hooper, also built the residence at 118 El Dorado Street shortly before (ca. 1924). Milton was an independent oil distrib- utor who, reportedly, worked from home. Owners/occupants of 116 El Dorado Street were identified through permits and directories as fol- lows: 1926 Milton P. and Lillian Ward (1879-1949) and daughters 1930 Milton P. Ward 1950 Albert J. Miller (upgrades) 1950 C.W. Shannon (renter) 1953 Albert J. Miller (by Jack A. Randall; remodel) 1958 Albert J. Miller (adds a playroom) 1959 Albert J. Miller (prep for relocation to adjacent property) Prior to relocation, this 1926 residence was oriented to face El Dorado Street and had the same setback. When relocated in 1959, the residence was turned to face east, resulting in the original west elevation facing north and the 118 El Dorado residence. As noted, when constructed, this residence was likely quite similar to the 118 El Dorado Street residence. It still reflects the similar clapboard siding (three sides) and roof design (also re-roofed). When relocated, this structure was obviously placed on a new foundation. In addition, permits show the structure was remodeled. There was a small playroom added (and now evident on the southwestern corner; as now oriented). Most importantly, however, is the complete remodeling of the main elevation (once north facing and now east facing). DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 19 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update The clapboard siding has been replaced by a board and batten design and the original double hung sash windows have been replaced by a set of pop-out tri-part window designs that appears to have terial (pressboard) that is already beginning to deteriorate. The diamond window design is con- sistent with the 1950s architectural design, as is the installation of a brick façade surrounding the doorway. This remodeling of the main elevation, addition of the playroom, and re-roofing has sig- nificantly impacted the integrity of the 1926 design. More importantly, the relocation of the resi- dence is considered a serious impact, rendering this residence ineligible for consideration as a historically significant resource. recommendation for a change in the status code. McKenna et al. has assigned a code of 6Z. 118-120 El Dorado Street Garage: The garage structure located on the alley behind 118-120 El Dorado Street is a rectangular struc- ture with four single car garage bay doors. The structure is constructed on a concrete slab and exhibits a stucco clad, wood framed construction building with a shed roof design. This structure was not original to the property, but added in ca. 1959, when the structure at 116 El Dorado Street is being prepared for relocation. Permits show Albert J. Miller, owner of the property, arranged for The garage was constructed by Edward F. Sprague, following a design by architect Charles A. Taylor. While built as a single story structure, a note in the permit file and dating to September 22, 1959, indicated the footings for the garage were designed to support a to story structure, suggest- ing plans for further developments on the property (e.g. an apartment above the garage). No ad- ditional construction occurred. The garage is a basic structure with no unique design elements of use of materials. There are four bay doors on the south elevation (two of which have been replaced by modern doors) and another entry on the north elevation (single hinged door) and one window (double hung sash window; 1:1 panes). The east and west walls are flat and solid (no windows), clad in stucco. The roofline shows a narrow overhang on the east and west elevations, but a deeper overhang (e.g. 2 feet) on the north and south elevations. These overhangs provide some protection from the weather and sug- gest the structure is larger, when viewed from above. This is a late addition to the property and the result of a property redevelopment in 1959. It is not a significant structure, not architecturally or historically significant, and an impact on the original design and use of the property. DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 20 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update Summary: Based on the histories of the two properties (116 Eld Dorado Street and 116 El Dorado Street), McKenna et al. has determined the Glasser-Miller-Lamb Mortuary was founded in 1938 (one ref- --Miller reference) and built the initial complex on First Avenue (Parcels 34, 35, and 36), including the actual Mortuary at 500 S. First Avenue (Parcels 35 and 36) and a residence at 506 S. First Avenue (Parcel 34). These properties abutted the residential prop- erty identified as 116 El Dorado Street (historic Parcel 33). Between 1926 and ca. 1949, the property at 116 El Dorado Street was occupied by the Ward family. Milton Word had the residence constructed and died in 1943. In 1949, following the death of his wife, Lillian, and the property was sold to Albert J. Miller. Miller did not initially live in the residence, but rented it to C.W. Shannon for a brief time. Eventually, in 1953, Miller did move into the residence and completed upgrades and a modest addition (playroom). Between 1924 and 1936, the property at 118 El Dorado Street was occupied by the Neher family. Following their relocation, the property was owned and occupied by Mrs. Louella Perry (widow). Louella Perry died in 1956 and the property was purchased by Albert J. Miller, rendering him the owner of the two properties behind the mortuary, each with a relatively small residence. Miller remained on the property at 116 El Dorado Street until ca. 1958, when he made the move to 118 El Dorado Street and initiated plans to relocate the residence at 116 El Dorado Street to the prop- erty associated with 118 El Dorado Street. This relocation (of the residential improvements) facili- tated the sale of Parcel 33 (116 El Dorado Street) to the mortuary (of which he was still a part owner), providing the mortuary with the much-needed parking lot. After 1959, with the relocation of the residence and construction of the four car garage, Miller con- tinued to reside on the property, renting the front