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.