house and living in the rear house (which he had already enlarged and remodeled). No other owner was listed for this property until ca. 1988, when Hugh Hausetz was identified on permits. Assuming Miller remained into the 1980s, he would have been in his 60s and likely preparing for retirement, justifying the sale of the business. It is also noted, the current mortuary facility is now identified as the CVD Universal Funeral Chapel (est. 1983), coinciding with the timing for Miller to retire. As such, both properties had relatively stable ownership prior to the Miller purchase and during the Miller ownership beginning in 1950 and continuing into the 1980s. The period between 1950 and 1959 reflect the activities of Albert J. Miller and the shift from single family residential properties to one multi-family property and one vacant lot (used for parking). Major alterations occurred between 1953 and 1959. With the relocation of the second residence, Miller had established a rental prop- erty for supplemental income. DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 21 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update McKenna et al. assessed this property in compliance with the standard guidelines presented in the federal NEPA and state CEQA regulations properties. There are four main criteria presented in the federal and state guidelines. McKenna et al. found this property was not associated with any significant historical events (Criterion A), nor associated with any significant persons in national, state, regional, or local history (Criterion B). The property yielded no evidence of any archeological or paleontological resources, negating the potential for the property to add to the general scientific knowledge obtained from such resources. AS such, the lack of resources negates the applicability of Criterion D. With respect to architecture (Criterion C), the structural improvements on this property two resi- dences and one garage have not been associated with any architect or note nor a contractor or artisan of note. The construction is simple and reflects standard methods of construction and use of materials. The residential improvements reflect raised structures on concrete foundations, wood framing, clapboard siding, and windows (sash, fixed, or casement) indicative of the construction periods. Both residences have been re-roofed and both roofs show evidence of design alterations. The rear residence (now 120 El Dorado Street) has been subjected to additional design modifica- tions, specifically on the main elevation with the primary entrance. Both residential structures are indicative of California Bungalow designs, which are very well rep- resented throughout Los Angeles County and Southern California.They are not rare and, in this garage have significantly impacted the historic setting of the property (internally) and negated some uses of the property simply as a result of the infilling. structure is in poor to fair condition (structurally and with respect to the interior). While appearing, from the curb, to reflect the original design, closer examination has resulted in the identification of the alterations. The structures do date to the 1920s and this is a period that is indicative of the -WWI growth period, but neither is considered a good and intact example of the period. Overall, McKenna et al. has concluded the intent of Criterion C has not been met. Tract 866, subdivided in 1910, is an excellent example of the typical 1910s subdi- vision in this area; this tract bounded by El Dorado Street, Genoa Street, S. Santa Anita Avenue, and S. 2nd Avenue was directly south of the original Arcadia townsite. It featured lots averaging 8,000 square feet (about 0.2 acre) in size, much more on the scale of the townsite than the larger lots to the south. This tract became a fairly DPR 523L (12/11) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial Page 22 of 61 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)118 El Dorado Street, Arcadia, LA Co., CA 91006 *Recorded by:Jeanette A. McKenna *Date:Dec. 9, 2018 X Continuation Update dense residential neighborhood, likely attractive to buyers for its affordable lot prices and desirable location with easy access to railroad and streetcar routes. While Tract No. 866 was one of the earlier subdivisions, that portion of the subdivision (Block 63 ½) associated with the property at 118 El Dorado Street) was not immediately developed and the development of the lots was actually very slow. There were no properties identified as developed in the 1910s and every lot of Block 63 ½ remained unimproved until after WWI many remaining undeveloped into the 1930s. When developed, the residences were small (despite lot sizes), ex- cept in the case of commercial developments (also relatively late). Between WWI and the Great Depression, this area was NOT indicative of the residential growth of Arcadia noted in areas further north. This area, as late as 1932, was still fairly vacant and, therefore, did not qualify for mapped on the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. This is just another example of the inconsistency between the data presented in the Historic Context Statement, the property listing, and the physical re- sources in the City. McKenna et al. has concluded the improvements within Parcel -030 (118 and 120 El Dorado Street) have failed to meet any of the required criteria presented in the federal and state guidelines and, further, with respect to 118 El Dorado Street, the improvements are incon- sistent with t Craftsman, but a California Bungalow, and has been architecturally impacted by alterations, material replacements, and impacts to the setting by the addition of the second residence and garage structure. The property is no longer representative of the historic setting or design, negating the integrity of the resource. McKenna et al. has determined the property is not significant and ineligible for recognition as a historically important cultural resource, even on the local level. The status code for 118 El Dorado Street should be changed from 5S3 to 6Z and the listing should be removed from the overall property list.